OGP Safety Stats
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,371
Likes: 926
From: Den Haag
Amongst the 'tasks and deliverables' for 2011/2012 is this:
So, I guess 'yes' is the answer!
Draft a 10 year detailed analysis of helicopter related incidents in the industry.
Last edited by 212man; 7th January 2012 at 03:33.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
From: retirementland
212man said:
There has been a change in OGP policy (and in the personnel / member companies involved). Previously these annual reports only included those incidents defined as accidents by their state authorities irrespective of the actual circumstances. That lowered the US accident rate.
The OGP Aircraft Management Guidelines are to apply the ICAO definitions irespective of the national rules.
The AMG also states:
* fatality, serious injury etc
So basically a hull loss or substantial rebuild due to a ditching will be an accident in the new 10 year review.
Amongst the 'tasks and deliverables' for 2011/2012 is this:
Quote: Draft a 10 year detailed analysis of helicopter related incidents in the industry.
So, I guess 'yes' is the answer!
Quote: Draft a 10 year detailed analysis of helicopter related incidents in the industry.
So, I guess 'yes' is the answer!
The OGP Aircraft Management Guidelines are to apply the ICAO definitions irespective of the national rules.
The AMG also states:
Because the ICAO definition is aimed primarily at fixed wing flights terminating on land, the following is added for clarity over the particular area of ditching or water landing.
Where the aircraft intentionally or unintentionally ditches or lands on water as the result of a mechanical/system failure or aircrew error, and the aircraft cannot regain flight or is not subsequently recovered without sustaining the damage detailed in b) above, it will be considered an accident for the purposes of the OGP aviation safety statistics.
For example, a ditching that resulted in a subsequent, but not necessarily immediate, rollover and/or sinking and major repair due to water damage, would be considered an accident for OGP statistics. A ditching where the aircraft remains upright on its floats and is recovered with only minimal damage, including the damage due to water ingress, would not be considered an accident, unless para a) applied.*
Where the aircraft intentionally or unintentionally ditches or lands on water as the result of a mechanical/system failure or aircrew error, and the aircraft cannot regain flight or is not subsequently recovered without sustaining the damage detailed in b) above, it will be considered an accident for the purposes of the OGP aviation safety statistics.
For example, a ditching that resulted in a subsequent, but not necessarily immediate, rollover and/or sinking and major repair due to water damage, would be considered an accident for OGP statistics. A ditching where the aircraft remains upright on its floats and is recovered with only minimal damage, including the damage due to water ingress, would not be considered an accident, unless para a) applied.*
So basically a hull loss or substantial rebuild due to a ditching will be an accident in the new 10 year review.
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Kinda begs the question of why no annual report for the missing years? There were no accidents or incidents in those years? Or....in a bad economy is Safety a lessened priority?
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Safety a lessor priority?
SASLess,
I can assure you its not. We report every single cut finger and near slip, trip or fall.
Oh - hang on - you meant safety related to flying. Improving that's no where near as interesting as producing reams of HSE stats surely?
Yours cynically, Scots.
I can assure you its not. We report every single cut finger and near slip, trip or fall.
Oh - hang on - you meant safety related to flying. Improving that's no where near as interesting as producing reams of HSE stats surely?
Yours cynically, Scots.
