North Sea Helicopter ditching 10th May 2012
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC - read the safety case on one of those installation you fly to - the information should be presented in there.
On a modern well designed platform the transportation risks to an offshore worker per year will be approximately 40% of the total.
I've not calculated the individual risks to pilots, but I know from doing that for offshore workers with routine shuttling and sleeping offshore that on a 2:2 rota anything over 120 shuttles per year puts them into the 'unacceptable' risk levels of 1 x 10-3 per annum. So if you are a pilot flying 900 hrs per year and sleeping onshore your risk levels will be significantly higher than that.
Bondu has it - the timing of these flights is discretionary - getting onto them is not. The flight risks from what the oil operators would call scheduled flights, have the risk numbers associated with flying fixed wing with a bankrupt airline from the former Soviet block - not a choice many people would make if informed of the numbers.
I am a realist and fully understand that attaining fixed wing levels of risk is not possible. What I dispair of is the current helicopter accident rate - both due to design and operation.
Yes people die, at work, at play at all sorts of things. But when there is no good reason for it apart from vested interests eventually something has to break.
On a modern well designed platform the transportation risks to an offshore worker per year will be approximately 40% of the total.
I've not calculated the individual risks to pilots, but I know from doing that for offshore workers with routine shuttling and sleeping offshore that on a 2:2 rota anything over 120 shuttles per year puts them into the 'unacceptable' risk levels of 1 x 10-3 per annum. So if you are a pilot flying 900 hrs per year and sleeping onshore your risk levels will be significantly higher than that.
Bondu has it - the timing of these flights is discretionary - getting onto them is not. The flight risks from what the oil operators would call scheduled flights, have the risk numbers associated with flying fixed wing with a bankrupt airline from the former Soviet block - not a choice many people would make if informed of the numbers.
I am a realist and fully understand that attaining fixed wing levels of risk is not possible. What I dispair of is the current helicopter accident rate - both due to design and operation.
Yes people die, at work, at play at all sorts of things. But when there is no good reason for it apart from vested interests eventually something has to break.
Apr 1989 G-BGKJ Bo105 Oil pollution flt near Scacsta 1 passenger
Jan 1995 G-TIGK AS332L Crew change flt near Brae A 16 pax
Nov 2006 G-JSAR AS332L2 Crew change? Dutch sector 13 pax
Feb 2009 G-REDU EC225 Crew change flt near ETAP 16 pax
May 2012 G-REDW EC225 Crew change flt near Aberdeen 12 pax
Jan 1995 G-TIGK AS332L Crew change flt near Brae A 16 pax
Nov 2006 G-JSAR AS332L2 Crew change? Dutch sector 13 pax
Feb 2009 G-REDU EC225 Crew change flt near ETAP 16 pax
May 2012 G-REDW EC225 Crew change flt near Aberdeen 12 pax
A small point of order - getting on these flights is discretionary. Nobody is forcing people to get on these flights, or even to work offshore. There is always the option of going by boat.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Bravo - there is no option of going by boat. If there were and it made any sense do you suppose the oil operatosr would hire those nice cheap helicopters?
Crew boat hire - maybe £2k per day can carry 100 persons, 332 what £5k per hour can carry 19?
In places where it can work - like offshore W.Africa and the Middle East, the majority of the workforce are transported by boat. Try it in the N.Sea. The one example I am aware of in the Central N.Sea where it was tried had such a lousy dispatch rate the money on building the facilities was considered wasted by the operator......
Fareastdriver - the industry risk figures are just that industry - either UKCS, UKCS plus Norway or OGP and split by region (although not helped by the FAA not categorising ditching as an accident....!). There are good summaries of all this data available via google. But the crux of it is that offshore helicopters would be shutdown in W.Europe if they were scheduled airlines - they are that far short in terms of deaths per flight/hour/sector when compared with scheduled fixed wing. So accepting that mechanically they will always lag due to the complication of the machines it still leaves a lot to make up - and they are many posters here who are trying to do that - arguing about off the cuff numbers just muddies the water.
Crew boat hire - maybe £2k per day can carry 100 persons, 332 what £5k per hour can carry 19?
In places where it can work - like offshore W.Africa and the Middle East, the majority of the workforce are transported by boat. Try it in the N.Sea. The one example I am aware of in the Central N.Sea where it was tried had such a lousy dispatch rate the money on building the facilities was considered wasted by the operator......
Fareastdriver - the industry risk figures are just that industry - either UKCS, UKCS plus Norway or OGP and split by region (although not helped by the FAA not categorising ditching as an accident....!). There are good summaries of all this data available via google. But the crux of it is that offshore helicopters would be shutdown in W.Europe if they were scheduled airlines - they are that far short in terms of deaths per flight/hour/sector when compared with scheduled fixed wing. So accepting that mechanically they will always lag due to the complication of the machines it still leaves a lot to make up - and they are many posters here who are trying to do that - arguing about off the cuff numbers just muddies the water.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gasax,
What units are you using in your calculations? Accidents per flying hour, minute, day, per sector, per flight? Is 10^-3 that you calculate validated by the actual accident rate?
What units are you using in your calculations? Accidents per flying hour, minute, day, per sector, per flight? Is 10^-3 that you calculate validated by the actual accident rate?
Out of those numbers we have to deduct those that were not survivable at all....like the Bond aircraft that shucked its rotor head.....if we are talking about Sea State/Ditching issues.
The Chinook crash would tilt the numbers quite a bit too....as there were survivor(s) on that one.
Coming up with accurate stats is going to be awfully hard because of the record keeping or lack of it. Getting the raw data and then putting it into a useable data base will be a days work for sure.
The Chinook crash would tilt the numbers quite a bit too....as there were survivor(s) on that one.
Coming up with accurate stats is going to be awfully hard because of the record keeping or lack of it. Getting the raw data and then putting it into a useable data base will be a days work for sure.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NL
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm really very nervous about the stats and list of accidents being posted as 'hard' facts today. With all respect to Gasax, if this is how he makes his living I have to wonder about the effects of the confusing and incomplete data that might be sourced from him.
For example, where is the 'VX' S-76 fatal accident? I struggle to believe that there are not also other incidents and accidents from elsewhere around the North Sea that are missing. On the other hand, as noticed by Fareastdriver, using Gasax's list and ABZ pax numbers does not produce a very smart, consistent, analysis, as JSAR is in the list. Anyone would think every offshore-related sector must originate in Aberdeen! If his data is meant to be North Sea-wdie, there are many very active offshore bases in NL, DE, NO, BE, DK, example, and he should remember that many flights have a significant number of offshore stops, with a number of passengers being carried each day but not seeing an airfield at all.
Stats have their uses, but only if they are thorough, reliable, and unambiguous. Stats that have such serious flaws as seen today should be removed immediately, rather than remaining here to further mislead the majority of readers who have no way to know the nature of the errors.
Perhaps someone from Shell Aircraft could post some of their offshore stats, or a link to them, as I have a high degree of confidence in their studies. Last I heard from them, offshore helicopter transport, measured globally, had a similar level of safety as flying on a commuter turboprop. If we must be stopped, then so must a large number of fixed-wing scheduled and charter operations! Good news for the railways, at least:-)
If Shell's database was filtered to exclude the less regulated states, it is possible the safety level would be significantly higher than for turboprops, and I'm definitely curious to know what would result if looking exclusively at the entire North Sea area, and then again at the UK sector only.
For example, where is the 'VX' S-76 fatal accident? I struggle to believe that there are not also other incidents and accidents from elsewhere around the North Sea that are missing. On the other hand, as noticed by Fareastdriver, using Gasax's list and ABZ pax numbers does not produce a very smart, consistent, analysis, as JSAR is in the list. Anyone would think every offshore-related sector must originate in Aberdeen! If his data is meant to be North Sea-wdie, there are many very active offshore bases in NL, DE, NO, BE, DK, example, and he should remember that many flights have a significant number of offshore stops, with a number of passengers being carried each day but not seeing an airfield at all.
Stats have their uses, but only if they are thorough, reliable, and unambiguous. Stats that have such serious flaws as seen today should be removed immediately, rather than remaining here to further mislead the majority of readers who have no way to know the nature of the errors.
Perhaps someone from Shell Aircraft could post some of their offshore stats, or a link to them, as I have a high degree of confidence in their studies. Last I heard from them, offshore helicopter transport, measured globally, had a similar level of safety as flying on a commuter turboprop. If we must be stopped, then so must a large number of fixed-wing scheduled and charter operations! Good news for the railways, at least:-)
If Shell's database was filtered to exclude the less regulated states, it is possible the safety level would be significantly higher than for turboprops, and I'm definitely curious to know what would result if looking exclusively at the entire North Sea area, and then again at the UK sector only.
Don't forget.....
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Now we have statisticians joining the accountants crucifying the industry.....
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Now we have statisticians joining the accountants crucifying the industry.....
Last edited by lowfat; 21st May 2012 at 21:00.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naturally the oil and gas industry has carefully monitored the performance of the licenced helicopter operators. 
Full impartial details of there performance can be found here:
Selected Publication - Oil & Gas UK
Of course not all oil companies take an equal interest in safety.
Full impartial details of there performance can be found here:
Selected Publication - Oil & Gas UK
Of course not all oil companies take an equal interest in safety.
If Shell's database was filtered to exclude the less regulated states,
What about the fact it is one big Oil Company who bangs its chest proclaiming itself to be The Standard Setter of the Industry?
If Shell was Obama....and you were a good loyal Democrat you would find yourself setting up campaign signs in Shemya Alaska or very small island near by after making that comment!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shell does itself operate to uniformly high Shell Aircraft standards globally.
Shell also monitors ALL accidents and the OP simply suggested that data was filtered for proper statistical comparison. That sort of statistical validity is all rather complex and a little bit beyond the average aviater.
Shell also monitors ALL accidents and the OP simply suggested that data was filtered for proper statistical comparison. That sort of statistical validity is all rather complex and a little bit beyond the average aviater.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NL
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, thanks for the response, but to clarify I wasn't trying to infer Shell Aircraft's database is only filled with stats regarding their own contractors. They have a very comprehensive set of industry-wide (not just Shell) data, and analyse it objectively. Contrary to one of today's posts, doing so is not a job that might take a day, they've spent months doing so over many years.
Say what you like about Shell, whether in terms of their ability to maintain set standards, or how they deal with their contractors, but Shell Aircraft have proven to be the leading 'setter' of standards, with the best of intentions. People need to understand a little more about the structure of the Shell organisation before criticising them. SAI have limited authority to force Shell E&P, around the world, to follow their standards.
Say what you like about Shell, whether in terms of their ability to maintain set standards, or how they deal with their contractors, but Shell Aircraft have proven to be the leading 'setter' of standards, with the best of intentions. People need to understand a little more about the structure of the Shell organisation before criticising them. SAI have limited authority to force Shell E&P, around the world, to follow their standards.
But it is quicker and more convenient to go by helicopter. Nobody is 'forced' to work offshore. And nobody is 'forced' to travel by helicopter.
The boat ride wasn't so bad.....but the basket ride by crane up onto the rig was sporty!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always the option to go by boat. Supply vessels go out every day.
In most cases the green light is given for helo transfer long before vessel transfer is an option. Only over here where we can end up with nearly two weeks without flying due to fog do we resort to vessel transfer on a somewhat regular basis. The only other time that happened was post-491 when the S92s were all grounded.
I don't know how many supply vessels you have these days in the North Sea, but when I worked over there about 9 years ago some installations only got a boat once or twice a week.
Sea states change quickly, so after 12-15 hours on a boat getting out into the field, you can sometimes end up "boomeranging", not a pleasant experience. That is why operators and PAX prefer the helo transfer option. However, all personnel transfer has to be made as safe as is reasonably practicable. Flying a/c with suspect QA/QC issues in a specific number of high priority components, i.e. bevel gear shaft required for MRGB lub oil system, does not IMHO meet this requirement.
Everything we do has inherent risk incorporated, how we choose to minimize that is up to us.
Safe flying
Max
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NL
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For boat transfers, have a search for "smit kamara" and "offshore access system".
The Smit Kamara has been used routinely in the North Sea in recent years, but is still subject to sea-state limitations. Boat transfers do not have to result in getting in to a cage suspended from a crane!
EDIT: The Kamara has been mostly utilised to provide an alternative to shuttling by helicopter. Instead of shuttling from a central hub platform, the personnel stay on the Kamara overnight, but it moves around fields dropping teams on several unmanned installations in the morning, collecting them agauin in the evening. As a result, it is a shuttling vessel, not just an accommodation unit staying at one location.
The Smit Kamara has been used routinely in the North Sea in recent years, but is still subject to sea-state limitations. Boat transfers do not have to result in getting in to a cage suspended from a crane!
EDIT: The Kamara has been mostly utilised to provide an alternative to shuttling by helicopter. Instead of shuttling from a central hub platform, the personnel stay on the Kamara overnight, but it moves around fields dropping teams on several unmanned installations in the morning, collecting them agauin in the evening. As a result, it is a shuttling vessel, not just an accommodation unit staying at one location.
Last edited by mazdadriver; 22nd May 2012 at 09:34.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're all correct in terms of the statistics. The OGP data from outside Northern Europe is shall we say, less than rigourous? Similarly the GoM and once you get into the 'stans simply not worth looking at.
However in the N.Sea the data is reasonably robust. Given the tendency of aircraft to fail at take off and landing, the usual way to slice the data is to use the number of sectors for that part of the data and the number of hours for the 'cruise' part of the flight. Typically we use the post Chinook data, as that single accident dominantes the data set otherwise.
Ditching - which sort of brings us back on thread is not explicitly used - I'll have to have a look and see how 'easy' it is to extract it. Bondu's numbers are probably a little high but not a million miles out. Add in the likelihood of the weather being poor and I tend to side with the BALPA view of life.
As for the Kamara - it is a single vessel, intended for use as a flotel - not as transport. Its weather limitations would make its use outside of the southern sector not just non-economic but not viable. Essentially in the N.Sea personnel movements depend upon helicopters - there are no viable alternatives.
However in the N.Sea the data is reasonably robust. Given the tendency of aircraft to fail at take off and landing, the usual way to slice the data is to use the number of sectors for that part of the data and the number of hours for the 'cruise' part of the flight. Typically we use the post Chinook data, as that single accident dominantes the data set otherwise.
Ditching - which sort of brings us back on thread is not explicitly used - I'll have to have a look and see how 'easy' it is to extract it. Bondu's numbers are probably a little high but not a million miles out. Add in the likelihood of the weather being poor and I tend to side with the BALPA view of life.
As for the Kamara - it is a single vessel, intended for use as a flotel - not as transport. Its weather limitations would make its use outside of the southern sector not just non-economic but not viable. Essentially in the N.Sea personnel movements depend upon helicopters - there are no viable alternatives.
Given the tendency of aircraft to fail at take off and landing, the usual way to slice the data is to use the number of sectors for that part of the data and the number of hours for the 'cruise' part of the flight
On the subject of non-aviation offshore deaths I would not trust oil company data. Their aim will be to minimise offshore deaths that "count" and so will be using all tricks to do so. They have a major vested interest so how could they be trusted to produce unbiased statistics?