North Sea Helicopter ditching 10th May 2012
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK (Wilts)
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been following this thread with interest, mainly as I have a few mates flying out of Aberdeen with Bond (CHC and Bristow also). I have spoken with a few and evidently they seem to follow the thread but keep their parochial thoughts to themselves for fear of the sort of flaming that they might get. Yet they are as entitled to comment as anyone else.
So I shall say it for them:
My main observation is that as professional pilots there seems to be a lot of unprofessional sniping.
HC, many know who you are, and what you are likely to know, so stop pretending to be an innocent, the press release was from EC not Bond and yet you still imply that Bond might be crowing. I am also told that your company is stretching out to 5 hours while your two opposition rest at 4 hours between downloads. Perhaps you should put your own house in order and not expose your pax to greater risk than the opposition for commercial gain?
The truth is 2 professional pilots did a damn good job and prevented a tricky situation becoming a fatal accident, well done chaps! GAPAN award nomination perhaps?
Chin chin....
So I shall say it for them:
My main observation is that as professional pilots there seems to be a lot of unprofessional sniping.
HC, many know who you are, and what you are likely to know, so stop pretending to be an innocent, the press release was from EC not Bond and yet you still imply that Bond might be crowing. I am also told that your company is stretching out to 5 hours while your two opposition rest at 4 hours between downloads. Perhaps you should put your own house in order and not expose your pax to greater risk than the opposition for commercial gain?
The truth is 2 professional pilots did a damn good job and prevented a tricky situation becoming a fatal accident, well done chaps! GAPAN award nomination perhaps?
Chin chin....
Any suggestion however slight the crew made anything but an excellent display of airmanship and professional excellence has been hammered swiftly.
The thrust of the discussion is what factors may have played a role in a need for such professional actions by the crew. I raised the question about there being any differences between the operators in their procedures, policies, and protocols that might have allowed for Bond to be more vulnerable to this happening.
It certainly isn't to suggest Bond runs a sloppy shop....far from it. Much as in the BV-234 crash.....who would have guessed such a cause would occur.
When these things happen....it is a good exercise to take a moment and think over how one does business....even the fortunate operators who were not involved.
Helicopters are designed and built by humans....wno also write the specifications, standards, and testing pro forma. Even in the best of efforts....bad things can happen.
The important thing is to look over what we are doing now and then....take a fresh look....and make sure complacency has not set a trap for us.
The thrust of the discussion is what factors may have played a role in a need for such professional actions by the crew. I raised the question about there being any differences between the operators in their procedures, policies, and protocols that might have allowed for Bond to be more vulnerable to this happening.
It certainly isn't to suggest Bond runs a sloppy shop....far from it. Much as in the BV-234 crash.....who would have guessed such a cause would occur.
When these things happen....it is a good exercise to take a moment and think over how one does business....even the fortunate operators who were not involved.
Helicopters are designed and built by humans....wno also write the specifications, standards, and testing pro forma. Even in the best of efforts....bad things can happen.
The important thing is to look over what we are doing now and then....take a fresh look....and make sure complacency has not set a trap for us.
Grey Area
I can also confirm you are factually incorrect regarding your allegation about the time scale between HUMS inspections.
With reference to the "press release", it is unheard of for a manufacturer to issue a statement absolving an operator from blame in the way presented in the press. I would put money on the bet that it was Bond that , for very good reason and for very understandable reasons, have persuaded ECF to put some statement in writing indicating that there is no evidence to indicate Bond is to blame for the recent unfortunate ditching. I suspect it was Bond that was the driving force behind this and it would have been Bond (or their PR consultants) that gave the statement to the press and asked the press to publish it. Any other operator in Bond's position would do the same to try and take the pressure off them. I don't blame Bond for this action at all.
I can also confirm you are factually incorrect regarding your allegation about the time scale between HUMS inspections.
With reference to the "press release", it is unheard of for a manufacturer to issue a statement absolving an operator from blame in the way presented in the press. I would put money on the bet that it was Bond that , for very good reason and for very understandable reasons, have persuaded ECF to put some statement in writing indicating that there is no evidence to indicate Bond is to blame for the recent unfortunate ditching. I suspect it was Bond that was the driving force behind this and it would have been Bond (or their PR consultants) that gave the statement to the press and asked the press to publish it. Any other operator in Bond's position would do the same to try and take the pressure off them. I don't blame Bond for this action at all.
Last edited by roundwego; 16th Jun 2012 at 21:39.
Grey Area
Nice to know that I am so famous! I suspect that if you know who I am, you are not just another passenger but someone with "inside knowledge". So perhaps it is you who is playing the innocent? OK you don't say you are a passenger, but you are hoping to imply that.
As has been said by others, it is unusual to see the manufacturer publicly absolving an operator of blame before an accident report is out, and my suspicion is that is it the consequence of commercial goings-on between the two parties. It may well end up being found to be true, but as I keep saying, too early to say, and I certainly won't be taking the P&J's word for it! If you really imagine that the press release was done without at the very least, the full consent of Bond, you are in la la land!
The AD does not apply to any of our aircraft in Aberdeen. Despite that, we have implemented the manufacturer's recommended HUMS download interval of 5 hrs. So have other operators with aircraft not affected by the AD. In truth, since we download the data on every return to base, it would be very few flights, possibly only those up to the Shetland Basin with multi stops and a detour to the Shetlands, that might exceed 5 hrs flight time in normal times before the event.
Operators with aircraft affected by the AD had to download the data every 3 hours. That has recently been extended to 4 hrs. Therefore the three operators are all following the same rules and recommendations (of course) but there are differences because of their different fleets.
You talk of sniping, perhaps you could give an example because I think this thread has been very balanced. There are those who want to exonerate Bond before the facts are known, for personal reasons (they work for Bond!) and the rest of us who keep saying that it is too early to make a judgement. If failing to join the bandwagon of trying to exonerate Bond before the facts are known makes me a sniper, then so be it.
Since you know who I work for, it would be nice to be told who you work for, otherwise I surely couldn't guess!
Nice to know that I am so famous! I suspect that if you know who I am, you are not just another passenger but someone with "inside knowledge". So perhaps it is you who is playing the innocent? OK you don't say you are a passenger, but you are hoping to imply that.
As has been said by others, it is unusual to see the manufacturer publicly absolving an operator of blame before an accident report is out, and my suspicion is that is it the consequence of commercial goings-on between the two parties. It may well end up being found to be true, but as I keep saying, too early to say, and I certainly won't be taking the P&J's word for it! If you really imagine that the press release was done without at the very least, the full consent of Bond, you are in la la land!
The AD does not apply to any of our aircraft in Aberdeen. Despite that, we have implemented the manufacturer's recommended HUMS download interval of 5 hrs. So have other operators with aircraft not affected by the AD. In truth, since we download the data on every return to base, it would be very few flights, possibly only those up to the Shetland Basin with multi stops and a detour to the Shetlands, that might exceed 5 hrs flight time in normal times before the event.
Operators with aircraft affected by the AD had to download the data every 3 hours. That has recently been extended to 4 hrs. Therefore the three operators are all following the same rules and recommendations (of course) but there are differences because of their different fleets.
You talk of sniping, perhaps you could give an example because I think this thread has been very balanced. There are those who want to exonerate Bond before the facts are known, for personal reasons (they work for Bond!) and the rest of us who keep saying that it is too early to make a judgement. If failing to join the bandwagon of trying to exonerate Bond before the facts are known makes me a sniper, then so be it.
Since you know who I work for, it would be nice to be told who you work for, otherwise I surely couldn't guess!
Since you know who I work for, it would be nice to be told who you work for, otherwise I surely couldn't guess!
you are not just another passenger
Last edited by 212man; 17th Jun 2012 at 03:24.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK (Wilts)
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps
I have read both the AD and SIN. The AD is not great from an airworthiness authoring perspective, as HC pointed out above, and it only applies to a specific group of aircraft / gear boxes.
Scotsheli I suspect you mean the SIN which states:
"As a complement to the scheduled maintenance actions, the proposal is based on an analysis of the vibration data delivered by the health systems, preferably to be performed every 4 flying hours which may be extended to 5 flying hours for operational needs."
This is not the same as "If you dont have an affected shaft, 5 hours it is. End of."
With no definition of "operational needs" then the SIN would appear to be open to interpretation, not great practice in the world of airworthiness.
I had been led to believe that the "operational needs" element has been interpreted differently between operators, if I am incorrect then I apologise - this is a place for rumour not disinfomation.
I have read both the AD and SIN. The AD is not great from an airworthiness authoring perspective, as HC pointed out above, and it only applies to a specific group of aircraft / gear boxes.
Scotsheli I suspect you mean the SIN which states:
"As a complement to the scheduled maintenance actions, the proposal is based on an analysis of the vibration data delivered by the health systems, preferably to be performed every 4 flying hours which may be extended to 5 flying hours for operational needs."
This is not the same as "If you dont have an affected shaft, 5 hours it is. End of."
With no definition of "operational needs" then the SIN would appear to be open to interpretation, not great practice in the world of airworthiness.
I had been led to believe that the "operational needs" element has been interpreted differently between operators, if I am incorrect then I apologise - this is a place for rumour not disinfomation.
I would interpret it to be that if you have two flights totalling 5 hrs with intermediate return to a base where MARMS can be downloaded, that should be done. On the other hand if it is a single trip of between 4 and 5 hours that is OK because it is operationally difficult to download within 4 hrs.
In reality most trips from Abz are less than 4 hrs flight time.
In reality most trips from Abz are less than 4 hrs flight time.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 17th Jun 2012 at 10:11.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In the shadows
Age: 80
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Special Bulletin S5/2012 - 17 October 2012
Special Bulletin S5/2012 issued today. Emergency lube worked okay but monitoring system gave incorrect indication of failure to the crew.
Safety Recommendation 2012-034: to review the design of the emergency lube system to ensure crew are provided with an accurate indication of its status when activated.
Air Accidents Investigation: S5/2012 - EC225 LP Super Puma, G-REDW
Safety Recommendation 2012-034: to review the design of the emergency lube system to ensure crew are provided with an accurate indication of its status when activated.
Air Accidents Investigation: S5/2012 - EC225 LP Super Puma, G-REDW
Last edited by CharlieOneSix; 17th Oct 2012 at 15:57.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just caught the end of a Grampian News interview with a well known Aberdeen aviation journalist. If I heard correctly there was no need to ditch the aircraft, the crew could have retuned to Aberdeen and the fault would have been traced by engineering.
As I said, I didn't hear the whole interview so I may have got it totally out of context. Anyone hear the whole item?
As I said, I didn't hear the whole interview so I may have got it totally out of context. Anyone hear the whole item?
We need to discuss the difference between "Could" and "Should"....which is the key to this situation.
I would reluctantly say "could" but only after the fact and the investigation that showed the Emergency Lube System WAS working although every indication said it WAS NOT. (Unless i grossly confused what the Report had to say.)
Hind sight is wonderful....especially when it is not your precious Ass sitting in the Helicopter when these things happen.
I would reluctantly say "could" but only after the fact and the investigation that showed the Emergency Lube System WAS working although every indication said it WAS NOT. (Unless i grossly confused what the Report had to say.)
Hind sight is wonderful....especially when it is not your precious Ass sitting in the Helicopter when these things happen.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm astonished that the system had never been tested on an actual, working helicopter prior to being granted certification!
That it worked on a ground test MGB rig is one thing, but as that MGB is one part of the whole, surely the testing should be done on a test helicopter in flight, where anomalies such as the false indication could be resolved.
As it stands, this crew were, in effect, the test pilots, and they should never have been placed in that situation.
I'm guessing that Eurocopter will be picking up the bill for this incident.
That it worked on a ground test MGB rig is one thing, but as that MGB is one part of the whole, surely the testing should be done on a test helicopter in flight, where anomalies such as the false indication could be resolved.
As it stands, this crew were, in effect, the test pilots, and they should never have been placed in that situation.
I'm guessing that Eurocopter will be picking up the bill for this incident.
just caught the end of a Grampian News interview with a well known Aberdeen aviation journalist. If I heard correctly there was no need to ditch the aircraft, the crew could have retuned to Aberdeen and the fault would have been traced by engineering.
As I said, I didn't hear the whole interview so I may have got it totally out of context. Anyone hear the whole item?
As I said, I didn't hear the whole interview so I may have got it totally out of context. Anyone hear the whole item?
Please excuse me for linking back to a previous post in this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/7194922-post179.html
Brom,
Just follow this link if you want to see the STV clip Pilot ditched helicopter in North Sea due to 'false warning' light | Aberdeen & North | News | STV
Regards,
Finalchecksplease
Just follow this link if you want to see the STV clip Pilot ditched helicopter in North Sea due to 'false warning' light | Aberdeen & North | News | STV
Regards,
Finalchecksplease
JF strickes again
Heli
At least it worked on the bench. The S-92 failed miserably in an oil out test at exactly the same time it failed in the real world event. The difference is that
Sikorsky misled the operators and passengers about their "safety features" while Eurocopter's system worked and the only issue was a false alert which caused a few people to get wet and a round of drinks later.
Big difference.
The Sultan
At least it worked on the bench. The S-92 failed miserably in an oil out test at exactly the same time it failed in the real world event. The difference is that
Sikorsky misled the operators and passengers about their "safety features" while Eurocopter's system worked and the only issue was a false alert which caused a few people to get wet and a round of drinks later.
Big difference.
The Sultan
Last edited by The Sultan; 17th Oct 2012 at 21:53.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us not forget, the crew were still around 20mins flying time to land at Vy. Even if the emergency lube was working correctly as the AAIB had stated, the main shaft was effectively unsupported and the resulting damage in the gearbox could have caused considerable other problems. The Emergency Lube wasn't designed around this kind of scenario where the gearbox oil was still contained. Looking on the bright side, EC's malfunctioning system may have been a blessing in disguise.
Strange that EC were unavailable for comment this evening...
Strange that EC were unavailable for comment this evening...
Reading anything Sultan posts is a sheer waste of time folks.
