North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
FBW in Helicopters Standard
HC, not that I am aware of. Maybe I'm just out of touch. FAA has to get on the board soon, if one takes all of the 609 media statements as credible.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB Annual Safety Report
Air Accidents Investigation: Download PDF document
AAIB Annual Safety Report
Quite a few entries including a section relevant to this thread.
Regards, Clive
AAIB Annual Safety Report
Quite a few entries including a section relevant to this thread.
Regards, Clive
Bevel Gear Manufacturing Process
AAIB Annual Safety Report
Quite a few entries including a section relevant to this thread.
Regards, Clive
Quite a few entries including a section relevant to this thread.
Regards, Clive
Particular highlights are recommendation 2011-033, 034, 036, 042 and how HUMS data is being used in 043
Not only that but it also highlights the inter relationship between the AAIB, CAA, EASA and Eurocopter. Some of these outcomes are surprising.
Slightly off-topic, but relevant to what has been happening -
My step-son is a captain for a shipping company that operates various types of workboat. He was recently at a Dutch shipyard taking delivery of a new fast crew-change vessel of a type they use for shifting crews working on construction of offshore windfarms (~ 14 passengers @ 22kts) . He was told that the shipyard had been asked to submit design proposals for a larger crew change vessel that could carry 60 passengers at 30 kts, potentially for oil-rig crew change work.
This seems to support the suggestions here that this long-term unavailability of the 225 is causing people to look at alternatives, but on the other hand, he thinks from his experience that there would be an awful lot of the time that it would be out of limits for the transfer onto the rigs (I think he said their limits on the wind-farm work for transferring on and off the vessel was about 1.5 metres swell).
My step-son is a captain for a shipping company that operates various types of workboat. He was recently at a Dutch shipyard taking delivery of a new fast crew-change vessel of a type they use for shifting crews working on construction of offshore windfarms (~ 14 passengers @ 22kts) . He was told that the shipyard had been asked to submit design proposals for a larger crew change vessel that could carry 60 passengers at 30 kts, potentially for oil-rig crew change work.
This seems to support the suggestions here that this long-term unavailability of the 225 is causing people to look at alternatives, but on the other hand, he thinks from his experience that there would be an awful lot of the time that it would be out of limits for the transfer onto the rigs (I think he said their limits on the wind-farm work for transferring on and off the vessel was about 1.5 metres swell).
There is little doubt that this EC225 issue is going to cause some structural changes in the industry.
I know of several oil and gas companies located offshore where the sea is calmer than the NS who are considering new fast crew boats capable of seating 80 and having lie flat beds. Companies who make crew boats are ramping up their marketing to the oil and gas industry.
I know of several oil and gas companies located offshore where the sea is calmer than the NS who are considering new fast crew boats capable of seating 80 and having lie flat beds. Companies who make crew boats are ramping up their marketing to the oil and gas industry.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad for helicopters
... this thread is a sorry indicator of the damage caused to the fundamental concept of the helicopter which we all love so much. Boats instead of helicopters? Terrible news.
Over-complex and under performing machines in terms of 'safe passenger mile bang'/buck reduce the ancestral right of the helicopter to be the obvious transport mechanism of the future. It would be sad to see helicopters regulate themselves out of practical use.
Too many engines and too many gears and bearings in gearboxes (16 gears in a 225 GBox? how many ball bearings?) (Four gearboxes!?) makes unreliable and eye-wateringly expensive helicopters.
The simplistic economic falsehood that you sell more engines if you require twins is obviously flawed; an example is the sales ratio of single squirrels to twins - many more engines sold in singles than twins (by a factor of about 20:1) - the economics for helicopters is better when sound engineering philosophy is applied.
The maths used to support the 2 engined theory is IMHO flawed in many ways (for example: squaring 1/100,000 to compute chance of double engined failure, the wrongly assumed independence of engines etc ). EASA said there was not enough evidence yet to show the simplex concept could be used yet - it is surely the other way around - this idea to carry a spare engine is a safety concept where the maths is bogus and the incidence rate does not accord to the theory.
AND anyway since ditching is not that uncommon then avoiding it at the expense of carrying payload crippling two engines is questionable - especially if the payload employed were used to make arriving in water even safer and more inconsequential. The maths of the twin is dependent on the consequences of arrival on forced landing being high probability of fatality. Since there are so many other reasons to forced land then payload should be 'spent' making that super-safe. You could even make an 'Auto-ditch button' if you don't trust the pilots to do it?
Sacrificing the weight/expense that could be spent making critical components more robust (AW139 tail boom and rotors) and carrying more fuel and other practical safety features to carry excessively over-engined machines might be illogical (as Nick Lappos quite rightly used to try and point out)
Maybe we're too far gone already?
OTT rant over, I know the routine; coat, door etc
Over-complex and under performing machines in terms of 'safe passenger mile bang'/buck reduce the ancestral right of the helicopter to be the obvious transport mechanism of the future. It would be sad to see helicopters regulate themselves out of practical use.
Too many engines and too many gears and bearings in gearboxes (16 gears in a 225 GBox? how many ball bearings?) (Four gearboxes!?) makes unreliable and eye-wateringly expensive helicopters.
The simplistic economic falsehood that you sell more engines if you require twins is obviously flawed; an example is the sales ratio of single squirrels to twins - many more engines sold in singles than twins (by a factor of about 20:1) - the economics for helicopters is better when sound engineering philosophy is applied.
The maths used to support the 2 engined theory is IMHO flawed in many ways (for example: squaring 1/100,000 to compute chance of double engined failure, the wrongly assumed independence of engines etc ). EASA said there was not enough evidence yet to show the simplex concept could be used yet - it is surely the other way around - this idea to carry a spare engine is a safety concept where the maths is bogus and the incidence rate does not accord to the theory.
AND anyway since ditching is not that uncommon then avoiding it at the expense of carrying payload crippling two engines is questionable - especially if the payload employed were used to make arriving in water even safer and more inconsequential. The maths of the twin is dependent on the consequences of arrival on forced landing being high probability of fatality. Since there are so many other reasons to forced land then payload should be 'spent' making that super-safe. You could even make an 'Auto-ditch button' if you don't trust the pilots to do it?
Sacrificing the weight/expense that could be spent making critical components more robust (AW139 tail boom and rotors) and carrying more fuel and other practical safety features to carry excessively over-engined machines might be illogical (as Nick Lappos quite rightly used to try and point out)
Maybe we're too far gone already?
OTT rant over, I know the routine; coat, door etc
The Gulf of Mexico has more than a few helicopters....and Crew Boats.....and it is a fairly benign bit of water most of the time.
There is a place for each mode of transport....neither can replace the other.
There is a place for each mode of transport....neither can replace the other.
a fairly benign bit of water
Then your boats are too slow to shuttle the required numbers.
You can operate crew boats until the time comes to evacuate owing to an impending hurricane, cyclone or typhoon.
Then your boats are too slow to shuttle the required numbers.
Then your boats are too slow to shuttle the required numbers.
Studies are ongoing to replace at least some helicopters with fast crew boats. The initial analysis shows commercially 3 fast crew boats for each helicopter is possible. Transit time each way would realistically be 8 hours.
Last edited by industry insider; 7th Jan 2013 at 00:51.
It does not matter how fast or how comfortable the boats are. When the conditions are outside the boat transfer limits you cannot use them. Offshore workers are not sailors; getting to/from a boat by a fixed object in anything other than a flat calm is fraught with danger unless you know what you are doing; and that covers the North Sea most of the time.
The bean counters will look at it, obviously, until people are stuck either on or offshore. They're not worried, they have a nice warm office.
Edited to add. Have you seen a 'fast 45 knot ferry' bouncing aound in moderate seas? You can get away with hydrofoils to a certain extent but they are only designed to float on the main hull at docksides so they are going to swing all over the place at an offshore installation.
The bean counters will look at it, obviously, until people are stuck either on or offshore. They're not worried, they have a nice warm office.
Edited to add. Have you seen a 'fast 45 knot ferry' bouncing aound in moderate seas? You can get away with hydrofoils to a certain extent but they are only designed to float on the main hull at docksides so they are going to swing all over the place at an offshore installation.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 6th Jan 2013 at 10:47.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I lived in Hong Kong for 3 years and used ferries daily.The 250 seat mono hull DB ferry could be quite bouncy in windy conditions,where the 500 seat twin hulls were very stable.The Macau hydro foil was fantastic most of the time,but one crashed into debris and sank.
However the sticking point was in typhoon conditions they all stopped sailing,and that was in a harbour environment.The North Sea is way rougher,but the HK GFS helis continued flying in those conditions.
However the sticking point was in typhoon conditions they all stopped sailing,and that was in a harbour environment.The North Sea is way rougher,but the HK GFS helis continued flying in those conditions.
Having lived offshore on a Semi-submersible Rig that was used as a hotel....anchored next to a Platform....I know what it is like to approach a Rolling Ladder when the Rig is heaving.
It is an interesting experience to say the least.
Being Craned up from a Workboat is also a thrill....and has its own dangers.
No....boats are not going to put helicopters out of business.....particularly on the North Sea. The Sea is too rough too often....and the distances are too long. Making transit times too long which means "manpower costs" that have to be factored into the equation.
It is an interesting experience to say the least.
Being Craned up from a Workboat is also a thrill....and has its own dangers.
No....boats are not going to put helicopters out of business.....particularly on the North Sea. The Sea is too rough too often....and the distances are too long. Making transit times too long which means "manpower costs" that have to be factored into the equation.
Last edited by SASless; 6th Jan 2013 at 11:53.
I am not talking about the NS though. There are some very clever people studying this issue, including the whole transfer processes at each end. The 225 needs to fly again soon.