AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Mitchaa, regarding your comments on the REDL HUMS shenanigans, there was fault on the Bond side according to the report -they did not use the correct EDR forms that should make for clear and recorded dialogue with EC. The primary communication was by telephone calls - there were emails as well, but the emails did not fully back up the phone conversations and consequently, some discrepancies arose. They misidentified the "chip" material as being silver or cadmium, when in fact it was steel. Silver and cadmium are non-ferrous and therefore non-magnetic, so it would seem, even to a simple pilot like me, unlikely to be found on a magnetic detector.
Most importantly, they didn't remove the epicyclic as was required by the AMM. Although we don't know what they would have found, there is a fair chance that there would have been a good few more metallic particles.
Therefore I think its unfair of you to blame the inappropriate maintenance actions on EC.
Most importantly, they didn't remove the epicyclic as was required by the AMM. Although we don't know what they would have found, there is a fair chance that there would have been a good few more metallic particles.
Therefore I think its unfair of you to blame the inappropriate maintenance actions on EC.
airwave, I can't disagree that the rate of arriving unexpectedly into the sea is way too high at the moment. What I do disagree about is that its the fault of the SP. Although changed since the groundings, before that virtually the entire Aberdeen fleet was SP. Therefore any unexpected arrivals into the sea was bound to be in an SP. But, for example, the S92 has had some pretty close calls and one major fatal. If the fleet had been all S92 for that past 5 years, I suspect it would be "destroy the S92" on facebook.
As I have alluded to earlier, there does need to be some radical change in culture, but that doesn't mean replacing the normally safe and reliable SPs
As I have alluded to earlier, there does need to be some radical change in culture, but that doesn't mean replacing the normally safe and reliable SPs
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC, understood.
But really what is lacking is any desire to express to the slf that there are issues being worked by the rotary wing community to "up the game".
All I'm seeing is "the slf are stupid and we know all."
When the stats say, you don't
(N Sea only)
Your pax may not all be graduates with type rating loans outstanding, but they are not dumb.
They can read online crash stats, and if you haven't looked, yours are not good.
Now, what will pour oil on troubled waters is a bit of reality on both sides.
If you behave like people doing the best you can possibly do, we'll belive you (you have epaulettes, how could we disagree?)
However, if you disparage the slf, and continue to kill them, the slf will move for alternates
But really what is lacking is any desire to express to the slf that there are issues being worked by the rotary wing community to "up the game".
All I'm seeing is "the slf are stupid and we know all."
When the stats say, you don't
(N Sea only)
Your pax may not all be graduates with type rating loans outstanding, but they are not dumb.
They can read online crash stats, and if you haven't looked, yours are not good.
Now, what will pour oil on troubled waters is a bit of reality on both sides.
If you behave like people doing the best you can possibly do, we'll belive you (you have epaulettes, how could we disagree?)
However, if you disparage the slf, and continue to kill them, the slf will move for alternates
HC,
Without kicking off the old argument about the S-92.....I submit that if the Crew had complied with their Checklist, and done what the Co-Pilot recommended twice to the Captain, that event would not have been what it was. We don't know how a controlled ditching in the sea state and weather (air and water Temps, sea state) would have turned out but it seem on the face of it....there would have been far less loss of life if any.
Just as in the recent North Sea events....that Crash uncovered some very serious issues in many different areas.
You are correct that if only S-92's had been the aircraft operating on the North Sea and all these things (or similar but different) had happened then it would the S-92 that would be in trouble.
The facts are it is not the 92....but is the SP family that is in the spotlight.
It is also the UK Operators that are in the spot light
The Oil Companies are in the Spotlight.
It is the UK CAA that is in the Spotlight.
It is EC that is in the spot light.
There is going to be a lot of squirming....finger pointing.....spinning....weaseling....and dropped shoulders before all this is over and done with. Not just on this latest tragedy....but on the entire situation.
You folks over there have gotten yourself into a pickle. I dare say, if a really intensive investigation were to be undertaken by a truly independent body....there would be plenty of mud stuck to all sorts of faces. I doubt there are "dirty hands" but I am certain there have been plenty of bad decisions made, lots of bad policies implemented, and now it is time to sort out the tangle.
The way the Chinook got killed by the Media and some of those involved in the Oil Patch was wrongheaded, misguided, and because it was allowed to happen....without anyone having the courage to tell it like it was.....now you get to see how it works on the SP family. Killing the SP Family of Aircraft will be just as wrong as it was for the Chinook.
Knowing the background of that debacle.....all I can say is "Karma is a real Bitch!" sometimes.
Without kicking off the old argument about the S-92.....I submit that if the Crew had complied with their Checklist, and done what the Co-Pilot recommended twice to the Captain, that event would not have been what it was. We don't know how a controlled ditching in the sea state and weather (air and water Temps, sea state) would have turned out but it seem on the face of it....there would have been far less loss of life if any.
Just as in the recent North Sea events....that Crash uncovered some very serious issues in many different areas.
You are correct that if only S-92's had been the aircraft operating on the North Sea and all these things (or similar but different) had happened then it would the S-92 that would be in trouble.
The facts are it is not the 92....but is the SP family that is in the spotlight.
It is also the UK Operators that are in the spot light
The Oil Companies are in the Spotlight.
It is the UK CAA that is in the Spotlight.
It is EC that is in the spot light.
There is going to be a lot of squirming....finger pointing.....spinning....weaseling....and dropped shoulders before all this is over and done with. Not just on this latest tragedy....but on the entire situation.
You folks over there have gotten yourself into a pickle. I dare say, if a really intensive investigation were to be undertaken by a truly independent body....there would be plenty of mud stuck to all sorts of faces. I doubt there are "dirty hands" but I am certain there have been plenty of bad decisions made, lots of bad policies implemented, and now it is time to sort out the tangle.
The way the Chinook got killed by the Media and some of those involved in the Oil Patch was wrongheaded, misguided, and because it was allowed to happen....without anyone having the courage to tell it like it was.....now you get to see how it works on the SP family. Killing the SP Family of Aircraft will be just as wrong as it was for the Chinook.
Knowing the background of that debacle.....all I can say is "Karma is a real Bitch!" sometimes.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds as if the Chinook is required once again.
I have to say that I am deeply disappointed that a former pilot would even suggest using the BV 234 for today`s offshore personnel transfer requirements. I can still recall the uproar and the workforce response that got them banned in the first place. For me the sheer number of potential loss of life in a non-military environment would be too great a risk, I`m pretty sure the oil companies and operators would end up at the same conclusion.
Out of curiosity I did a quick Google on the type and found this story...
Peru Helicopter Crash Leaves 5 Americans, 2 Others Dead
The point I`m making is that it`s not just the aircraft type that can be the issue, from a 30,000 feet point of view it`s always down to how procedures are created, followed, and how lessons are learned from experience. The common denominator in all these factors is the human factor, where wrong decisions, unknown or otherwise, determine the final outcome.
IMHO to move forward from where we currently are as both PAX and pilots, indeed the whole aviation industry, we need to do a cold eye review of our current operating mode and determine a logical way forward that is mutually beneficial to all parties. The current high spirits on the public media outlets is not helping matters.
Safe flying
Max
airwave, surely the "industry" has been going to great lengths to improve things, with the Step Change, and the other industry organisations (whose name currently escapes me at this time of night!) not only trying to up the game, but including the SLF in the dialogue. If you are expecting all that on here, this is a professional pilot forum and you should be grateful we even allow you to look in! We are not on this forum to mollycoddle the SLF into wanting to get back into a SP - that is someone else's job. This forum exists so that we can discuss matter of importance to aviation, such as which offshore installation does the best breakfast!
Last edited by HeliComparator; 26th Aug 2013 at 22:43.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North Sea
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
Guys I am new to this site as you can see, but hold ATPL (A) and work closely with these 'Bears' through a service company I own.
Be on no uncertain terms, there is a lot of anger in the work force, and it's being fuelled by the assumption by the pilots that they are that 'little bit slower'.
This thread is in the public domain now, and spreading fast, there are a few furious groups angered even more by being called 'bears' and questioning their intelligence.
These guys can be very switched on, some very intelligent guys and girls, who are only getting more and more despondent and drawing a line between them and you. (pilots, engineers and heli companies)
This will all have a snowballing effect on us as oil service companies. Ultimately if they don't fly, then the oil companies cut back on crews, if they do that all service companies business suffers, including yours.
Treat them with a bit more respect, before you awaken a sleeping giant. They took some talking round to trust the EC225, this could not have come at a worse time.
Guys I am new to this site as you can see, but hold ATPL (A) and work closely with these 'Bears' through a service company I own.
Be on no uncertain terms, there is a lot of anger in the work force, and it's being fuelled by the assumption by the pilots that they are that 'little bit slower'.
This thread is in the public domain now, and spreading fast, there are a few furious groups angered even more by being called 'bears' and questioning their intelligence.
These guys can be very switched on, some very intelligent guys and girls, who are only getting more and more despondent and drawing a line between them and you. (pilots, engineers and heli companies)
This will all have a snowballing effect on us as oil service companies. Ultimately if they don't fly, then the oil companies cut back on crews, if they do that all service companies business suffers, including yours.
Treat them with a bit more respect, before you awaken a sleeping giant. They took some talking round to trust the EC225, this could not have come at a worse time.
SAS, yes you can reasonably blame the Newfie accident on failure to follow cockpit procedures, just as I can blame REDL on a failure to follow maintenance procedures. In both cases, things were perhaps not that simple (in the case of the S92, we are still not quite sure what effect the misinformation put out by SK regarding 30 mins run time had on the psyche of the captain).
So I am not trying to dis the S92 (for a change) and in fact, I think we are both in agreement!
So I am not trying to dis the S92 (for a change) and in fact, I think we are both in agreement!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC,
i am indebted by your indulgence of my presence
Brae Bravo circa 1992, the bacon butties were sublime.
Your grasp on the cyclic and your grasp on the realite of pprune may differ.
This is a public fora, there are people who thrash eggwhisks in a day job capacity on here.
There are people who are thrashed by eggwhisks on here.
Our perception of acceptable risk differs.
Whilst I may be dissmissed as slf, i urge you (n sea community) to listen.
You can do better ( the stats say so)
5 sp's getting wet and 20 dead, in 4 years is not acceptable to the slf.
What are you doing to change that?
Trying to change the slf perception of risk is a steep hill to climb.
i am indebted by your indulgence of my presence
Brae Bravo circa 1992, the bacon butties were sublime.
Your grasp on the cyclic and your grasp on the realite of pprune may differ.
This is a public fora, there are people who thrash eggwhisks in a day job capacity on here.
There are people who are thrashed by eggwhisks on here.
Our perception of acceptable risk differs.
Whilst I may be dissmissed as slf, i urge you (n sea community) to listen.
You can do better ( the stats say so)
5 sp's getting wet and 20 dead, in 4 years is not acceptable to the slf.
What are you doing to change that?
Trying to change the slf perception of risk is a steep hill to climb.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maxwelg, I don't think there were many Chinook pilots who wouldn't go right back on it now if the opportunity offered. I know I would. It was a superb machine and inherently far safer than anything else on the N Sea.
At the time of the Sumburgh accident (entirely mod not type or inherent design related) there had already been a number of Puma accidents/incidents involving gearboxes and I can recall the incredulity when the P & J ran the Chinook out of town with it's campaign of misinformation and hysteria - and the Pumas were still landing with white-hot gearboxes and no one seemed to bat an eyelid. It seems incredible to me that 25 years later the damn things are still falling out of the sky and only now people seem to be wondering why...
I can see that argument that 44 people is a lot to risk in one package - tho it is one that doesn't seem to affect the rest of aviation (viz 747/A380) - but a Chinook with pop out windows would have been an unbeatable solution for decks large enough to take it. The lack of mid-cabin exits was a mistake in retrospect, but no one had even considered their psychological importance at the time as the 234 was rightly regarded as being completely amphibious and almost impossible to capsize.
Sad, a missed opportunity.
I do find it irritating that so many non-aviation people seem to have decided that an aircraft is unsafe when the crews who are exposed to 50 times the hours in it don't, and that everyone seems to have decided with no evidence whatsoever that this accident is tech-related.
Still, if the media did for one type on the N Sea, it can do it again for another. But this time there aren't lots of spare S61s sitting around to take up the slack. It's not going to be easy to do that this time if the grounding stays for a while.
At the time of the Sumburgh accident (entirely mod not type or inherent design related) there had already been a number of Puma accidents/incidents involving gearboxes and I can recall the incredulity when the P & J ran the Chinook out of town with it's campaign of misinformation and hysteria - and the Pumas were still landing with white-hot gearboxes and no one seemed to bat an eyelid. It seems incredible to me that 25 years later the damn things are still falling out of the sky and only now people seem to be wondering why...
I can see that argument that 44 people is a lot to risk in one package - tho it is one that doesn't seem to affect the rest of aviation (viz 747/A380) - but a Chinook with pop out windows would have been an unbeatable solution for decks large enough to take it. The lack of mid-cabin exits was a mistake in retrospect, but no one had even considered their psychological importance at the time as the 234 was rightly regarded as being completely amphibious and almost impossible to capsize.
Sad, a missed opportunity.
I do find it irritating that so many non-aviation people seem to have decided that an aircraft is unsafe when the crews who are exposed to 50 times the hours in it don't, and that everyone seems to have decided with no evidence whatsoever that this accident is tech-related.
Still, if the media did for one type on the N Sea, it can do it again for another. But this time there aren't lots of spare S61s sitting around to take up the slack. It's not going to be easy to do that this time if the grounding stays for a while.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 26th Aug 2013 at 23:12.
HC,
We agree....and you are correct in that the ambiguity certainly played a role.....but.....an emphatic "but".....the Checklist, the current edition, the approved one, clearly stated "Land Immediately!" The Co-Pilot on two occasions reminded the Captain of that....and sadly did not assert himself as he should have. Why that Crew did follow the Checklist is subject to debate....that they should have is not.
That being said, Sikorsky made effective changes and also instituted an effective Public Relations effort at mending the reputation of the 92. They were effective both in the fixes and the PR effort and the 92 seems to be over its early troubles.
Now that EC is Air Bus.....perhaps the Air Bus PR Department will get stuck in and do what they do best.....sell their products despite their own problems such as the Air France Crash.
If Air Bus does not put on a sustained, effective PR Effort......the Super Puma Family is dead....extinct as the Dodo Bird. Despite the SP Family being similar but different aircraft....the distinction is lost on most of those who ride as Passengers. Most of them can not tell the difference and in reality until this recent spate of ditchings and crashes could care less as they were dependable and reasonably safe rides to work.
The same Mob mentality killed the Chinook.....unless Air Bus gets its head out of its hind end.....that is going to be the fate of the SP. They might find a job in the USA and Australia fighting fires or perhaps logging but who ever owns them now is going to take a real hosing when they try to sell them. Perhaps the RAF might buy them.... as the MAA seems very loosely run from what we are hearing in the Military Aircrew Forum.
We agree....and you are correct in that the ambiguity certainly played a role.....but.....an emphatic "but".....the Checklist, the current edition, the approved one, clearly stated "Land Immediately!" The Co-Pilot on two occasions reminded the Captain of that....and sadly did not assert himself as he should have. Why that Crew did follow the Checklist is subject to debate....that they should have is not.
That being said, Sikorsky made effective changes and also instituted an effective Public Relations effort at mending the reputation of the 92. They were effective both in the fixes and the PR effort and the 92 seems to be over its early troubles.
Now that EC is Air Bus.....perhaps the Air Bus PR Department will get stuck in and do what they do best.....sell their products despite their own problems such as the Air France Crash.
If Air Bus does not put on a sustained, effective PR Effort......the Super Puma Family is dead....extinct as the Dodo Bird. Despite the SP Family being similar but different aircraft....the distinction is lost on most of those who ride as Passengers. Most of them can not tell the difference and in reality until this recent spate of ditchings and crashes could care less as they were dependable and reasonably safe rides to work.
The same Mob mentality killed the Chinook.....unless Air Bus gets its head out of its hind end.....that is going to be the fate of the SP. They might find a job in the USA and Australia fighting fires or perhaps logging but who ever owns them now is going to take a real hosing when they try to sell them. Perhaps the RAF might buy them.... as the MAA seems very loosely run from what we are hearing in the Military Aircrew Forum.
airwave, we both agree on the fact that 5 SPs getting wet and 20 dead is not acceptable. What I won't accept is a need to temper what I post, or change it, just because some SLF are listening, nor to pander to ill informed mass hysteria. I am interested in the real issues, not in some social media campaign to demonise the SP. I'll leave the PC brigade to try to talk the SLF down!
HC,
Can you imagine if Face Book had existed when the Chinook was being proposed for the North Sea.....it could have saved Bristow a lot of money! Then when the one did crash.....and although some folks survived it.....the frenzied mob could have really run amok by means of Face Book.
Can you imagine if Face Book had existed when the Chinook was being proposed for the North Sea.....it could have saved Bristow a lot of money! Then when the one did crash.....and although some folks survived it.....the frenzied mob could have really run amok by means of Face Book.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airwave45, sounds like your mind is made up and no amount of logical analysis will convince you otherwise.
The answer is obvious, get your boat licence and fire up your tinny.
The answer is obvious, get your boat licence and fire up your tinny.
As I said in my previous posting, I sympathise with those who are obliged to ride in the back of any helicopter to and from work. But I also despair at the irrational hostility which has been whipped up. I/we drivers have known for years that most of you are afraid to a greater or lesser extent.
On Monday morning dozens of my fellow pilots attended a briefing by our management and plenty of well-thought-out views were expressed. But none of them were against the Super Puma family, nor against EC and other agencies. The greatest concern was at the sheer lies and rumours which have been spread without a shred of evidence.
All of us want to feel as safe as humanly possible and we work diligently each day to bring ourselves and you home to our - and your families. We were asked by management if any of us have any qualms and, please believe me, we're completely unafraid to tell them if we think that anyone or anything is wrong.
Not one of the attending pilots of Super Pumas, S92s, EC225s, S76s or AW139s expressed any doubts about our operational or engineering standards, or any reservations about other agencies. You say that we're above-averagely intelligent (I'd like to think so, but nobody will tell me to my face) and I've already said that some of my colleagues would call our management tw_ts to their faces.
Please give us credit for knowing what we're doing and you should only start to get militant against a helicopter type when you learn that we have "concerns". We're not gung-ho "ace" types of pilots. We don't have death wishes. We are chosen from a segment of the pilot world which generally doesn't include "chancers". Historically there were a couple, but they're gone.
On Monday morning dozens of my fellow pilots attended a briefing by our management and plenty of well-thought-out views were expressed. But none of them were against the Super Puma family, nor against EC and other agencies. The greatest concern was at the sheer lies and rumours which have been spread without a shred of evidence.
All of us want to feel as safe as humanly possible and we work diligently each day to bring ourselves and you home to our - and your families. We were asked by management if any of us have any qualms and, please believe me, we're completely unafraid to tell them if we think that anyone or anything is wrong.
Not one of the attending pilots of Super Pumas, S92s, EC225s, S76s or AW139s expressed any doubts about our operational or engineering standards, or any reservations about other agencies. You say that we're above-averagely intelligent (I'd like to think so, but nobody will tell me to my face) and I've already said that some of my colleagues would call our management tw_ts to their faces.
Please give us credit for knowing what we're doing and you should only start to get militant against a helicopter type when you learn that we have "concerns". We're not gung-ho "ace" types of pilots. We don't have death wishes. We are chosen from a segment of the pilot world which generally doesn't include "chancers". Historically there were a couple, but they're gone.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freewheel, I'd fly with a Noggy eggwhisk outfit.
Would I fly with a Scottish one ?
No.
And therin lies your problem.
No bums on seats.
No revenue.
I have asked nicely, politely even.
Bums on seats pay salaries, no bums on seats, no salary.
You tell me what you are doing is good enough, I say, BS.
What I also say is.
If you are not making it better, I'm not flying in it.
Which I think HC will agree is somewhat vital to a PP service . .
Would I fly with a Scottish one ?
No.
And therin lies your problem.
No bums on seats.
No revenue.
I have asked nicely, politely even.
Bums on seats pay salaries, no bums on seats, no salary.
You tell me what you are doing is good enough, I say, BS.
What I also say is.
If you are not making it better, I'm not flying in it.
Which I think HC will agree is somewhat vital to a PP service . .
Some of the hysteria being whipped up in the UK media is borderline reprehensible, especially the perceived use of 'bears' as denigrating the offshore workers. They have referred to themselves as such since the 1970's, for goodness sake, yet the fluffy kitten loving PC marketing types now see it as us denigrating our passengers!
I fear that this will run unchecked until either someone gets out with simple one line messages that the average 21st Century journalist can understand or until the Puma family is removed from North Sea ops. Essentially, no one but us helicopter pilots and engineers is the slightest bit interested in the technicalities that we discuss here. The modern media world lives on short, sharp messages regardless of the truth behind what is actually said..
Look at the constant reference to the Sumburgh 332L2 'falling out of the sky', all based on a third hand telephone call from (supposedly) a passenger's relative. It has now been reported so often that as far as the UK population is concerned it is fact, and nothing has come from CHC nor from Airbus Helicopters to refute the claim.
That's how the modern media works, and if it is on Twit-ter or Facebook then it must be true to the younger generation
On Facebook there is a page called Destroy The Pumas. It has over 34,000 likes so far. Here is something I just posted on there - maybe a little bit of it will get through to some of them, who knows, but was worth a try.. If I am inaccurate on some of it then apologies.
Interesting page here however I think there are a few misconceptions. I own and publish two helicopter industry magazines, and one of them HeliOps covers the global civil helicopter industry which includes offshore oil & gas operations. I spend 10 months of the year travelling shooting and flying in helicopters all over the world INCLUDING the AS332L1/L2 and EC225. The Super Puma family has been flying around the world for decades and will continue to do so - carrying hundreds of thousands of people to and from work, oil workers included and clocking hundreds of thousands of trouble free flying hours with no incidents. The men and women who FLY these helicopters are just like every oil worker reading this page - they want to come home EVERY NIGHT and see their wife and children. They have no intention of wanting to not make it back. They didnt spend hundreds of thousands of dollars going through all the training to get their licences just to fly something that wasnt going to bring them home safely.
They are the same as an airline pilot - they have a responsibility to those in the seats behind them to get home safe and sound - the only difference is they are flying a helicopter and not a Boeing 777 etc. EVERY pilot I know around the world WILL NOT fly a helicopter that is not 100% safe - its ludicrous to think they would. And NO they do not get paid ONLY if they fly - these guys flying in the North Sea for companies like Bristow, CHC, Bond etc are paid an annual salary like you men and women so there is NO incentive for them to fly a bad machine for ANY reason and I personally know many who fly in the north sea including some who have refused to take off because of a maintenance issue with their aircraft. Once the issue is fixed then they departed - keeping in mind its their lives at risk as well as those in the back. Pilots don't want to have an accident - its not in their nature.
Saying companies like CHC, Bristow, Bond, ERA etc are only in it for the money and don't care about pax safety is also incorrect. These companies know the repercussions of ANY accident so do everything they can to avoid one but sometimes in this industry accidents do happen despite all the best efforts to prevent them. Some are from human errors, some related to weather, some related to mechanical issues. Some we have control over, some we dont. I have personally lost many friends in this industry over the time I have been involved and hate it every time it happens but do I call for one type of helo to be banned because of it - No I dont. I feel gutted for the friends and families of all those lost on ANY accident but to call for the banning of that helo type because of it I think is unwarranted.
In regards to the latest accident it has nothing to do with the same cause as the EC225 accidents - they are a different model of the Puma family so in my opinion its unfair to ban the whole Puma family because of two unrelated accidents. It would be best to wait until the actual cause of this latest accident is known before making blanket statements to destroy what is a great helicopter. I personally have done many flights and shoots on the L1/L2 and also EC225 and would get on one again tomorrow. In fact I did a shoot with ERA Helicopters 225 in Houma, LA in March which the UK ones were still grounded, thats how confident I am in the product and I value my life just as much as everyone here values theirs.
Keep in mind helicopters are complicated pieces of aviation machinery and from time to time accidents happen - its not nice and the results are not usually survivable but they do happen. Its not through lack of maintenance or the skilled crews who fly them. Sometimes things are just not seen in time for them to become catastrophic as they happen so quick. Like pilots the mechanics who work on the Puma family KNOW that peoples lives rest on their work and they do everything to the best of their abilities to ensure that any aircraft that is pushed out of the hangar door is 100% airworthy. Who do you think the first person accident investigators will look at if its a mechanical issue that brings a helicopter down - yep the engineers who were the last ones working on it. Its not a good situation to put yourself in so they dont.
Human error happens in all parts of the world we live in whether it be driving the car down the road and we decide to answer our cell phone instead of concentrating on the road and we run off it, the women driver who pulls out into cross traffic while putting her make up on etc etc. Unfortunately it happens in aviation as well, except the consequences are magnified because of where and what we are operating.
This post is no way taking away the losses and heartache felt by those on here who knew someone that died on any of these accidents, in fact I knew the co-pilot on the Cougar S92 who died in that accident. If anything use your collective might to push for bigger escape windows, better training to get out of a ditched helicopter etc. I mention the ditching training for a reason - and that is in my opinion the training of oil workers in getting out of an upside down helicopter is unrealistic. Your training is done in a dunker in a swimming pool, usually nice and warm and with divers all around. Yet look at the accidents that have happened - they are out in the North Sea one of the most hostile environments out there. Under the water you are getting thrown around by waves and its normally dark and gloomy - to me thats what you should be trained for. Push for realistic training that will stand you in good steed should the unthinkable ever happen again.
I hope those of you reading this take it for what its worth. My thoughts are with everyone here.
Ned Dawson
Publisher - HeliOps Magazine
They are the same as an airline pilot - they have a responsibility to those in the seats behind them to get home safe and sound - the only difference is they are flying a helicopter and not a Boeing 777 etc. EVERY pilot I know around the world WILL NOT fly a helicopter that is not 100% safe - its ludicrous to think they would. And NO they do not get paid ONLY if they fly - these guys flying in the North Sea for companies like Bristow, CHC, Bond etc are paid an annual salary like you men and women so there is NO incentive for them to fly a bad machine for ANY reason and I personally know many who fly in the north sea including some who have refused to take off because of a maintenance issue with their aircraft. Once the issue is fixed then they departed - keeping in mind its their lives at risk as well as those in the back. Pilots don't want to have an accident - its not in their nature.
Saying companies like CHC, Bristow, Bond, ERA etc are only in it for the money and don't care about pax safety is also incorrect. These companies know the repercussions of ANY accident so do everything they can to avoid one but sometimes in this industry accidents do happen despite all the best efforts to prevent them. Some are from human errors, some related to weather, some related to mechanical issues. Some we have control over, some we dont. I have personally lost many friends in this industry over the time I have been involved and hate it every time it happens but do I call for one type of helo to be banned because of it - No I dont. I feel gutted for the friends and families of all those lost on ANY accident but to call for the banning of that helo type because of it I think is unwarranted.
In regards to the latest accident it has nothing to do with the same cause as the EC225 accidents - they are a different model of the Puma family so in my opinion its unfair to ban the whole Puma family because of two unrelated accidents. It would be best to wait until the actual cause of this latest accident is known before making blanket statements to destroy what is a great helicopter. I personally have done many flights and shoots on the L1/L2 and also EC225 and would get on one again tomorrow. In fact I did a shoot with ERA Helicopters 225 in Houma, LA in March which the UK ones were still grounded, thats how confident I am in the product and I value my life just as much as everyone here values theirs.
Keep in mind helicopters are complicated pieces of aviation machinery and from time to time accidents happen - its not nice and the results are not usually survivable but they do happen. Its not through lack of maintenance or the skilled crews who fly them. Sometimes things are just not seen in time for them to become catastrophic as they happen so quick. Like pilots the mechanics who work on the Puma family KNOW that peoples lives rest on their work and they do everything to the best of their abilities to ensure that any aircraft that is pushed out of the hangar door is 100% airworthy. Who do you think the first person accident investigators will look at if its a mechanical issue that brings a helicopter down - yep the engineers who were the last ones working on it. Its not a good situation to put yourself in so they dont.
Human error happens in all parts of the world we live in whether it be driving the car down the road and we decide to answer our cell phone instead of concentrating on the road and we run off it, the women driver who pulls out into cross traffic while putting her make up on etc etc. Unfortunately it happens in aviation as well, except the consequences are magnified because of where and what we are operating.
This post is no way taking away the losses and heartache felt by those on here who knew someone that died on any of these accidents, in fact I knew the co-pilot on the Cougar S92 who died in that accident. If anything use your collective might to push for bigger escape windows, better training to get out of a ditched helicopter etc. I mention the ditching training for a reason - and that is in my opinion the training of oil workers in getting out of an upside down helicopter is unrealistic. Your training is done in a dunker in a swimming pool, usually nice and warm and with divers all around. Yet look at the accidents that have happened - they are out in the North Sea one of the most hostile environments out there. Under the water you are getting thrown around by waves and its normally dark and gloomy - to me thats what you should be trained for. Push for realistic training that will stand you in good steed should the unthinkable ever happen again.
I hope those of you reading this take it for what its worth. My thoughts are with everyone here.
Ned Dawson
Publisher - HeliOps Magazine
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colibri 49
Irrational hostility as a phrase is incompatible with 5 crashes in 4 years and 20 dead.
There is some rationale behind the hostility, honestly.
Irrational hostility as a phrase is incompatible with 5 crashes in 4 years and 20 dead.
There is some rationale behind the hostility, honestly.