AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
I've already said that some of my colleagues would call our management tw_ts to their faces.
49, You are quite right that almost without exception, pilots like to get home to their easy chair and pint at the end of the day and would not knowingly fly and unsafe aircraft.
The qualifier is "knowingly". We have to admit that as Pilots and by transference....Passengers "trust" or have "faith" the aircraft is in fact safe to fly in all regards.
Engineers too, with almost no exceptions, have a Conscience they know they shall have to live with, should they provide a Pilot an aircraft that is un-airworthy. They too take it on "faith" the parts that are make up that aircraft are as they should be when made by the OEM.
Sadly, our "faith" is challenged by an event or events that cause us to have concerns.
We have to fall back on "faith" again that the system works to ensure that as few of these events occur as is humanly possible.
There in lies the rub....."the human".
As long as humans are involved in the process, we have to accept the process shall never be perfect. We have to do everything that is reasonably possible to ensure the process prevents our human frailty from tripping us up. Again, that requires more "faith" yet from us.
As i see it....the Passengers who ride the Super Puma are in need of assurance the "process" is going to be examined and every reasonable effort made to ensure the Super Puma Aircraft is as safe as it should be. Pilots, Engineers, Designers, and Test Engineers along with the AAIB and CAA are going to do that before they themselves express their confidence in the situation.
If the Pilots will fly it.....then you can feel confidant that you are taking a very reasonable risk. As in all flying there are risks.....we just have to make sure they are reasonable risks.
Hopefully, that is what will transpire during the coming few weeks and months.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airwave, its like this;
The primary goal of the crew is to ensure that everybody sees another day, themselves included. Considerable effort is expended by all of the personnel of an operator, the aircrew, engineers, pax handlers, management etc in ensuring that this occurs. When that effort fails, it is VERY personal.
You have suggested that you feel equipped to decide whether an aircraft, and now you are extending that to an operator is suitable for the entire industry.
You can make your decisions for yourself, not your entire industry. I have suggested an option for you. Your threatening undertone is uncalled for.
Do not seek to demean the operators or personnel of any operator that has had an accident. You have made an emotional response and despite the rebuttal provided by many on this forum you have heightened your response with an emotional tone.
What I and others have said is this; apply a logical thought process to these events. Living involves dying. Flying includes the risk of death, yet statistically flying by helicopter, even by super puma in and around Scotland is a manifestly safe activity.
I recognise that your emotion is hot and that you feel strongly about the fact that your colleagues have perished. Don't for a moment think that they have gone unnoticed.
In parts of the world where immersion suits aren't required and the numbers are fewer, moments like these give pause for considerable contemplation and action.
In other words, chill out grieve and consider your own needs.
The primary goal of the crew is to ensure that everybody sees another day, themselves included. Considerable effort is expended by all of the personnel of an operator, the aircrew, engineers, pax handlers, management etc in ensuring that this occurs. When that effort fails, it is VERY personal.
You have suggested that you feel equipped to decide whether an aircraft, and now you are extending that to an operator is suitable for the entire industry.
You can make your decisions for yourself, not your entire industry. I have suggested an option for you. Your threatening undertone is uncalled for.
Do not seek to demean the operators or personnel of any operator that has had an accident. You have made an emotional response and despite the rebuttal provided by many on this forum you have heightened your response with an emotional tone.
What I and others have said is this; apply a logical thought process to these events. Living involves dying. Flying includes the risk of death, yet statistically flying by helicopter, even by super puma in and around Scotland is a manifestly safe activity.
I recognise that your emotion is hot and that you feel strongly about the fact that your colleagues have perished. Don't for a moment think that they have gone unnoticed.
In parts of the world where immersion suits aren't required and the numbers are fewer, moments like these give pause for considerable contemplation and action.
In other words, chill out grieve and consider your own needs.
I understand the passengers concerns.....yet they go live and work on places like the Piper Alpha....we usually just drop in for a quick meal and pee then off to the hill.
We could begin to tote up the casualty list for those disasters and perhaps develop some concerns about the safety of rigs and platforms ourselves.
If we are going to discuss risks....that could be one of the topics.
In this article there is mention of action taken in the GOM.....and weather related accidents for helicopters dropped to ZERO over a three year period.
Offshore Worker Fatality Rates Seven Times Higher Than U.S. Average, CDC Study Says
We could begin to tote up the casualty list for those disasters and perhaps develop some concerns about the safety of rigs and platforms ourselves.
If we are going to discuss risks....that could be one of the topics.
In this article there is mention of action taken in the GOM.....and weather related accidents for helicopters dropped to ZERO over a three year period.
Offshore Worker Fatality Rates Seven Times Higher Than U.S. Average, CDC Study Says
Last edited by SASless; 27th Aug 2013 at 00:18.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FW,
i reread my earlier posts, there absolutely was no threat in them.
Purely a statement about whether I would fly in a Scottish based Puma.
Simple answer, no threat, no innuendo.
I understand it's personal.
It is from my side too.
Google helicopter crash frequencies, at some point down the list that pops up you'll find fatalities per million hours.
GoM and N Sea are the same.
GoM does single pilot, single engine ops.
N Sea does not.
The bears in the back are simple, we like it that way.
Too many crashes, too frequently and too many people killed.
The offshore population these days is about 30,000.
That is a very small town.
Very small.
What if a small town taxi company killed 20 people in 4 years?
And the taxi drivers told us it's ok, we know what we are doing ?
It's all a bit complicated for you to understand, but get in !
. . . .
Oddly, we think the drivers are a bit deluded actually.
Perspective comes when we look across at the next small Town where no one has been killed in ages . . (Norway, Same weather)
i reread my earlier posts, there absolutely was no threat in them.
Purely a statement about whether I would fly in a Scottish based Puma.
Simple answer, no threat, no innuendo.
I understand it's personal.
It is from my side too.
Google helicopter crash frequencies, at some point down the list that pops up you'll find fatalities per million hours.
GoM and N Sea are the same.
GoM does single pilot, single engine ops.
N Sea does not.
The bears in the back are simple, we like it that way.
Too many crashes, too frequently and too many people killed.
The offshore population these days is about 30,000.
That is a very small town.
Very small.
What if a small town taxi company killed 20 people in 4 years?
And the taxi drivers told us it's ok, we know what we are doing ?
It's all a bit complicated for you to understand, but get in !
. . . .
Oddly, we think the drivers are a bit deluded actually.
Perspective comes when we look across at the next small Town where no one has been killed in ages . . (Norway, Same weather)
Last edited by airwave45; 27th Aug 2013 at 06:41.
X
G-REDL did not have to happen if it had a competent chip detection system. As to living with the design you are given I still can not believe anyone would dispatch a ship which had chips in the very recent past while the HUMS is logging many more. The old HAS never would.
The Sultan
G-REDL did not have to happen if it had a competent chip detection system. As to living with the design you are given I still can not believe anyone would dispatch a ship which had chips in the very recent past while the HUMS is logging many more. The old HAS never would.
The Sultan
Mitch
HUMS was made to "work" for the shaft failures only after the incidents. Before they did the postmortem they had no clue what a failing shaft would look like. They look at the data found one of 100 plus indicators and cried EUREKA!
The Sultan
HUMS was made to "work" for the shaft failures only after the incidents. Before they did the postmortem they had no clue what a failing shaft would look like. They look at the data found one of 100 plus indicators and cried EUREKA!
The Sultan
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perception v Reality
During crisis it is important for those managing it to understand the difference between the perception and reality of their crisis.
Operators responding to an event are dealing with the reality of the incident, so are their immediate management. However, those in management responsible for brand reputation are dealing with the how the reality is perceived by stakeholders, and it is their job to bring perception and reality into sync... quickly, if brand reputation is to be maintained.
To achieve perception and reality sync requires effective crisis communication i.e. tell them what you know, what you don’t know and what you are going to do about it. Moreover, this needs to be done in simple, non-jargon language, so that core audiences (“bears” and their families) are not distracted with knowledgeable, yet inner-circle-speak.
If you do not respect your core audience, you will struggle to change the imbalance.
Operators responding to an event are dealing with the reality of the incident, so are their immediate management. However, those in management responsible for brand reputation are dealing with the how the reality is perceived by stakeholders, and it is their job to bring perception and reality into sync... quickly, if brand reputation is to be maintained.
To achieve perception and reality sync requires effective crisis communication i.e. tell them what you know, what you don’t know and what you are going to do about it. Moreover, this needs to be done in simple, non-jargon language, so that core audiences (“bears” and their families) are not distracted with knowledgeable, yet inner-circle-speak.
If you do not respect your core audience, you will struggle to change the imbalance.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
AIRWAVES 45 we hear you and you completely correct. The accident rate is unacceptable. None of us on this forum disagree with you and everyone wants this to improve. However, aviation is an unforgiving activity when things go wrong.
The important thing here is to clearly establish what went wrong and take steps to ensure it does not happen again.
We have suffered an unusual batch of incidents and accidents in our backyard and that has created a very understandable emotional response. However, all types of aviation suffer from unacceptable accidents. In the last three years there have been over 75 fatal fixed wing accidents with the loss of life exceeding over 3000 souls. None of this is acceptable.
I can assure you that every single person involved in NS operations wants this to stop. Unfortunatley this is a Pilots forum and in some cases attitudes are hardened to the risks and the environment in which we have chosen to work in. They are not against you. They want the same thing as you. It's just that our experience tells us these are not issues related to one type of helicopter. They affect all types, everywhere around the world.
In the case of the EC225 it has a design error that has thankfully not resulted in hurting anyone and if you consider it's large windows, superior avionics then maybe we can feel a little comforted that despite the seriousness of the failure at least the totality of the machines safety systems led to highly favourable outcomes. I believe with the later generation of helicopters we are progressing definitely in the right direction and I include AW, Sk and ECs in this.
I do not know much about boat transfer operations so I do not know how safe they would be compared to helicopter options.
The mission for all of us is clear. We need to get much better very quickly in all areas identified by this accidents and in some that we may not yet have experienced. It is an unforgiving environment and we must step up tothe plate.
We hear you Airwave 5 by 5.
DB
The important thing here is to clearly establish what went wrong and take steps to ensure it does not happen again.
We have suffered an unusual batch of incidents and accidents in our backyard and that has created a very understandable emotional response. However, all types of aviation suffer from unacceptable accidents. In the last three years there have been over 75 fatal fixed wing accidents with the loss of life exceeding over 3000 souls. None of this is acceptable.
I can assure you that every single person involved in NS operations wants this to stop. Unfortunatley this is a Pilots forum and in some cases attitudes are hardened to the risks and the environment in which we have chosen to work in. They are not against you. They want the same thing as you. It's just that our experience tells us these are not issues related to one type of helicopter. They affect all types, everywhere around the world.
In the case of the EC225 it has a design error that has thankfully not resulted in hurting anyone and if you consider it's large windows, superior avionics then maybe we can feel a little comforted that despite the seriousness of the failure at least the totality of the machines safety systems led to highly favourable outcomes. I believe with the later generation of helicopters we are progressing definitely in the right direction and I include AW, Sk and ECs in this.
I do not know much about boat transfer operations so I do not know how safe they would be compared to helicopter options.
The mission for all of us is clear. We need to get much better very quickly in all areas identified by this accidents and in some that we may not yet have experienced. It is an unforgiving environment and we must step up tothe plate.
We hear you Airwave 5 by 5.
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 27th Aug 2013 at 05:45.
As DB said, the current situation is not acceptable to many, but to put into perspective the hysteria about the Super Puma: in the same three year period there have been 380 fatalities in Boeing 737 accidents.
How many of the offshore workers and their unions have called from the scrapping of that type, and how many of them happily board a 737 as part of their normal commute? A type that had fatal flaws early in its life (rudder PCU) which despite 204 deaths attributed to the fault up to 1994, it was 2002 before the FAA AD was complied with.
Simplistic, but the Super Puma accident on Friday hasn't even had a preliminary report, which may absolve the type altogether.
How many of the offshore workers and their unions have called from the scrapping of that type, and how many of them happily board a 737 as part of their normal commute? A type that had fatal flaws early in its life (rudder PCU) which despite 204 deaths attributed to the fault up to 1994, it was 2002 before the FAA AD was complied with.
Simplistic, but the Super Puma accident on Friday hasn't even had a preliminary report, which may absolve the type altogether.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I second what DB has just said and would like to add, the people denigrating on this thread probably aren't north sea aircrew.
Traditionally "Bears" has been the nickname for offshore workers and in my 11 years I have never used it or heard it used as a negative, to me "Self Loading Freight" is far worse a nickname.
Having seen the north sea in it's best and worse I am thankful I don't have that any more here in Australia but in all honesty cannot think of a different all weather platform to deliver you to work. Bucket transfer from a ship in 55kts of driving snow? No thanks.
I hear your pain and emotion but as with all of life we need to learn and improve not fight. If the Offshore workers are so inclined they could push on the oil companies to improve things like funding projects within the helicopter industry to push safety on. For example HUMS, Bristow started of it's own back years ago, think on where it could be now if the oil companies had helped fund and research it in the interim.
My wife and I are truly horrified and upset to hear the fatal outcome of this recent accident and our hearts go out to ALL the families affected.
Si
Traditionally "Bears" has been the nickname for offshore workers and in my 11 years I have never used it or heard it used as a negative, to me "Self Loading Freight" is far worse a nickname.
Having seen the north sea in it's best and worse I am thankful I don't have that any more here in Australia but in all honesty cannot think of a different all weather platform to deliver you to work. Bucket transfer from a ship in 55kts of driving snow? No thanks.
I hear your pain and emotion but as with all of life we need to learn and improve not fight. If the Offshore workers are so inclined they could push on the oil companies to improve things like funding projects within the helicopter industry to push safety on. For example HUMS, Bristow started of it's own back years ago, think on where it could be now if the oil companies had helped fund and research it in the interim.
My wife and I are truly horrified and upset to hear the fatal outcome of this recent accident and our hearts go out to ALL the families affected.
Si
Going (slightly) OT, but relevant to the campaign being waged against the Airbus Helicopters Super Puma family.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I ask a question as an outsider? How do failure rates in civilian Pumas compare to military? I've seen maintenance in both environments. It seemed to me, as an observer, that military, RAF, maintenance crews had much more fixed routines and practices. Admittedly, there was a twenty year hiatus between my military and civilian observations so I may well be talking out of my 'arris. Forgive me.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Aberdare, Wales
Age: 31
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncan Trapp of CHC Helicopter has said: "The Shetland helicopter crash will be "painstakingly investigated".
He was speaking after a meeting of key offshore operators and contractors in Aberdeen where contingency plans were being discussed after the suspension of flights by all Super Puma models to and from UK installations.
He was speaking after a meeting of key offshore operators and contractors in Aberdeen where contingency plans were being discussed after the suspension of flights by all Super Puma models to and from UK installations.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 55
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry if this has been mentioned before, but on this facebook page there
are several messages concerning safety incidents relating to the pumas.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Destr...ocation=stream
are several messages concerning safety incidents relating to the pumas.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Destr...ocation=stream
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Where there is work
Age: 52
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also second DB post regarding current situation earlier. However Airwave your post and analogy earlier about the towns proves what many on here are so frustrated about. The fact is that there maybe things that the town, (Norway) do different that we can learn from, albeit I believe that their ops manuals are much the same as this side of the NS. However it should be noted that the Norweigians also have SP's of all variations on their fleet as well, which makes this social media witch hunt of the SP all the more disturbing. All this and we do not even know what caused Fridays tragic events.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I periodically work offshore - and have done for over 25 years. My day job however is risk assessment and much of what is being posted here is simply incorrect.
Boeing 737 - the most numerous scheduled airliner - approximately 100 times safer than present N.Sea helicopters.
Boat transfers - not yet routinely used for crew changes, but you can bet that is going to change! To date zero fatalities in 400,000 personnel transfers. A small number and the process is very installation specific and weather dependent. In pure risk terms if managed within the correct operational windows it would be on a par with fixed wing scheduled, not managed that way, it might get to currrent helicopter levels!
For me the fundamental issue is that the Norwegians - if you believe many of the posters here - are so much luckier. Statistics really do not work that way for that length of time. In 15 years their accident rate is so much beter than the UK there has to be some underlying differences. Some of it is I suspect the underlying culture, Noway is a small country and people generally are much more concerned about their fellow countryman (if only because there is a real chance they eiter know or are related to them). You will never see Norwegian pilots posting comments about their passengers the way some on here do!
But over those 15 years in the UK we have had a number of pilots fly serviceable aircraft into the sea, a number of mis-communications and maintenance screw-ups, some design issues. All have resulted in an accident rate which contrary to the O&G industry PR is not improving, it is heading back to the sort of rate we experienced pre-332.
As some of the offfshore posters have tried to explain that is not acceptable and platitudes will simply not work at this point. To say that helicopter pilots understand the risks is also not true. If you use the standard methods of calculating offshore workers risks, the average N.Sea helicopter pilot is exposed to risk levels which exceed the acceptable limits. The companies response to that is simply to say they meet the rules and that 'safety comes first' - which patently is not the case.
I await with interest the outcome of 'Kill the SP', it should lead to a re-examination of why the UK N.Sea has such a poor safety record. What it will probably do of course, is release a load of 332s for service elsewhere in the world.
Boeing 737 - the most numerous scheduled airliner - approximately 100 times safer than present N.Sea helicopters.
Boat transfers - not yet routinely used for crew changes, but you can bet that is going to change! To date zero fatalities in 400,000 personnel transfers. A small number and the process is very installation specific and weather dependent. In pure risk terms if managed within the correct operational windows it would be on a par with fixed wing scheduled, not managed that way, it might get to currrent helicopter levels!
For me the fundamental issue is that the Norwegians - if you believe many of the posters here - are so much luckier. Statistics really do not work that way for that length of time. In 15 years their accident rate is so much beter than the UK there has to be some underlying differences. Some of it is I suspect the underlying culture, Noway is a small country and people generally are much more concerned about their fellow countryman (if only because there is a real chance they eiter know or are related to them). You will never see Norwegian pilots posting comments about their passengers the way some on here do!
But over those 15 years in the UK we have had a number of pilots fly serviceable aircraft into the sea, a number of mis-communications and maintenance screw-ups, some design issues. All have resulted in an accident rate which contrary to the O&G industry PR is not improving, it is heading back to the sort of rate we experienced pre-332.
As some of the offfshore posters have tried to explain that is not acceptable and platitudes will simply not work at this point. To say that helicopter pilots understand the risks is also not true. If you use the standard methods of calculating offshore workers risks, the average N.Sea helicopter pilot is exposed to risk levels which exceed the acceptable limits. The companies response to that is simply to say they meet the rules and that 'safety comes first' - which patently is not the case.
I await with interest the outcome of 'Kill the SP', it should lead to a re-examination of why the UK N.Sea has such a poor safety record. What it will probably do of course, is release a load of 332s for service elsewhere in the world.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate that I'm not qualified to sit at the front of the bus, I am capable of reading some stats tho.
Taken from http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434-11.pdf
Between 1998 and 2006 (ok, old data, but still relevant)
North Sea 1.3 million hours flown, 12 accidents, 18 killed.
GoM 3.7 million hours flown, 106 accidents, 53 killed.
Everywhere else 3.1 million hours flown, 69 accidents, 149 killed.
Given that the Noggies are unfairly saddled with Scottish prangs, we'll take them out, giving 650,000 flying hours to work the stats against.
In the Scottish sector, in the above period, you flew 36,111 hours per fatality.
The Americans flew 69,811 hours per fatality. A large amount of which was in single engine single pilot helicopters, which even slf understand is not as good as medium/heavy twins with two pilots up front.
Rest of the world is 20,805 hours per fatality.
Reasurances that you'll investigate specific incidents mean nothing, you already do that and it doesn't actually make any difference.
(in the overall picture)
Too many and too often is the problem.
And now that we are irked enough to actually look at the stats in detail, it's looking an awful lot like there is a Scottish specific, long term, failing.
Why, with better equipment, are you killing people twice as often as the Americans?
ok, the above is a tad emotive.
But it's meant to be.
If you are leading the world at what you do, great, patronise away.
You are not leading the world at anything bar dropping helicopters in the oggin.
And you are in them whilst they are dropping in.
What can be meaningfully done to improve things?
Why are the Noggies so much better than the Scottish operators?
Taken from http://www.ogp.org.uk/pubs/434-11.pdf
Between 1998 and 2006 (ok, old data, but still relevant)
North Sea 1.3 million hours flown, 12 accidents, 18 killed.
GoM 3.7 million hours flown, 106 accidents, 53 killed.
Everywhere else 3.1 million hours flown, 69 accidents, 149 killed.
Given that the Noggies are unfairly saddled with Scottish prangs, we'll take them out, giving 650,000 flying hours to work the stats against.
In the Scottish sector, in the above period, you flew 36,111 hours per fatality.
The Americans flew 69,811 hours per fatality. A large amount of which was in single engine single pilot helicopters, which even slf understand is not as good as medium/heavy twins with two pilots up front.
Rest of the world is 20,805 hours per fatality.
Reasurances that you'll investigate specific incidents mean nothing, you already do that and it doesn't actually make any difference.
(in the overall picture)
Too many and too often is the problem.
And now that we are irked enough to actually look at the stats in detail, it's looking an awful lot like there is a Scottish specific, long term, failing.
Why, with better equipment, are you killing people twice as often as the Americans?
ok, the above is a tad emotive.
But it's meant to be.
If you are leading the world at what you do, great, patronise away.
You are not leading the world at anything bar dropping helicopters in the oggin.
And you are in them whilst they are dropping in.
What can be meaningfully done to improve things?
Why are the Noggies so much better than the Scottish operators?
gasax, nobody is saying that the current accident rate is acceptable. However, as you will know, very infrequent events can throw up a good bit of randomness that can make them cluster. So the question is, is this spate an unfortunate random cluster (which by the way, has used up all our ditchings for the next 20 years at least!) or is there an underlying cause. Or a bit of both? Either way, its clear that it is not the fault of the SP as witnessed by the Norwegian accident record on this type - they have only had 1 fatal accident (albeit a bad one) that I can recall.
In that Norne accident IIRC there were some maintenance failings (not following best practice for HUMS, and the original maintenance error that led to the nut coming loose) and they have subsequently upped their game considerably.
Let us also mention that Bristow last put a SP in the N Sea water in 1995 (GTIGK lightning strike, everyone was OK) and before that in 1992 (GTIGH N Cormorant, several fatalities). The first was the "fault" of the aircraft in a way, but really because the certification requirements in force at the time were insufficient to deal with mother nature. The second was in no way the fault of the aircraft, it was pilot error combined with commercial pressure. (I am for the sake of this discussion, discounting the SAR L2 in Den Helder)
So the question is, why has Bristow not put a SP into the N Sea water since 1995 when the others seem to be making a habit of it? Is it luck, is it because we are jolly clever chaps, or what? I honestly don't know, as from where I sit the other operators are very similar to us in their attitudes and competancies. But as I mentioned, a case can be made that these accidents (last one aside for the time being) were avoidable. The operators did 99.99% things correctly, but they fell down in some small way and were bitten by it. Aviation can be very unforgiving.
If you want my honest opinion, I would say Bristow's track record vs the others is mostly luck. We have our weaknesses and failings, but we have been lucky that they have never bitten us.
So in summary, we all do things correctly 99.99% of the time, but in aviation that is not sufficient and we have to strive to do better, even Bristow, whose turn it definitely is to have the next one! But what is also clear is that its not a fundamental failing of the SP, and the anti-SP campaign will only serve to obscure the underlying issues and is therefore very dangerous.
In that Norne accident IIRC there were some maintenance failings (not following best practice for HUMS, and the original maintenance error that led to the nut coming loose) and they have subsequently upped their game considerably.
Let us also mention that Bristow last put a SP in the N Sea water in 1995 (GTIGK lightning strike, everyone was OK) and before that in 1992 (GTIGH N Cormorant, several fatalities). The first was the "fault" of the aircraft in a way, but really because the certification requirements in force at the time were insufficient to deal with mother nature. The second was in no way the fault of the aircraft, it was pilot error combined with commercial pressure. (I am for the sake of this discussion, discounting the SAR L2 in Den Helder)
So the question is, why has Bristow not put a SP into the N Sea water since 1995 when the others seem to be making a habit of it? Is it luck, is it because we are jolly clever chaps, or what? I honestly don't know, as from where I sit the other operators are very similar to us in their attitudes and competancies. But as I mentioned, a case can be made that these accidents (last one aside for the time being) were avoidable. The operators did 99.99% things correctly, but they fell down in some small way and were bitten by it. Aviation can be very unforgiving.
If you want my honest opinion, I would say Bristow's track record vs the others is mostly luck. We have our weaknesses and failings, but we have been lucky that they have never bitten us.
So in summary, we all do things correctly 99.99% of the time, but in aviation that is not sufficient and we have to strive to do better, even Bristow, whose turn it definitely is to have the next one! But what is also clear is that its not a fundamental failing of the SP, and the anti-SP campaign will only serve to obscure the underlying issues and is therefore very dangerous.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 27th Aug 2013 at 08:40.