Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013

Old 27th Aug 2013, 09:54
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 63
Posts: 278
Originally Posted by lostinp View Post
Unfortunately it was not included on the DVD
Could you indicate what was omitted from the safety video?
Grenville Fortescue is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 09:59
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Exposure time

Another good questions is why the fact that minimizing the exposure time to reduce the risk has not been brought into the spotlight. Why fly to North Alwyn from Aberdeen when it is a lot shorter from the Shetlands or Norway.

That is all about politics.
imsafe is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:13
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kammbronn
Posts: 2,017
Sorry, gasax, but the contingency plan for crewchanging on my rig is currently FROG-3 or Billy Pugh.
diginagain is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:21
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 16
I log into Rotorheads to sometimes learn from experienced commentators like HC, SASless etc, as well as enjoying the contraversial banter. However the injection of the offshore workers viewpoint is dragging this thread and network to a point that interest is waining. What has happened is sad, but has to be fully investigated, the root cause identified and procedures or rectifications put in place to prevent re-occurance. Accidents happen and other than the 2 x 225 incidents every incident over the past 3 decades have been unrelated. The SP variants have proven themselves reliable aircraft over a 30 year period, this should not be forgotten.The level of competence of pilots, engineers and support staff in the UK helicopter companies is second to none, remembering that a good number of these people rotate around all 3 major players. They also take their skills to places all over the world because foreign companies respect the abilities of the UK aviation trained professional in all fields. As mentioned by several individuals in various points and threads this is a "Professional Pilot Rumour Network" not a forum for aviation professionals to be questioned by the other "aviation Professionals" who sit in the back of every offshore flight.Entertaining questions from the cabin will only encourage more to participate. I have nothing against the offshore workforce who are skilled and qualified in what they do, however, we drive you drill holes in the floor, lets leave it there.Each to their own forum please.
Genie the Greenie is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:24
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 37
Update: CHC Statement on Sumburgh Aircraft Accident 25 August, 2300 UK time

Harry O & Mitcha have previously commented on the CHC press release of 25 August 2300 (UK time)

Given the political climate and possible repercussions, I would presume that both Eurocopter& the AAIB were aware of the text - if not party to its drafting.

If you deconstruct the text an interesting conundrum appears.
“AS332L2 aircraft landed in the water” – Interesting use of semantics – why does CHC, a helicopter company, call the AS332L2 “an aircraft” and not a helicopter. There is however one line where CHC refer to “the helicopter”, which is either sloppy editing or could indicate more than one author was involved in writing the document. Further, “landed” implies a deliberate, intentional action. Why the helicopter “landed” on the sea and not on the runway “about two nautical miles” away, is not mentioned.

CHC state: “We believe that engineering and operating differences associated with AS332L/L1 and EC225 aircraft warrant continuing flights with those aircraft”. In other words CHC believe that the “engineering and operational differences” associated with the L2, do not warrant continuing flights with the L2.

CHC again point to the L2: “…we canceled all of our Sunday (Aug. 25) flights…” “…”in order to give us time to take stock of any implications associated with Friday’s accident, which involved an AS332L2 aircraft.” and, “CHC plans to resume normal operations on Monday with AS332L/L1 and EC225 aircraft.” But CHC does not plan to resume operations with the L2.

I have never flown any of the SP family of “aircraft” - L/L1/L2/225 - and my time in the North Sea was happily spent only on Sikorsky types, however almost every Emergency checklist I have used will have a mandatory requirement to “land immediately” in case of specific warnings, failures, instrument indications, which could have a catastrophic consequence if ignored.

So, now to the conundrum and perhaps HC or any other knowledgeable SP L/L1/L2/225 pilot can provide a hint:

What engineering and operational differences are associated specifically with the L2, but are not found on the L, L1, or 225, which in case of a caution warning, failure, impeding malfunction or other indication, requires the helicopter to land immediately?
b.borg is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:26
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 63
Posts: 278
Lostinp, your safety video must surely have been similar to this:

Grenville Fortescue is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:32
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,381
Am I misreading the CVs of the top echelons of CHC - lot of experience in the computer industry but don't see a lot about aviation, especially rotary.....................apologies if I am getting wrong end of the stick
Wander00 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:38
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 63
Posts: 278
Originally Posted by Wander00 View Post
Am I misreading the CVs of the top echelons of CHC - lot of experience in the computer industry but don't see a lot about aviation, especially rotary.....................apologies if I am getting wrong end of the stick
You clearly haven't read the recent pages in which we have been decrying the "big company" culture which, among other things, lends favour to those with "big" corporate experience but who do not necessarily have an ounce of aviation expertise in their past.
Grenville Fortescue is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:43
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Diginagain

That would be in common with many others - but if helicopter availability is threatened, or people simply refuse to get on them, that plan will be rapidly changed.

This year there are to my personal knowledge at least 4 walk to work vessels operating - so the total is probably much higher.
gasax is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:52
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,381
GF - guess we are on the same side then. Isn't "management" one of the factors taken into account in deciding whether or not to issue an Operator's Certificate - how far down the chain can there be the first appearance of someone who can spell "helicopter" or "aeroplane"?
Wander00 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:54
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 63
Posts: 278
Operations Manager.
Grenville Fortescue is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:55
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kammbronn
Posts: 2,017
gasax, my understanding is that TOTAL have spot-hired three DP vessels to carry-out crewchanges for their three clusters. Transfer will be by FROG-3/Billy Pugh for units with cranes certified for personnel transfer, such as ours on the Borgsten.

Last edited by diginagain; 27th Aug 2013 at 11:09.
diginagain is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 10:57
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kammbronn
Posts: 2,017
Way to go, Genie.
diginagain is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 11:05
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 63
Posts: 278
Originally Posted by diginagain View Post
Way to go, Genie.
Genie, I didn't want to criticise your post (and do not do so now) because I respect your opinion.

However, the "bears" lives are in the hands of the drivers in a way that is not reciprocated (unless of course someone does something unthinkable on the platform as an aircraft comes into land but that, as we know, is unlikely).

While the bears may not possess any formal knowledge of aviation operations we would be fools to believe that they cannot comprehend a good portion of what goes on generally and their vested interest (their lives), to me, represents a valid component of the ongoing safety discussion which, necessarily, needs all stakeholders to be involved.

I would say that this incident, where bears were potentially "trapped" inside the fuselage, and in the wake of recent Puma incidents/accidents - that embracing the views and concerns of the bears is not only appropriate, but necessary.
Grenville Fortescue is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 11:09
  #455 (permalink)  
Rotorheads Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PPRuNe
Posts: 3,205
Originally Posted by Genie the Greenie View Post
As mentioned by several individuals in various points and threads this is a "Professional Pilot Rumour Network" not a forum for aviation professionals to be questioned by the other "aviation Professionals" who sit in the back of every offshore flight.Entertaining questions from the cabin will only encourage more to participate. I have nothing against the offshore workforce who are skilled and qualified in what they do, however, we drive you drill holes in the floor, lets leave it there.Each to their own forum please.
Genie,

We very specifically amended Rotorheads forum to be inclusive of all those who are:

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them
This is obviously a much read thread and many emotive posts have been suitably moderated, but there is no reason to exclude those who have valid and reasoned contributions.

Just as your occasional visit and posts are welcome, so are those posts here from other 'occasional' contributors.
Senior Pilot is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 11:11
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Entertaining questions from the cabin will only encourage more to participate.
Absolutely dreadful statement.

Despite your name I presume you're a pilot? In which case prior to every take off you announce that anyone who has any concerns or thinks anything is wrong should approach the crew. Maybe that should be stopped as well?
DMackie is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 11:12
  #457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
b.borg, a valid question but as one who has flown the L, L2 and 225 I am unable to answer. There are of course many differences between each variant's lights and procedures, but what in particular they are alluding to I don't know. The L2 for example is the only one with the rather odd pendulous balance weights on the main rotor blades, but it would be pure and unfounded speculation to say that this might be the issue. If it was, I'm sure there would be an EAD out by now.
HeliComparator is online now  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 11:17
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,240
Airwave 45

Well done for bringing us those figures but take care that you are comparing like with like. Importantly, the regulators define >45 deg lat as Hostile Environment for a reason. GoM, frankly, is largely short hops across toy-town in the sunshine compared to NS (and yes, I have been there, though it was a while ago, like your figures).

There is a complex balance of factors in play with figures like these. HC makes several good points. Water temperature is a very serious issue. The size of aircraft is a more complex one than we usually accept: I believe that the complexity of escaping from a cabin with 19 confused people in it is somewhat glossed over compared to a handful in a Dauphin.
------------------

What Happens If I Pr

Resources. Is the easy answer to that.
Noggy oil companies are willing to pay for a better level of cover on all fronts.
Including back up aircraft, instead of trimming to a minimum level.
Agreed. Using 2011 conservative World Bank figures the Norwegians have a Gross National Income per capita 135% higher than the UK. It is not rocket science to work out that if you have over twice as much money then you can make things safer.
--------------------

WINDOWS

The window sizes on S-92 and SP up to L2 are a disgrace. Well done to AH/EC for the window sizes on the EC225. Looking to the future, AW189 and EC175 look like they will provide us with excellent escape windows.
--------------------

ONLINE RESOURCES

As has been stated above, better use could be made of ICT to transmit safety information.

The online presence of the three main Aberdeen operators is pretty dreadful. Even scheduling and luggage info is done poorly. This is 2013 guys. (Minimum fancy rubbish please. Up-front options for plain, easy-to-load website info that can be seen on dialup, a ropey drilling rig sat link or a phone.)

Schedule, luggage restriction, safety videos (including rebreather!), type safety cards and yes, even accident stats. This takes effort to get right and keep updated but it will be worth it. And every rig helo guy should get an update message when stuff changes.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 11:26
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Thanks for the update diginagain. None of our clients have been in touch yet for a formal assessment but discretion is the watchword at the moment.

I suspect many/most of the offshore operators have similar continguency plans.

I've done a lot of these transfers in the bad old days of the N.Sea and had a colleague who was within a whisper of being killed (they had to punch him to make him let go of the remains of a Billy Pugh (old type) which had caught the superstructure and been ripped apart!). You get used to it pretty quickly - and the risks are very obvious.

But Aviation professionals talking about luck and aviation companies talking about 'landing' in the sea are not going to turn these things around.

A significant difference in accident rates across the N.Sea over 15 years is very difficult to explain simply on the basis of randomness. It can happen, but it is a question which has to be answered by some concrete actions.
gasax is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2013, 11:27
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 215
Airwave45
HC, read your point.
I'm not a fan of the press, too much power, too little responsibility.

Just a bear.

Have a bit of p1 time, but way more slf time, so have a wee bit of insight to both sides (currently non grafting)
No p1 on anything H (or p2 on anything H)

But what I'm trying to get across to the boys n girls up front is that the pax are genuinely, seriously, scared to get into any of the 330 variants.

If you don't seriously address those concerns, an alternate will be found.
I refer you back to sassles, proper ground up introspection is required.

Not on here (too public)
But really, when your frequency of unplanned arrivals on heavy / medium twins is equal to the GoM with singles/single pilot ops....(i've done the research, it is)
You really, really should be looking closely at what you do.
then Pitts:
Question. At what point is a Super Puma seen as a family of helicopters or individual models??

Recent events seem to blur things where I think it would be fair to say many seem to like to quote X number of flight hours of the Super Puma fleet as a whole when looking for statistics to promote a positive view on the model (s) and then instantly wish to differentiate individual models when one or another goes in. Just an observation.

There has also been comments around if the UK side of the North Sea is as safe or are individual operators / industry as a whole doing all it can safety wise. Given the community isn't that big in the grand scheme what are the pilots that complain doing about it? Maybe they are putting their hands up for huge change and its being ignored? (although that doesn't seem to be reflected here).

HC suggests that poor exploitation of HUMS is to blame for the crash of G-REDL and the two recent 225's that ditched, yet in order for the 225 to fly in the interim we have further reliance on HUMS...even more incredible is that there has been a complete change of view from Eurocopter regarding onboard HUMS data from the AAIB recommendations from the G-REDL crash to recent events with the 225.

The point is its all very well moaning about a faceless "industry" but thats just made up of individuals whom for the most part seemed to just rely on the fact that Eurocopter has a bunch of clever people and the rest should but out.
The problem with this entire incident, hysteria, FB bull$hit, and endless stats being thrown about is that manipulating the numbers to support a preconceived idea is one of the easiest jobs out there. I am curious what snapshot of the GOM and NS would produce comparable stats. I would say limited in time (specific years) and excluding ares of the NS that didn't have a statistic to add.

I don't have the necessary hours in the day to go back and quote every post that needs addressing, but I can add some examples.

Someone stated that his son worked offshore, and that his perception of an unsafe operator was reinforced by aircraft that were late or cancelled because of a technical fault (so different from the airlines that they use to get to the heliport). Bollocks!! That shows an operator that is willing to cancel, and lose the revenue, rather than say nothing and just get the job done. When BA delays a flight for 4 hours, or you get in a 777 and the ticket said 340, what do you think was going on? They just didn't tell you.

Airwave45:
I am lost, as a group you want the bears to accept that the current level of attrition is ok.
As a bear, i'm letting you know, we disagree.
Noone says that an accident is ok, but lets get REAL about the "attrition".

OF the 5 332 variant hull losses that have everyone riled up about (not 330, that's even more barely related variants) one was not related to type AT ALL. CFIT is crew/training/etc. The Bond incident had a clear cause, not related to specific design. One is unknown. The 225 bevel incidents wouldn't even be in discussion of the EmLub hadn't been a factor. EC, the operator, etc would know but the hysterical media would not.

The Boeing 777 has had a fatal accident every second month for the last 2 months. It's true, check the statistics. A quick wiki search provided 9 737 airline crashes, several hundred fatalities, from 2010 to 2013, but I doubt anyone is refusing to buy a ticket on RyanAir (or whatever low budget 'airline' is operating the 737 beside them on the airport).

My point? What I just wrote is "fact" but no sane person would use stats like those to make real life decisions. This knee-jerk hysteria around the Puma/Super Puma/225 family of aircraft is a collective game with the same rules.

I have had many nervous offshore passengers over the years, and I have always tried allay their fears as best I could, but I always wonder if they actually look at themselves when they ask the questions they do.

Flying a 212 offshore, we had a minor technical fault (bad gauge, don't remember which one). Rather than defer the defect and carry on (legal), or just ignore it (not legal but in real life and years ago it would have happened), I elected to shut down and get it fixed now. Walking back to the passenger lounge I explained why we had shut down and that we would be ready to go in a short time. One older gentlemen asked me many more questions, and wanted to know several times if it would be safe. I assured him it would be, and that I would only accept the aircraft when I was fully satisfied. He stated "I don't want to die" and I answered "neither do I". He seemed satisfied and we shortly completed the flight.

My question is: Do you really think that we are so much more willing than you to die out there?
pilot and apprentice is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.