AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lostinp; every safety video from every company I've worked for showed the correct use of all safety equipment. In the old days we used to have a cabin attendant as well, nowadays when embarking r/r is will be a bit difficult but I always answer any queries from pax about the flight and equipment.
It should have been on the video, if not then it is a serious omission.
It should have been on the video, if not then it is a serious omission.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airwave,
If you look into the statistics from the GOM you may or may not (i don't know) find that a majority of the fatal accidents occured from one specific base. If you then leave those "safe" bases out of the statistics you may find that NS is safer after all.
Talking about statistics it would be interesting to see statistics of accidents/fatalities per helicopter type and operating hours in the NS.
If you look into the statistics from the GOM you may or may not (i don't know) find that a majority of the fatal accidents occured from one specific base. If you then leave those "safe" bases out of the statistics you may find that NS is safer after all.
Talking about statistics it would be interesting to see statistics of accidents/fatalities per helicopter type and operating hours in the NS.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC. The 76 blade defect was a manufacture defect that was accepted and release to service by SK.
The fold in the strip holed the spar when it had a lightning strike, it was returned to service after going to a blade facility in the UK, wonder who owned them????? We don't use multi section strips in the EBU any more.
HC, BB. The 76 blade had a production consession for a folded over abrasion strip edge. This created a point for the lightning to burn the spar. None of this was recorded on the log card. The blade inspection after the strike was done in the UK I seem to remember. In the same area of the country.
The fold in the strip holed the spar when it had a lightning strike, it was returned to service after going to a blade facility in the UK, wonder who owned them????? We don't use multi section strips in the EBU any more.
HC, BB. The 76 blade had a production consession for a folded over abrasion strip edge. This created a point for the lightning to burn the spar. None of this was recorded on the log card. The blade inspection after the strike was done in the UK I seem to remember. In the same area of the country.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
That is all about politics.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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"?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Chief Bottle Washer
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.
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
Just as your occasional visit and posts are welcome, so are those posts here from other 'occasional' contributors.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entertaining questions from the cabin will only encourage more to participate.
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?
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.