AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
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
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airwave45
then Pitts:
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a bear, i'm letting you know, we disagree.
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?
This was onto the John Shaw semi-sub at the end of July/beginning of August and, as you can see from the clips, the sea state was very benign.
Last edited by Bravo73; 27th Aug 2013 at 11:33.
I think this is the right opportunity to mention how lucky we are to have someone such as Senior Pilot as our Moderator. I've seen some of the 'acts of moderation' on neighbouring forums and, as I say, we are lucky.
Since Heliport's departure from day-to-day involvement with Rotorheads, the burden of checking almost every single post on the forum has been carried almost exclusively by Senior Pilot.
Accident threads such as these throw-up a plethora of comments, some of which are potentially libelous for PPRuNe if they are not 'amended' and many others which run high with emotion and are charged with passions both professional and private.
Sorting this out while giving everyone their 'voice' requires impartiality and commitment, both of which Senior Pilot constantly displays. And, as with all PPRuNe Moderators, he does this on a voluntary basis.
So, to Senior Pilot, for his constant and commendable efforts, our sincere thanks.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NST1990:
I was agreeing with you (I am less 'educated' than most of my passengers) until you indicated that an anonymous internet forum is being seen as indicative of what any group thinks. It's like FB, it's not real life.
If the guys in the back are judging me based on what they read online, then I have just lost an enormous amount of the respect I had for them.
No, i don't fly in the NS. Before anyone asks.
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.
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.
If the guys in the back are judging me based on what they read online, then I have just lost an enormous amount of the respect I had for them.
No, i don't fly in the NS. Before anyone asks.
gasax, understand your feelings completely, buddy. I take a rather more pragmatic view about the randomness of chance, possibly due to experience. I don't waste money on lotto tickets because of the odds. If two blokes pitch-up this afternoon with an L2 to take me home I have no issues with joining them onboard. I stand more chance of being wiped-out going home on the M5. We make our choices based on our perception of the risks involved.
Last edited by diginagain; 27th Aug 2013 at 11:41.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maeroda:
Carrier yes, they may change the plane and never tell you.
And then, as an employee, like them, my employer buys the ticket, like them, and chooses the carrier, like them.
We are more alike than some seem to think.
John,
the point is that as plank passenger you and I can select the air carrier and plane type as our desire is, oil workers cannot.
the point is that as plank passenger you and I can select the air carrier and plane type as our desire is, oil workers cannot.
And then, as an employee, like them, my employer buys the ticket, like them, and chooses the carrier, like them.
We are more alike than some seem to think.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Scotland
Age: 60
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read with interest a lot of good discussion on here but People Like Greenie Genie should be aware that there are those of who now work offshore who indeed have had years of experience in aviation other than as a passenger.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The frozen north....
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The hydraulic gangway systems or "Walk to Work" as they are commonly known in the industry are indeed a good sollution for getting people sefely from vessels onto rigs and I was personally involved in 4 such charters this year, 3 of which are ongoing. There are two main systems in use at the moment, the Amplemann system and the Offshore Access Sollutions system, there is also a 3rd system just arrived from Uptime but its largly unproven at this time.
The problem is however that these take time to mobilse, they are by no means plug and play systems and each has to have design approvals for any vessel they are mobilised onto. You also have the issue of vertical reach for rigs and in some cases large platforms need to be designed, constructed and installed onto the vessels deck to give the required vertical reach, the last one of these took about 3months from design to approval.
The MCA also threw a spanner in the works this year by declaring that any vessels to be used for passenger transfer / walk to work duties need to comply with SPS 2008 coding otherwise they are limited to carrying a maximum of 12 passengers. This has led to the crazy situation where vessels doing walk to work all last season have not been allowed to do so again this season and the market is currently pretty much sold out for SPS coded vessels.
We did have a situation a few weeks ago due to the backlog caused by the fog where the MCA were issuing waivers on a voyage by voyage basis to allow passenger transferes and there are rumours they may be about to relax the rules in the next day or two given this unfortunate incident.
You are then however back to having to do FROG transfers for at least several weeks until Walk to Work systems can be mobilised onto vessels and there is no 'fast track' sollution for this, not if you want it done safely. Shell, BP, Talisman and Chevron have one vessel each with a gangway already in place but these vessels are already tied into offshore maintenance scopes, the BP vessel only has about 40 spare beds anyway, thats hardly going to make a dent.
Also as we approach the winter and the weather picks up walk to work and FROG's will be off the table given their limited weather operating criteria. Its going to be a tricky situation for the Bears and it may be that the only sollution in the interim is longer durations between crewchanges.
UA
The problem is however that these take time to mobilse, they are by no means plug and play systems and each has to have design approvals for any vessel they are mobilised onto. You also have the issue of vertical reach for rigs and in some cases large platforms need to be designed, constructed and installed onto the vessels deck to give the required vertical reach, the last one of these took about 3months from design to approval.
The MCA also threw a spanner in the works this year by declaring that any vessels to be used for passenger transfer / walk to work duties need to comply with SPS 2008 coding otherwise they are limited to carrying a maximum of 12 passengers. This has led to the crazy situation where vessels doing walk to work all last season have not been allowed to do so again this season and the market is currently pretty much sold out for SPS coded vessels.
We did have a situation a few weeks ago due to the backlog caused by the fog where the MCA were issuing waivers on a voyage by voyage basis to allow passenger transferes and there are rumours they may be about to relax the rules in the next day or two given this unfortunate incident.
You are then however back to having to do FROG transfers for at least several weeks until Walk to Work systems can be mobilised onto vessels and there is no 'fast track' sollution for this, not if you want it done safely. Shell, BP, Talisman and Chevron have one vessel each with a gangway already in place but these vessels are already tied into offshore maintenance scopes, the BP vessel only has about 40 spare beds anyway, thats hardly going to make a dent.
Also as we approach the winter and the weather picks up walk to work and FROG's will be off the table given their limited weather operating criteria. Its going to be a tricky situation for the Bears and it may be that the only sollution in the interim is longer durations between crewchanges.
UA
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helikopter Service Flight 451 was a Eurocopter AS 332L1 Super Puma helicopter which crashed into the Norwegian Sea 100 nautical miles northwest of Brønnøysund, Norway, on 8 September 1997. The aircraft was en route from Brønnøysund Airport, Brønnøy to Norne, an offshore oil platform.
The accident was caused by a fatigue crack in a spline of a power transmission shaft connector, which ultimately caused the power transmission shaft to fail.
All twelve persons on board were killed.
Omonez
Just read post 464 " it was returned to service after going to a blade facility in the UK, wonder who owned them????? "
May I suggest you get your facts right? The blade was returned to service by the OEM, not the UK company, nor its US parent company.
Both companies were given a hell of a going over by the CAA & FAA after the tragic accident & totally exonerated (cue spelling police!)
Cheers
R2
Edited to add that your wrong on another point - at the time neither company was owned by who you imply in your post.
Just read post 464 " it was returned to service after going to a blade facility in the UK, wonder who owned them????? "
May I suggest you get your facts right? The blade was returned to service by the OEM, not the UK company, nor its US parent company.
Both companies were given a hell of a going over by the CAA & FAA after the tragic accident & totally exonerated (cue spelling police!)
Cheers
R2
Edited to add that your wrong on another point - at the time neither company was owned by who you imply in your post.
Last edited by Rocket2; 27th Aug 2013 at 12:08.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airwave45:
OK. Nothing about the above relates to the 332, but ok.
I have looked at YOUR stats and found new numbers. Others have added their own observational bias.
HC:
Again, we aren't saying there is no issue. We are saying that an emotional attack on a type, location, operator, or trade does noone any good.
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. 108k hrs/accident
GoM 3.7 million hours flown, 106 accidents, 53 killed. 35k hrs/accident
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. 54k hrs/accident
The Americans flew 69,811 hours per fatality 35k hrs/accident . 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. and explains lower numbers of fatalities
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. 108k hrs/accident
GoM 3.7 million hours flown, 106 accidents, 53 killed. 35k hrs/accident
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. 54k hrs/accident
The Americans flew 69,811 hours per fatality 35k hrs/accident . 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. and explains lower numbers of fatalities
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?
I have looked at YOUR stats and found new numbers. Others have added their own observational bias.
HC:
Airwave - lies, damned lies and statistics! Firstly if you look at the accident rate, as opposed to the fatal accident rate, the GoM is far worse. Because they fly small helis, each accident only risks the lives of a handful, so they can have far more fatal accidents than we can. At least a good chunk of the N Sea fatals in that period must have come from the Bristow 76 that disintegrated off Norwich. Really, its hard to see how the operator could have avoided that accident - it was down to an undetectable maintenance error on a rotor blade at Sikorsky. So that one accident really skews the stats. Plus, lots of people can fall into the sea in GoM and in general, because its a more benign environment, they get away without dying. Comparing stats from different types of operations can be misleading.
P&A I agree with you regarding your sentiment around knee jerk reaction and statistics, although given recent events its not hard to see how we are where we are.
HC directed me to read the REDL accident report and so I did, it makes for some pretty poor reading and depending on which side of the fence you might sit you could throw any number of bodies under the bus. From the guy in the workshop to the manufacturer to the aviation authority and their certification process.
In the end I think its terribly condescending of those who harp on about how accidents will always happen and its part of managing your risk. of course they know that. What I suspect people don't like is to be told how they should trust a set of people that have been seen to let them down in the recent past.
I read today that Bristow have suspended some Super Puma family helicopter services in the UK and Nigeria. That's not knee jerk, that's probably just good old fashioned common sense at this stage isn't it?
HC directed me to read the REDL accident report and so I did, it makes for some pretty poor reading and depending on which side of the fence you might sit you could throw any number of bodies under the bus. From the guy in the workshop to the manufacturer to the aviation authority and their certification process.
In the end I think its terribly condescending of those who harp on about how accidents will always happen and its part of managing your risk. of course they know that. What I suspect people don't like is to be told how they should trust a set of people that have been seen to let them down in the recent past.
I read today that Bristow have suspended some Super Puma family helicopter services in the UK and Nigeria. That's not knee jerk, that's probably just good old fashioned common sense at this stage isn't it?
The L2 for example is the only one with the rather odd pendulous balance weights on the main rotor blades
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberfreeze or the Sandpit
Age: 58
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P and A,
Very well put together post.
There is a view from the front of the bus that every effort will be made to understand root cause for each incident, I believe you as an industry do that exceptionally well.
It's a very reactive way to address safety issues though.
The Norwegian approach seems to be significantly more proactive.
As for comparing stats, you can get them to say anything as you pointed out, the 777 may have crashed every other month over the last two but despite flying into a wall at close to your Vne, it still only killed one person.
(terrible tragedy with the emergency services, for all concerned)
It's a tank.
Data mining the stats GoM vs NS is possible as Take off and landing data is there. But it's pretty obvious that N Sea ops are only, at best, almost as good as GoM. (but you would be stretching things to say as good as)
Given the differences in machinery, that should not be so.
Look at the difference between the East and West of the N Sea and a blind man in a dark room could see that something is not right.
I'm with you in that I don't think any specific aircraft is responsible for this.
Given the percieved difficulty by the pilots / mechs on here to pinpoint why we are not as good as the Norwegians, I'll happily see the SP sacrificed to the press as that will shake the business up sufficiently to make us find out what is going on.
It's not big and it's not clever, but it will make change happen.
Very well put together post.
There is a view from the front of the bus that every effort will be made to understand root cause for each incident, I believe you as an industry do that exceptionally well.
It's a very reactive way to address safety issues though.
The Norwegian approach seems to be significantly more proactive.
As for comparing stats, you can get them to say anything as you pointed out, the 777 may have crashed every other month over the last two but despite flying into a wall at close to your Vne, it still only killed one person.
(terrible tragedy with the emergency services, for all concerned)
It's a tank.
Data mining the stats GoM vs NS is possible as Take off and landing data is there. But it's pretty obvious that N Sea ops are only, at best, almost as good as GoM. (but you would be stretching things to say as good as)
Given the differences in machinery, that should not be so.
Look at the difference between the East and West of the N Sea and a blind man in a dark room could see that something is not right.
I'm with you in that I don't think any specific aircraft is responsible for this.
Given the percieved difficulty by the pilots / mechs on here to pinpoint why we are not as good as the Norwegians, I'll happily see the SP sacrificed to the press as that will shake the business up sufficiently to make us find out what is going on.
It's not big and it's not clever, but it will make change happen.