AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
If, in twenty years time, oil workers are still expected to climb through submerged windows and clamber into a liferaft, in typical North Sea conditions, in a manner which has even caused fatalities in training, then we haven't really done the best we can for them, have we?
6th Floor East,
Portland House,
Bressenden Place,
London,
SW1E 5BH.
BTW; HSSG=Step Change In Safety=OGUK.
Last edited by diginagain; 1st Sep 2013 at 22:46.
Nooby wrote:
I'm not proposing any existing helicopter. What I am proposing is that the helicopter is a little more than a carrier for a pod which could separate in a controlled manner from the rest of the helicopter and is sufficiently strong and watertight that occupants would not need to leave it in the event of landing in the sea. The S-64 Skycrane is the best known of the basic helicopter + pod concepts, but the Kamov 226 is another example.
Ideally the helicopter's crew would also be contained in the pod, although as this would probably require synthetic vision (video screens instead of windows) for pod strength and non-mechanical control connections for ease of separation, I can't see this being popular with pilots.
The freefall lifeboat is used to describe the pod, as it is a strong safety capsule with energy absorbing seats designed to be dropped into the sea from a considerable height.
Diginagain wrote:
Agreed 100%
Mechta, is what you are describing a civil version of the AW101 or CH-53?
The AW101 is civil certified but AFAIK there is only one in service in Japan.
I bet a civil version of either of them is oooooo so expensive!
The AW101 is civil certified but AFAIK there is only one in service in Japan.
I bet a civil version of either of them is oooooo so expensive!
Ideally the helicopter's crew would also be contained in the pod, although as this would probably require synthetic vision (video screens instead of windows) for pod strength and non-mechanical control connections for ease of separation, I can't see this being popular with pilots.
The freefall lifeboat is used to describe the pod, as it is a strong safety capsule with energy absorbing seats designed to be dropped into the sea from a considerable height.
Diginagain wrote:
Here's a novel idea; rather than the CAA, invite senior executives from OGUK to try a session in the dunker.
Agreed 100%
Last edited by Mechta; 1st Sep 2013 at 23:20. Reason: Incl response to Diginagain
Originally Posted by Anthony Supplebotton
The best thing that offshore workers can do is contact the CAA and ask them if they ever have a thought for the "Bears" and if they come back and say yes then invite them to come visit you for the day. During the day arrange for them to be dunked in a 332 fuselage with 18 people inside (in the dark), upside down and let them have a go at getting out.
The best thing that offshore workers can do is contact the CAA and ask them if they ever have a thought for the "Bears" and if they come back and say yes then invite them to come visit you for the day. During the day arrange for them to be dunked in a 332 fuselage with 18 people inside (in the dark), upside down and let them have a go at getting out.
The freefall lifeboat is used to describe the pod, as it is a strong safety capsule with energy absorbing seats designed to be dropped into the sea from a considerable height.
A few years ago a EC130 with 5 POB. It went from a hover at 220 feet to a spin and descent. It was captured on video. Eurocopter calculated the impact was 1700ft per minute or about 18mph vertical. It hit a beach. Three occupants in the back were found strapped in their seats and deceased.
Having ridden an oil rig escape pod from 20 meters it was a benign impact. You are virtually lying down with a 4 or 5 point harness. Late last year one was tested from a record height of 200ft.
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 2nd Sep 2013 at 01:17.
Therein lies the rub: floats can be manually operated prior to impact,
OK R22 and 206 are miles away from Pumas, but in general are we expecting too much from floats?
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 2nd Sep 2013 at 01:30.
53's Really?
Come on let get the thread back on track.
If the 53 had entered commercial service the death toll would have dwarfed the one that ended the 234. After Cambodia, Desert One, and Israel you need no more evidence that this ship was never ready for commercial prime time.
The Sultan
If the 53 had entered commercial service the death toll would have dwarfed the one that ended the 234. After Cambodia, Desert One, and Israel you need no more evidence that this ship was never ready for commercial prime time.
The Sultan
When we get some more info on what actually happened to cause the SP to enter the water off Sumburgh the thread will get back on track. At the moment we have 3 threads in one.
1. What caused the SP to ditch and how can it be prevented.
2. What can be done now to improve the SP cabin for emergency evacuation.
3. A look ahead at helicopter cabin design, including the fanciful
Perhaps once we have more information a new thread will appear on how/why the SP ditched.
HF
(the boring one
)
1. What caused the SP to ditch and how can it be prevented.
2. What can be done now to improve the SP cabin for emergency evacuation.
3. A look ahead at helicopter cabin design, including the fanciful
Perhaps once we have more information a new thread will appear on how/why the SP ditched.
HF
(the boring one
)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF
You are not the boring one, but the senciable one.
And you are right.
Enough of this S-53 crap it would never work to many casulties in one a/f too expensive and too complicated and it is a sikorsky.
Enough said from me.
You are not the boring one, but the senciable one.
And you are right.
Enough of this S-53 crap it would never work to many casulties in one a/f too expensive and too complicated and it is a sikorsky.
Enough said from me.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a hypothetical argument as I doubt there is any chance of seeing an S-53 or BV234LR on the NS in the future.
Don't know much about the S-53, however, if there are problems getting people out of a submerged EC225 with all its exits, have a look at how many exits there are on the BV234LR and figure out how to get 44 pax + cabin attendant out of that when it capsizes.
I suggest we confine ourselves to discussing the problems we have with existing NS aircraft as we are unlikely to see anything new arriving in the near future.
Don't know much about the S-53, however, if there are problems getting people out of a submerged EC225 with all its exits, have a look at how many exits there are on the BV234LR and figure out how to get 44 pax + cabin attendant out of that when it capsizes.
I suggest we confine ourselves to discussing the problems we have with existing NS aircraft as we are unlikely to see anything new arriving in the near future.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diginagain
I sincerely hope you are correct with your assumption that extra cash would be made available, but from my experience with some major oil majors it would come (perhaps) with much hand wringing.
In the past I have fought long and hard for changes that were required when JAROPS3 came into being only to be told that they were not covered by their regs so they could not follow ours. It took a number of visits from the Authorities to convince them to change or have their decks closed.
I have to say this was not the UK, but in Europe but they were same companies operating in the UK sector.
I have other examples of requirements that were ignored on cost grounds so I need to be convinced that the large sums required will be provided.
I sincerely hope you are correct with your assumption that extra cash would be made available, but from my experience with some major oil majors it would come (perhaps) with much hand wringing.
In the past I have fought long and hard for changes that were required when JAROPS3 came into being only to be told that they were not covered by their regs so they could not follow ours. It took a number of visits from the Authorities to convince them to change or have their decks closed.
I have to say this was not the UK, but in Europe but they were same companies operating in the UK sector.
I have other examples of requirements that were ignored on cost grounds so I need to be convinced that the large sums required will be provided.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern Lights
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB statement to Herald
At the time of the initial CAA statement I didn't think that the AAIB would be best pleased by the former jumping the gun. I thought initially the AAIB statement was a bit of payback but the CAA just tie themselves in knots at the end of the Herald piece. I am not sure they really know what has happened, so it beggars belief that they would put out a statement like their original one.
Last edited by Ray Joe Czech; 2nd Sep 2013 at 07:59.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 58
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the HUET training and its inherent shortfalls with regard to realism and the number of people it can take in benign environments, I do feel that if EVERY employee of ALL involved companies did the dunker drill, even once, it would do a lot to drive some of the changes that the system so clearly needs. If people are only involved in making policy and not partaking in their decisions, they tend to lose touch with reality.
The first Offshore Survival course I did was a 3 day affair that involved a day actually working with the dinghies and a (rather old) lifeboat out in he bay with a rather brisk breeze. The highlight of the day was actually being winched into a 61 to experience what it was all about with the rotor wash and noise while bobbing about in the oggin.
For myself, this was part of qualifying as rear crew in the 61 for winching and cargo ops and as a "trolley dolly" for 19+ pax, but the rest of the participants were one Pilot and "Oilies".
Needless to say, that never lasted long once the bean-counters had regained their breath. Now it's a day in class and a dip in the pool with a simulated winch and safety divers etc.
Subsequent highlights have been doing the wet drills with a gang of wagon dragons from one of the domestic airlines...
The first Offshore Survival course I did was a 3 day affair that involved a day actually working with the dinghies and a (rather old) lifeboat out in he bay with a rather brisk breeze. The highlight of the day was actually being winched into a 61 to experience what it was all about with the rotor wash and noise while bobbing about in the oggin.
For myself, this was part of qualifying as rear crew in the 61 for winching and cargo ops and as a "trolley dolly" for 19+ pax, but the rest of the participants were one Pilot and "Oilies".
Needless to say, that never lasted long once the bean-counters had regained their breath. Now it's a day in class and a dip in the pool with a simulated winch and safety divers etc.
Subsequent highlights have been doing the wet drills with a gang of wagon dragons from one of the domestic airlines...
Pitts, your link was already posted in #1071. Keep up!
Last week there was a suggest from DB that the whole thing was likely to be pilot error, which of course could be and if so fair enough, but why all the smoke and mirrors?
I can not understand why, especially given the obvious sensitivities, nobody has given a statement in plain English and if there can't be clarity over a definitive reason then at least be clear on what is being reported without the contradictions/ double talk.
Pitts, as I have said to you before, the CAA and AAIB often sing from different hymn sheets and really don't like each other. AAIB reports are often critical of CAA, and make recommendations for change which CAA often decline to do. It was always thus. Your mistake is thinking they are all one happy bunch of pals!
With that in mind, and bearing in mind also that the AAIB are fully resistant to any commercial pressure, they will issue a factual statement once they are as sure of their ground as they reasonably can be (and certainly not before looking at the CVFDR). However, if they had grounds to believe that there was an airworthiness issue thus there was a risk to aircraft continuing to fly, they would say something to CAA/EASA.
The default position after an accident is that a fleet is not grounded unless there is good reason so to do. Just as well, otherwise there would be no airliners flying at all! So without a strong hint from AAIB why would the CAA contemplate grounding the fleet? The only reason for the current suspension of operations is because of the mood of the workforce. If this was the first event in this series, there would be no question of suspension beyond perhaps a day or two.
I and all my colleagues are glad that CAA and AAIB are not in cahoots. If you can't see that, its because you don't really understand aviation.
You say "nobody has given a statement in plain English" but who should that somebody be?
With that in mind, and bearing in mind also that the AAIB are fully resistant to any commercial pressure, they will issue a factual statement once they are as sure of their ground as they reasonably can be (and certainly not before looking at the CVFDR). However, if they had grounds to believe that there was an airworthiness issue thus there was a risk to aircraft continuing to fly, they would say something to CAA/EASA.
The default position after an accident is that a fleet is not grounded unless there is good reason so to do. Just as well, otherwise there would be no airliners flying at all! So without a strong hint from AAIB why would the CAA contemplate grounding the fleet? The only reason for the current suspension of operations is because of the mood of the workforce. If this was the first event in this series, there would be no question of suspension beyond perhaps a day or two.
I and all my colleagues are glad that CAA and AAIB are not in cahoots. If you can't see that, its because you don't really understand aviation.
You say "nobody has given a statement in plain English" but who should that somebody be?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Sea
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been watching from the sidelines as this thread has gone from initial shock to burn the Puma hysteria to how dare the bears question our professionalism to finally get to ok, we each appreciate each others concern and we need to get an agreed solution on how can we sort things.
Big question from us (the SLF) is how do you guys think the return to service process will pan out - the 225 issues have taken back stage but do you think the Operators (both Oil & Helicopter) will want to bring SP back into service at same time and if so, what kind of timeframe.
For the record, I have always worn 'big boy pants' and if the guys in the front will spend 6 hours a day in something as a day job I will happily sit in the back for 1:30 hrs every 5 weeks.
Big question from us (the SLF) is how do you guys think the return to service process will pan out - the 225 issues have taken back stage but do you think the Operators (both Oil & Helicopter) will want to bring SP back into service at same time and if so, what kind of timeframe.
For the record, I have always worn 'big boy pants' and if the guys in the front will spend 6 hours a day in something as a day job I will happily sit in the back for 1:30 hrs every 5 weeks.
Offshorebear, good question. It will all be down to politics and not to any technical reasoning. The problem will be that as soon as one of the pilot's farts, it will make front page headlines. As we know, cockpit warning lights come on fairly often, typically either a false alarm or showing a reduction in redundancy. Typically the response to that is that the safest course of action is to return to base, not least because of the difficulties of effecting any repairs offshore. I wonder how many trivial RTBs the fleet can politically survive.
You guys who take the sensible approach can perhaps do your part by being as vociferously positive in your views as the "Destroy the Pumas" lot are negative, rather than sitting quietly and sheepishly in the corner!
You guys who take the sensible approach can perhaps do your part by being as vociferously positive in your views as the "Destroy the Pumas" lot are negative, rather than sitting quietly and sheepishly in the corner!