AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
For Bristow, we requested a similar setup to the 332L, where you get the "soft" warning light /caption on descending below the 1st bug, and the harder "check height" on descending below the second.
My memories of flying both in the front and back of the 332L are a a little dimmed by time now but I do seem to recall that some oil companies had a policy of restricting the number of pax on board.
I certainly remember that one company would not let pax sit in the middle seat of the back row - limiting the payload to 18 pax.
Perhaps this is the way for the more safety aware companies to go
! I know I always felt a little hemmed in if I was in the "wrong" seat in the back - though the seats were far chunkier and in a different configuration to that used now and the windows are now bigger especially on the 225.
HF
I certainly remember that one company would not let pax sit in the middle seat of the back row - limiting the payload to 18 pax.
Perhaps this is the way for the more safety aware companies to go
! I know I always felt a little hemmed in if I was in the "wrong" seat in the back - though the seats were far chunkier and in a different configuration to that used now and the windows are now bigger especially on the 225.HF
Last edited by Hummingfrog; 31st Aug 2013 at 06:46.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SEATS ON SP FAMILY
This is a serious issued currently being discussed seriously by some very influential people. The movers and shakers in our industry are listening to the most important people in our industry - OUR PASSENGERS.
I know this forum protects the anonymity of posters but could I please ask, for the sake of those of us who care deeply for the welfare of our PAX (and I naturally include every OFFSHORE pilot in this group) ask those of you who keep taking sideswipes at our customers (our passengers) please please please stop doing it as it gives our passengers the impression that you work in our Industry.....and we, the real crews, know by your poor opinion of our passengers, that you clearly do not.
Please continue to contribute and offer us your ideas as no stone should be left unturned but know this...every time you say something unpleasant or patronising about our passengers, every single offshore pilot is disgusted.
To an offshore crew, the safety of their PAX is priority number one.
DB
This is a serious issued currently being discussed seriously by some very influential people. The movers and shakers in our industry are listening to the most important people in our industry - OUR PASSENGERS.
I know this forum protects the anonymity of posters but could I please ask, for the sake of those of us who care deeply for the welfare of our PAX (and I naturally include every OFFSHORE pilot in this group) ask those of you who keep taking sideswipes at our customers (our passengers) please please please stop doing it as it gives our passengers the impression that you work in our Industry.....and we, the real crews, know by your poor opinion of our passengers, that you clearly do not.
Please continue to contribute and offer us your ideas as no stone should be left unturned but know this...every time you say something unpleasant or patronising about our passengers, every single offshore pilot is disgusted.
To an offshore crew, the safety of their PAX is priority number one.
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 31st Aug 2013 at 06:36.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The EC225 is a flying death trap" one oil worker with 20 years experience told the BBC. "The internal layout means that passengers in the back are so close that your knees are interlocked with the passenger sitting opposite you."
Join Date: May 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admirable post DB. I think it's fair to say, if the safety of your passengers isn't your priority and you are a commercial pilot, of any persuasion, you're in the wrong job.
After years away from the North Sea I renewed my IRH. Having briefed for a CDFA NDB, because of current FW training,I was told in no uncertain terms to fly a dive and drive.
Aware that this could have absolutely no bearing on the current investigation, does the CDFA principle have any place in NS non-precision ops?
JS
After years away from the North Sea I renewed my IRH. Having briefed for a CDFA NDB, because of current FW training,I was told in no uncertain terms to fly a dive and drive.
Aware that this could have absolutely no bearing on the current investigation, does the CDFA principle have any place in NS non-precision ops?
JS
Don't blame the aircraft for being stuffy and claustrophobic in the back; blame the kit you have to wear. In countries were the sea is always above 25 degrees tee shirts and trainers are the rig and there are no complaints.
As the suits and rebreathers are compulsory then the room for them must be allowed for. Passenger weight has been progressively increased over the years from 170 lbs so now is the time to allow for the extra bulk and increase the seat pitch.
Should passengers numbers be reduced then so be it.
As the suits and rebreathers are compulsory then the room for them must be allowed for. Passenger weight has been progressively increased over the years from 170 lbs so now is the time to allow for the extra bulk and increase the seat pitch.
Should passengers numbers be reduced then so be it.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 31st Aug 2013 at 07:48.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax numbers in the aircraft is controlled by the oil companies to get maximum bang for their buck. EC and operators are merely supplying for the demand of the client. Those of you wanting more room in the back (passengers) go talk to the oil companies as we can rearrange the seats as required, within reason so no lazyboys I'm afraid.
As I understand it and apply we generally fly a CDFA to be at MDH shortly before decision point, giving best chance of getting in combined with controlled and safe descent to that point.
Lastly but not least:
yes we did, we get a large "DH" come up in the centre of the artificial horizon before the second bug sets off the "CHECK HEIGHT".
Almost forgot to say, thank heavens for the edit function, spot on DB I have friends who work offshore and disparaging them has been getting my back up too.
Si
Originally Posted by jonseagull
After years away from the North Sea I renewed my IRH. Having briefed for a CDFA NDB, because of current FW training,I was told in no uncertain terms to fly a dive and drive.
Lastly but not least:
Originally Posted by roundwego
Quote:
For Bristow, we requested a similar setup to the 332L, where you get the "soft" warning light /caption on descending below the 1st bug, and the harder "check height" on descending below the second.
Did you get it HC?
For Bristow, we requested a similar setup to the 332L, where you get the "soft" warning light /caption on descending below the 1st bug, and the harder "check height" on descending below the second.
Did you get it HC?
Almost forgot to say, thank heavens for the edit function, spot on DB I have friends who work offshore and disparaging them has been getting my back up too.
Si
Last edited by bigglesbutler; 31st Aug 2013 at 08:20.
Aware that this could have absolutely no bearing on the current investigation, does the CDFA principle have any place in NS non-precision?
There is a compromise between "Dive & Drive" and CDFA, which is to require NPAs to be flown using a "notional glidepath" (i.e. a continuous descent following the altitude vs DME table) to the MDA and then "drive" to the MAPt. True, there is a "drive" element to that, but it does prevent "ducking under".
Last edited by keithl; 31st Aug 2013 at 08:27.
Aware that this could have absolutely no bearing on the current investigation, does the CDFA principle have any place in NS non-precision ops?
Last edited by 212man; 31st Aug 2013 at 08:33.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: At the back of the bus
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't blame the aircraft for being stuffy and claustrophobic in the back; blame the kit you have to wear. In countries were the sea is always above 25 degrees tee shirts and trainers are the rig and there are no complaints.
As the suits and rebreathers are compulsory then the room for them must be allowed for. Passenger weight has been progressively increased over the years from 170 lbs so now is the time to allow for the extra bulk and increase the seat pitch.
Should passengers numbers be reduced then so be it.
As the suits and rebreathers are compulsory then the room for them must be allowed for. Passenger weight has been progressively increased over the years from 170 lbs so now is the time to allow for the extra bulk and increase the seat pitch.
Should passengers numbers be reduced then so be it.
Even with shorts and t-shirts on it's going to be stuffy and claustrophobic unless you have 19 vertically challenged PAX in the back. Most people of average stature have to almost bend double to get out the back. Try it.
A poster earlier in the thread alluded to the fact that one of the original design criteria for the SP was that it could be carried by rail ie. it was designed to be cramped.
I've only flown on an EC225 once (I crew change on an S92) it was a very empty flight, still a bit cramped headroom wise but the seat layout was a little better and the large push out windows soothed the fears of my "inner chimp" to paraphrase another earlier poster.
Last edited by MoodyMan; 31st Aug 2013 at 16:27.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern Lights
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seating
It may be that the oil companies will have to look at leaving the centre seats unfilled on all types to pacify their workforce, except maybe those seats that are beside a jettisonable door.
That would make for 14? pax max on all Superpuma variants.
On the 225 at least, this would also massively reduce exposure problems on rig arrival and departure and maybe prevent the next accident likely to happen in the current paradigm.
That would make for 14? pax max on all Superpuma variants.
On the 225 at least, this would also massively reduce exposure problems on rig arrival and departure and maybe prevent the next accident likely to happen in the current paradigm.
Last edited by Ray Joe Czech; 31st Aug 2013 at 09:27.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: East of 20° E
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the 225 at least, this would also massively reduce exposure problems on rig arrival and departure and maybe prevent the next accident likely to happen in the current paradigm.
But very unlikely to happen.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern Lights
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AE
I agree, but until 18 or 19 bears squeeze into the back of a Superpuma type we will not know if the current paradigm has survived this incident. And they are not back in them yet, and I have heard of no plans for the first flights.
Edited to add: I would imagine the extra revenue would be marginal, and certainly not 18/14 x current revenue. Not all flights are full, and not all fourth rotation flights are used -- most of the money comes from the standing charge not the flight time, if I understand the contract model correctly.
Edited to add: I would imagine the extra revenue would be marginal, and certainly not 18/14 x current revenue. Not all flights are full, and not all fourth rotation flights are used -- most of the money comes from the standing charge not the flight time, if I understand the contract model correctly.
Last edited by Ray Joe Czech; 31st Aug 2013 at 10:06.
Si, I believe your description of CDFA is not quite right. You describe a notional glide path approach. With CDFA there is no MDA, its a DA so no level sector and you go around on reaching DA ( if not visual). Someone who has actually done these will correct me if I'm wrong!
The technology for flying this as an overlay approach ( ie controlled by the FMS in vertical profile ) has been around for a while but currently, the EC225 doesn't do it, although I believe it may be on the list for future development (EC take note!). Not sure if the S92 does it in a way acceptable to the CAA?
The technology for flying this as an overlay approach ( ie controlled by the FMS in vertical profile ) has been around for a while but currently, the EC225 doesn't do it, although I believe it may be on the list for future development (EC take note!). Not sure if the S92 does it in a way acceptable to the CAA?
Last edited by HeliComparator; 31st Aug 2013 at 10:21.
Super Puma AS332L/L1s have a shorter cabin than the L2s and EC225s. Furthermore they never carry more than 18 pax and for this reason the centre rear seat is never occupied.
The EC225 seating configuration is staggered in the Bristow version to obviate the discomfort of shoulders pressed against each other. The worst position in the cabin for interlocking knees is at the rear, so if fewer than 19 pax are being carried, I try to ensure that one of the rear seats remains unoccupied.
It also helps in the EC225 that the considerably larger windows allow more scope for passenger upper arms and shoulders be accommodated in the window recesses.
Overall in the EC225 there is a little more legroom in the longer cabin and a bit more shoulder room than found in the AS332L/L1.
The EC225 seating configuration is staggered in the Bristow version to obviate the discomfort of shoulders pressed against each other. The worst position in the cabin for interlocking knees is at the rear, so if fewer than 19 pax are being carried, I try to ensure that one of the rear seats remains unoccupied.
It also helps in the EC225 that the considerably larger windows allow more scope for passenger upper arms and shoulders be accommodated in the window recesses.
Overall in the EC225 there is a little more legroom in the longer cabin and a bit more shoulder room than found in the AS332L/L1.
Super Puma AS332L/L1s have a shorter cabin than the L2s and EC225s. Furthermore they never carry more than 18 pax and for this reason the centre rear seat is never occupied.
P1
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern Lights
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C49
The Ls I flew had six rows of three seats and when 18 were carried there was a passenger in the rear middle seat.
As to your other comments, it may be more comfortable in the 225, but if I was a centre row pax I would not like to have to wait for someone else to egress before going out myself, and likely getting kicked in the face on the way...
As to your other comments, it may be more comfortable in the 225, but if I was a centre row pax I would not like to have to wait for someone else to egress before going out myself, and likely getting kicked in the face on the way...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it is cramped in the SP, but i believe that a roll over in the 225 is more survivable than in a L/L2 or the S92. Large windows and 2 jettisonable sliding doors. There is no doubt the S92 has more space in the cabin but how much does that really help when there are limited emergency exits. Are the windows large enough that the average passenger with a survival suit can escape without a problem? There are too many feelings involved and people judge the all SPs without a trial. Yes, the 225 had MGB problems and ended up on the water, so did the S92.
Just sayin'
Just sayin'