AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
re HUET - the only realistic training, IMHO, would be to carry out evacuations with 19 pax.
I'm aware, however, that most HUET training rigs can't accommodate so many 'trainees' at the same time.
I'm aware, however, that most HUET training rigs can't accommodate so many 'trainees' at the same time.
Pilots do not have Escape Breathing Devices?
What enlightened thinking lead to that decision?
Sounds to me like some Management folk need to ride the Dunker in ice cold water, in the dark, after someone knocks them silly while having to deal with an absolutely chock a block cabin to deal with.....perhaps there would be a change in heart over some of these policies!
Just like flying with NVG's at night.....once you use them you would not fly nights again without them......works the same with Bailout Bottles too! Those breathes the bottle provides makes all the difference in the world.
But...what the heck we once flew with White Shirts, black trousers, and Jumpers for survival kit too didn't we.
What enlightened thinking lead to that decision?
Sounds to me like some Management folk need to ride the Dunker in ice cold water, in the dark, after someone knocks them silly while having to deal with an absolutely chock a block cabin to deal with.....perhaps there would be a change in heart over some of these policies!
Just like flying with NVG's at night.....once you use them you would not fly nights again without them......works the same with Bailout Bottles too! Those breathes the bottle provides makes all the difference in the world.
But...what the heck we once flew with White Shirts, black trousers, and Jumpers for survival kit too didn't we.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been watching this thread over the last week, and felt no need to post as airwave45 and diginagain have been doing an excellent job along with some others.
I don't want the discomfort in the back to take any focus away from finding out what happened, and what can be done to make sure this accident is never repeated in future - I would rather the effort went into keeping the helicopters out of the water.
The effort also needs to concentrate on why we have put 5 aircraft in the water in the last 4 years with loss of 20 life's.
I have been on helicopters in the back for around 21 out of the last 30 years, shore based now, last flight at start of this year, but around 14 years recently in the mk1, mk2 and latterly EC225 prior to grounding. Average flight time in the 225 on a good day 1 hr 50, so in the back for a while, and it is not very comfortable, and I have grown also over the years.
I don't think as many as you think are unwilling to get on the puma again, well certainly not the EC225 from speaking to some of my colleagues, although I'm not offshore so cannot gauge the full feelings of the workforce.
You would be surprised though how many people fly who are really scared of flying in a helicopter, and I have always admired these guys - don't know how they do it.
Personally, I have always accepted that when flying in a helicopter for a long time over water there is a risk, albeit small you will end up in it. I also think that sometimes you may not easily get out, but if a controlled ditching on a calm day you have a good chance. I accepted that risk, I chose where to work because it is a good job with good rewards, although the helicopter is not the only risk we accept.
HUET training - again you underestimate how difficult many already find the existing training - which is not fully realistic, some people dread doing that training, some struggle and don't like the rebreather and some simply are frightened of water and being disorientated. I find it OK luckily, and think rebreather has made it easier.
I agree you guys should also have one, but remember you have a door that looks quite appealing to me if we land on the water.
Also I hope when the report comes out, if it finds pilot error there is no witchhunt, there is no way they deliberately did this, and there will quite likely be other factos to take into account - I note you guys get quite busy at this time?
I don't want the discomfort in the back to take any focus away from finding out what happened, and what can be done to make sure this accident is never repeated in future - I would rather the effort went into keeping the helicopters out of the water.
The effort also needs to concentrate on why we have put 5 aircraft in the water in the last 4 years with loss of 20 life's.
I have been on helicopters in the back for around 21 out of the last 30 years, shore based now, last flight at start of this year, but around 14 years recently in the mk1, mk2 and latterly EC225 prior to grounding. Average flight time in the 225 on a good day 1 hr 50, so in the back for a while, and it is not very comfortable, and I have grown also over the years.
I don't think as many as you think are unwilling to get on the puma again, well certainly not the EC225 from speaking to some of my colleagues, although I'm not offshore so cannot gauge the full feelings of the workforce.
You would be surprised though how many people fly who are really scared of flying in a helicopter, and I have always admired these guys - don't know how they do it.
Personally, I have always accepted that when flying in a helicopter for a long time over water there is a risk, albeit small you will end up in it. I also think that sometimes you may not easily get out, but if a controlled ditching on a calm day you have a good chance. I accepted that risk, I chose where to work because it is a good job with good rewards, although the helicopter is not the only risk we accept.
HUET training - again you underestimate how difficult many already find the existing training - which is not fully realistic, some people dread doing that training, some struggle and don't like the rebreather and some simply are frightened of water and being disorientated. I find it OK luckily, and think rebreather has made it easier.
I agree you guys should also have one, but remember you have a door that looks quite appealing to me if we land on the water.
Also I hope when the report comes out, if it finds pilot error there is no witchhunt, there is no way they deliberately did this, and there will quite likely be other factos to take into account - I note you guys get quite busy at this time?
... I can't see any way of empirically working out if it is less safe having 19 in the back of a 225 than 14 when it is upside down at night in cold NE seas. There aren't enough data sets out there.
I think you would start by using the available sets of real data, then add to that with work in the pool, and use all of that to set up the parameters of a computer simulation. Once you have run enough computer simulations and identified some possible good and bad practices, go back to the pool and test these wet. Use the results of the further pool work to refine the computer simulation and then you are probably starting to produce something useful.
The real data will not all be from inversion survivors. The relationship between seat position, injury and outcome in the likes of Cougar91 would be relevant. The decision-making of survivors of ditchings who didn't even get their feet wet would be too.
--------------------
Somebody else said 14. My thoughts are that a reduction of one or two, if sufficiently well thought through, could make a major difference if done along with changes in layout and other factors that prove relevant.
At the moment, I am not sure we even have a grasp of what is relevant.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if reducing the pax to 16 would have improved the survival chances of the fatalities in this accident.
The oil companies might not like the extra costs but they can afford it.
The oil companies might not like the extra costs but they can afford it.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that we have a situation where the tail is wagging the dog. The SLF are attacking the wrong thing, they should be attacking their employers not the aircraft.
The Oil Companies put out a tender document which sets out the requirements and the operators submit their bids utilising their existing fleet or if there is an age limit, a new type. In most cases the cheapest bid wins. The range, payload etc. Are all taken into consideration, so if a helicopter bid using say 14 seats against 18/19 seats he will go out of business. Everything is driven by the Oil Companies and while over the years they have raised standards they still watch the pennies.
I have served on a number of committies in my time and most were constructive, but there were times when it felt we were trying to get blood out of a stone.
Any changes have to come from the customer not the operator. It has been mentioned in previous posts that the budget for helicopter transport is miniscule within the big picture, but for the individual who controls it it is large and any chages have to be justified from higher up.
If enough pressure from the workforce or if some posts are to be believed lack of workforce may contribut to changes.
What I don't think will change in the near future are the helicopter types already in service.
The Oil Companies put out a tender document which sets out the requirements and the operators submit their bids utilising their existing fleet or if there is an age limit, a new type. In most cases the cheapest bid wins. The range, payload etc. Are all taken into consideration, so if a helicopter bid using say 14 seats against 18/19 seats he will go out of business. Everything is driven by the Oil Companies and while over the years they have raised standards they still watch the pennies.
I have served on a number of committies in my time and most were constructive, but there were times when it felt we were trying to get blood out of a stone.
Any changes have to come from the customer not the operator. It has been mentioned in previous posts that the budget for helicopter transport is miniscule within the big picture, but for the individual who controls it it is large and any chages have to be justified from higher up.
If enough pressure from the workforce or if some posts are to be believed lack of workforce may contribut to changes.
What I don't think will change in the near future are the helicopter types already in service.
Ye Olde Pilot
I wonder if reducing the pax to 16 would have improved the survival chances of the fatalities in this accident.
I wonder if reducing the pax to 16 would have improved the survival chances of the fatalities in this accident.
P1
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see the oil companies paying the extra costs operating a EC225 with 16 seats instead of 19 and said by P1 I don't think it would make a difference 16 guy's in the back in the L2 incident 12 survived.
I think it is more the training and the funding for HUET training that needs to be addressed as mentioned in my previous posts.
Maybe change the seating arrangements instead of having rear facing seats, have all seats front facing in all SP helicopters just like the S92.
But I see one problem getting to and from the seats would be more diificult.
Just a suggestion but not an easy solution.
Maybe the guys in the back would feel more comfortable.
But someone has to pay for these mods and rightly so the oil companies do have money enough and maybe they should contribute more to safety.
I think it is more the training and the funding for HUET training that needs to be addressed as mentioned in my previous posts.
Maybe change the seating arrangements instead of having rear facing seats, have all seats front facing in all SP helicopters just like the S92.
But I see one problem getting to and from the seats would be more diificult.
Just a suggestion but not an easy solution.
Maybe the guys in the back would feel more comfortable.
But someone has to pay for these mods and rightly so the oil companies do have money enough and maybe they should contribute more to safety.
Last edited by pumaboy; 31st Aug 2013 at 19:13.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 76
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few thoughts on the SP from someone who has been retired from flying offshore for a few years now.
When I started, most flights were by S61, although I did have a couple of flights in a S58. (Definitely giving my age away now!) At one time when B Cal were in operation, we flew in Bell 214ST's.
Helicopter flying is not the most comfortable way to travel at the best of times, but that's just inherent in the way they are. I always thought that the S61 was as comfortable as it could be, and never had any problems. I also liked the 214ST, as it was just one big cabin, and it knocked quite a bit of time off the flight to Forties.
When the SP came along, I never really took to them because I found them very cramped and uncomfortable. If you were in a window seat, and got a big guy sitting next to you, there was no room to move, so gawd knows what would have happened if we'd had to evacuate. It was just as bad if the big guy was in the window seat. I remember one flight where I just managed to get one bum-cheek on the seat as that was all the room that was left. I was a bit sore by the time we reached Aberdeen!
If there is a move to reduce the number of pax, then can I suggest that a new design of seat, a bit more comfortable, and more room between them be installed.
As for the HUET, I think that you can take realism too far. I did the RGIT one quite a few times, and also the Australian one in Fremantle, and can say that I never had any bother with doing it. I would say that it's probably about the right level as it is.
I'll never be on another helicopter, but if I did have to go offshore for some obscure reason, I'd have no qualms whatsoever about getting on one of whatever flavour. Irrespective of the recent incidents/accidents, I still have great faith in the professionalism of you guys who take us to/from or place of work.
When I started, most flights were by S61, although I did have a couple of flights in a S58. (Definitely giving my age away now!) At one time when B Cal were in operation, we flew in Bell 214ST's.
Helicopter flying is not the most comfortable way to travel at the best of times, but that's just inherent in the way they are. I always thought that the S61 was as comfortable as it could be, and never had any problems. I also liked the 214ST, as it was just one big cabin, and it knocked quite a bit of time off the flight to Forties.
When the SP came along, I never really took to them because I found them very cramped and uncomfortable. If you were in a window seat, and got a big guy sitting next to you, there was no room to move, so gawd knows what would have happened if we'd had to evacuate. It was just as bad if the big guy was in the window seat. I remember one flight where I just managed to get one bum-cheek on the seat as that was all the room that was left. I was a bit sore by the time we reached Aberdeen!
If there is a move to reduce the number of pax, then can I suggest that a new design of seat, a bit more comfortable, and more room between them be installed.
As for the HUET, I think that you can take realism too far. I did the RGIT one quite a few times, and also the Australian one in Fremantle, and can say that I never had any bother with doing it. I would say that it's probably about the right level as it is.
I'll never be on another helicopter, but if I did have to go offshore for some obscure reason, I'd have no qualms whatsoever about getting on one of whatever flavour. Irrespective of the recent incidents/accidents, I still have great faith in the professionalism of you guys who take us to/from or place of work.
I've posted here, so far, as an instrument procedures specialist and well within my "comfort zone". This post is outside that zone as I'm taking a somewhat wider view, but I want to summarise what I've read (and heard) so far.
When Frank Doran, MP, called for a general "Piper Alpha" type enquiry, my instinctive response was that he was capitalising on this accident for personal publicity. Sorry, I'm just suspicious of politicians. And posturing trade union leaders, come to that.
However, this thread has revealed a whole range of topics that need to be addressed. Cabin crowding, instrument approach techniques, Norwegian-style workforce involvement in offshore practices, HUET training quality, crew training and aircraft capability have all been raised.
I think this breadth of issues does justify a wider inquiry. These seem to be areas capable of improvement and perhaps Mr Doran is right about the way to tackle it.
I don't normally do polemic. I'm a bit nervous now about your responses...
When Frank Doran, MP, called for a general "Piper Alpha" type enquiry, my instinctive response was that he was capitalising on this accident for personal publicity. Sorry, I'm just suspicious of politicians. And posturing trade union leaders, come to that.
However, this thread has revealed a whole range of topics that need to be addressed. Cabin crowding, instrument approach techniques, Norwegian-style workforce involvement in offshore practices, HUET training quality, crew training and aircraft capability have all been raised.
I think this breadth of issues does justify a wider inquiry. These seem to be areas capable of improvement and perhaps Mr Doran is right about the way to tackle it.
I don't normally do polemic. I'm a bit nervous now about your responses...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check and pumaboy just beat me to it. Virtually anything is possible:
You want fewer pax per flight, or lower Tq settings, or more in depth maintenance between flights? No problem.
New helicopters every 5 years? No problem.
More training for crews? No problem.
More training for pax? No problem.
However, the Big But: all that costs money.
And if the oil companies aren't willing to pay, then you still have a problem.
You want fewer pax per flight, or lower Tq settings, or more in depth maintenance between flights? No problem.
New helicopters every 5 years? No problem.
More training for crews? No problem.
More training for pax? No problem.
However, the Big But: all that costs money.
And if the oil companies aren't willing to pay, then you still have a problem.
Last edited by obnoxio f*ckwit; 31st Aug 2013 at 19:17. Reason: To add those who also beat me to it!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then oil companies have to be made aware of these issues after all they should also take some responceabilty away from the operators they are with the ones the cash the ones that tender the contracts.
Last edited by pumaboy; 31st Aug 2013 at 19:20.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of pax numbers and evacuation, and putting a side for a moment any perceptual as opposed to factual considerations, firstly, the last N Sea accident where escape was a factor was the N Cormorant in 1992. I can't think of an survivable ditchings / crashes where people died from not being able to get out, in the interim? 21 years ago.
This latest could be in that category, but so far we don't know why most got out but some didn't. With the injuries reported, it was clearly a fairly hard impact and perhaps those unfortune ones who didn't make it were incapacitated. Or maybe they froze, gasped water or maybe something else went wrong such as they couldn't unbuckle or inflated their jackets inside. Or maybe the thrust of this debate is correct, they were all in middle seats and their exits were blocked by those at the window seats. We just don't know yet, if we ever will. Therefore I think its far too soon to be talking about reducing pax numbers as a safety initiative.
If we did, we would have to accept that the increased flying rate would require new pilots etc, and would inevitably reduce the time before the next accident. Would it be worth it for 1 accident in 21 years?
We also have to bear in mind that there are not just survivable arrivals in the water, and unsurvivable ones. Its a sliding scale. So you can put a lot of effort into making a copycat of this accident survivable, only to have the next one just a bit worse and hence partially unsurvivable again. You can't win that one.
Alternatively, we could reduce pax numbers, good for PR, keep them happy, and never mind that the logic and science doesn't add up. In other words, con them. Even though I have been a little disparaging about the Facebook pax, I think we owe them more than that. If we are going to reduce pax numbers, its only for comfort.
This latest could be in that category, but so far we don't know why most got out but some didn't. With the injuries reported, it was clearly a fairly hard impact and perhaps those unfortune ones who didn't make it were incapacitated. Or maybe they froze, gasped water or maybe something else went wrong such as they couldn't unbuckle or inflated their jackets inside. Or maybe the thrust of this debate is correct, they were all in middle seats and their exits were blocked by those at the window seats. We just don't know yet, if we ever will. Therefore I think its far too soon to be talking about reducing pax numbers as a safety initiative.
If we did, we would have to accept that the increased flying rate would require new pilots etc, and would inevitably reduce the time before the next accident. Would it be worth it for 1 accident in 21 years?
We also have to bear in mind that there are not just survivable arrivals in the water, and unsurvivable ones. Its a sliding scale. So you can put a lot of effort into making a copycat of this accident survivable, only to have the next one just a bit worse and hence partially unsurvivable again. You can't win that one.
Alternatively, we could reduce pax numbers, good for PR, keep them happy, and never mind that the logic and science doesn't add up. In other words, con them. Even though I have been a little disparaging about the Facebook pax, I think we owe them more than that. If we are going to reduce pax numbers, its only for comfort.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 31st Aug 2013 at 21:10.
Thanks
Many thanks to DakarMan and TheLearner for posting some straight forward and honest feelings from the offshore world. Makes a nice change after some of the comments made in the media and on this and other forums.
SP cabin cramped - agreed.
EC225 I would think would give the best evacuation options for any offshore helicopters with two jettison-able main cabin doors and each window physically big enough for someone of my size to get through.
I've never been a fan of the S92 cabin from an evacuation point of view, but accept that it is a much more passenger friendly environment. Not quite as good as the S61 however!
Bearing in mind a Boeing 737 has 130 passengers and 8 exits (sometimes 6).
All aircraft are tested to ensure that their evacuation procedures meet the minimum requirements, although these tests are impossible to simulate accurately with volunteers in lab conditions. The best test I ever saw was where they offered diminishing cash incentives for the first passengers getting out.
Also, worked in Norway and the UK. Not familiar with that many differences. Both sides of the North Sea operate very professionally in my opinion.
SP cabin cramped - agreed.
EC225 I would think would give the best evacuation options for any offshore helicopters with two jettison-able main cabin doors and each window physically big enough for someone of my size to get through.
I've never been a fan of the S92 cabin from an evacuation point of view, but accept that it is a much more passenger friendly environment. Not quite as good as the S61 however!
Bearing in mind a Boeing 737 has 130 passengers and 8 exits (sometimes 6).
All aircraft are tested to ensure that their evacuation procedures meet the minimum requirements, although these tests are impossible to simulate accurately with volunteers in lab conditions. The best test I ever saw was where they offered diminishing cash incentives for the first passengers getting out.
Also, worked in Norway and the UK. Not familiar with that many differences. Both sides of the North Sea operate very professionally in my opinion.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am in support of an independent North Sea Operations Review as per suggestions made by Mechta and others and which looks at all aspects of offshore operations in order to determine those factors which clearly reveal examples of best practice.
this might have been covered already and I missed it, apologies if I have.
Returning to the thoughts on flotation options the current method is sponson mounted inflatable floats as standard and they seem perfectly adequate providing the ditching is relatively textbook along with kind seas.
I think I saw someone mention high floats on a wasp meaning that you would be underwater with potentially a still spinning disc to emerge into....!
As I say this may have been mentioned already but would it not be logical to have a float mounted somewhere high up on the side of the main door? My thinking being that if the ditching is a good one it would not be needed, however if you have a ditching like this one, or the sea state is not at all helpful then it will at least keep one side up, preferably the one with the big door allowing more time for escape and a reduced chance of drowning in the process.
Returning to the thoughts on flotation options the current method is sponson mounted inflatable floats as standard and they seem perfectly adequate providing the ditching is relatively textbook along with kind seas.
I think I saw someone mention high floats on a wasp meaning that you would be underwater with potentially a still spinning disc to emerge into....!
As I say this may have been mentioned already but would it not be logical to have a float mounted somewhere high up on the side of the main door? My thinking being that if the ditching is a good one it would not be needed, however if you have a ditching like this one, or the sea state is not at all helpful then it will at least keep one side up, preferably the one with the big door allowing more time for escape and a reduced chance of drowning in the process.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I saw someone mention high floats on a wasp meaning that you would be underwater with potentially a still spinning disc to emerge into....!
The best suggestion so far was the one from SASless to go back to amphibious helicopters!
