AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Good point about the consequences of more space resulting in more trips and more landings.
I am not convinced that more space is a cure-all. Bigger escape windows, along the lines of 225, 189 and 175, are likely to be beneficial in any sinking or inversion. When I think about the chaos of all those guys struggling with kit and looking for exits, there may be cases where more space would be unhelpful if it provides somewhere to get lost in a panic.
O&G is clearly an important market to manufacturers in a certain range of aircraft size and it is also the most challenging for emergency escape. Ideally, there needs to be a logical approach to cabin design at an early stage that provides for any passenger a single logical approach to getting out. The fewer deviations from a single logical approach that there are the more people will survive.
Pet hate: 332 door jettison regime.
I am not convinced that more space is a cure-all. Bigger escape windows, along the lines of 225, 189 and 175, are likely to be beneficial in any sinking or inversion. When I think about the chaos of all those guys struggling with kit and looking for exits, there may be cases where more space would be unhelpful if it provides somewhere to get lost in a panic.
O&G is clearly an important market to manufacturers in a certain range of aircraft size and it is also the most challenging for emergency escape. Ideally, there needs to be a logical approach to cabin design at an early stage that provides for any passenger a single logical approach to getting out. The fewer deviations from a single logical approach that there are the more people will survive.
Pet hate: 332 door jettison regime.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive a former fixed wing maritime flier inquiring...
Much is made of the supposed enhanced safety through twin engined helicopter operations offshore. But if all the power from both/either engines go through a much 'weaker link' in the chain - a single gear box and rotor head - then is the latter negating the benefits of the former?
How many North Sea twins do come home on one engine?
And if the answer is 'very few', is the added gearbox complexity of feeding power from two engines (to mitigate those 'very few') through one MGB and rotorhead introducing more potentuial catastrophic failure points?
Is there a difference in frequency of MGB failures between single and multi engined helicopters?
Much is made of the supposed enhanced safety through twin engined helicopter operations offshore. But if all the power from both/either engines go through a much 'weaker link' in the chain - a single gear box and rotor head - then is the latter negating the benefits of the former?
How many North Sea twins do come home on one engine?
And if the answer is 'very few', is the added gearbox complexity of feeding power from two engines (to mitigate those 'very few') through one MGB and rotorhead introducing more potentuial catastrophic failure points?
Is there a difference in frequency of MGB failures between single and multi engined helicopters?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a massive difference in the rate at which airliners end up in the water compared wih offshore helicopters (over 1000 times..). Hence the concentration on survivability with helicopters.
It would be very good to reduce the frequency of these events occuring to offshore helicopters, unfortunately the introduction of the new types has actually reversed what was an improving accident rate.
Some of that has been down to mechanical issues, the others down to operational ones.
What is inescapable is that accident rates vary across the world. In clement areas a ditching is a real inconvenience and not necessarily even reportable.... In our neck of the woods it is another matter, read the report on the ETAP ditching and note that although recovered in less than 2 hours, many of the passengers were severely hyperthermic.
The thing that really occupies my mind is the apparent difference in rates between Norway and the UK. The somewhat adversorial relationship betwen contractors and clients and what seems to be a lack of real safety leadership - from either side, appear to have created a needlessly dangerous situation in the UK. Reversing out from there will not be easy and at the moment there are no obvious champions.
It would be very good to reduce the frequency of these events occuring to offshore helicopters, unfortunately the introduction of the new types has actually reversed what was an improving accident rate.
Some of that has been down to mechanical issues, the others down to operational ones.
What is inescapable is that accident rates vary across the world. In clement areas a ditching is a real inconvenience and not necessarily even reportable.... In our neck of the woods it is another matter, read the report on the ETAP ditching and note that although recovered in less than 2 hours, many of the passengers were severely hyperthermic.
The thing that really occupies my mind is the apparent difference in rates between Norway and the UK. The somewhat adversorial relationship betwen contractors and clients and what seems to be a lack of real safety leadership - from either side, appear to have created a needlessly dangerous situation in the UK. Reversing out from there will not be easy and at the moment there are no obvious champions.
But suddenly there is a big focus on the issue of cabin density, and the implication that if we just cut down the number of pax then all will be well
It wasn't offered as being the cure all.
It was offered as something that would IMPROVE the current situation re Survivability and go a very long way towards making the Flight much more comfortable.
Perhaps the Oil Company Management types that ride around in the G-5's should revert to flying in Coach/Tourist on Airliners for a while to get the sense of what their Offshore Workers are telling them. Hell...for that matter maybe they should ride in the back of a 225 for a week....do a flight a day and see how it really is for the passengers in the helicopters.
Perhaps do the "Undercover Boss" thing for a week.
Yes. Marginally, and for a very limited subset of accidents. So long as it isn't viewed as a get out - ie "we have addressed the problem by reducing the pax number per aircraft - end of problem!"
But we have already seen how, for example, TM is crowing about how wonderful his oil company is for doing it as if this were the panacea.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone is pretending that the cabin issues are the silver bullet. What is depressing for me is that we have been here before with the Cormorant crash and before that the Scillies Isles - both crashes where escape was severely compromised - although for differing reasons.
Recently offshore I was on the receiving end of some company propaganda for the 're-introduction of the 332L2'. In that it stated that flying at night was no more dangerous than during the day. With that sort of near complete denial of the facts, I cannot see the helicopter operators as potential leaders in improving the situation.
They should be, much of the discussion here demonstrates a knowledge of how in many cases to fix things, or certainly improve them, so the expertise exists. It just appears that the safety culture to support those approaches is pretty tenuous.
Recently offshore I was on the receiving end of some company propaganda for the 're-introduction of the 332L2'. In that it stated that flying at night was no more dangerous than during the day. With that sort of near complete denial of the facts, I cannot see the helicopter operators as potential leaders in improving the situation.
They should be, much of the discussion here demonstrates a knowledge of how in many cases to fix things, or certainly improve them, so the expertise exists. It just appears that the safety culture to support those approaches is pretty tenuous.
In that it stated that flying at night was no more dangerous than during the day.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 62
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gasax
In that it stated that flying at night was no more dangerous than during the day.
In that it stated that flying at night was no more dangerous than during the day.
Except if you end up in the water in the dark - escape from the helicopter and rescue from the sea becomes much more difficult and chances of survival are much lower.
We were lucky the 225 ditchings were in daylight with calm seas. In darkness with rough seas the outcome could have been much worse.
But I know this and I accepted the (low) risk when I chose to work offshore. I still think more chance of harm driving to/from work every day than getting in a chopper. Could be wrong with stats now though over last few years.
In that it stated that flying at night was no more dangerous than during the day.
digin, thanks for your measured response, and Jim thanks for your points. I apologize for the snarky tone up there, it was not needed.
The airframes themselves don't seem to be the problem.
Configuration and cabin layout (which depending upon airframe can be customizeable, as usual if one will pay for a certain configuration).
Point in quotes is something similar to the helicopter design process: each problem you think you've solved raises another problem. It is thus a matter of tradeoffs, which appears where the seating capacity/sardine syndrome seems to fit. This gets to the heart of the matter: a company hires another company to use its fleet of helicopters to move persons from place to place. There was a time, a long while back I guess, that some oil companies had their own fleed of helicopters. In such a situation, customizing a design for a specific purpose may result in an in internal cabin configuration that might address some of these sore points better.
But that isn't the world we live in anymore, is it?
The broad statement that the airframes are not fit for purpose still makes no sense to me. As to window count and size, there are design considerations for the airframe itself which may limit how big a hole one can fill with a window. Not familiar enough with the type in question at that level of structural detail to comment further.
But making cabin spacious and easy to evacuate for this scenario may decrease risk in this rare case - but the overall risk to pax may increase if we double the fleet and pilots and movements - and landings on offshore platforms - and for the bears more delays!
Configuration and cabin layout (which depending upon airframe can be customizeable, as usual if one will pay for a certain configuration).
Point in quotes is something similar to the helicopter design process: each problem you think you've solved raises another problem. It is thus a matter of tradeoffs, which appears where the seating capacity/sardine syndrome seems to fit. This gets to the heart of the matter: a company hires another company to use its fleet of helicopters to move persons from place to place. There was a time, a long while back I guess, that some oil companies had their own fleed of helicopters. In such a situation, customizing a design for a specific purpose may result in an in internal cabin configuration that might address some of these sore points better.
But that isn't the world we live in anymore, is it?
The broad statement that the airframes are not fit for purpose still makes no sense to me. As to window count and size, there are design considerations for the airframe itself which may limit how big a hole one can fill with a window. Not familiar enough with the type in question at that level of structural detail to comment further.
I see BALPA have now decided to drop the appeal against granting the police access to the FDR/CVR. Shame, as it sets an important precedent. I suppose that with the draft report out, they perceive that by the time the police's agent (the CAA) have decoded and interpreted it all, the report will be in the public domain anyway, and so they have taken the pragmatic approach to save money.
Draft report out October 2015, now end of Feb 2016. Just how much longer do we have to wait? Anyone know any rumours about when the final report will be published?
