Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

NS Safety improvements?

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

NS Safety improvements?

Old 30th Sep 2013, 14:05
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 739
Like it or not.....the North Sea UK Sector has a problem. You can deny it, spin it, but in the end....you are putting aircraft into the water and killing people.
SAS, you and I don't always agree but in this case we agree 100%. What seems strange to me is that there is a general agreement that there needs to be a review but some "pilots" on here want it to exclude the CAA and any pilot issues, something I don't understand.

While the whole operation needs to be looked at, we should concentrate on those areas which appear to be causing problems.
industry insider is online now  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 15:25
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
The stats as we see them are not the whole picture and we need to be aware of that when discussing who is doing what best. We have no idea of the near misses in Norway and the unreported incidents. Don’t believe that things are vastly different in Norway, there just has not been as many accidents, but there has certainly been a few near accidents that I know of in the last few years that could very easily have equalled the statistics or even made put Norway on the unsafe side of the NS.

Last edited by 26500lbs; 30th Sep 2013 at 15:26.
26500lbs is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 18:31
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 58
Posts: 37
We have no idea of the near misses in Norway and the unreported incidents
Agreed, but the same is true for the UK - we cannot add these in to the UK statistics either - or the UK could be even worse?

There is some really great information on both threads which needs to be looked at and acted on, unfortunately it is far from clear who will do this, and most disappointingly no apparent willingness for the 3 UK companies (the experts with the experience)to get together and review this. Is it not true that one of the companies has statistics to match the Norwegian sector?

What is clear is that somebody has to do it - the longer this goes on the more inclined I am to believe that a totally independent review like the one carried out by Lord Cullen after Piper is the way forward - I'm not sure any of the others will capture everything?
thelearner is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2013, 19:08
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
you have to look deeper at the underlying culture if you want to reduce the likelihood of the next "accident from a hitherto unthought-of cause".
I will bet there are lots of "thought of causes" that are not spoken of by anyone except perhaps over that Pint or two in quiet smoky Pubs someplace.

If you step back and think about in as an objective manner as you can.....there are so many vested interests at play in the mix that only a completely independent investigator could begin to poke Lances into all the Sacred Cows that exist.

If One points out a shortcoming....immediately there shall be a defensive response from the folks holding jurisdiction over it. Some will yell about costs, technical problems, jurisdiction, research results, manning, training, and dozens of other excuses.

Just work your way through the 225 situation beginning clear back to when the Design Engineer first put pencil to paper.....and work your way forward till today. Connect all the Dots and mark all the links that lead to issues that affected how we got to where we are today.

This is just one example of how complex and convoluted the path can be and remains yet.

I am not singling out the 225.....just using a recent topic as an example.

What we don't want to get into is a Finger Pointing exercise where it looks like a circular firing squad. What we want is every player to be frank and honest about how to improve what they do and improve the way they interact with all the other players.

The CAA and other Authorities darn sure need to improve things at their end....as we have seen some glaring examples of Design Testing and Certification failures. Manufacturers also need to improve the way they do business.

Operators need to look at their Training and Operations policies, procedures, and techniques.

The Oil Companies need to improve the amount of money they are willing to spend to improve infrastructure and safety.

Above all....each Individual needs to do some Soul searching and find the courage to start speaking up when something needs to be improved.

The CAA and other authorities shall not clean their own houses....just as the Manufacturers will not...or will the Operators or Oil Companies until they are convinced of the absolute need to do so....be it by popular acclamation or pure embarrassment after being called out in public by the independent investigation.
SASless is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 10:37
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Behind the curve
Posts: 275
Press and Journal: Mon 30 Sep 2013

Who else saw the letter from a reader pertaining to the chances of survival in a ditching, suggesting that any large passenger who can't fit through cabin escape windows shouldn't be allowed to be carried offshore?

The letter asserted that such large passengers very often occupy a seat next to a window to give themselves a little more comfort and consequently they also block that window for anyone else who might be trying to escape.

The writer of that letter suggested that there should be a frame created through which anyone wishing to work offshore must demonstrate that they can clamber, before being allowed to be carried offshore. Presumably such a physical requirement would need to be demonstrated by each passenger at every refresher in the BOSIET program.

My wife read the article to me and she's not around at the moment to tell me where she hid the newspaper, so I can't give you the exact words.

Goodness knows, but I've seen a few passengers who wouldn't fit through the largest windows, as installed in the EC225, never mind the somewhat smaller windows which can be found in the S92 !

I think the writer of the letter is making a very valid point. Has this been raised before elsewhere? I haven't seen it.

Last edited by Colibri49; 1st Oct 2013 at 11:20.
Colibri49 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 11:11
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up here, but not for long
Posts: 315
I will bet there are lots of "thought of causes" that are not spoken of by anyone except perhaps over that Pint or two in quiet smoky Pubs someplace.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be SASSY, pubs are almost an endangered species but smoky ones are a thing of the past...
Wizzard is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 11:49
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Fitting through windows

New SOP. Instead of getting IN through the big door and OUT (in emergency) through the small window, we do things the other way round.

Passengers will be embarked through the small window (if you dont fit, you dont fly) but, having embarked, will be permitted to exit offshore via the comfortable 'lardy boys' doorway.

Simples!
FrustratedFormerFlie is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 12:29
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Behind the curve
Posts: 275
Fitting through windows

Or do like the airlines do for cabin baggage; have a frame near the check-in area through which each passenger must pass before being allowed to check in. That should cause a drastic reduction in the consumption of pints and pies; also fewer visits to the ice cream dispensers offshore. The idea's a winner from every angle.

Last edited by Colibri49; 1st Oct 2013 at 12:37.
Colibri49 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 13:07
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 159
have a frame near the check-in area through which each passenger must pass before being allowed to check in.
Only problem with that is, after check-in is when the passenger is wearing their immersion suit, lifejacket & rebreather. Even bulkier than before.
I was shot-down by SASless on a previous thread, when I said that I had been expected to fly 9 guys with an average weight of 306lbs in a S76.
For those that don't know the layout of a S76, the front row passengers have to board behind the crew seats (that have to be lowered to let people in) and the rear seat passengers have to board behind the middle row.
I'm not saying this is unsafe, but that it could be safer if there wasn't huge guys that would block the emergency exits in the event of a ditching. This is an issue for the Oil/Gas companies to address.
902Jon is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 13:15
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Or……..how about make a tool that fits the job not a job that fits the tool.
What about some really innovative thinking from our industry. If fixed flying is so much safer, simpler, better, then why not go tilt-rotor and get the best of both worlds. Cruise at FL250, pressurized, above the majority of the weather and icing, saving fuel, traveling further, faster more effectively, better glide performance, no tail rotor, better alternate performance planning options, fewer bases required. Fit it with the latest greatest avionics and AP suites. Reduced payload, but more reduced risk in many areas. AW609 could be interesting in the North Sea. Everything could be flown from Aberdeen and Bergen or whichever airports are best equipped/suited. The oil companies save money and time on logistics and can better address safety. The operators can use fewer bases to serve larger areas. The crews have a more comfortable working environment. The pax have a more comfortable environment. That way nobody can do what we used to do in the old days ‘cos it was better in those days, as there were no old days! Just a crazy idea, thats all.

Last edited by 26500lbs; 1st Oct 2013 at 13:15.
26500lbs is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 13:24
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,719
Originally Posted by 26500lbs View Post
Or……..how about make a tool that fits the job not a job that fits the tool.
What about some really innovative thinking from our industry. If fixed flying is so much safer, simpler, better, then why not go tilt-rotor and get the best of both worlds. Cruise at FL250, pressurized, above the majority of the weather and icing, saving fuel, traveling further, faster more effectively, better glide performance, no tail rotor, better alternate performance planning options, fewer bases required. Fit it with the latest greatest avionics and AP suites. Reduced payload, but more reduced risk in many areas. AW609 could be interesting in the North Sea. Everything could be flown from Aberdeen and Bergen or whichever airports are best equipped/suited. The oil companies save money and time on logistics and can better address safety. The operators can use fewer bases to serve larger areas. The crews have a more comfortable working environment. The pax have a more comfortable environment. That way nobody can do what we used to do in the old days ‘cos it was better in those days, as there were no old days! Just a crazy idea, thats all.
It isn't really the cruise that is the high risk portion of the flight. It is the bit at the end, especially with any performance 'exposure'. A tilt rotor isn't going to fix those problems.

Also, what about areas such as the SNS, where sectors are often no longer than 40-50 miles? There wouldn't be much point going up to FL250 (or cruising at 350kts) for that.
Bravo73 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 13:32
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 72
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by Colibri49 View Post
Press and Journal: Mon 30 Sep 2013

Who else saw the letter from a reader pertaining to the chances of survival in a ditching, suggesting that any large passenger who can't fit through cabin escape windows shouldn't be allowed to be carried offshore?

The letter asserted that such large passengers very often occupy a seat next to a window to give themselves a little more comfort and consequently they also block that window for anyone else who might be trying to escape.

The writer of that letter suggested that there should be a frame created through which anyone wishing to work offshore must demonstrate that they can clamber, before being allowed to be carried offshore. Presumably such a physical requirement would need to be demonstrated by each passenger at every refresher in the BOSIET program.

My wife read the article to me and she's not around at the moment to tell me where she hid the newspaper, so I can't give you the exact words.

Goodness knows, but I've seen a few passengers who wouldn't fit through the largest windows, as installed in the EC225, never mind the somewhat smaller windows which can be found in the S92 !

I think the writer of the letter is making a very valid point. Has this been raised before elsewhere? I haven't seen it.
Believe me, sitting next to one of these "XXL" guys isn't much fun either, and "I hope we don't have to get out in a hurry" did cross my mind.

If you have a "hoop" that the passengers have to jump through, it MUST be done in full kit. Anything else is a complete waste of time and effort.
OffshoreSLF is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 14:34
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Behind the curve
Posts: 275
Helicopter Evacuations Press and Journal 30.9.13 (transcript of actual letter)

SIR, - As an independent consultant to the oil and gas industry, I often make offshore visits. I have noticed many helicopter passengers whose girth would be too great to enable them to exit via the helicopter windows in the event of an evacuation.
They would not only be unable to escape themselves, but might also prevent others from doing so and undoubtedly cause loss of life. It is also noticeable that larger passengers tend to prefer a window seat on a helicopter, since sitting on the aisle is far less comfortable for them.
Prior to issuing an offshore survival certificate, at an offshore medical, and at all heliports, use should be made of a window template to gauge whether or not a passenger could exit via the window in the event of an evacuation.
During offshore survival training, I have noticed that the windows of the simulators used are often larger than those of many helicopters, so the template would need to be a realistic representation of the actual size of the windows of the helicopter in question. If the passenger is too large, they should not be allowed to fly.
Checks are in place already for alcohol/drug use ahead of flying, with passengers denied boarding if they are found to be under the influence of either, and checks should also be in place to ensure passengers are able to exit safely.
Dr Paul Williams, Riverside Drive, Aberdeen.
Colibri49 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 14:38
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
OK, so,
  1. Check in
  2. Draw Immersion Suit etc
  3. Don Immersion Suit etc
  4. Oops, they've shut the door of the PFB room - and only opened a flap the size of the smallest emergency exit on the type I am to fly.
  5. If I get through the cat flap, happy days. If I don't, head back to the (onshore) gym
Might sound harsh, but its a whole lot less harsh than finding out the hard way (ie in a ditching) that you dont fit - or worse, finding that your exit route is blocked by said lardy boy

Of course if introduced overnight, a significant percentage of next day's pax would be 'beached', so stand by for pleas for 'sympathetic/progressive introduction' of system from employers and emplotyees alike!

Last edited by FrustratedFormerFlie; 1st Oct 2013 at 14:39.
FrustratedFormerFlie is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 14:51
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
If one cannot fit through the Cat Door....would it mean you are too large or the Cat Door is too small?

If One immediately responds it is the person that would show a reluctance to consider the Escape Exits might be too small as the design criteria might have been improperly researched or that the original design criteria did not envision the addition of Survival suits and all the other gear folks have to wear for North Sea flights.

If one questions the size of the exits....then that opens up a really really huge Bucket of Worms!

The Manufacturers, Operators, Authorities,and Oil Companies are confronted with a huge project to arrive at larger, safer, more effective Escape Exits, revamped seating, and all sorts of obstacles to ensuring the Passengers and Crew can escape during a water landing.

So.....is there any guess where the efforts to remedy this situation shall be directed?

Last edited by SASless; 1st Oct 2013 at 15:01.
SASless is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 14:59
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Probably a bit of both.
And probably action required on both fronts
FrustratedFormerFlie is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 15:06
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Kammbronn
Posts: 2,000
Originally Posted by Colibri49
Has this been raised before elsewhere? I haven't seen it.
See post #49.

Last edited by diginagain; 1st Oct 2013 at 15:06.
diginagain is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 16:26
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
It isn't really the cruise that is the high risk portion of the flight. It is the bit at the end, especially with any performance 'exposure'. A tilt rotor isn't going to fix those problems.

Also, what about areas such as the SNS, where sectors are often no longer than 40-50 miles? There wouldn't be much point going up to FL250 (or cruising at 350kts) for that.
Tongue was firmly in cheek by the way.
But - maybe the problem is not just the last bit, it is the just the last bit that it finally manifests itself. There are a whole host of other factors that have gone on before that last bit. I for one suspect that some form of fatigue will feature in the final AAIB and any review. It is important that there are many things that contribute to this fatigue. The constant changes from operations, the weather planning and re-planning, performance issues, meal stops, turnaround times, real quality of rest the day before, cockpit environment, commercial pressure to get the job done, the attitude and culture. The list could go on and on. All very real and very underestimated in my view, but also all very fixable without too much effort or cost. 8 hours in a A340 is very different to 8 hours in a EC(Airbus!!!)332L1 or S92. Lucky boy in the 340 has a nice quiet comfy environment, a smiling hostess to bring him coffee and a sandwich. He can wear shortsleeves and can hear Fred next to him without a headset. Fatigued in the 332 yet?
Secondly the sectors in the SNS are small but only if you are flying from the current bases. What if all ops in the UK were able to fly from one or two bases? Most likely a very unworkable idea of course, but don’t dismiss the blue sky thinking either - it might lead to something workable. The flight time would be similar, but cruising at 275kts from one or two hubs instead. A hell of a lot more efficient for all involved in logistics and planning.
26500lbs is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 16:34
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Behind the curve
Posts: 275
SASless, my dear sir.

At the risk of seeming to "raise my shield" and exhibiting a partisan preference for the EC225, which I don't deny, I would suggest that anyone who's interested in survivability following an offshore ditching should go and sit inside both the EC225 and the S92.

It would become immediately obvious that only the most seriously obese passengers couldn't get through the windows of an EC225, while many of the more averagely large-sized passengers of today wouldn't stand a chance of escaping through some of the S92 windows.

Considering that the EC225 gearbox problem has now been resolved by the best experts which money can buy, employing double protection techniques and inspection regimes, there is no doubt for me that the EC225 is what I'd rather have for my wife and children to be transported over water.
Colibri49 is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2013, 16:44
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
49,

This is not an argument about the relative merits of two aircraft Types..... but is a discussion about how large an emergency exit itself should be.

I don't give a stuff about which aircraft has what currently....just is the installed Emergency Exits, Doors, Windows, Panels....are properly designed, operate in all situations, and properly affords the safe evacuation of people from within the Cabin and Cockpit.

I apply that concern to every aircraft manufacturer, Make, Model, and Type.

If an aircraft has adequate numbers of adequately designed and functional exits is all that matters.

If you consider the 92 deficient.....fine.

If you think the 225 is not deficient....fine.

But the argument is not about the 225 compared to the 92 it is about EXITS.
SASless is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.