Pilots suspended after North Sea helicopter lands on wrong platform
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pilots suspended after North Sea helicopter lands on wrong platform
Pilots suspended after North Sea helicopter lands on wrong platform
STV 26 August 2014
I/C
STV 26 August 2014
Two pilots have been suspended after they landed a helicopter on the wrong North Sea oil platform.
The Bond S-92 left Aberdeen on Friday evening, heading for the Buzzard platform 60 miles north of Aberdeen. But instead, the helicopter landed on the Ensco 120 rig, around nine nautical miles away from Buzzard.
Bond confirmed two employees have been removed from the flight roster while an investigation is under way.
The S-92 was carrying one passenger when it landed on Ensco 120 at around 7pm. It is understood the rig was in full operation when the helicopter arrived.
The Bond S-92 left Aberdeen on Friday evening, heading for the Buzzard platform 60 miles north of Aberdeen. But instead, the helicopter landed on the Ensco 120 rig, around nine nautical miles away from Buzzard.
Bond confirmed two employees have been removed from the flight roster while an investigation is under way.
The S-92 was carrying one passenger when it landed on Ensco 120 at around 7pm. It is understood the rig was in full operation when the helicopter arrived.
Deleted following MM's comments below - my initial google search showed what must have been the initial exploratory semi-sub, not the platform!
Last edited by 212man; 26th Aug 2014 at 16:28.
It does seem a little careless but then again no doubt there will be list of contributory factors all coming together.
There are of course a few permanent ones that we are so used to they barely impinge, such as pilots having to change destination mid flight (you can imagine the outcry if airline chappies had to do that!), the name on the side of the rig often obscured or faded, or confusing (block number instead of name), the name on the deck, in any case only visible very late in the approach, covered in ****ehawk****e, and names of installations ridiculously similar.
So yes a bit careless but hardly worthy of front page P&J. The oil companies like to get hysterical when this happens but as soon as you suggest improving the name signs they are suddenly no longer interested. Yes it is theoretically a bit of a safety hazard but pretty minor in the great scheme of things.
I speak as someone who did once land on the wrong rig, early 80s, me copilot on the S61, off to land on a semisub under tow, the days of Decca. We broke cloud at the expected place and there was the rig under tow, 100 miles out from Abz or whatever. We called them up, "they" answered with deck clearance so we duly landed. Then a different voice came on the radio... Yes, it was the wrong rig under tow, the correct rig under tow was a few miles away also in the middle of no-where. Fortunately in those days no-one was that bothered but it did seem SO UNFAIR!
There are of course a few permanent ones that we are so used to they barely impinge, such as pilots having to change destination mid flight (you can imagine the outcry if airline chappies had to do that!), the name on the side of the rig often obscured or faded, or confusing (block number instead of name), the name on the deck, in any case only visible very late in the approach, covered in ****ehawk****e, and names of installations ridiculously similar.
So yes a bit careless but hardly worthy of front page P&J. The oil companies like to get hysterical when this happens but as soon as you suggest improving the name signs they are suddenly no longer interested. Yes it is theoretically a bit of a safety hazard but pretty minor in the great scheme of things.
I speak as someone who did once land on the wrong rig, early 80s, me copilot on the S61, off to land on a semisub under tow, the days of Decca. We broke cloud at the expected place and there was the rig under tow, 100 miles out from Abz or whatever. We called them up, "they" answered with deck clearance so we duly landed. Then a different voice came on the radio... Yes, it was the wrong rig under tow, the correct rig under tow was a few miles away also in the middle of no-where. Fortunately in those days no-one was that bothered but it did seem SO UNFAIR!
Buzzard:
However, if the Ensco 120 is still drilling in the Golden Eagle field, then there are arguably certain visual similarities:
(That photo was taken in May 2014: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22673279@N08/14398971935).
However, if the Ensco 120 is still drilling in the Golden Eagle field, then there are arguably certain visual similarities:
(That photo was taken in May 2014: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22673279@N08/14398971935).
How can this possibly happen? A crew delivering one passenger to a platform land on a jackup nine miles away.
It is pretty obvious why it happened, the North sea culture is so subordinate to automation that the crew have lost the ability to assess when things are going wrong. You program the autopilot/FMS and when you arrive at where it says you are you land, no arguments, it's company policy.
The crew are being hung out to dry. Landing at the wrong rig? Easy; I was demonstrated that on my second line training trip in the North Sea. Never ever did it myself.
Conjecture would suggest that the L2 at Sumburgh was initiated by the crew overtly relying on the automatic systems in the aircraft. Have we come to the stage where company policies and training system are being directed to automation rather than basic piloting skills and airmanship?
It is pretty obvious why it happened, the North sea culture is so subordinate to automation that the crew have lost the ability to assess when things are going wrong. You program the autopilot/FMS and when you arrive at where it says you are you land, no arguments, it's company policy.
The crew are being hung out to dry. Landing at the wrong rig? Easy; I was demonstrated that on my second line training trip in the North Sea. Never ever did it myself.
Conjecture would suggest that the L2 at Sumburgh was initiated by the crew overtly relying on the automatic systems in the aircraft. Have we come to the stage where company policies and training system are being directed to automation rather than basic piloting skills and airmanship?
FED, folk have been landing on the wrong rig ever since the N Sea was invented. And now it is suddenly the fault of new fangled automation? Yea, right!
Your hidden agenda is leaking out!
Your hidden agenda is leaking out!
Looking out of the window to verify where you're going seems to have gone out of fashion. If you can't read the helideck markings for guano, you might at least let the rig crew know.
And now it is suddenly the fault of new fangled automation? Yea, right!
Do you two guys have any idea at all what you are talking about or do you just like criticising others for the sake of it?
Last edited by HeliComparator; 26th Aug 2014 at 20:29. Reason: Typo
Do you two guys have any idea at all what you are talking about or do you just like criticising others for the sake of it?
Edited to add; there's a Bond S-92 pilot of long-standing acquaintance who, when we were going through flying training in 1982 picked-up the nickname "Blind Pew". I wonder....
At least they didn't make a balls-up of the approach - the P&J would have had a field-day.
Last edited by diginagain; 26th Aug 2014 at 22:44.
Do you two guys have any idea at all what you are talking about or do you just like criticising others for the sake of it?
That wouldn't be before you were born, would it?
No, it wouldn't. Although it's interesting to note that you think being very old gives you some superiority in this matter. Anyway the difference between you and me is that I am not still living in 1962.
It would be interesting to know Bond's current SOPs. For Bristow it has been mandatory for some time to have the next destination in the GPS and to cross check it on short finals.
Of course semisubs are not in the database and have to be added by the pilots as user waypoints, so there might (or might not) be an issue with providing pilots with up to date location information. Oh that reminds me, one to add to my initial list of issues - airports that move! What would airline pilots think of that I wonder?
Edit: Oops, it was headed for the Buzzard so my "user waypoint" point is pointless - in this particular case at any rate.
Of course semisubs are not in the database and have to be added by the pilots as user waypoints, so there might (or might not) be an issue with providing pilots with up to date location information. Oh that reminds me, one to add to my initial list of issues - airports that move! What would airline pilots think of that I wonder?
Edit: Oops, it was headed for the Buzzard so my "user waypoint" point is pointless - in this particular case at any rate.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 26th Aug 2014 at 21:38. Reason: Waypoint point
I wonder how many offshore pilots have never landed on the wrong deck during their carrier ? .... as HC has said above, many contributory factors put together, make this mistake understable to those who really know the job. It's a bit like a gear up landing on fixed wings (and helicopters sometimes!)
The last barrier being the name reading on the hull or deck, it is not always visible or clear depending the approach configuration and the time of of the day (was it 7pm in this case ?)
The last barrier being the name reading on the hull or deck, it is not always visible or clear depending the approach configuration and the time of of the day (was it 7pm in this case ?)
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,093
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeliComparator:
En-route change? too easy. Try it at 200' in a B747 overshooting from JFK in a snowstorm and heading off to a place you have never even seen before!
(and dealing with US ATC and 400 pax at the same time).
You seem to have a bit of a hang up over fixed-wing flying? Jealous maybe?
And before you ask, yes back in the sixties I flew the WS55-III to rigs with no working nav aids at all!
(Just to add, landing on the wrong rig or platform in those days would simply cost a lot of beer, no inquiry).
(you can imagine the outcry if airline chappies had to do that!),
(and dealing with US ATC and 400 pax at the same time).
You seem to have a bit of a hang up over fixed-wing flying? Jealous maybe?
And before you ask, yes back in the sixties I flew the WS55-III to rigs with no working nav aids at all!
(Just to add, landing on the wrong rig or platform in those days would simply cost a lot of beer, no inquiry).