Acceptable risks : Night offshore flying

[Sir Niall Dementia]

SAS;

Shoot at me and I'll go for every bit of protection going! In the meantime I'll opt for as much comfort as possible, and with modern active headsets much of the hearing protection argument is going away.

SND

[Fareastdriver]

We Triassic Luddites are not knocking modern technology. What is worrying is the dependence on that technology. It appears that SOPs are being written not by the people who are going to fly to them but by accountants and lawyers. The is leading to a deterioration in the skill level of the profession as a whole.

It would take very little for there to be so much equipment available that a offshore aircraft could virtually do the whole thing by itself. When that happens you can pay the crew the same as call centres; because that is all they will have to do.

[serf]

NVG

Visual acuity unaided at night is 20-200, with NVG this is improved to 20-40, you choose..
20-200 is also the legal definition of blindness, I believe.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Serf, how do the NVG's cope with the lighting around a rig? I've never used them so don't know, but that appears to be an issue - ie you can use them approaching the rig but within about 1/2nm the rig lighting becomes too bright with NVG's to be of much benefit. I don't know if that's a general issue or an issue with a particular type of NVG?

[cyclic]

I think the baralt use is s throwback to having some over torques in the 332 when it went into "fly up" mode.

It is, although the fly-up is easily caught if you have your hand on the collective below 500'!

[cyclic]

I assume the shiny new Helioffshore organisation is looking into all of this?

[Offshoreflyer0274]

I'm not aware of anything getting looked into. As far as I can see the issue has been dealt with as far as it's going to be by establishing 3 landings/take offs within 90 days, stabilized approaches by regulating AFCS useage and operators now all (at least I think all, I'm not sure about NHV) establishing some gated approach at about .75 mm. I don't think this is sufficient to establish a safe night time offshore enviroment though, and think regulations will change again after the next accident at night. I'm just trying to get a discussion going to see if changes can be made - and also what those changes should be - before another accident or fatality occurs.

[[email protected]]

Offshore - as mentioned by others previously, the modern NVGs have much better capability with variable gain to prevent them closing down in brighter lights.

As long as you are not staring directly into the flare then a hand-flown NVG approach will be straightforward - you do need to scan laterally however since depth perception and rate of closure assessment are more difficult using NVG but still waaaayyy better than the unaided eye.

Surely you can hand fly the cyclic from 0.75 nm but still utilise rad alt hold (on manoeuvre if you have the capability) or wind down on it so you retain height protection until the last moment.

The correct challenge and response between the pilots will also help - eg responding to rad alt height warnings/audios (if you have them) and calling check heights.

[cyclic]

Surely you can hand fly the cyclic from 0.75 nm but still utilise rad alt hold (on manoeuvre if you have the capability) or wind down on it so you retain height protection until the last moment.

Mixed mode flying is one of the issues that we try to avoid although retaining height protection is priority. With a 225 the segment between decision and landing at the bottom of an ARA is easily within the capability of the autopilot and therefore you can remain 4 axis until very short final to the deck. This is also the segment most open to mistakes. By having an upper mode engaged you also get free protection from the ultimate cock up. The new (ish) night VGA is flown 4 axis and experience has shown that most crews do not feel the need to manually fly until inside the last 0.2 miles, even less in a strong headwind even though decision is still at 0.75 With follow up trim, if you do very little apart from keeping it moving, the stabilised approach is now a much calmer affair.

As for height, speed, ROD and deviation calls then this is very much SOP, not just at night but during all approaches. TAWS & EGWPS give all the audio you need along with a much more sophisticated bug setting regime.

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Thanks for the info crab.

[Gomer Pylot]

I was doubtful about NVGs until I actually started using them. Then I wouldn't consider going out at night without them. Most HEMS operations in the US use NVGs for night flights. I don't use them all the time, often flying with them flipped up, but that's in cruise flight at altitude. Down low, they're essential. They can be used in situations with high ambient light, such as lighted pads in cities with all sorts of lights. I don't usually use them in those places because there is so much light that it's easy to land unaided, with more peripheral vision cues. But current generation NVGs are not affected by bright lights, to any major extent. They can bloom slightly when looking directly at a very bright light, but they're still usable. It takes some training to be proficient, like any other maneuver, but it's not that difficult. I see no reason at all that they couldn't be used on offshore rigs. I've done many hundreds of night offshore landings over the years unaided, and I would hate to go back to doing that without goggles.

Regulatory oversight is problematic. The FAA really has no clue about NVGs, and their regulations and enforcement make little sense. It's obvious none of their inspectors have ever used NVGs seriously, only a few flights in a training situation. Regulatory agencies in other countries probably have even less experience. Current FAA regulation actually makes operations less safe than they could be, and that may be the case elsewhere when (not if, when) NVGs are adopted there. They're coming, technology cannot be denied forever, and they're a very good thing.

[Saint Evil]

So back to the original subject.

Having used nvg in the mob, I wouldn't be without them overland or operating at low level in the coastal environment, but as a rig runner they have limited utility, apart from the dark bits inbetween landings, but these are generally flown IFR anyway.

We use either an instrument approach or a visual gate approach to get the helideck at night. Both are highly procedural and tightly controlled and monitored. As north sea crews can lack night continuity, especially as night flying starts the risks have been largely mitigated by this procedural approach.

There is now no space for cowboys, mishandling etc in the modern north sea. Not saying it won't happen but much less likely.

It's like saying you'll never hit anything if low flying on goggles. The risks are reduced but not eradicated.

NVGs would be nice but mostly for interest rather than a great leap forward in safety.

[tistisnot]

OffshoreFlyer0274

As you mentioned the CAA, I presume UK as you are in England - if so having read their report there was only one fatal CFIT 1973-2012 ...... G-BLUN where lack of adequate procedures and practising them in a suitable flight simulator were contributory causes. So yes, not nearly - but clearly 100 percent of fatal accidents at night were CFIT(W)!

The only other CFIT(W) reported G-REDU was very fortunately not fatal, but a classic example for CRM courses on how not to approach at night. So I just think you are exaggerating the situation. The report did not highlight any concern; but we have surely frightened the customers enough to make many restrict their night activity.

I am sure larger operators have improved procedures and training for 2 crew ops. I believe the 90 day requirement adequate - and many of today's flight simulators provide much improved night visuals for OEI training to complement this. If a pilot is OGP current for night shuttling, his exposure to that task will no doubt quickly and happily maintain proficiency.

I understand your concern for NUI's however. Sure NVG may help to reduce the chance of striking the structure at night, but I just think line aircraft simply need a better AFCS etc to complete the profile during that final 0.2 nm at night as someone suggested - whether it be from a VMC 500' sight picture approach, or straight in from an ARA at 300' or whatever. DGPS might perhaps help, then we can ditch the NDB's and cost of (not) maintaining them .....

(Comments are simply referring to UK CAA report - I know there have been other night CFIT(W) offshore.)

[[email protected]]

So, short finals to the rig in the dark and there is a big bang (or maybe just a whimper) as one of the donks gives up - would you rather fly your go-around on instruments without being able to see the horizon, the rig or the surface OR would you like to fly a go-around just as you would by day except using NVG?

[tistisnot]

Instruments for sure ..... you are going home, not landing on the rig ?! You have two reliable artificial horizons!

[Fareastdriver]

without being able to see the horizon, the rig or the surface

If you're on any sort of finals to a rig and you lose sight of it you are going around anyway as per the procedure and back to the bar..

You don't fly on dark and stormy nights. They tried it on the Cormorant A once and it turned into a disaster. Offshore pilots can, when necessary do it, as the evacuation of the Hermod proved; but they are not paid to.

Maybe in the Klondike days of the seventies we did it.

Radalt???? XXXII.XXXIII,XXXIV on a semisub's pontoon leg was good enough.

[cyclic]

Vtoss and hit the go around button Crab. Heading hold in, sit back and relax
NVGs, we are taking people to work not trying to storm the rig!

[Delta Torque]

Arrr....it's nice to be able to see in the dark. A bit of a training and equipment cost, but it must be worth it. Why fly blind, when you can see?

[Offshoreflyer0274]

Tistisnot : I'll try and get hold of the data. We got this from our flight safety officer giving a brief using CAA stats a year or so ago. I'll try to find the exact data used.

[RVDT]

My money is still on EFVS being more the norm in the future.

NVG's work up to a point - but don't actually work without some light.

EFVS can be certified and it would be a better idea to mount the multi-spectral sensors on the aircraft for lots of reasons.

EFVS is common on a lot of private jets where "money no object" prevails.
Have a look at your local jet ramp someday.

ELBIT seem to have made some significant progress with EFVS and the Wearable HUD.

Skylens and LPV anyone ?





Newer generation AH aircraft are already using ELBIT having dumped Thales.

I would bet that this is an available option on the new H160 and could easily integrate on the current H145.

NVG's actually go back to WW II.