Hot refueling offshore Newfoundland a hot topic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 61
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot refueling offshore Newfoundland a hot topic!
The CNLOPB (Canada Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board) has recently instructed the operators to immediately cease all hot refueling on offshore installations (Jet A1 fuelling with engines running). As a passenger, and helideck team member, I am curious as to the opinion of the aircrews on the risks involved in refuelling with engines on, rotors turning vs shutdown? Is this warranted?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Malaysia / Thailand offshore hot refuelling is not allowed, I think the issue is guaranteeing that the helideck crew have had suitable training.
In my opinion the risk of going unserviceable on subsequent start offshore is greater than the likelihood of a problem with the hot refuelling itself.
Also other issues become a factor like wind limits on start / shutdown and whether or not tiedowns should be used can complicate the situation.
In my opinion the risk of going unserviceable on subsequent start offshore is greater than the likelihood of a problem with the hot refuelling itself.
Also other issues become a factor like wind limits on start / shutdown and whether or not tiedowns should be used can complicate the situation.
Last edited by SFIM; 21st Dec 2015 at 18:08.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the problem mr weight, if you know the wind is a problem before you go then you have to modify the route / payload to avoid a shutdown.
If it only becomes a problem once airborne you will have to avoid a shutdown and possibly will have to return to base without completing the route.
Either way it's the customer that's inconvenienced rather than the helicopter operator.
If it only becomes a problem once airborne you will have to avoid a shutdown and possibly will have to return to base without completing the route.
Either way it's the customer that's inconvenienced rather than the helicopter operator.
I did rotors running refuels with gas turbine driven helicopters for forty three years both onshore and offshore and during that time I never knew or even heard about anybody have a jet fuel fire rotors turning.
A couple of years ago it became an issue with SAR helos getting refuels on rigs, only because the refuellers couldn't cope with basic safety strategies such as being cleared into and out of the disc by the rearcrew - they just did their own thing, wandering around the TR and running the hoses under the helo without clearance.
Fundamentally, as FED says, there is nothing intrinsically dangerous with rotors running refuels on rigs, either gravity or pressure refuels - just a small amount of training and professionalism required.
Fundamentally, as FED says, there is nothing intrinsically dangerous with rotors running refuels on rigs, either gravity or pressure refuels - just a small amount of training and professionalism required.
The crews we work with are fully trained and very good.
Pax off.
Refuel.
Pax on.
Why this has suddenly come up is beyond me.
If rig winds /P, R, H are out of limits for shut down then RR refueling is still allowed.
Pax off.
Refuel.
Pax on.
Why this has suddenly come up is beyond me.
If rig winds /P, R, H are out of limits for shut down then RR refueling is still allowed.
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
I am aware of only one incident involving a fire during a rotors running refuel offshore on the North Sea. It was early 80's and involved a hose bursting while refuelling a S61. There was a brief fire caused by fuel from the ruptured hose spraying into the engine exhaust but it was quickly extinguished. The oil company concerned immediately banned all rotors running refuels but eventually returned to allowing them when it created so much inconvenience and reduction in payloads. It was subsequently discovered that the hose was well past its sell-by date.
As to Crab's assertion of lack of helideck crew "professionalism", I think that is just down to not understanding the difference between military and civilian procedures. On the North Sea, the civilian standard does not require a specific clearance for each ground crew member to enter the disk area. Once the anti collision light is extinguished after landing then ground crew can move around the deck as necessary to fulfill their duties. There are occasional lapses in standards, getting too close to the tail rotor for instance, which should be picked up on very quickly, if not by the HLO, by the helicopter crew member supervising the turn round. This would normally always be followed up by a safety report which would be fed back through the helideck operator's SMS.
As to Crab's assertion of lack of helideck crew "professionalism", I think that is just down to not understanding the difference between military and civilian procedures. On the North Sea, the civilian standard does not require a specific clearance for each ground crew member to enter the disk area. Once the anti collision light is extinguished after landing then ground crew can move around the deck as necessary to fulfill their duties. There are occasional lapses in standards, getting too close to the tail rotor for instance, which should be picked up on very quickly, if not by the HLO, by the helicopter crew member supervising the turn round. This would normally always be followed up by a safety report which would be fed back through the helideck operator's SMS.
The CNLOPB (Canada Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board) has recently instructed the operators to immediately cease all hot refueling on offshore installations (Jet A1 fuelling with engines running).
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 77
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot Refueling in the Good Old Days.
For the benefit of all you young helo pilots (the ones still in nappies), back in olden times (1960 - 1970) in the GOM we self refueled our copters on unmanned oil rigs with rotors turning. These were all single-pilot flown helicopters.
Friction down the collective and cyclic at idle and climb out. The US Army taught us to do that in primary flight training, solo flights into confined areas. Climb out and walk around the LZ. Don't shut down the Hiller or Hughes, let it idle.
Self refueling on the oil platforms was often required due to high winds that prevented a normal shut down, even with a rotor brake. Fuel requirements were enough to destination (might only be 5 miles away), then to a fuel platform (might be the destination platform), plus 20 minutes. The onshore base might be over an hour away. Even some of the onshore fuel sites were unmanned.
Refueling the Bell 47 series with AVGAS while the stabilizer bar spun just above your head, was a bit exciting. The BH-206A got light on the front skids without the pilot. The BH-204 with the big sausage floats liked to roll side-to-side in the wind. But with all the hundreds of self refuelings accomplished everyday, 7 days a week, for many years....and not one incident that I recall.
Add to that the many times I had to self refuel when flying in remote areas of Alaska or the jungles. Don't want to shut down in this very remote site. What if it fails to restart? No radio contact. Might be stuck here for a long time. At least with piston airplanes I could hand prop the airplane even with a dead battery, but not a turbine helicopter.
Friction down the collective and cyclic at idle and climb out. The US Army taught us to do that in primary flight training, solo flights into confined areas. Climb out and walk around the LZ. Don't shut down the Hiller or Hughes, let it idle.
Self refueling on the oil platforms was often required due to high winds that prevented a normal shut down, even with a rotor brake. Fuel requirements were enough to destination (might only be 5 miles away), then to a fuel platform (might be the destination platform), plus 20 minutes. The onshore base might be over an hour away. Even some of the onshore fuel sites were unmanned.
Refueling the Bell 47 series with AVGAS while the stabilizer bar spun just above your head, was a bit exciting. The BH-206A got light on the front skids without the pilot. The BH-204 with the big sausage floats liked to roll side-to-side in the wind. But with all the hundreds of self refuelings accomplished everyday, 7 days a week, for many years....and not one incident that I recall.
Add to that the many times I had to self refuel when flying in remote areas of Alaska or the jungles. Don't want to shut down in this very remote site. What if it fails to restart? No radio contact. Might be stuck here for a long time. At least with piston airplanes I could hand prop the airplane even with a dead battery, but not a turbine helicopter.
Hugh - the anti -colls don't get turned off on a mil helo and the issue was with the helideck crew totally ignoring the aircrewman and doing their own thing, including getting too close to the tail rotor - the incidents were passed back up the chain and some re-briefing took place by the company involved.
Since then - no problem but, as you know, familiarity can breed contempt and slack practices can gradually erode safety margins until a near miss (hopefully nothing worse) re-aligns those safety margins.
Since then - no problem but, as you know, familiarity can breed contempt and slack practices can gradually erode safety margins until a near miss (hopefully nothing worse) re-aligns those safety margins.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 61
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understood that it is a written regulation that the board decided to enforce, one week before Chrustmas! On our facility, all refuelling has been done with all pax removed, ground wire attached, predetermined volume, hand signals for start and stop, depressurize line before disconnecting, pilot checks sample before and after for water. Helideck crew is HLO, refueler, 2 x fireman, 2 to connect/disconnect hose, plus 2-3 for baggage & cargo. Formal training for all.
Last edited by Fixed Wing Jockey; 22nd Dec 2015 at 21:42.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Refueling the Bell 47 series with AVGAS while the stabilizer bar spun just above your head, was a bit exciting.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: CND
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally irrational for the board to implement such a hap hazards recommendation.
If memory serves the first oil was discovered in 79 and then ramped up in 86 with the Exxon find. In 97 production began with literally tens of thousand of flight conducted with 99.9 percent all done with rotors turning with nary a incident! All this as done is introduce more risk. Why?
Payloads will be reduced! That means more flights and more exposure.
Shut downs on helidecks on the Grand Banks are inherently more risky. Given the wind and vessel motions.
Aircraft that will not start or experience a snag on start! Now the aircraft is exposed! Damage that may be seen or NOT seen?
Time pressure, given the limited daylight and needed to have the passengers back on the beach before nightfall will (may) lead the crew to rush or abbreviate a checklist. Even though not intentional we all want to get the job done.
What of the aircraft goes unserviceable after a shut down, the client and the board will want it back in service ASAP. This means a night flight to a already crowded helideck or possible night hoist with the mechanic. Risk, think so?
Someone needs to ask some serious questions, not of the client and not of the two professional helo company here. The questions need to be asked of the people whom made this decision at the board level. 🙉
If memory serves the first oil was discovered in 79 and then ramped up in 86 with the Exxon find. In 97 production began with literally tens of thousand of flight conducted with 99.9 percent all done with rotors turning with nary a incident! All this as done is introduce more risk. Why?
Payloads will be reduced! That means more flights and more exposure.
Shut downs on helidecks on the Grand Banks are inherently more risky. Given the wind and vessel motions.
Aircraft that will not start or experience a snag on start! Now the aircraft is exposed! Damage that may be seen or NOT seen?
Time pressure, given the limited daylight and needed to have the passengers back on the beach before nightfall will (may) lead the crew to rush or abbreviate a checklist. Even though not intentional we all want to get the job done.
What of the aircraft goes unserviceable after a shut down, the client and the board will want it back in service ASAP. This means a night flight to a already crowded helideck or possible night hoist with the mechanic. Risk, think so?
Someone needs to ask some serious questions, not of the client and not of the two professional helo company here. The questions need to be asked of the people whom made this decision at the board level. 🙉
CARS 723.38 (2) restricts fuelling with engines running if passengers are on board. No restriction on refuelling with engines running without passengers. CNLOPB will make up its own industry rules though, that may be more restrictive than what the regulations are (like EBS for all East Coast offshore operations).
As is already well described in several posts to this thread, the new CNLOPB restriction would seem to increase overall risk rather than decrease it. It is a pretty sophisticated organization, so I'd want to see what they actually wrote, and not PPRUNE speculation. Can someone post the CNLOPB instruction?
As is already well described in several posts to this thread, the new CNLOPB restriction would seem to increase overall risk rather than decrease it. It is a pretty sophisticated organization, so I'd want to see what they actually wrote, and not PPRUNE speculation. Can someone post the CNLOPB instruction?
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As stated in earlier threads, the potential risks / consequences of shutting down on the deck in Atlantic Canada arguably outweigh any perceived risks associated with hot refuelling. The abrupt announcement of this policy occurred without any advance warning, coordination, or prior consultation with the industry!!
Mind boggling and such a sad way to do business. But hey, why treat the oil companies with any respect, they only make a MINOR contribution to the NL economy.
This is one of the many random shots from the Board these days, such as lashing out at a PIC who remained on deck for about an hour (with rotors turning) while waiting for suitable takeoff weather. The highly experienced Board advisor (with no offshore oil experience) 'educated' the offshore PIC about how he carelessly created a fire hazard by exposing the rig to dangers from hot exhaust for an hour. Wow.......
Yet another reminder of how you gotta be careful who you give authority to!! Will be interesting to see how much more crap the oil companies put up with before significant backlash......
The bull**** in this industry gets deeper by the year, mostly as a result of yet another office warrior who is looking to justify their position and 'make the operation more safe'. Well.......we're so 'safe' that we're dangerous! Rant over.....
Mind boggling and such a sad way to do business. But hey, why treat the oil companies with any respect, they only make a MINOR contribution to the NL economy.
This is one of the many random shots from the Board these days, such as lashing out at a PIC who remained on deck for about an hour (with rotors turning) while waiting for suitable takeoff weather. The highly experienced Board advisor (with no offshore oil experience) 'educated' the offshore PIC about how he carelessly created a fire hazard by exposing the rig to dangers from hot exhaust for an hour. Wow.......
Yet another reminder of how you gotta be careful who you give authority to!! Will be interesting to see how much more crap the oil companies put up with before significant backlash......
The bull**** in this industry gets deeper by the year, mostly as a result of yet another office warrior who is looking to justify their position and 'make the operation more safe'. Well.......we're so 'safe' that we're dangerous! Rant over.....
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: CND
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fogdog,
You obviously know what is going on with the operator, client and board. The good part is what you are saying can be verified as true! Yes they did question the PIC, fortunately the company stood behind them, not that they had a choice they were as caught out as any one else when questioned. Most of us have run on deck for sometimes 50 to 90 minutes waiting for medevac, pax screw up, wind issues, turbulence, icing, vis etc.... And never questioned.....ever!
But now it seems that the two CNLOPB chaps in aviation want to direct the ship from the office...... Even though neither would now what seat should do the landing after been given deck heading and wind! Nuff said! They both should called upstairs.... But then again lies another mess!
You obviously know what is going on with the operator, client and board. The good part is what you are saying can be verified as true! Yes they did question the PIC, fortunately the company stood behind them, not that they had a choice they were as caught out as any one else when questioned. Most of us have run on deck for sometimes 50 to 90 minutes waiting for medevac, pax screw up, wind issues, turbulence, icing, vis etc.... And never questioned.....ever!
But now it seems that the two CNLOPB chaps in aviation want to direct the ship from the office...... Even though neither would now what seat should do the landing after been given deck heading and wind! Nuff said! They both should called upstairs.... But then again lies another mess!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is one of the many random shots from the Board these days, such as lashing out at a PIC who remained on deck for about an hour (with rotors turning) while waiting for suitable takeoff weather. The highly experienced Board advisor (with no offshore oil experience) 'educated' the offshore PIC about how he carelessly created a fire hazard by exposing the rig to dangers from hot exhaust for an hour. Wow.......
Yes, CNLOPB's 'expert' is ex-military with no civil offshore expertise, clearly following a trend some oil companies have gone. Enough said?