Twins operating without Onshore Diversion Fuel in GOM
Thread Starter
Twins operating without Onshore Diversion Fuel in GOM
During a conversation with a friend who flys in the Gulf of Mexico...he remarked his company requires pilots flying twins to operate at gross weights that preclude making safe single engine landings to rig decks and simultaneously mandate the use of only 30 minute reserve fuel which prevents the aircraft from making it to a safe landing area (on or offshore).
A previous poster noted current industry practice in the GOM is to operate twins at max weights that do not allow for any margin of power and in his view presented a real danger of not being able to maintain flight following an engine failure during or shortly after takeoff.
Two different pilots....both very experienced....two different companys involved....and both telling accounts of a lack of concern by GOM operators and customers regarding safety issues. Some of the customers are the very same ones that operate on the North Sea and demand high safety standards....related helicopter operators in one case.
Wonder why the difference in attitudes between the UK...Europe...and the GOM?
A previous poster noted current industry practice in the GOM is to operate twins at max weights that do not allow for any margin of power and in his view presented a real danger of not being able to maintain flight following an engine failure during or shortly after takeoff.
Two different pilots....both very experienced....two different companys involved....and both telling accounts of a lack of concern by GOM operators and customers regarding safety issues. Some of the customers are the very same ones that operate on the North Sea and demand high safety standards....related helicopter operators in one case.
Wonder why the difference in attitudes between the UK...Europe...and the GOM?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sassy….Poo Prawn is going to love you!!
From your first paragraph, it would seem there is a whole bunch of guys/girls flying around the GOM in multi-engine singles!!!
If you enter the OEI configuration in these machines….you can’t land on a deck, and with no return fuel??....splash.
Surely no pilot in a medium twin in the OEI configuration, would consider using an Offshore Helideck to land on??...what a recipe for a fiery ball.
I would also think that no respected owner of an Oil Platform would invite you to crash on his deck and set fire to his home, because you didn’t take enough fuel when you left your home!!!
Our fuel policy on a normal two hour IFR sortie is:
Flight fuel, + 10% Variable of your flight fuel, + 30 minutes Fixed Reserve.
[Flightfuel: is the total outbound and inbound fuel without landing offshore]
You must always carry enough fuel to get you to a land based suitable flat area….[the size, surface is specified in the B412 RFM]
When you land offshore with AEO, you can then burn that unused 10% Variable of the outbound leg as deck fuel. As the return flight is considered a new leg, the Variable on that leg will only be 10% of the return leg only….classic case of making fuel!
"Reprinted from another thread….
Presently we utilize three limitations when operating 412's as far as AUW is concerned. Our Restricted Take Off Weight [RTOW] must be the lesser of:
1. MTOW [11900 lbs]
2. WAT Chart [Limitations Section of the RFM]
3. OEI capacity at MC or 30 mins to maintain zero % climb gradient at 500 agl [VFR]..... or 1% climb gradient at LSALT in IFR."
Its interesting to note the times folk don’t heed the WAT Chart Limitation…..its a limitation of the RFM.
With the fuel policy of carrying return fuel, plus the above three RTOW Limitations…………..we feel comfortable that should a PT6 fail at any time, we should have the fuel and performance to arrive safely home.
If you enter the OEI configuration in these machines….you can’t land on a deck, and with no return fuel??....splash.
Surely no pilot in a medium twin in the OEI configuration, would consider using an Offshore Helideck to land on??...what a recipe for a fiery ball.
I would also think that no respected owner of an Oil Platform would invite you to crash on his deck and set fire to his home, because you didn’t take enough fuel when you left your home!!!
Our fuel policy on a normal two hour IFR sortie is:
Flight fuel, + 10% Variable of your flight fuel, + 30 minutes Fixed Reserve.
[Flightfuel: is the total outbound and inbound fuel without landing offshore]
You must always carry enough fuel to get you to a land based suitable flat area….[the size, surface is specified in the B412 RFM]
When you land offshore with AEO, you can then burn that unused 10% Variable of the outbound leg as deck fuel. As the return flight is considered a new leg, the Variable on that leg will only be 10% of the return leg only….classic case of making fuel!
"Reprinted from another thread….
Presently we utilize three limitations when operating 412's as far as AUW is concerned. Our Restricted Take Off Weight [RTOW] must be the lesser of:
1. MTOW [11900 lbs]
2. WAT Chart [Limitations Section of the RFM]
3. OEI capacity at MC or 30 mins to maintain zero % climb gradient at 500 agl [VFR]..... or 1% climb gradient at LSALT in IFR."
Its interesting to note the times folk don’t heed the WAT Chart Limitation…..its a limitation of the RFM.
With the fuel policy of carrying return fuel, plus the above three RTOW Limitations…………..we feel comfortable that should a PT6 fail at any time, we should have the fuel and performance to arrive safely home.
All companies are in business for a profit, whatever they say, and safety morals are not to get on the way. High safety standards (particularly those that cost lots of money) are set only in those areas where local culture and legislation so call for. OSHA (USA) and HSE (UK) are known for setting the most stringent safety standards in the world, which also costs companies losts of money, always understanding that regulatory frameworks generally reflect the cultural values and beliefs of the countries where they apply.
International companies simply would not be able to compete with local operators on areas of 'more relaxed' safety attitudes if they were to apply the highest common denominator standard across the board. Sad as it sounds, life and the environment are priced commodities as far as companies are concerned, regardless of what their marketing campaigs make us believe. Only when trouble-makers like greenpeace and human right activists rock the boat at home (i.e. where shareholders with strigent safety expectations are watching) companies take notice. When the safety matters at question are heavily technical in nature, like above, they are unlikely to be picked up by those groups and its exactly there where the major discrepancies occur.
International companies simply would not be able to compete with local operators on areas of 'more relaxed' safety attitudes if they were to apply the highest common denominator standard across the board. Sad as it sounds, life and the environment are priced commodities as far as companies are concerned, regardless of what their marketing campaigs make us believe. Only when trouble-makers like greenpeace and human right activists rock the boat at home (i.e. where shareholders with strigent safety expectations are watching) companies take notice. When the safety matters at question are heavily technical in nature, like above, they are unlikely to be picked up by those groups and its exactly there where the major discrepancies occur.
It's a funny thing about multi-engine aircraft. We assume that they are inherently "safer" than singles. Statistically, that doesn't always seem to be the case. This explains why so many hospitals in the U.S. have traded their Twin-Stars and BO-105's for Astars and 407's. So my question is: Is this really a "safety" issue?
Why do we use multis in the first place? Is it because continued flight is always assured after the failure of one powerplant? Not in the U.S. it isn't! Nor is it a legal, moral or corporate requirement (AFAIK on that last part). I believe that the oil companies understand and accept this. The "majors" all have aviation departments, and they do not operate in a vacuum (i.e. the U.S. aviation people talk to the U.K. aviation people). And they're not stupid. The redundancy of the second engine gives us some comfort, but does not guarantee that the aircraft won't end up in the water.
To that end, all twin-engine aircraft in the GOM are equipped with emergency flotation gear and have life rafts installed. All passengers must wear PFD's at all times. About 99.9% of all rigs/platforms in the GOM do not even fall under the US FAA's definition of "extended overwater flight" although that is changing as exploration heads deeper.
Except for a very short period between January and early March, the Gulf Of Mexico itself is surviveably warm. The weather in the Gulf is fairly benign most of the time. Many aircraft- both singles and twins- have been successfully ditched with no injury or loss of life.
Without the ability to continue flight on only one engine from every flight regime, a twin is going into the water if one quits at an inopportune time. But even if it can continue flight, without enough fuel to fly back to the beach a twin may still go in the water after an engine failure if the crew does not feel like putting it on a rig/platform.
Statistically, the FAA and insurance companies must have extensive experience with twin-engine operations in the GOM. I wonder just how many engine-failures the twins have? What's the calculated risk? And just how far do we go to insulate ourselves or guard against every possible failure mode in a helicopter?
I guess it gets back to: Is this unacceptable? Is this unsafe? We'd like to make the issue as black/white as possible, but I think it's not that simple. Operators in the U.K. do things one way. Operators in the U.S. do things differently. But before coming to any firm conclusion as to which way is better, I think some questions need to be asked...and answered.
P.S. As a pilot, I know which way I prefer- and that would be to guarantee that I'll be able to keep my feet dry at all times
Why do we use multis in the first place? Is it because continued flight is always assured after the failure of one powerplant? Not in the U.S. it isn't! Nor is it a legal, moral or corporate requirement (AFAIK on that last part). I believe that the oil companies understand and accept this. The "majors" all have aviation departments, and they do not operate in a vacuum (i.e. the U.S. aviation people talk to the U.K. aviation people). And they're not stupid. The redundancy of the second engine gives us some comfort, but does not guarantee that the aircraft won't end up in the water.
To that end, all twin-engine aircraft in the GOM are equipped with emergency flotation gear and have life rafts installed. All passengers must wear PFD's at all times. About 99.9% of all rigs/platforms in the GOM do not even fall under the US FAA's definition of "extended overwater flight" although that is changing as exploration heads deeper.
Except for a very short period between January and early March, the Gulf Of Mexico itself is surviveably warm. The weather in the Gulf is fairly benign most of the time. Many aircraft- both singles and twins- have been successfully ditched with no injury or loss of life.
Without the ability to continue flight on only one engine from every flight regime, a twin is going into the water if one quits at an inopportune time. But even if it can continue flight, without enough fuel to fly back to the beach a twin may still go in the water after an engine failure if the crew does not feel like putting it on a rig/platform.
Statistically, the FAA and insurance companies must have extensive experience with twin-engine operations in the GOM. I wonder just how many engine-failures the twins have? What's the calculated risk? And just how far do we go to insulate ourselves or guard against every possible failure mode in a helicopter?
I guess it gets back to: Is this unacceptable? Is this unsafe? We'd like to make the issue as black/white as possible, but I think it's not that simple. Operators in the U.K. do things one way. Operators in the U.S. do things differently. But before coming to any firm conclusion as to which way is better, I think some questions need to be asked...and answered.
P.S. As a pilot, I know which way I prefer- and that would be to guarantee that I'll be able to keep my feet dry at all times
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Between layers
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPF# said :
It's a funny thing about multi-engine aircraft. bla bla bla....Statistically, that doesn't always seem to be the case.
Proof please, cause that just doesn't make sense !
It's a funny thing about multi-engine aircraft. bla bla bla....Statistically, that doesn't always seem to be the case.
Proof please, cause that just doesn't make sense !
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twin verses Single, here we go again.
Stats are Stats...................and I have had two engine problems in a twin and thats also a stat.......
Twins [Triplets] will always offer something a single can't..........engine redundancy?
However if you don't capitalise on the advantages of the Multi's, by way of Performance Limitations....then the multi will get you wet nearly as soon as the single will.
We must remember there are other Offshore fields in the world other than GOM when we discuss these topics.
Some of these are Exploration holes....320 nm out from the point of departure, and 120 nm from dry land.....try that in other than a multi.
Twins [Triplets] will always offer something a single can't..........engine redundancy?
However if you don't capitalise on the advantages of the Multi's, by way of Performance Limitations....then the multi will get you wet nearly as soon as the single will.
We must remember there are other Offshore fields in the world other than GOM when we discuss these topics.
Some of these are Exploration holes....320 nm out from the point of departure, and 120 nm from dry land.....try that in other than a multi.
Under the scenario described, at least if a twin can't keep you out of the water OEI then it can help you get on the water safely, and once you're safely on the water there might be the option of an extended water taxi to get you to the beach or closer to a rescue boat or offshore platform. Of course it depends on the sea state prevailing at the time, and whether your passengers have made an instinctive exit as soon as the waves start lapping at their feet, but at least it's an option available to you that you don't have in a single.
"Just a pilot"
Requiring an operational profile that guaranteed single engine capability in most light twins would render them useless, and extinct, in the GOM. Lots of guys (including me) have exercised less than perfect options in light twins that were OEI and improved their survival probabilities-I don't want to take that chance off the table to "improve safety." Talk to a few more pilots...
The greatest hazard in the GOM is weather. Most operators allow (read allow as REQUIRE) outbound fuel loads of destination and 30 minutes, singles and twins, VFR. There's a lot of flights made with NO fuel available enroute, and a fair few made that would require a significant diversion to find a dry place to land if the weather deteriorated. This catches a few pilots every year-it's damn difficult to make yourself put a pefectly good helo in the water. Want something that WILL improve safety in the GOM? Close this hole and give the line pilot more choices.
The greatest hazard in the GOM is weather. Most operators allow (read allow as REQUIRE) outbound fuel loads of destination and 30 minutes, singles and twins, VFR. There's a lot of flights made with NO fuel available enroute, and a fair few made that would require a significant diversion to find a dry place to land if the weather deteriorated. This catches a few pilots every year-it's damn difficult to make yourself put a pefectly good helo in the water. Want something that WILL improve safety in the GOM? Close this hole and give the line pilot more choices.
Rotordk, we Canucks use 50' above the deck down to 150', to one half mile. All weights to at least maintain 50 fpm climb at our MOCA (plus a staggering array of takeoff/landing charts), so the chance of going for a swim OEI is slim. As a matter of fact, lost a can last year, and managed to keep my feet dry! Pretty much the same fuel carried as Old Man Rotor pointed out, and always a land based alternate.
You'd be mistaken. I'm not saying its never been done, just you'd be breaking the rules. I don't know of anyone that goes closer than 1/2. There's still rumours of guys crawling up legs and that sort of nonsense but I've never seen it done.
Speaking of twins vs. singles, I've had a 47 and a 206 quit on me, had another 206 that I had to get to the ground NOW, had a 222 roll one back to idle, had to shut down one can on a 76, and had the aforementioned failure on a 61 last year. I'll take a twin please! Of course, the water is a little warmer in the GOM compared to the North Atlantic.
Speaking of twins vs. singles, I've had a 47 and a 206 quit on me, had another 206 that I had to get to the ground NOW, had a 222 roll one back to idle, had to shut down one can on a 76, and had the aforementioned failure on a 61 last year. I'll take a twin please! Of course, the water is a little warmer in the GOM compared to the North Atlantic.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Between layers
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still a difference though...You guys have 1/2, JAR gives 3/4 mile.
And please don't ever tell people your EMS story about preborns while people are drinking....EVER !! That one is still nagging me !
And please don't ever tell people your EMS story about preborns while people are drinking....EVER !! That one is still nagging me !
Yea, I think its best to keep that rather horrific evening to myself, I sometimes forget how it can bother people. Ten years of EMS in that enviroment and you tend to get a tad jaded.
Next time we hook up for brews I'll have some stories that'll put a smile on your face.........
Next time we hook up for brews I'll have some stories that'll put a smile on your face.........
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised to read that some countries and/or oil companies don't require helicopters, single, twin or triple, to carry sufficient fuel to reach a land base in the event a rig landing can not be made for what ever reason. I know some twins are approved for single engine landings on some rigs but not too many.
In Australia back in 1968 we used to operate two Bell 206A ( i.e C18 ) to the Sedco 135G some 154nm off the beach which was 100nm down the coast from Darwin. We had fuel drums near the beach to top up before heading out to sea and carried fuel to the rig plus 30 mins, i.e. not enough for a round trip. Eventually Murphys Law prevailed and when the 206 was past PNR, the rig had a gas leak and went up in flames and was abandoned. The second 206 told the outbound one to go back to the beach. The fuel dump was about 2 nms inland but as the fuel gauge had sat on E for a while, he decided to land on the beach and not risk the extra 2 nms. On touching down the engine stopped.
Since then CASA changed the requirement to always have round trip fuel for all types of helicopters and having flown offshore in Australia, Thailand, India, Arabian Gulf, North Sea, Phillipnes, China and Malaysia, all the companies I have worked for require round trip fuel. Also I find it hard to believe that any twin when in the cruise would have to ditch if it loses an engine. Must be very over weight or the second engine stuffed!
In Australia back in 1968 we used to operate two Bell 206A ( i.e C18 ) to the Sedco 135G some 154nm off the beach which was 100nm down the coast from Darwin. We had fuel drums near the beach to top up before heading out to sea and carried fuel to the rig plus 30 mins, i.e. not enough for a round trip. Eventually Murphys Law prevailed and when the 206 was past PNR, the rig had a gas leak and went up in flames and was abandoned. The second 206 told the outbound one to go back to the beach. The fuel dump was about 2 nms inland but as the fuel gauge had sat on E for a while, he decided to land on the beach and not risk the extra 2 nms. On touching down the engine stopped.
Since then CASA changed the requirement to always have round trip fuel for all types of helicopters and having flown offshore in Australia, Thailand, India, Arabian Gulf, North Sea, Phillipnes, China and Malaysia, all the companies I have worked for require round trip fuel. Also I find it hard to believe that any twin when in the cruise would have to ditch if it loses an engine. Must be very over weight or the second engine stuffed!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARA.....
In Oz, the MAP is 3/4 at 250 Rad Alt at Vy.
We can also use the "Enroute Descent" down to 500 Rad Alt ......and considering the weather here, that would normally get you visual. If it does'nt then its probably fog, and apart from Bass Strait [Southern Oil Field] fog is as rare as hens teeth in Aussie Offshore.
We can also use the "Enroute Descent" down to 500 Rad Alt ......and considering the weather here, that would normally get you visual. If it does'nt then its probably fog, and apart from Bass Strait [Southern Oil Field] fog is as rare as hens teeth in Aussie Offshore.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is Poo Prune.............
Old Fella we miss your lopsided views on life....................
Oh your at Church I see.............
Well salvation at last.
Oh your at Church I see.............
Well salvation at last.
OMR asked where I am:
Well as a matter of fact I do go to church on Sunday. But I have already commented on this subject, what more is there to say?
Either you believe that multi-engine helis should always have the capability to continue flying OEI or you don't.
And if you do, does that belief extend down to Twinstars, BO105s and the 222-series?
Or just the more "serious" IFR aircraft?
Personally, I do not see a controlled landing to the water to be anything other than an emergency. It's not a "crash," nor does it need to be a catastrophe. Of course I'd prefer it didn't happen to me, but things don't always go the way I fantasize they should be.
Now, Old Man Rotor, aside from quoting the specific rules in your specific operation without allowing that there are other possibilities that are considered "safe," would you care to actually offer us your opinion of the entire issue? Or are you just the world's oldest and more boring troll?
Old Fella we miss your lopsided views on life....................
Oh your at Church I see.............
Well salvation at last.
Oh your at Church I see.............
Well salvation at last.
Either you believe that multi-engine helis should always have the capability to continue flying OEI or you don't.
And if you do, does that belief extend down to Twinstars, BO105s and the 222-series?
Or just the more "serious" IFR aircraft?
Personally, I do not see a controlled landing to the water to be anything other than an emergency. It's not a "crash," nor does it need to be a catastrophe. Of course I'd prefer it didn't happen to me, but things don't always go the way I fantasize they should be.
Now, Old Man Rotor, aside from quoting the specific rules in your specific operation without allowing that there are other possibilities that are considered "safe," would you care to actually offer us your opinion of the entire issue? Or are you just the world's oldest and more boring troll?