Mars

According to the brochures for the S92 and EC 225 they have dry running gearboxes. In fact I believe it is now required for certification.

Also if you look at the Sikorsky website they claim that they have a run dry capability. The EC 225 claims the same thing.

Running In:

What you must bear in mind is that the L2 has already been through all th Jigsaw trials. To bring either of the types that you mention into this kind of role is not an overnight task, the chances are that neither of them would be ready to even start trialing until late 2005.

Heli Eng

Unless Bond buy all the Bristow mods which ensured the success of the trial, along with the MCA crews, then they might as well start from scratch with a new type as it will take just as long.

Bristows took several months to modify the L2 up to MCA standards for the trial, using knowledge gleaned from decades of Coastguard Operations.

I appreciate your point, but none of the fits to G-JSAR are a secret, and besides with people working with Bond who are very familiar with JSAR, I can't see it being that much of a problem.

Who knows, all speculation at this point, only time will tell!!!

:confused: ;) :confused: ;)

Running in:

Don't believe all you read!!

Mars

Try looking at JAR 29 or FAR 29 on the net. If they can't run dry they don't meet the new requirement!

Running in:

Whilst it is correct that a requirement is present in FAR/JAR 29.927(c)(1), it could be interpreted that is it conditional upon the assessment that some (loss of gearbox lubrication) failure modes are extremely remote; this might trigger request for an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) assessment - which would propose mitigation only of those elements which fall short of the extremely remote categorisation.Which led to my questioning of your simplistic assumption. (It could be suggested that it is difficult/impossible to satisfy the requirement for a 30 minute run-dry gearbox for helicopters above a certain size - hence the use of alternative emergency lubrication systems, or failure assessment.)

No regulation can foresee all future uses/interpretations; that's why we see the introduction of hedging statements - to avoid the law of unintended consequences.

Mars

Thank you for your comprehensive reply...you could almost be Nick Lappos. If you are Nick, could you confirm if the S92 has a run dry gearbox because rumours coming out from Norway are that it hasn't.

Seriously, as a line pilot I would be happy with an emergency lube or cooling system if the gear box will not run dry. However, I would not be happy with an equivalent level of safety (if it is what I think it is) as current gearboxes have been know to throw out their oil. Knowing my luck it would be in the ESB in the middle of the night in a gale!

Mars, what equivalent level of safety would you be happy with..equivalent to the S61, or the S Puma or what?

I was hoping (in my simplistic way) that the new aircraft would be safer and comply with the latest FARs and JARs, not use a get out clause because it is "difficult/impossible".

running in

Mars

Do you have a view on the "Equivalent Level of Safety" that you would be happy with?

Or were you expressing company policy?

You clearly know a lot about this subject and I am interested (in my simplistic way) about how you see future certification going. Do you think we should adopt the Boeing solution and claim grandfather rights (like the 737) going back decades or should we try and improve future helicopters in accordance with the latest FARs and JARs? Gearboxes in particular seem a particular weak point in helicopters - do you agree.

Getting back to the thread of this discussion. SAR helicopters need to be reliable, if a crewchange helicopter has a snag it diverts, if a SAR helicopter has to divert due to a snag then the survivors could die. Hence my initial comment that in my view Jigsaw should not use an obsolescent type, ie the Mk2. I know economics come into this, but so might saving lives.

running in

BOND Jigsaw
 

BOND started SAR in Ireland and some of the crews involved are now back with BOND. Aircraft Nos 6 & 7 will be the SAR Aircraft and fully equipped by Eurocopter. Times have moved on and certainly BOND have, a pity that some of the otehr operators cannot move on and be part of the present instead of always looking back.

They have the equipment and will have the crew - mark my words.

Is that why the other 2 operators are "looking back" with the S92 and EC 225 rather than moving on with a 15 year old design?

Hambling Chaos & Running In:

Do you really think it would be a wise move to kick start your brand new fleet with a brand new aircraft type?

I can't think of a single 'new' type that has ever been introduced without 'teething problems'. That might be a pain in the backside when you are introducing one new type amongst a couple of other fleets, but when it is your only type, that could spell the end!

Cheers

TeeS

I must agree with TeeS, starting your operation with a brand new type is risky. That aside there was no way that Bond would have been able to aquire the aircraft and get them delivered by July this year anyway. In the end it is not the operators decision which type of helicopter is purchased but the clients. If you can't find a customer willing to pay higher rates for a more advanced helicopter then there is no point getting them. The other two operators in Aberdeen are only looking at the S92 and the EC225 because the upcoming Shell contract will require a helicopter able to carry good payloads a long way (East Shetland Basin) in any wind conditions. The L2 is not a bad option for the Northern North Sea and probably a good compromise between payload, range and cost for most destinations. Yes it is a 15 year old design but I don't think that this is "old" in helicopter terms - I would say it has just matured and got rid of it's teething problems......

The two SAR helicopters are a different story. I don't know much about SAR so can't really comment on the L2's capability. Payload and range won't be much of a problem looking at the localities involved so it all depends on it's SAR suitability. I thought that was the reason BP paid Bristows to conduct the trial and find out. It would be very interesting to get comments from the pilots involved but it obviously must be suitable for SAR as it is now used for this purpose in the Netherlands. I am just speculating here but what if Bristows had won the Jigsaw contract? Would they not have used the L2?

A quick note on the gearbox issue. Even though the L2 has no dry run cabability in it's civil version I have heard it roumored that the Dutch military version is certified for 30min? Can anyone confirm this?


Woolf

ScotiaQ,
I think you should perhaps check out exactly who started SAR in Ireland, you might find it wasn't Bond.
I saw one of thier Irish SAR 61s a few years ago, and I can honestly say I have never seen a more tired looking SAR aircraft. It appeared to have been equiped to the minimum standard required to meet the terms of the contract, and that was it!
At least (when you look back) Bristows have continued to develop the SAR aircraft they operate.
The Jigsaw trial aircraft was fitted with a lot of Bristow mod's, which directly contributed to the success of the trial
The aircraft that Bond will get from Eurocopter will not be fitted with the BHL Mod's, unless Bristows agree to sell them.
So Bond might have equipment, but will it be the right equipment, and where will they get crews who are up to speed on operating it?

They will get the crews if they pay the money. Not many people want to spend half their life on an oil rig or in the back of beyond, but if the money is good £80,000+ for a Capt then a few people may dust off their yellow helmets and apply!!:O

AP

Ally Pally

On a less serious note, whilst counting their money the crews could look at the following website!

www.uktvstyle.co.uk/WhatsOn/WatchingPaintDry.cfm

running in

Its not quite as bad as that!! You've the breakfast/lunch/dinner menu to look at. Then there is the sea, the inside of your eyelids, the inside of your cell (I mean cabin) and Sky TV!!

But if the dosh is right;)

AP

Jigsaw-is it a goer?
 

Is it happening????????????

Jigsaw
 

Having spoken to freinds in the RAF Sarworld who are looking for jobs (albeit 6 months ago), things are still looking good but i believe the original timeline is slipping considerably..

Fraid I don't have anything concrete!

Ralph

North Sea Jigsaw
 

Obviously had some paint left over from the Shawbury 412's

Flight International
 

Interesting ad in Flight this week from Bond Offshore looking for Jigsaw crews.

I am surprised that it is only "desirable" for Jigsaw SAR commanders to have any previous SAR experience - I would have thought that lots of experience was essential. They will also take untrained crewmen.

The Ad also requires the crews to live near Aberdeen, presumably so that they can fly the line between SAR stints.

What's the package?

Hueymeister,

As they clearly don't think they need SAR trained pilots, I guess they will pay just line pilot rates.

running in

I am surprised that BP are willing to have inexperienced (SAR) captains on this contract. I would think that night hovering over the sea in poor weather is not something that you pick up with only a few hours training. I think that they may struggle to get suitable captains if they only pay "normal" line rates. Who wants to spend 6 months of the year stuck on a N Sea platform with nothing much to do.

Things can go horribly wrong very quickly when doing SAR and one accident would be devastating to the good idea of replacing safety boats with helicopters

332M

332mistress,

I don't think its just inexperienced commanders they will take, it implies that they will take you with NO experience (SAR experience desirable)!

A fully coupled SAR helicopter can hold an accurate hover when it works and the doppler doesn't unlock - unlocking typically over a glassy seas when you have fog (just when you need it). There are no known systems which will hold an accurate hover over a deck or a drifting liferaft, so an experienced commander and winch op is essential.

Add to this inexperienced crewmen and it becomes scary. I agree with you, do BP and their workforce know what they are buying?

The ad may say SAR experience desirable but my ear to the ground tells me SAR experience will be a prerequisite for successful applicants. :cool:

I think that the advertisement might have been poorly thought out - the Emperor perhaps?

No way will BP accept low time SAR Commanders - this flagship project will be under very close scrutiny and any incidents will be pounced on. The OILC will not let anything be kept quiet.

As for salaries, don't expect too much - remember they are a low-cost operator.

Wiz

Anybody know where they are getting their FO's from, also if they are low payers why did a lot of crews jump ship from the other 2 operators when they set up their initial operation:confused:

Static:

Bond won the BP North Sea support contract. Ergo the company that lost the contract - 3 L2 Pumas - would/could need to downsize. If one were qualified on type and low in seniority one might feel it best to jump before one is pushed!

Salaries at first glance similar to the other operators but there are lots of caveats - North Sea experience, hours, colour of eyes etc. :O

Wiz

Rumour had it a little while back that the Chief Pilot nominated for the Jigsaw Contract did not have any SAR background!

Hope it was only a rumour!

Wizard,
Thanks for the reply, it makes sense, but do you know who Bond are recruiting/using as FO's for the SAR contract as the new advert is for commanders. Are their own crews moving sideways to fill slots opening space at their aberdeen base requiring further recruitment:confused:

Static:

I'm pretty sure that they will need FO's as they're working very hard at the moment on their regular contract.

They seem a happy bunch from what I've seen - from a distance!

Wiz

Wizzard, your statement about Bond 'Dont expect too much they're a low cost operator!' makes me smile.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that in your opinion the red/white/blue operators are offering a higher class, maybe a first class (VIP) service to their passengers, in-flight meals/entertainment, luxury survival suits maybe.

Having worked for both of the red/white and blues in recent years, I dont recall this being the case!

:hmm:

What I would like to know is whether the Bond SAR crews are going to have to prove the same standard as the Jigsaw Trial Team?

The Trial crews were all professional and current SAR operators with years of experience from both the military and Coastguard. The Jigsaw concept was sold on what they achieved after nearly a year of day and night winching in all sea states. Now that BP has chosen another operator with different crews are they going to meet the same standard or is this being conveniently passed over? Apparently the winchmen are going to be HEMS paramedic’s so no winching experience there, and the co-pilots taken off the line in Aberdeen.

Anyway, a message for all budding Jigsaw SAR commanders – If you are going to buy a house in Aberdeen then avoid the Bridge of Don and Danestane area. The house prices there are always the first to suffer when the oil price drops followed closely by Kingswells and Westhill.

LOW COST OPERATORS
 

Jetbox,
I think Wizzard is saying that the money will not be very good in Bond because they are a" low cost operator".
Self proclaimed low cost operators tend to cost less because they pay their employees less ( among other things )
Nobody is talking about the quality of the passengers suits.
Still smiling?

Who is this "Emperor" I have heard about a couple of times when Bond is mentioned? Surely not one of the original Bond team - must be one of the newbies. Can anyone enlighten me?

If Bond are going to use line co-pilots, that isn't too much of a problem so long as there is a training scheme in place for them to become SAR qualified. After all, you have to start somewhere!

Are the HEMS medics going to get a winchman's course from someone such as Bristow, FBH or the RAF? If not, how are they going to be trained, in house? Will they be able to get recurrent training to keep up their medical skills? Anybody know if Bond have any SAR trainers on their aircrew side, or are they looking for those too?

I suspect that there is a lot going on that we are not privvy to for whatever reason (probably commercial) and only time will tell how it is going to work. Fun to speculate though.

That's fair enough if the guys are going to get properly trained but my question still stands -

Are they going to have to meet the same performance standard as the Jigsaw Trial Team before they start the SAR cover or will it be assumed that because the Trials did it then they can too?

Mountainman, Wizzard

The title low cost operator maybe justified with regard to the price BP are paying. I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the contract, but if the cost to BP is less than the opposition were charging I dont think this is due to Bond "paying their employees less (among other things!)" - as you've stated.

The flight crew pay scales are almost identical to competitors and in some cases better. The number of crew that migrated across the airfield would not have done so if this were not the case. Also, none of these crew were in threat of being pushed, as Wizzard stated. They would not have been at risk due to their age, experience, seniority.

As for "Among other things":
-All the flight crew have been sent to Eurocopter in the South of France to complete courses of training. This was not just crew that required the full AS332L2 type rating course, but also those who already had the type on their license. The engineers have been through similar courses of training, also in France. This is a cost that the opposition have chosen not to bear.

-5 new AS332L2s with a more advanced Nav kit than the oppo. A quieter cabin and more comfortable seating is not the cheapest option either.

-A totally refurbished hanger/terminal, with brand new equipment, which the engineers seem very happy with.

Maybe Bond are not a 'Low cost operator'. They are just more careful where their resources are being allocated. Where it counts - on Training, equipment, and employees (those that bend'em and those that mend'em), and not on buildings full of beancounters trying to keep Big Brother across the Atlantic happy!

Some may think I'm off on a tangent with regard to this thread, but I think if Bond Offshore Helicopters carry on the way they have started and approach Jigsaw in a similar way, I have no doubt the operation will be a success.

Mountainman, I'm sure you know a lot more about the SAR aspects of the operation than myself, as I have no experience in this role. I do understand the difficulties in getting experienced crews (which I agree, is a must!) and setting up efficient training programs. A year ago many people had doubts, myself included, as to wether Bond would be up and running, competetive, and safe. I've been pleasantly surprised.

As I said, if they continue in the same vein, you might be surprised at how they cope with Jigsaw.

I'm sure experienced crews will be sourced and they will have to be payed well for their services. Just as the offshore line crews were sourced.

Still smiling.
:D

Does anybody have the text for the Jigsaw advert. Just tried to get Flight but they had sold out. Tried F.Int website but no advert there. Ta

AP