|
Shell drops Bond
|
I bet Bristow is cursing their luck.
|
I bet Bristow is cursing their luck. |
Will be interesting to see what BP do... I believe they often work closely or even use the same aviation regulations and operators?!
On a recent CRM course somebody pointed out that Bond do actually have an excellent safety record - its just that the whole industry is generally "safe" and so 1 indecent becomes a big spike on anyone's graph!! MADY |
To say Bond has a good safety record might be a slight over statement.
They do seem to be Snake Bit when it comes to winding up in the water. The question begged.....which I posed in private to some....is why Bond seems to be having these events and other Operators are not. That is not meant to be some sort of indictment of Bond.....but rather a suggestion a comparison of the Engineering practices of the various Operators might be polled to see if there is a difference(s), and if a move to establish an improved "Industry Best Practices" set of guidelines might be in order. As Engineers are human....and business decisions are not made by Divine Guidance.....is there something at Bond that needs to be improved? |
It may not be Bond spicifically, could be an overhaul shop or the 225 in general. I know the 225 is fairly widely used by governments around the world... But who else operates them offshore? ERA has a couple in the gulf. Those are the only ones I know of in the US.
|
The last 2 times they ended up in the water could clearly have happened to any operator randomly, it was only the 1st one in 2009 that could be blamed on the company I think.
The oil company's like to be seen to be doing something for safety even if there is no logic to it. |
The thought had occurred to me - do the individual engineering departments diagnose/forecast/guestimate HUMS data differently? It would appear that 2 of the MGB failures had 'signs' apparent on the HUMS data? This is just my recollection of events and nothing more but what is the frigging point of all these sensors if they cannot forecast/or trend such a dogostrophic situation?
|
Originally Posted by 500Guy
I know the 225 is fairly widely used by governments around the world... But who else operates them offshore? ERA has a couple in the gulf. Those are the only ones I know of in the US.
|
In how many accidents were they involved?
|
Luck plays a big part in this.
In the bad old days Bond (management aviation) had two full on main gearbox failures with the 58T. One just after coasting in and one just going on to a helideck. Auto into a field and landing on the deck. 70 miles of water between these points. It was a common saying around the place that every time Bond fell into the sh*t they came out smelling of roses. Then the 105 crash nobody heard a mayday but a birdwatcher on the shore with binos saw it go in and raised the alarm. Again nobody hurt. I for one doubt that Bonds engineering standards and practices are any different to the other operators Chopabeefer Most of the european offshore helicopter guys move from company to company. In my time (30 years). I've worked for Bond, Bristow, Schreiner and BIH. I suspect you have just insulted a hell of a lot of people by suggesting that Bond have low standards in the staff they recruit. If you want to look at someone who is "truly a c*ck" try the mirror. |
Well they do say ignorance is bliss
|
Originally Posted by chopabeefer
(Post 7219707)
I know nothing about Bonds engineering dept - want to make that clear. I do know that there are other indicators that show a companies standards, direction, and intent.
I knew, and flew, with a SAR pilot/Captain/QHI in the RAF for quite a few years. To say the man was hated was an understatement - he was a moron, arrogant beyond belief, and generally despised by all he worked with. Fortunately, reputations spread, and when he left the RAf at his 38 point, 4 or 5 yrs ago, the service rejoiced- he was truly a c*ck. He wanted to go 'up north' and work the rigs. Every operator had 'heard' of him, and he was given the cold shoulder and told to 'get lost' by every company he applied to...except Bond, where he is a senior Captain and Instructor. His instructional techniques are bullying, belittling, and sarcasm. The company like him, apparantly. Says it all to be honest - Bond love him - EVERYBODY else ran a mile. Bond appear to have VERY low standards. This is now starting to manifest in light of recent events. If they hired this 'pilot', then what engineers, techies,Ops personnel etc etc did they take on? If I was a rig worker, I too would refuse to fly with them. Good decision chaps - stick with it. What a crock of sh1te. :rolleyes: |
There is a problem with the EC225/AS332 Main Gear Box, not a problem with Bond or anyone else operating in the North Sea. It is ridiculos how the reputation of a prefectly good company can be tarnished by media ignorance and nonscence stories.
|
If they hired this 'pilot', then what engineers, techies,Ops personnel etc etc did they take on? The thought had occurred to me - do the individual engineering departments diagnose/forecast/guestimate HUMS data differently? It would appear that 2 of the MGB failures had 'signs' apparent on the HUMS data? This is just my recollection of events and nothing more but what is the frigging point of all these sensors if they cannot forecast/or trend such a dogostrophic situation? |
I am appalled that anyone should even think of besmerching a company and their good name just becauase they employed someone with a particular reputation in a previous career - which is probably sour grapes anyway. What illogical and inapproriate nonesense.
As for Bond... they have a generally good reputation in my opinion, although they probably have more growing pains than they would wish for given their business expansion challenges in recent years. The aircrew I know who work for them are extremely professional people - some of the industry's best - especially in Jigsaw and Air Services. Finally, although it has no bearing on the incidents themselves, I am surprised no one has pointed out that the two Bond 225 ditchings were of Era aircraft under lease to Bond. Hope their insurers are coping then!:E |
Being ERA aircraft would have nothing to do with anything based upon the testimonials from others here.....no more than having a Bond paint scheme on the outsides of the aircraft would have as I see it.
|
In two out of three incidents, the aircrew had nothing do with them, the last incident showing how well trained they are in line with all three companies. The first incident involved a very experienced captain who had worked for both the other companies before coming to Bond which just goes to show what a load of nonsense is being spouted here.
|
As has been pointed out, I believe, the last two incidents involving the gearboxes could have happened to any company operating the 225 / 332L2
Bond have been very 'unlucky'. As a passenger, or oil company, would you chose to fly with the 'unlucky' operator? On paper, the last two incidents should not have had a bearing on the decision made by Shell, but human nature and emotion will have. |
Some of the comments being made in this thread are showing the ignorance of the posters. The standards of engineers and aircrew in the North Sea is some of the highest in the world and we should be praising all 3 operators. Ths is a situation of the helicopter operators having to fight rumour mongers and those with "little knowledge" i.e. P&J reporters, Union Officials and a tiny minority of offshore "roughy toughy North Sea tigers" who piss their pants at the slightest turbulence but are all "aviation experts".
Come on guys let's stick together for the good of aviation, this is about the reputation of aviation professionals not ripping into a company who has had the bad luck that could have landed on one of the other 2 operators. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.