Correct 100%.
Something serious goes wrong / suspend who did it / investigate what happened / assess how to stop it happening again / negligence or accidental? / take appropriate action against any guilty party / move on
This is how any company should react to a situation. The most important part should be prevention of a reoccurance, NOT punish at all costs.
I see no problem with the suspension of the crew, it actually shows leadership

Thanks TM, good to see that someone "from the dark side" understands the big picture and is on the side of common sense!

I’m surprised how many are making this out to be a big deal. How many commercial aircraft have landed at the wrong airport, hell how many have landed at the wrong runway, its not a big deal.

So the crew landed at the wrong rig, they owe the pax a beer each as a way of an apology.

quick question, Did they eventually land at the right rig or not?

there is a lot more that could go wrong.

Fats

Earlier in this thread Double Bogey made a very good post.

Jayteeto, please explain what suspension of the crew proves? Do you know the background to this flight? What if it was the end of a long tiring day, at the end of a long tiring week. Offshore flying is not the walk in the park all you pampered onshore types enjoy sometimes.:E;)

Where I fly offshore there are a number of checks in place before landing to try and ensure the wrong rig landing doesnt occur. Thats not to say it wont. For instance we have 3-4 jack up or drill rigs with very very similar identifiers in our gps database but called differently in reality. which we use for navigation to said rig. Now, a garmin 530 gps which hasnt had the rig position updated correctly, or the rig has moved, requires the waypoint to be removed from the programmed route, before we are able to update the waypoint gps position, then re-enter it, before we can Nav to it. So, add in some bad weather cells, a very low time co-pilot, after 6 hrs of flying in tropical temps. See the point im trying to make.

Yes you could suspend or get rid of the crew who make a wrong rig landing, but what exactly does that do? Just Culture?

Landing at the right place two times out of three is not a bad average do you think?:uhoh:

1 pax in a S92. holy crap talk about overkill.

It happens more often than you might think. If that pax is needed urgently, he gets to pick his own window. The flight might also have dropped other pax at another installation prior to visiting the jack-up.

A Big Deal?
 

Can't speak for all the big oil companies but one certain Dutch company we flew for in Malaysia would rather you blow the floats and ditch in the water versus landing on a rig unscheduled in the event of an emergency.

The potential loss of revenue, lives and damage to their reputation, should you screw up, far exceeded that of a helicopter ditching in the water with it's potentially "expendable" air frame, crew and occupants.

I didn't believe it until one of their resident senior aviation safety managers showed me both scenarios run through their internal risk matrix. Land as soon as possible took on an entirely different meaning..........slow, low and back to the airport. Not onto one of dozen or more platforms unannounced:=

Seriously..................................

Glad I am in China flying like it used to be!

That's just typical here helimutt, you don't like what I say so just insult me.
Read my post again, it is not written about THIS incident, it is written about ANY incident in ANY industry.
Ridiculous "pampered" comments aside, I will explain myself anyway.
Any service provider, be it McDonald's or BOH, rely on maintaining a good reputation with a customer. A robust reaction to an incident shows leadership and good practice to any customer. Even if the company are 99.9% certain of the outcome of any enquiry, if they carry out a competent procedure, the customer is happier. If the crew have done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear from this and should then be reinstated at the earliest opportunity.
I have been through this procedure recently and came out ok. I was treated as a professional and with respect by the company. It was stressful, but it looked fair internally and externally. I cannot stress how much better this makes the company look to the customer.
So get off your high horse and think why the company did this. I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FLIGHT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. That is what any enquiry will do.
Well done from me, Leadership, you can't beat it.

JT2 of course there should be some internal inquiry, however it should be kept out of the public eye. By pronouncing to the media "we've suspended the pilots" there is an inevitable implication to the uninitiated that they are solely to blame. "Pilot error". You may think it looks good, but only to the uninitiated. In effect the good name of the crew is, at least temporarily, being sacrificed to make the company look better (or so they think!).

So if it is decided to keep the crew off the roster for a bit, fine but no need to pronounce it. There is no need to keep the crew off the roster for fear of a repeat in this particular case because at this moment they are probably the least likely to land on the wrong rig. There may be a need to keep them off the roster due to the stress and pressure of nearly having brought the world to an end by landing on the wrong rig, but that is a self-fulfilling feature of making such a big deal out of a pretty minor event.

To the initiated the company looks as stupid as my company did when it sacked a guy following a near-collision with the sea (many years ago). I happened to be involved with a meeting between our boss and the client. Our boss's debrief to the client was pretty much along the lines of "he nearly crashed, but we have now sacked him so end of problem". The look on the client's face revealed to me that the "blame the pilot" rather than "find out why" attitude impressed him as little as it did me.

Great post Helicomparitor! Why does the Company not say " clearly something went wrong but we have some faith in our crew and we will work with them to prevent a reoccurrence....if possible" (which we all know is actually not given the crappy visual environment).

Storm in a tea cup! Best wishes to this crew.

One of our Chinese captains and his FO got suspended for a month without pay for making an approach and then going around when they realised it was the wrong rig.

The platform was then nicknamed after an American TV programme.

Why not promote the pilots, like in other well paid jobs :E

one should fly again immediately and of course as much as possible after whatever little mistake. Lets fly to the wrong rig again, just for training to see where it went wrong.

The big danger is to develop anxieties with this sort of ancient 'stand in the corner' guilt-building culture. Anxiety can be a serious blocker, especially for situational awareness.

The bold and thick chaps perhaps won't bother, but the sensitive and - usually - more talented pilots might receive the personal damage.
A bit contra productive, if not dangerous at at the end.

The same managers that would order an early and extended Happy Hour with the poor unfortunates forking out for much beer would, in todays environment probably have made an immediate press release along the following lines;


"The initial investigation into this incident confirms that, at no time, were the passengers, crew or aircraft in any danger. The navigation anomaly is the subject of continued investigation and if any action is necessary it will be taken. When the investigation is complete appropriate details will be made available to the aviation based press as information and guidance for other operators".


Personally I think that is what should have happened, turning a minor incident into a drama and the crew into pariahs isn't good management, isn't clever and shouldn't happen in the aviation industry. The meeting between the operator and the client remains, for ever, confidential.

Considering how little effort many offshore structure have made to identify themselves from the air, I am shocked that such incidents are not much more common.

TM, sounds like anytime I watch the news and there's an aircraft incident and they bring in their "experts." Makes me wonder I bother watching the news at all.

It's a helicopter, it's designed to land in the middle of no where, that's what makes it useful. Does the north sea not have a guard freq for emergencies?

If Bond has a Just Culture, they should also have trained event investigators to determine the actual cause of the landing on the wrong deck. Many companies now use the Flowchart Analysis of Investigation Results (FAIR) system to aid them to make a correct decision. In this case it seems that the crew carried out their intended action (landing on a rig offshore) but the consequences of their action were unintended (they landed on a rig which was not the one planned). If they didn't deliberately break the rules but didn't select the correct actions they would be deemed to have made a mistake. Under the FAIR system an Event Review Group including at least 3 of the pilots peers who should e of the same rank and similar experience levels. Any decision to take disciplinary action should take account of whether this will make any contribution to safety learning and improvement, or just discourage others from reporting errors. The trouble is that so many oil companies these days talk about having a just culture themselves, but want to see the crew disciplined for any mistakes they make. The helicopter operators are then deliberately pressured into treating the crew unfairly. It was just such a situation that caused Bristow to cave in to pressure some years ago, but the sacrificial lamb in that case was the Head of Flight Operations :ugh:
I made a genuine mistake a few years back, was suspended until the reason was investigated, was called in for an interview with my operations manager who decided that the blame lay equally with the company and myself and after flying a revenue line check flight, I resumed normal flying duties.
As many have said, this has happened before and it will happen again and I'm still amazed with all the new advancements in technology, there is nothing in the cockpit to enable the crew to instantly see on which rig/platform/ship they are landing. He1aviator pointed out that most ships are fitted with an AIS. If OGP mandated that all offshore installations or vessels working in the offshore oil and gas industry were fitted with AIS, it surely be possible to integrate this into the aircraft avionics somehow?

As far as I know all offshore installations and oil industry vessels are already fitted with AIS. So every floating rust bucket can see every other one. Just the helicopter crew that cannot! So yes, if the oil companies really were concerned about wrong deck landings, they would specify airborne AIS. It does exist, I've flown a helicopter with airborne AIS display (ironically it was a Bond L2!). They don't, because in the great scheme of things it is just something for the oil companies to be outraged about rather than a real safety issue.

Not sure Busdriver02, I am not on the NS.

But the oil and gas industry has now developed a hyper sensitivity to anything with the word helicopter in it. The 2 words which strike fear into them are Gearbox and Pilot(s)

Just today, management was having a discussion about potential helicopter accidents (as we continually seem to do). Today's scenario was a crash on the deck which takes out not just those in the helicopter but some of the offshore workers as well. How far do you go with this stuff?

The problem is that the UK sector of the NS accident rate since 2009 has generated this paranoia which is spreading industry wide. I can try to reduce the hysteria, but the stats tell otherwise at the moment.

Next, they will want 3 crew, just in case 2 crew make a mistake and an extra gearbox.

I'm sure you are right, although if they stopped to consider the impact of a rusted up blowout valve, gas leaks, fires and explosions due to poor maintenance etc, their time might be better spent!

Helicomparator,

Touche! :E

bondu

I'm sure that those of you worried about guano-encrusted, inadequately-marked exploding installations will have presented evidence supporting your disquiet to the Oil & Gas UK Helicopter Safety Steering Group by now?

Back in the 70's we had to carry onshore diversion fuel for the entire trip as landing on a Deck OEI or with a Tail Rotor problem was deemed far too hazardous and a flight back ashore was seen to be the preferred answer as the Platform or Rig was not to be put at risk for any reason.

What has changed?

Are the crew still suspended?

Jayteeto, I certainly wasn't insulting you! Why would I? I don't even know you. Dear me some people take things so personally. You obviously missed the little emoticons I'd placed in the text. :p

Others who have since posted have said it way better than I ever could. Why was there a public statement about the pilots being suspended? Should have been exactly as Parabellum stated.
That would have been a much better initial position of the company. Instead they look for scapegoats.

Interesting that someone stated a wrong rig landing is more expensive to the company than a ditching? Can you show me that presentation please?

Your 100 miles offshore, there's a clear deck in 1 mile, you have the tail rotor about to let go (you think anyway) so you continue to shore? You ditch? Or precautionary land on the first piece of architecture you can find in a hurry because the 12 guys behind you probably don't want to go feet wet. Interesting scenario.

Nothing, same same

Having once landed on the Fulmar with a shagged damper I was surprised how many "red lights" were on in the cockpit and how the pax could hear the "aural warning system" when they were in row 6. The OIM took exception to " No warnings in the cockpit, your blokes are telling porkies" and launched an immediate investigation. Result-two pissed off pilots and a bunch of bears who told little stories to get out of their trip with pay.

When the bears have the licence to pull the levers, programme the FMS and do all the other crap you do at the sharp end of a 332, 225,192 etc I will listen to them, until then, do your jobs and let the pilots do theirs. I stopped flying off-shore at the end of the nineties and it was bad then, God help the OS pilots now, I thought corporate could be hard, but the oil companies always were a safety disgrace, and encouraged an unfair, guilt based system,no matter what the OM says (and that Dutch crowd). So these guys landed on the wrong rig, so what? it happened so many times in the '80's and '90's and no-one got hurt, but learned lessons. Go have another bevy in the Spiders Web and get a f£££ing grip. Last time my aircraft went wrong was because someone told me the wind was light from an untrue direction, the vis was 8k (it was about 1500m) and the sea state was light, swell was about 30' so look at yourselves next time you want to go home, YOUR LIES KILL. (and before DB or any other apologist complains, I have been informed that dishonest wx reporting still goes on)

Oil companies and stupid OS safety crap sicken me, get real and give the real picture or maybe the pilots will at long las tell what a bunch of lying sh+te wait at the hell-deck stairs

SND

Surely the way to fix the unread ability of the deck/side markings, is for all pilots to agree on a set standard. Now I'm sure that there already is a standard, they seem to have standards for everything else, so you simply fly out to said rig, approach, sorry deck markings are not up to standard, turn around and fly home.

I would love to see the HR person that will stand down a pilot for WANTING to comply with company standards. Get yourself a really good lawyer, and get enough money out of them, that you then decide if you want to go back to work.

I know it sounds silly, but if all the pilots in said company, said, gee that could have been us, and they have been stood down for what reason? Then maybe they should all stand together.

It won't take too many workers, not getting on the home flight after a shift for them to suddenly make everything spik and span!

They have their standards for a reason, fly to them, remember it's no longer the 80's or 90's when you made a mistake, discussed it with the boys over a beer and everyone learned from it.

SND - you'll be delighted to know that the North Sea has a network of automated weather-reporting systems these days, and the Met Office-trained observers submitting manual observations sign-off each report with their names. You can even talk to the ERRV crew and ask for a second-opinion.

If, for whatever reason the standards set-out in CAP437 aren't being met, the Helideck Certification Agency would like to hear about it, I'm sure...

Outside the North Sea he, SND, is absolutely correct.....

"But Captain, if I tell you the weather you won't land" Yes, I heard that over the radio, this decade.

And SuperF, again, outside the NS, submit all the reports you want. Without an incident, no action. Turn back because you didn't like the markings, get sacked or demoted for "failing to fulfill the client promise".

When in doubt, we know damn well we will wear the blame.

That's why I said for ALL pilots to agree, and get a good lawyer.

Wrong rig landing
 

What ever happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions?
Not saying this crew is not doing that but they are being defended here by almost everyone in the the industry for making a fairly basic error. And, that is nice but we, as pilots, have a responsibility to a lot of people, starting with our passengers.
I'm only an offshore amateur with 8yrs in various fields but really?
If you have landed on the wrong rig for whatever reason put up your hand and take responsibility, don't hide behind 'alleged' inadequate procedures.
If you can't positively identify the landing platform then don't land. Seems pretty simple to me.

Of course they should take responsibility for their own actions, and I am sure they are, and feeling pretty stupid and annoyed at their failures.

However, having personally been involved in or seen the detailed reports on a few wrong deck landings, it is never as simple as "the pilots just landed on the wrong deck". There are always multiple contributory factors that have come together a la Swiss cheese model, usually including the very powerful human factors perception that when you are looking at a deck, you radio it, and it seems to answer, it must surely be the right deck.

The bottom line is that humans make mistakes. If you are going to base your whole safety case on "pilots mustn't make mistakes" you are doomed to inevitably be disappointed. What is needed are procedures and other controls in place that help to make the process human error tolerant. It is the failure to make the system optimally error tolerant that we are discussing, eg the practical difficulty of reading the installation name from some directions etc. and of course the failure of the oil cos to invest in some fairly elementary tech to add safeguards eg deck traffic lights.

Fair comment HC.
The last line of defence is positively identifying the deck visually. All the stuff you mention should happen before that. In my opinion.

I'm reminded of the number of RPTs that made approaches from the south to Essendon Airport in error, thinking they were lined up for Tullamarine 5nm to the NW. Only by including all parties in an investigation was the resolution achieved, lead in strobes on the Tullamarine runway.

HC's idea of traffic lights is but one possible aid to solving the offshore deck recognition issue; but castigation of and ostracising the very members of the workforce who should be helping resolve the problem doesn't seem a very good way to go.

Flying in support of a small Dutch owned offshore operation, we did the "report" routine on Helideck problems. All nice and official from out CP to their designated representative and despite repeated reports, complaints, memo's, letters, of course no changes or improvements.

Then one day, we refused to land at a few of the sites that had been complained on for a Year.

Immediately, we saw things like Wind Socks, Paint, and lots of activity appear.

Taking such action works but it takes the full faith and support of the Helicopter Operator Management and building a firm inescapable case that the Oil Company, Rig Owner cannot deny.

One Crew doing that is tempting Fate.

When the Operator does that for the Crew's....good things happen.

If this is not being done then I see it as a Management Failure.

John,
I didn't think I was castigating and ostracising anyone and that certainly wasn't my intent but I was suggesting that maybe we have to look at ourselves in our professional capacity and look out the window before we land. That's all.

Not my idea, but one that has been around for years. Pity no-one can be bothered to implement it!

Aldis lamps c/w red and green filters are available on many installations, certainly on the jack-ups and semis that I've been on. It may not be plugged-in and to hand immediately, as we tend to rely on people knowing what it is they're shooting an approach-to.