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.