Acceptable risks : Night offshore flying
 

Now that winter is approaching, I'd be interested in views on night time offshore landings. According to the CAA statistics, close to 100% of fatal accidents involving CFIT offshore over the past 20+ years occur at night. Is this an acceptable risk for crew and offshore workers, or should night rig landings - or at least night landings on NUI's - be prohibited by the CAA. A lot of regulation has been brought in over the past few years, such as XBR seating, new life jackets etc, but it seems to me if we want to greatly reduce fatalities offshore, we should look at limiting night flights. Otherwise, statistically, fatalities at night will sadly continue.

Should offshore helicopters be prohibited from landing in the dark then you can shut down all the Northern oil fields in the British and Norwegian sectors during the winter.

Hi fareastdriver, at the moment in winter a lot of the flying is done during daylight due to icing clearances being more restrictive at night - the oil companies accept and allow for this by manning up early morning and de-manning by about 15.00 local. It's not an impossible problem to work round, just involves the work schedules to be heavier in summer, lighter over winter.

As F.e.d says: we had months of rig shuttles on the Brent where we never flew a daytime flight with 0600/1800 shift change shuttles. Up to 10-12 landings an hour, too.

But it's now coming into summer and we have lots of lovely long sunny days, especially those where we have bushfires and smoke to contend with ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist the OT bit, but offshore night landings and operations aren't a new magic issue that hasn't been addressed before. If it is now becoming something of concern in the UK then maybe those in charge should be reviewing the check and training regime with a view to closing the error track.

Even look elsewhere for advice: Naval ops to small ships, offshore ops in other parts of the world, the techniques that saw the old and bold through safe ops for years, before the all singing and dancing glass cockpits and automated systems of today?

Is it the landings themselves that are the problem?

It doesn't look like it - it seems the CFIT element in positioning for the landings is the tricky bit.

Just use NVG and stop trying to use IF techniques mixed with visual transitions.

I think NVG's have been considered, but there's too much lighting around the rigs to make it a reasonable solution. You're right, it's probably quite often disorientation while low level shuttling close into the rigs : not sure if it would be classed as the landing or not, but it's the approach/low level phase at night that's statistically the thing that causes fatalities outside of major mechanical failures eg gearboxes.

Familiarity breeds contempt. A crew may have done a multitude of night landings on a particular design of platform or rig and are used to what the sight picture is on the approach. Put them on an approach to a platform with a different lighting arrangement and the approaches are not so perfect anymore.

Fantastic. Plug in the FMS at V1 and take over at 200 ft. on the approach; simple. How many pilots are fully up to speed within a minute or so of taking over control especially if they have been scribbling or admiring the view for the last hour or so.

I know a pilot who splashed in short. No warning; only five minutes into the flight; simple approach in good weather; SPLASH!

Night rigs
 

You will continue to fly at night until the cost based analysis says it is cheaper not to.
You will continue to fly to poorly-lit pads until the CAA enforce implementation of minimum standards.

No moon. No wind. No horizon. One rig. A fine blend of instrument and visual flying.


Agree with FED. Until the whole thing becomes automated, start hands on a long way out.


But ban night flying.....? MM mmmm, I think not.

Eacott....you drinking early again?

Dear Boy that is pure tripe....look ELSEWHERE?

Do you really think the Yanks, Canucks, and Aussies could possibly know anything about Offshore flying in the Dark?

"I think NVG's have been considered, but there's too much lighting around the rigs to make it a reasonable solution. You're right, it's probably quite often disorientation while low level shuttling close into the rigs"


From the one or landings to rigs I have done with the use of NVGs it is the lighting around the rigs that can make the use of NVGs much better - you really do get the best of both worlds - much better contrast with the water on goggles due to the large amount of ambient light around the rigs, lots of light which gives the ability to use peripheral cues "outside the goggles" as well. Later generation of NVG also handle high ambient light environments much better.


NVG aren't a silver bullet however IMHO certainly do have some really good advantages for offshore work - have any trials actually been performed in order to determine what they could do for the industry???

Having flown with NVG's and FLIR along with a Night Sun with FLIR Filter....that is the only way to fly in the Dark. It certainly beats hell out of the MK I Eyeball!

Current generation Goggles don't have near the Wash Out problems the earlier ones did. Combined with even fixed FLIR systems that only give a Look Ahead View....Goggles would be an improvement.

But....of course the CAA would have kittens over it and the Operators would not want to spend the money.....and the Oil Companies would see it as increasing the Safety costs.

Thanks for the info about NVG's - I've no experience at with them, so may be worth looking at. I'm not sure what the answer is, but just find it interesting looking at stats that for all the efforts to reduce fatalities in the offshore world, the one thing which would ensure lives saved over the next 10 years would be to stop night offshore operations. If that's not a viable option - oil companies being reluctant to adjust their work so much being a reasonable assumption - then the next step in my mind would be stop night flights to small NUI's. If that's not likely then NVG's may help. My main concern really is that having flown about 20 years offshore, the one common situation that I know has scared, with close calls, or ended up killing offshore crews and workers is night time operations. It seems as an industry we haven't properly addressed the issue - either ensure the crews are flying night time regularly enough to be comfortable and current or look at restricting the operations.

Absolutely agree with Turkeyslapper and SASless - the NVG technology is significantly improved and it is quite straightforward to make an approach to a brightly lit site using them.

It may be that the reluctance to allow their use in non-military operations is in part due to having to keep the USA on-side since they provide the export licences for them.

I don't know how widespread the use of NVG in non-mil ops is in the US but there certainly does seem to have been some paranoia about NVG falling into the wrong hands.

Prawnking's no moon, no,wind, no horizon scenario is still made significantly more comfortable using NVG AND autopilot functions and the rig will provide all the cultural lighting you need.

John eacott, didn't you write off a BK117 simply flying into Bankstown NVFR to a lit pad?

No.

I had a tail rotor strike on a tree when landing at a completely dark, unlit area outside a hangar late at night when positioning for a fire call. The trees were cut down by Bankstown Airport a few days later, certainly shouldn't have been there! My BK was back up and running and spent many years of fun flying.

I'm always comfortable sharing experiences to help others avoid mistakes, but there's no point in trying to infer the accident was worse than it was. It certainly has no bearing on offshore flying.

Cut my teeth night flying over the sea.
Probably 60 - 70% of all my naval flying was totally negative external visual references. One quickly learns to worship the Rad Alt, relies heavily on the co-pilot for another. One became fatigued quite quickly - burning holes in the instruments. Watching every twitch and rate change of all the needles. 40 feet above certain death - and far away from "mother".
Then the time came to 'recover' and land on this light shadow moving against a darker shadow, watching and waiting for the 'lull' picking your moment when you literally throw 9 tonnes of thrashing metal at a space no bigger than a squash court.
Deck lights come on, smiling people emerging from the darkness, aircrew nervously laughing - just another normal night op......................

The innocence of youth. :uhoh:

In answer to the OP: I guess it's down to training and discipline. Oh - and how much you value your life, I suppose!

TC et Al
 

Oh yes I remember those times very well but my real night horrors were whilst on the Fulmar doing night shuttles around the field in all weathers in a 105DB with no rad alt and single pilot.

I've said it before on Prune but if the helicopter was equipped with a dial called a 'skill meter' then there were plenty of times when it was knocking on the top stops. Landing an S76 at night in pouring rain on some of the southern North Sea decks was a real test.

In terms of risk management you have a dilemma, to maintain a 24 hour capability for medevac etc. you actually need people who are current and 3 deck landings at night every 90 days doesn't really do it. You select people for night standby and train them every month then one night one of the captains goes sick and you have to draft in a ninety-day man (or woman) then you have racked up the risk. The costs of keeping everyone on a 30 day requirement would be astronomical unless you lease a decommissioned rig and put it 10 miles off Aberdeen and maybe others where they can be accessed within minutes rather than hours.

G :ok:

I think there are plenty of us on these pages who have scared themselves fartless doing 'mortal' or 'reversionary' night flying in the past whether it is overland with dust or overwater with no references.

We are in the 21st century now and such high skill-level events should not be required in the offshore or corporate (see other threads) sectors - if only because the training/licensing system doesn't produce the guaranteed high quality output required to meet those events.

NVG opens up the world of night flying and makes it so much safer and less-stressful - every pilot who has flown using them will agree, I have no doubt.

Just move on.

Odd.....everyone with real life experience with NVG's swears by them.

Am I missing something?

Are there some Training Kingdom's at risk if that Technology is brought into use and there is an Experience Requirement to be a Trainer?

I suspect so Sasless, every mil pilot in UK is trained on NVG as part of their BASIC training and regards it as normal night flying, just as in the US.

The regulatory authority just can't seem to understand this and adapt the rules and regs to meet the new capability. EASA does seem to be massively on the back foot for this.

We seem to be winning the battle over here as NVG's are becoming far more common as the Operators and Customers realize the benefit they provide....primarily in the EMS business where so much of the flying is at night and far too often in very dark places in marginal weather.

If all I ever did was fly from Airport to Airport with fully instrumented Runways and all sorts of Light and Surface Reference aids.....then perhaps using NVG's would not be as useful as they are.

But when it gets really...really Dark....and the lights are scarce NVG's are magic kit. I used to land back to a fully lit Helipad....the usual perimeter in ground lights....but also lit up like daytime due to giant arrays of Flood Lights that were beamed onto the Pad for Security while the aircraft was parked awaiting a Scramble Call.

Unless you looked square into one of the Flood Light arrays it was not a problem and then only momentarily until you looked away....not much different than if you looked at them using the Naked Eye.

I can no reason why ordinary Platform, Rig, or Vessel lighting would be a problem for NVG Operations.

An interesting conundrum
 

If NVG's became the norm then we stand to lose the ability to operate without.

I've never experienced NVG's having come from a generation that preceded their arrival in the UK military. I did however spend much of my anti-submarine career flogging around the oggin in the pitch black at 200' and below and to and from very poorly lit (like near zero) decks on moving vessels. The key was always training and recency - plus a good deal of respect for this unforgiving environment thrown in.

I already see CV's that detail night flying with and without NVG's. What do we do when we see a candidate with nothing under the 'non-NVG night' column? I suggest it is a skill we do not wish to lose, for whatever reason. If NVG's are not available we may become prisoners of the dark.

I'm all for NVG's because they provide an excellent degree of safety but I am apprehensive about losing the basic night flying skills.

G. :ok:

Last time I checked...training can be done goggled or with the Mk I Eyeballs or even with the Mk i's improved with spectacles.

What does happen when NVG's are not used is One realizes just how much One can not see in the Dark.

We did a Training flight down on the south end of our playground where the Trainer wore Goggles and the Learner had his flipped up out of the way but ready to go when flipped down.

We set up a track towards an abandoned Recycling Building with a very large and tall but unlit brick smoke stack....due to there being no electrical power being supplied to the derelict site. At a height well below the top of the Stack and it smack dab at 12 O'Clock to the nose of the aircraft....and at a somewhat uncomfortable distance from impact....the Learner was asked to confirm everything was Peaches and upon doing so....was instructed to lower his Goggles and offer a Second Opinion.

It is scary what you cannot see if you can see it.

Once you use Goggles you will quickly grasp Night Flying is much easier if you can see. It makes thinking in the dark far more easy.

SAS and II
 

Like I say - NVG's are great and their routine use would make life safer but if I was flying around at night overland I wouldn't be doing it below the height of the highest obstacle on my route. That's the kind of consideration that might go out the window if we get too familiar with the NVG version of daylight.

Out of interest do you NVG specialists have a work around for NVG failure? Do you have a flight plan 'B' that revises the altitudes and/or the route if the kit fails?

G.

You miss the point dear Boy....the teaching point was you can see obstacles with NVG's that One would not see without the benefit of Goggles.

No one flies around below obstacles at night...least ways not for long anyway.

Yes...Googles do fail....rarely but they do.

When the do One merely reverts to use of Dinosaur techniques based upon the Human Eye and either NVFR or IMC/IFR flight depending upon the external visual reference.

I have flown over lots of ground which at on an overcast night was just as dark as flying over the Oggin where there was no horizon, no ground lighting, and due to the Overcast....no celestial lighting to matter.

Our Flight Rules are based upon Weather and not whether despite there being nothing to see in the way of ground lights or celestial light....reversion to un-aided flight could easily put into a situation that would require use of Instruments to fly although while using Goggles it was quite easy to fly by visual contact with the surface.

That is one of those Carriages and Horses things as was mentioned before.

Goggles are an assist....but do come with some risks as well.

Thanks for all the replies - really interesting views about NVG. Some seem to think they would help a lot, but I know some of the SAR guys who use them switch them off when doing a night rig landing at about 0.5nm and 500 RA from a rig due to excessive brightness from the rig lighting. I suppose if that's the case, then there's no real advantage, as its this final phase when things can go wrong - until .75 mm at night it's manadatory in our part A to be 4axis (or 3 if that's the max the AFCS can give) coupled, only decoupling when stable and within .75 mm.

Maybe an full NVG trial for the offshore world would be a sensible approach.

Personally. I don't think that gives you enough time to get up to speed for flying the aircraft manually.

In the distant past on 332s I would declare 'autopilots are for weenys' at the take off point. I would then fly the leg autopilot out, albeit in daylight, and land it offshore. I once demonstrated to an incredulous co-pilot how it could fly normally with my hands in the air. I have also been known to do offshore shuttles with it out as well.

I once did a night shuttle when the Millar was being built. Because of a crane rig on the Western side of the platform the landing was a left hand seat job. After hovering in space for some time I told the co-pilot to go around so we could have a talk about it. (or words to that effect)

It transpired that his total offshore night flying experience had been to a stacked rig in Aberdeen harbour. On this basis he had been signed off as fully competent for night operations in the North Sea.

Luckily I was ex single pilot on the Puma and also the S76 so I could carry on with the shuttle doing his landings cross-cockpit.

Geoffers, as part of the pre-flight planning there are certain safeguards;

Firstly an Obstacle Plane Value (OPV) is established, above which all obstacles are supposed to be marked on the relevant maps or in the Digital Vertical Obstruction File (DVOF) for those using electronic mapping systems.

Next, a Minimum Operating Height (MOH) is established for the type of NVG you are doing.

Then, mark your map with obstacles out to a suitable distance from your desired track, especially highlighting those that are above the level you are flying at.

For each leg you will calculate a Minimum safe Height (MSH) which you will climb to if you are unsure of your position, have a goggle malfunction or can't see an obstacle that is above you by a certain minimum distance.

You will also calculate a Reversionary Altitude (RA) which you can climb to with a total navigation or NVG failure which will ensure you are above 500' for that route.

All mil pilots have to carry out reversionary (normal) night flying on a regular basis to ensure the basic skills are not lost - specifically making an approach to a lit site/ NATO T or similar.

For SAR work, the mil generally flew above the OPV and used lookout and normal map reading techniques to avoid obstacles, knowing that you were above the highest normal pylons ie above 250'. If forced down by bad weather then the navigation skills became much more important and speed was reduced commensurate with height - even down to the hover taxi and the use of white light with NVG was the norm.

The autopilot functions of an aircraft like the 225 make night flying a lot safer. The protection functions in the 225 autopilot minimise the risk of getting your feet wet if you get it wrong. To take value from the above, you have to use the autopilot or it is of no help. The "I used to fly the whole trip manually" attitude and I can do better than the autopilot is a thing of the past. In recent years offshore we have seen at least two accidents where had the autopilot been used correctly, there would have been a different outcome. There will precious little currency for any crew this season due to the low flying rate. All the more important to use all the help you can get.

Thankfully.

Absolutely - a 4-axis autopilot with a good rad alt hold is the minimum that should be mandated for night overwater work.

Add a TAS hold and a decent nav kit driving the aircraft in the right direction and, of course, NVG and you have a safe and managable setup.

If you have some transition modes as well you can get yourself to a comfortable position to hand-fly the remainder of the approach.

But, as already hinted at, you need to know how to use the autopilot modes and not get lost in them.

Seems some of us embrace Technology and want to use it to our best advantage.....and I endorse that notion strongly.

I was Old Skool.....but loved being able to punch buttons and watch George do his thing for me....and when NVG's turned darkness into light (even if a bit green) Night flying was changed forever for me.

All that being said....we do have to be able to hand fly the machine because at some time in our Lives that will save our Lives.

We see that very well demonstrated when we read Accident Reports of Pilots just plain ol' losing control of an airplane when the AutoHelm goes for a Run Ashore.

I shall never say I can out fly George.....but I am also George's Supervisor and QC Inspector. I will fire his ass when he gets to messing up which then forces me to prove I can fly as well as he can and better than he was when I tied the Can to his Tail.

Automation friend or foe
 

Amen to that SAS but unfortunately it is the minority of pilots that have both the skill and knowledge to operate the automation effectively. The majority need more training and practice than they currently receive.

After hearing at a recent conference that 50% of a major airline's pilot applicants fail their selection process (EASA CPL/IR's remember) it seems to indicate that whatever we are doing we need to find a way of doing it better.

We are being overtaken by a technology-rich future that is swamping our ability to cope and deliver a pilot with good handling skills too. For many the step up to flat screens, and their digits and text, from the good old round dials is proving a challenge that maybe too big.

G
PS - Thanks to CRAB for that fulsome explanation of the NVG protocols in the UK Mil

The 225 has everything required but the next development from Airbus will add more in terms of positioning, IAS etc. The IAS hold works down to 30kts so with a North Sea breeze you can be at a fast walk at the latter stages and still be 4 axis. The later 225s have ground speed hold as well which is the next step in safer approaches. In 4 axis it runs on rails, no requirement for a rad alt hold, the bar alt being extremely accurate although you could use cruise height as there is no "fly-up" fear like the L2.

The 225 is the safest aircraft out there by a country mile, it's a shame it got such a bad rep after shaft-gate but guess what.....it's worth compared to other heavies is now being realised, full fuel, full payload, highest range and the best/safest automation on the market. And you get your own door!

Except that a bar alt hold can be fooled by pressure changes - hi to lo = overread - as you fly towards a depression.

For anything below 500' I would want rad alt hold engaged over the sea at night.

Interestingly the US Navy will not carry "passengers" to and from ships outside daylight hours or after 60 minutes before sunset.

Maybe they know something?

I think the question needs to be asked as to "why" you have to fly at night.

Regular crew changes? Those things are changing as well as the rosters change with the current oil price and folk are being let go.

Fleein' a tea boy neep who disnae even work half a year back to e's hame in Ayberdeen tae be wi e's quine for denner?

As to NVG's I think you may find that is not really the way forward and there are limits as to how far you can take it.
Issues being that as you are pretty much relying solely on the device it needs to meet a whole truckload of standards which they will struggle with.
Plus it is a portable device which brings another can of worms. No doubt it works but how do you "certify" it and what are the rules going to be.
It ain't VFR, Night VFR or IFR as you know it. We are talking about Transport Category aircraft and regular pax ops here not the military.

Enhanced and/or Synthetic vision which is part of the aircraft seems to be the way forward and systems are already certified in the plank world
with lower minima approved.

For the whole time to date of offshore night operations possibly hasn't changed in 30 years. A poxy little ring of lights out the window somewhere?

We know it has knobs on it. Thats why we are speaking about it here and it has been proven to be.

Trouble is, those enhanced/synthetic vision systems are OK for aiming at several thousand feet of runway with no obstacles where the transition from instrument/synthetic flight just involves flaring to land ahead but in a helo manoeuvring to a rig?

You still have the problem of going to visual flying to complete the landing which is why NVG are the better option - do you want to be looking in at the screen when you need to be looking outside?

Setting a minimum illumination level (the Met office already provide the data for this) and specifying a minimum generation of NVG tubes would go a long way to standardising things for the purposes of certification.

I guess that these aircraft do not have NVG compatible lighting....

Given a local QNH and a bar alt to rad alt comparison this isn't a problem. The biggest reason that rad alt isn't used is that most crew change aircraft only have one so a failure would not be good. I can assure you that you wouldn't notice the difference on a 225. In fact, the bar alt is nice and smooth with an accuracy that is more than sufficient for our operations.