GOM - yet another ditching
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously not because there are no twin rotor helicopters that can continue to operate with one failed. However twin helocopters operated PC1 or PC2e mean an engine failure is rarely the cause of an accident.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shell Management,
So does this mean that all Shell offshore air operations are conducted exclusively by twin engine helicopters operating in either PC1 or PC2e?
HT
However twin helocopters operated PC1 or PC2e mean an engine failure is rarely the cause of an accident.
HT
Now that is a VERY interesting question. C'mon SM, which of your contracts are operating to PC2e offshore. More to the point, which are not - and why??
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, it wasn't an accident. An L4 was just climbing out when there was a compressor stall due to ingesting a tree frog. The pilot put the aircraft down about 100 yards from the end of the runway under partial power.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assorted answers
HeliTester Obviously yes. PC1/PC2e is an essential part of 7/7=1 which Shell launched nearly 6 years ago. Obviously it took time for the OEMs to put procedures in place and to get higher performance machines in place.
Combiner gearboxes simply do what MRGBs do and what I said about rotors applies to them. However they fail less then engines.
Frogs are a well know hazard in the GOM and managening them should feature in any competent safety case. Failing to miss FOD in an intake, even if its green and croaks (and added alerting feature
) speakes volumes about pre-flight inspections.
HeliTester Obviously yes. PC1/PC2e is an essential part of 7/7=1 which Shell launched nearly 6 years ago. Obviously it took time for the OEMs to put procedures in place and to get higher performance machines in place.
Combiner gearboxes simply do what MRGBs do and what I said about rotors applies to them. However they fail less then engines.
Frogs are a well know hazard in the GOM and managening them should feature in any competent safety case. Failing to miss FOD in an intake, even if its green and croaks (and added alerting feature
) speakes volumes about pre-flight inspections.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those that don't yet have the Herpetology addition to the RFM - a couple of pointers. The little green tree frogs (hyla cinerea) are extrodinairily fast little buggers. They can jump 6-8 feet in a flash. Nothing like having just removed the inlet pillow and spotting one the little creatures and trying to shoe it one way only to have it leap towards the inlet. They are also pretty quiet, no croaking or ribiting when you're near.
Unfortunately replacing the pillows until your ready to start hasn't always worked. There are still a number of minutes to get strapped in and the check list done before the start not to mention the loading of passengers.
Like avoiding a bird strike, avoiding our little amphibian friends (they eat lots of mosquitos) is constant and never ending.
Unfortunately replacing the pillows until your ready to start hasn't always worked. There are still a number of minutes to get strapped in and the check list done before the start not to mention the loading of passengers.
Like avoiding a bird strike, avoiding our little amphibian friends (they eat lots of mosquitos) is constant and never ending.
Frogs are a well know hazard in the GOM
(I know he was Austrian, but the Frogs put him there ... )
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
js0987
So the frogs (as in Freedom Frogs not Cheese Eating Surrender Frogs) can approach the aircraft unseen and unheard and jump 6-8 feet straight down an intake in the short time after removing the intake blanks and inspecting, then cling on, to release themselves into the compressor at 100ft?
Out of interest what is actually done to avoid them?
So the frogs (as in Freedom Frogs not Cheese Eating Surrender Frogs) can approach the aircraft unseen and unheard and jump 6-8 feet straight down an intake in the short time after removing the intake blanks and inspecting, then cling on, to release themselves into the compressor at 100ft?
avoiding our little amphibian friends is constant and never ending.
Out of interest what is actually done to avoid them?
In reality, they do little damage, other than causing a startling *POP!* and surge from the engine. Some pilots shrug and keep going on their way; others react harshly and put the thing down "off-airport" so to speak.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOM pilots preflight and untie in the darkness, to be ready for a sunrise takeoff.
Some pilots shrug and keep going on their way; others react harshly
FTW97LA016
FTW97LA016
NTSB Identification: FTW97LA016 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Nonscheduled 14 CFR
Accident occurred Monday, October 14, 1996 in VENICE, LA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/23/1997
Aircraft: Bell 206L-3, registration: N21497
Injuries: 4 Uninjured.
On October 14, 1996, at 0720 central daylight time, a Bell 206L-3 helicopter, N21497, owned and operated by Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., was substantially damaged during a precautionary landing near Venice, Louisiana. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the Title 14 CFR Part 135 air taxi flight. The commercial pilot and three passengers were not injured. A company flight plan was filed. The flight was originating from the Shell Heliport at the time of the accident.
According to the pilot, the helicopter was approximately 50 feet AGL during takeoff when he heard a "big pop and the helicopter was shaky and noisy." He initiated a "deceleration to land "due to the wires in front of the helicopter. During the landing, a 2-foot section of the tailboom which included the vertical fin and tail rotor gearbox, separated from the tailboom. Throughout the forced landing he had tail rotor pedal control.
The passengers reported that on takeoff they heard a noise like a "backfire," and then the helicopter began to shake.
According to the operator, the damage to the helicopter resulted when "a main rotor blade flexed down and severed the tailboom." An examination of the engine by the operator revealed that frogs had been ingested.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:a loss of engine power due to frogs being ingested into the engine as a result of the pilots failure to perform a thorough preflight, and the pilot's improper touchdown technique.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sox 6. Actually yes. They don't make noise and are small enough to easily miss. To expound on what FH 1100 wrote; preflights are done in the dark with a flashlight. Examining the inlet area is fine, but our little friends can stick to anything, so finding them on the side of the fuselage or even the bottom of a rotor blade has happened. More than likely, its the frog that ended up on the doghouse or the top of the cabin that ends up getting sucked in once the airflow breaks him loose. Using your flashlight, you try to look everything over but, like the bird strike, it's possible to not see it.
Fortunately alligators are too big to fit in the inlets so we're safe there.
Fortunately alligators are too big to fit in the inlets so we're safe there.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tree frogs can easily cling to glass or any other smooth surface, even if it's overhead. It's simply not possible to inspect the intake of an engine and detect any possible tree frog. You can't see every nook in there, no matter how hard you look, and no matter how much you pretzel yourself around to try. You just do the best you can and hope for the best. Most operators start using the baffles at the start of frog season (early spring) and keep using them until late autumn, but it's never a certain proposition. I've also had problems with birds. Mockingbirds can be very persistent, and I've had them start replacing nests in the intake area within minutes of removing the previous one. They like to use sticks and bits of safety wire in building their nests, and they're a real danger. I once fought a pair for days, finally keeping the intake plugs in during the day, and thought I had won, but the pilot of the BO105 on the pad next to me found a huge nest inside his aircraft the next day. If it ain't one thing, it's another. Preflighting in the dark, with a flashlight, isn't the best solution, but I've been royally chewed out by Shell dispatchers for not being on the pad at their dock when the top arc of the sun started appearing above the horizon. Shell talks a good safety program, but it's just talk. They, like the other companies, care only about short-term profits, and safety is important only when it's convenient.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have any problems with Shell dispatchers not complying with the Shell Code of Conduct you must contact Shell Aircraft immediately - thats actually a contract requirement.
SAI are at
(713) 241 7700
17231 JFK Blvd, Houston, TX, 77042
Or use the confidential helpline if you prefer:
Shell Global Helpline - About Shell
You can read more on the code of conduct at:
Shell Code of Conduct - About Shell
SAI are at
(713) 241 7700
17231 JFK Blvd, Houston, TX, 77042
Or use the confidential helpline if you prefer:
Shell Global Helpline - About Shell
You can read more on the code of conduct at:
Shell Code of Conduct - About Shell
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much for ADS-B as a big success in the GOM as the FAA's ability to technically oversee the programme is called into doubt.
U.S. DOT IG Chastises FAA on ADS-B: AINonline
U.S. DOT IG Chastises FAA on ADS-B: AINonline
The U.S. DOT Inspector General (IG), the FAA’s fiscal watchdog, recently issued a report titled “FAA faces significant risks in implementing the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast program and realizing benefits.” The IG examined key risks to the FAA’s ADS-B implementation and assessed strengths and weaknesses of its contracting approach.
But the IG questioned the FAA’s resulting in-house technical oversight capabilities due to “knowing very little about a system that is expected to be the foundation of NextGen.”
But the IG questioned the FAA’s resulting in-house technical oversight capabilities due to “knowing very little about a system that is expected to be the foundation of NextGen.”