North Sea Weather Considerations
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA would not be pleased if the HSE tried to impose standards on their patch.
I once asked a Flt Ops Inspector about enforcement - his reply was that his remit was "to observe and report, not to enforce". So much for the 'regulatory authority'!
bondu
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: YBBN
Age: 78
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The HSE are not trying to impose anything on the CAA. You can down load “How Offshore Helicopter Travel Is Regulated” from the HSE website and it states that the HSE and the CAA have a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the regulation of offshore helicopter travel.
As far as ALARP is concerned that’s how the operators of offshore installations try and judge where to spend their safety-related budget. There is no such thing as absolute safety – nor infinite budgets - so we just have to live with the systems and economic realities as they are.
Having said all that, I’m not an apologist for the Dacon Scoop.
My view is that if its too rough to launch the FRC and the wind across the helideck could potentially damage a helicopter that had to shut down, then we should not be flying.
As the old saying goes, “Its better to be late, than the late!”
As far as ALARP is concerned that’s how the operators of offshore installations try and judge where to spend their safety-related budget. There is no such thing as absolute safety – nor infinite budgets - so we just have to live with the systems and economic realities as they are.
Having said all that, I’m not an apologist for the Dacon Scoop.
My view is that if its too rough to launch the FRC and the wind across the helideck could potentially damage a helicopter that had to shut down, then we should not be flying.
As the old saying goes, “Its better to be late, than the late!”
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA and HSE certainly have a different view of what a regulator/enforcer should do. Mind you, in the current climate the HSE are being criticised more than the CAA.
My point in raising the two regulators was to make the point that PFEER and the HSE only get involved close to the offshore installation. Beyond 500m from the installation the rules are those of the CAA only, backed up by the Coastguard and the marine SAR setup. Others may get involved, but that is with the roll of the dice, not anythng that can be relied upon.
In terms of what you can practically expect away from the installation, any vessel response is likely to be MUCH slower. Mandatory HUET training, PPE and survival equipment have improved the chances of getting out of the helicopter, so long as the ditching is survivable. Getting rescued to that place of safety remains a really risky process once the sea state prevents use of FRCs, with a substantial delay away from an installation to make matters worse.
The practicalities of rescuing people from the sea mean that once the sea state is too bad to launch (and recover) an FRC from/to a well-found SBV, there isn't really a good prospect of rescuing anyone in the water or a raft (other than if an SAR helicopter is available in a reasonable time).
It will be a major step forward when an effective severe sea state rescue system is available for SBVs, but the laws of physics and hydrodynamics make it a real challenge.
My point in raising the two regulators was to make the point that PFEER and the HSE only get involved close to the offshore installation. Beyond 500m from the installation the rules are those of the CAA only, backed up by the Coastguard and the marine SAR setup. Others may get involved, but that is with the roll of the dice, not anythng that can be relied upon.
In terms of what you can practically expect away from the installation, any vessel response is likely to be MUCH slower. Mandatory HUET training, PPE and survival equipment have improved the chances of getting out of the helicopter, so long as the ditching is survivable. Getting rescued to that place of safety remains a really risky process once the sea state prevents use of FRCs, with a substantial delay away from an installation to make matters worse.
The practicalities of rescuing people from the sea mean that once the sea state is too bad to launch (and recover) an FRC from/to a well-found SBV, there isn't really a good prospect of rescuing anyone in the water or a raft (other than if an SAR helicopter is available in a reasonable time).
It will be a major step forward when an effective severe sea state rescue system is available for SBVs, but the laws of physics and hydrodynamics make it a real challenge.
