AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are, as always, exceptions however.
So...I guess the Oil Company always goes for the newer and more expensive option.....and not one Oil Company executive has ever worried about the Share Price and what the Wall Street Analysts have to say?
How many of the "Non-Responsive" Bids get chunked into the Trash Can as a way of forcing the Operator to conform to the Tender Requirements?
How many of the "Non-Responsive" Bids get chunked into the Trash Can as a way of forcing the Operator to conform to the Tender Requirements?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't wish to speculate on the cause of this accident, but would like to add to a post someone made earlier on the thread concerning tail rotors. I believe the person who posted was referring to a tail rotor control failure where the helicopter (depending on many factors) could possibly begin to rotate below 40(ish)kts.
The other failure, tail rotor drive failure, as all Puma pilots know, requires an immediate entry into full auto and engines to idle or shutdown before landing. At low level that's not a nice position to be in. I suppose drive failure is a possibility, however, I'd rather wait for the outcome of the investigation than attribute the accident to any speculative cause.
The other failure, tail rotor drive failure, as all Puma pilots know, requires an immediate entry into full auto and engines to idle or shutdown before landing. At low level that's not a nice position to be in. I suppose drive failure is a possibility, however, I'd rather wait for the outcome of the investigation than attribute the accident to any speculative cause.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Industry Insider, I feel your grief, I really do.
As I stated earlier, this tragedy can be turned to some good if it will be used by operators and clients to regroup and form a better understanding of what improvements can be made to helicopter operations overall.
However, regarding your comments, what I don't understand is - if your contracts are stipulating a maximum age on equipment, why are operators submitting proposals which incorporate the use of older ones? Wouldn't this invalidate their tender?
As I stated earlier, this tragedy can be turned to some good if it will be used by operators and clients to regroup and form a better understanding of what improvements can be made to helicopter operations overall.
However, regarding your comments, what I don't understand is - if your contracts are stipulating a maximum age on equipment, why are operators submitting proposals which incorporate the use of older ones? Wouldn't this invalidate their tender?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Publicity such as this, from a UK newspaper today, must be a concern for operators and oil companies.
How many more need to die? Anger of oil workers after latest Super Puma crash raises death toll to 20 in just four years
Union chiefs said there was a ‘groundswell of anger’ against the helicopters, pictured centre, following the crash on Friday near Sumburgh, Shetland, which killed four, with many oil workers vowing never to fly in one again. The worst incident was in 2009 when all 16 aboard were killed. Now the latest tragedy brings the total number of people killed while flying aboard the Super Puma helicopter to 20. Clockwise from top left, Stuart Wood, Richard Menzies, James Edwards, Alex Dallas, Leslie Taylor, Nolan Carl, Paul Burnham, George Allison, Gary McCrossan, Nairn Ferrier, David Rae, Gareth Hughes, Warren Mitchell, Raymond Doyle, Brian Barkley, Vernon Elrick, James Costello, Sarah Darnley and Duncan Munro, as well as Mihails Zuravskis, have all perished due to incidents involving the craft.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how many times has the decision date been extended and an operator asked if they would like to resubmit their tender as another company has a lower bid?
Last edited by Brom; 26th Aug 2013 at 14:16.
SAS, 3 out of 5 chunked (commercials returned unopened) of course our CEOs look st stock price but try having an accident to see how much it costs and what Wall St thinks.
Grenville, we usually allow non conforming sections in addition to conforming sections as a way of encouraging innovation. The trouble is that iinnovation comes as cheap older aircraft. It maybe commercially innovative but its not what we really mean by innovation.
Brom, I would be fired for that. Our whole process has oversight from the tender board and venture partners.
Grenville, we usually allow non conforming sections in addition to conforming sections as a way of encouraging innovation. The trouble is that iinnovation comes as cheap older aircraft. It maybe commercially innovative but its not what we really mean by innovation.
Brom, I would be fired for that. Our whole process has oversight from the tender board and venture partners.
Last edited by industry insider; 26th Aug 2013 at 14:21.
They are going to round-up herds of Bell 412's.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, most tenders make provision for "alternative" proposals however, one would not expect a vendor to propose something which completely contradicts a fundamental criterion of the tender itself!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NL
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(* btw, on my one trip offshore Norway, the life jackets were under our seats ! This unsettled me totally.)
II not sure about your neck of the woods, but around here the major players all comply with the minimum standard set by OGP etc. However that compliance is demonstrated in a mostly tickbox way. You get no extra ticks for having a better culture or for exceeding the minimum standard in most cases. So then it just becomes a race to the bottom. Are the operators blameless? No, of course not, but neither are the Oil Cos, and it is the latter who control who gets the contract, so the power rests with them.
Also, I find the drive for brand new aircraft slightly worrying, its not like buying a new car! Just like all its predecessors, no doubt the AW189 will have something horribly wrong with it, we just don't know what it is yet!
Also, I find the drive for brand new aircraft slightly worrying, its not like buying a new car! Just like all its predecessors, no doubt the AW189 will have something horribly wrong with it, we just don't know what it is yet!
Last edited by HeliComparator; 26th Aug 2013 at 14:33.
Loss of tail rotor at speed does not result in a spin until the aircraft slows to below around 40 knots. A Bristow Tiger had just such a loss of tail rotor in the 80's and only lost control on final approach at Aberdeen when the speed came below around 40 knots.
The Bristow Tiger did NOT have a tail rotor failure.
The tailrotor drive shaft cover came open as the aircraft slowed below 40 kts and severely damaged the tail rotor. Tail rotor control was normal up to that point.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this needs to be driven from "the bottom" with pilots, engineers and bears pushing for round table talks between all parties to identify where improvements can be made and to agree to those measures capable of seeing them implemented.
One thing is certain though. If the CAA were simply to legislate in favour of best practice in safety and operations, oil companies and operators would have no alternative but to conform.
There! We have it!
Oil Company points finger at the Operators.......Operators point fingers at Oil Company. Pilots point finger at Company.....Company points finger at Pilots. Everyone points finger at Authority.....Passengers Union points fingers at everyone else......and the Authority eats the pies and collects a nice Pension.
Is that a simple summary of the situation?
What has to happen to change this?
Oil Company points finger at the Operators.......Operators point fingers at Oil Company. Pilots point finger at Company.....Company points finger at Pilots. Everyone points finger at Authority.....Passengers Union points fingers at everyone else......and the Authority eats the pies and collects a nice Pension.
Is that a simple summary of the situation?
What has to happen to change this?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Publicity such as this, from a UK newspaper today, must be a concern for operators and oil companies.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter operating companies need to be run by real helicopter people, take a long term view and show some leadership.
"Back in old man Bristow's day, this was a helicopter company that made a profit. Now it's profit-making company that just happens to operate helicopters!"
Alan Bristow, love him or hate him, had his feet on both sides of the table and acted accordingly. But it doesn-t work like that now. The big helicopter companies now have owners/investors and their own boardrooms too. "Leadership" will only surface or show its face if the deal is a sure thing and profits/dividends can be enhanced.
One of the great difficulties in the helicopter world, certainly at the level where large operators are owned by larger corporations which are in turn controlled by even larger investors, is the regulatory "cultural conflict".
On the one hand, everything about the operation of aircraft, from the initial design and certification to the flying and maintenance, is governed by regulations that have been developed over many years and which owe their origins, in very large measure, to the findings of the investigations into accidents and incidents that have claimed many, many lives.
On the other hand, such regulations as govern the running of businesses and accounting practices in general and anything to do with money in the broad sense are basically there to keep order in the books, to ensure that things are done correctly and, where they have been developed or tightened at all, it has been as a result of some impropriety or other.
So, while we wander about the skies according to regulations written in the blood of those who have lost their lives, we are being managed/controlled by others who are operating to regulations designed to stop them from being thieves.
Or is that just too much cynicism....?
I insider
I sympathise with your predicament but you can understand why there is a reluctance to up grade a/c - cost and the "A" model always comes with unforseen problems which are solved with the "B" model - so best practice is to wait for the "B"!
As an old and bold ex NS capt who started on Whirlwinds and finished up on the 365N2 via Wessex, Seaking and 332L I have seen the improvements in both design and autopilot function. I wonder now if we have gone too far with the autopilot and taken away the newer pilots ability to actually fly the a/c. Although I have retired now I still keep in touch and hear stories like "on take off Vy is reached then autopilot engaged!" How do pilots maintain their manual flying skills. The autopilots and Flight management systems, while very capable, are not user friendly and have upper and lower modes with differences that catch people out!
Operations in the NS are simple - move people to/from rigs in most weathers. The a/c has to be able to safely do that - it doesn't need an autopilot/FMS that is not user friendly!
I remember going from the 365N to the 365N2 which had RNAV 2 along with track superimopsed on the radar. With RNAV 2 you could toggle between 2 pages to get most of the info you needed, the line on the radar confirmed you were going to the rig -simple. A later Garmin GPS you needed a degree to operate
Keeping the avionics simpler, but as safe, would reduce costs.
I was lucky enough to work/live offshore working with a particular unmanned rig crew so learned alot about their fears and was able to explain how we operated. I was surprised at how many were afraid of flying but suffered in silence so they could get offshore to earn money!
To all those rig crews who are reading this thread please be aware that we as pilots and groundcrew will operate as safely as we can. I understand the worry about this cluster of accidents but they are not the same a/c. The 225 is a different machine though it looks similar.
We will have to wait for the cause of this tragedy but as all the critical "witnesses", crew,a/c and black boxes are available it should take too long.
RIP to the 4 who died and safe flying to everybody else.
HF
I sympathise with your predicament but you can understand why there is a reluctance to up grade a/c - cost and the "A" model always comes with unforseen problems which are solved with the "B" model - so best practice is to wait for the "B"!
As an old and bold ex NS capt who started on Whirlwinds and finished up on the 365N2 via Wessex, Seaking and 332L I have seen the improvements in both design and autopilot function. I wonder now if we have gone too far with the autopilot and taken away the newer pilots ability to actually fly the a/c. Although I have retired now I still keep in touch and hear stories like "on take off Vy is reached then autopilot engaged!" How do pilots maintain their manual flying skills. The autopilots and Flight management systems, while very capable, are not user friendly and have upper and lower modes with differences that catch people out!
Operations in the NS are simple - move people to/from rigs in most weathers. The a/c has to be able to safely do that - it doesn't need an autopilot/FMS that is not user friendly!
I remember going from the 365N to the 365N2 which had RNAV 2 along with track superimopsed on the radar. With RNAV 2 you could toggle between 2 pages to get most of the info you needed, the line on the radar confirmed you were going to the rig -simple. A later Garmin GPS you needed a degree to operate
Keeping the avionics simpler, but as safe, would reduce costs.
I was lucky enough to work/live offshore working with a particular unmanned rig crew so learned alot about their fears and was able to explain how we operated. I was surprised at how many were afraid of flying but suffered in silence so they could get offshore to earn money!
To all those rig crews who are reading this thread please be aware that we as pilots and groundcrew will operate as safely as we can. I understand the worry about this cluster of accidents but they are not the same a/c. The 225 is a different machine though it looks similar.
We will have to wait for the cause of this tragedy but as all the critical "witnesses", crew,a/c and black boxes are available it should take too long.
RIP to the 4 who died and safe flying to everybody else.
HF