Helicopter down in the North Sea.

Not at all – indeed you are endorsing my exact point. The problems were not technical.

At least it is reassuring to rig workers that this model’s safety record has not been compromised by further technical problems.

Leaving what? Pilots manage to fly an otherwise servicable aircraft into the sea during an approach at a point where the profile should have had them 700′ up? Deeply reassuring. If you think I’m being flippant, four of my colleagues died, one of whom was the first female North Sea fatality.

At least it is reassuring to rig workers that this model’s safety record has not been compromised by further technical problems.

No technical fault found with the helicopter which leaves what reason?

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10657246.No_technical_fault_in_helicopter_crash/

Well that’s stating the blinding obvious but does not refute my point. Are you seriously trying to persuade me that oil rig workers apply for the job with no knowledge of the conditions and risks. Come on! It might have true in the early days during the 70s, when I spent a lot of time in Aberdeen involved in the industry but that initial sense of excitement and discovery is long past.

Many workers are in jobs they hate, out of a sense of responsibility to thier families but yes, they are free. They can quit, be unable to pay the mortgage, make the family homeless etc.

Still, people quit (or don’t apply for or take) jobs all the time because of safety/health or logistical/travel factors…

Firstly you put words on the page I never wrote and secondly make inferences which I never implied.
I reiterate that we all have and make free choices about our employment.

Many workers are in jobs they hate, out of a sense of responsibility to thier families but yes, they are free. They can quit, be unable to pay the mortgage, make the family homeless etc.

A very good story in Aviation Week…free from media panic. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_02_2013_p18-610858.xml&p=1

In the print version, there is a rundown of major North sea helicopter mishaps dating back to the 80s. The Super Pumas and EC225s have had quite a bit of problems, with the recent grounds of the EC225s only recently been lifted and Eurocopter (now Airbus helicopters) still working on a permanent fix.

Firstly you put words on the page I never wrote and secondly make inferences which I never implied.
I reiterate that we all have and make free choices about our employment.

All of that is of course true and all choices about jobs are free choices. Whatever the reasons people make their free choice to work on rigs fully cognisant of the risks.
If the jobs were not worth it for whatever reason employers would have make sure they were. As it happens they apparently are.

No, that is just so wrong. There is very little ‘free choice’ in employment. No matter what job you take you are entitled to expect your employer to look after your health and safety. I’d be sacked if I fail to wear the hi-vis jacket, safety goggles and ear defenders, so if my employer takes ‘expedient’ risks with my health and safety, I’d be pretty damned sure I’d expect some real comeback, rather than, ‘people make their free choice to work on rigs fully cognisant of the risks.‘

Would you right off Lolly Pop ladies in the same way if they were being decimated? ‘Well, they knew the risks of crossing the road and that’s why they get paid £7 per hour’.

I am no expert, but the overall design of most modern transport helicopters tends to place engines and gearboxes on top of the cabin, presumably to maximise cargo/pax capacity in the cabin, thus making them appear to be naturally “top heavy”. Short of putting flotation bags on some sort of widely spaced “outrigger” bars I suspect most floating helicopters would be prone to “falling over” in heavy seas, or if landed in a hurry in similar sea states. I guess there is always a trade off between ease of escape and maximum revenue per flight.

Fewer pax = easier exit if thing go wrong, but less revenue per flight, and far more flights needed per annum – at some point the increased number of flights to shift same number of people must hit a point where reliability concerns would mean more accidents per annum, though less pax involved per accident.

As ever, no doubt its all about statistics and balancing risk versus cost/profit. Never an easy decision, and always a decision that hindsight tends to judge harshly when things go wrong.

Would there be enough demand for a special “non-invertable” or “quick self-righting” deep sea support helicopter to be designed and built, when modification of exisiting types is still viable? Maybe a more stringent set of CAA/FAA/EU regs regarding “floatability” and “survivability” in rougher sea states would be a good first step? However, in cases of sudden/critical machinery failure, over a hostile environment like the North Sea, its always going to be difficult/expensive to increase the odds of a 100% survivable outcome 🙁 .

I found this after a search:

http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/cmsfiles/modules/publications/pdfs/HS027.pdf

Pages 27 to 30

Does anybody know the safety record and what equipment is used in other off shore fields such as the Gulf of Mexico?

Yes, the Puma does have floatation gear as do all offshore helicopters. It is a requirement.

Surely floats have been attached to a variety of choppers for years, haven’t they. I suppose the problem is that in some accidents the floats would simply keep the craft afloat but not upright. Even so it’s seems to be a good point.

Does the Puma have floatation bags? Pics of the crashed one show it upside down with floatation bags attached to the wheels.
Not sure if these were attached by divers or part of the aircraft’s ditching mechanism.
It’s probably better to be upside down and floating on the surface than sinking to the bottom, but a lot better to be floating upright.
My car has side, pillar, front, rear airbags. Wouldn’t take a genius to have some form of airbags for a chopper. Similar to the bags on the Apollo capsule.

Surely floats have been attached to a variety of choppers for years, haven’t they. I suppose the problem is that in some accidents the floats would simply keep the craft afloat but not upright. Even so it’s seems to be a good point.

I’m surprised no company has designed a purpose built helo for offshore work. One that floats upright and is easy to get out of in an emergency.
Seems like all they use are ex military choppers.

All of that is of course true and all choices about jobs are free choices. Whatever the reasons people make their free choice to work on rigs fully cognisant of the risks.
If the jobs were not worth it for whatever reason employers would have make sure they were. As it happens they apparently are.

That’s a bit of a misconception. Not everybody on a rig is well paid. Bear in mind people who work at sea are there 24hrs, not 8hrs. Pro-rata it’s a wage similar to everybody else’s. Do 3 times the hours, get a wage that reflects that. l know people who earn more in a supermarket, get to go home at night, and don’t have to sleep on top of a potential bomb, or work in all weathers on a heaving boat or rig. Those who get superstar wages are those who have specialist skills.

We all make our choices for work, but it’s a job that not everybody can do. Usually if things go wrong on a rig or helicopter, it doesn’t end well.

Perhaps give a thought to those guys who make sacrifices so you can fill your car or heat your home. Bosses argue that offshore workers get paid well, but as anybody in safety will tell you, no amount of money can compensate for the risk taking when it goes wrong.

Kind Regards,
Scotty

I would think that the big pay cheque is why most work on the rigs ?