Make a donation

Author Topic: Flying Puma's...  (Read 1335 times)

Offline Mikeygtir

  • Always Involved
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 4
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 120
    • Email
Flying Puma's...
« on: August 30, 2013, 07:02:59 am »
no.. not of the feline varity... but of the rotary wing kind...

I know there are a few members who, along with myself, work offshore so just posting to canvass opinion (and anyone else who wishes to contribute)

Most will know that an AS332 L2 had an uncontrolled ditching off the coast of the shetland islands, taking with it 4 souls...

the grounded the entire super puma fleet (of which there are a number of variations) but now have resumed flying on all but the L2..

IF you've been on facebook.. you'll have no doubt seen the various pages "destroy the super puma fleet" etc as well as the page "North Sea Tigers"

While I understand feelings may still be raw.. surely common sense has to be applied..

The facts need to come out first about the latest ditching before any argument can be made about scrapping the fleet.

There are people out there calling for everyone to stand together and refuse to fly.. while that is a noble idea.. i feel its flawed..

Everyone can put across a solid argument via a keyboard but then when the time comes its nothing but hollow belly rumbling and they fail to deliver on their words..
I'm not sure many will refuse to fly once the realization of the loss of earnings sets in..
The guys offshore just now who will initially have been moaning about not flying will realise that "oh wait... my 3 weeks are nearly done... how am i getting home?"
Crew change by boat? that'll be nice.. rather than an hour/ hour and a half flight, you've now got a 24/36 hour boat trip.. in rough weather... IN YOUR OWN TIME.. they'll soon be asking to fly again..

Yes the Puma's need looked at.. but the Sikorsky S92 (which their all calling for) isnt a bed of roses either.. hell just a couple of days ago there were reports of a noggie S92 going tech on the helideck of the Stenna Donn.. an engineer flew out and condemmend it unfit to fly so it was to be lifted on to a boat and sent back to the beach.. the reported cause? An alarm from the magnetic filter saying there was gearbox material in the oil...

I've worked offshore for about 5-6 years now.. most of them as a service hand so had the good fortune to travel around most of the world experiencing the best and the worst of offshore life on a complete variety of different offshore installations and all walks of life..

The North Sea is a pretty harsh environment but the "tigers" can be pretty unwelcoming.. All most of them want to do is sit in the tea shack and feed their face   :party:  :popcornsoda: while getting paid for it and work out how to use HSE rules and stop cards to avoid doing any actual real work. You go in for a brew and a bacon roll.. and they look at you as if you've just punched their mother in the face while pouring hot water over a bag of kittens.. hell is on if you get the last one on the tray!!

They moan about cramped conditions on the choppers, granted they're not leather clad with TV's in the head rests but they do their job... they'd be a damn site more comfortable for EVERYBODY if some of the personnel refrained from having cream cakes or the desserts after every meal!!
There should be a maximum weight limit for personnel working offshore.. i don't want to be sat next to some fat f*ck who doesn't value his health or his waist line.. as 9 times out of 10 they're sat by the window.. and they're ain't no way that twat is squeezing out that hole!!!

I've been out of the NS for a number of months now and now work in West Africa.. the weather down here is better but the choppers are smaller..
Do I worry about flying? no.. not really.. I signed up for the job.. I know what it entails.. if its my time.. then well its my time..

Rant over...  :signLOL:

Offline skard

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 5
  • -Receive: 245
  • Posts: 2674
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,62636
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2013, 07:32:09 am »
I too think that these pages quickly lose their message. Too many idiots with unrealistic expectations.

I work in Norway and yesterday was on an S92, I never heard of this incident regarding the S92 being condemned but even if true, is it such a shock? They are mechanical machines flying full pelt with over 11T payload in harsh conditions, they will inevitebly spit the dummy now and again.
I think the difference between sectors is that there must be more pressure to fly in the UK side, I know our sector has more flights but these helicopters are used all over the planet, yet only ditch in Scottish water of late. It has to be maintenance, and pressure on techs to 'get them out'.

A few trips back I was on a SP L2 and an engineer refused to authorise the flight doing a visual inspection so we changed (we still use them in Norway for the smaller operators).

My biggest issue with Eurocopters is the lack of space, and of course the terrible exit points, which I would assume played a role in some tragically not getting out.
Used to have Edition 30 - number 009 and a GT TDI 140.
Now have an S4 B8 Avant (stage 2)

Offline Mikeygtir

  • Always Involved
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 4
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 120
    • Email
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2013, 08:03:03 am »
on the terrible exit points..

Question.. the LAP jackets.. do they have an auto-inflation function?

If the PAX struggled to get out which i can only imagine being an absolute nightmare given the lack of warning.. they probably had little or no chance to utlise their re-breathers.. saying that.. they come with an O2 canister dont they so at least if training had kicked in, they would have had breathable air?

BUT should the escape have taken longer than it should have.. would the LAP's self inflated? surely that would hamper if not exlude exit from the aircraft as its hard enough getting out the window as it is, without an inflated jacket?

Offline skard

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 5
  • -Receive: 245
  • Posts: 2674
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,62636
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2013, 08:14:38 am »
We use Helly Hansen suits so I'm not sure about those yellow ones.
Used to have Edition 30 - number 009 and a GT TDI 140.
Now have an S4 B8 Avant (stage 2)

Offline Mikeygtir

  • Always Involved
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 4
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 120
    • Email
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2013, 08:40:43 am »
ahh.. apologies.. I wasn't on about the survival suits.. but the life jackets (LAP) with the re-breather system.

Offline DaveB@Vagbremtechnic

  • Trader - 2014
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 130
  • Posts: 1315
    • Vagbremtechnic.com
    • Email
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2013, 09:20:26 pm »
you need a concrete reason to ground a fleet, the authorities are all exposed of being sued by the manufacturers if they get it wrong.

As a fixed wing commercial pilot and speaking with many friends who have flown North Sea in helis its not just the worlds most unforgiving environment, its the perfect storm, bad wx, elevated platforms, high zero fuel weights, corrosive environment

its a shame to say but in many cases its pilot error, I was working at Blackpool when the AS355 went in having operated out of there since 1993 i must have heard "Golf Uniform November cleared to the pads via an east about the tower" a thousand times. My point being theres been incidents on all the fleets, statistically you need to look at sector length, cycles and ive been at Aberdeen they arrive and depart like buses

92s , S76s have all had terrible incidents. if one type flys ten times as much as another its allowed to have 10 times as many 'offs" as another. Our 76s are configured for 5 people in VIP fit, to see 14 get on with two crew and gear is frickin scary

Offline DaveB@Vagbremtechnic

  • Trader - 2014
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 130
  • Posts: 1315
    • Vagbremtechnic.com
    • Email
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2013, 11:52:24 am »
interim report available and summary here, for those riding these things regularly

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/AS3B,_vicinity_Sumburgh_Airport_Shetland_Islands_UK,_2013_(LOC)?utm_source=SKYbrary&utm_campaign=74d890b496-SKYbrary_Highlight_04_07_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e405169b04-74d890b496-276452670

I appreciate some of you self loading freight have got more time in Helis than some pilots I know, but if you want a decode on some of the abbreviations or an explanation of the approach procedures just shout.

Looks like the pilots fooked up on this one I'm afraid to say, classic autopilot engaged crap in crap out. Aircraft behaving itself until they flew it into the sea

Offline skard

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 5
  • -Receive: 245
  • Posts: 2674
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,62636
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #7 on: September 07, 2013, 11:58:52 am »
Sad state of affairs, I did wonder why in Norway the SP was being used quicker than the North Sea (must have realised it wasn't a technical issue as such).
Used to have Edition 30 - number 009 and a GT TDI 140.
Now have an S4 B8 Avant (stage 2)

Offline Mikeygtir

  • Always Involved
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 4
  • -Receive: 3
  • Posts: 120
    • Email
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #8 on: September 07, 2013, 09:35:56 pm »
Dave, as a professional, do you think it was an AP f*ck up?

There was talk of dodgy fuel on one of the platforms.

Story is that they found fine sand in the A1 lines on the Alwyn the day before the incident. The Alwyn was the stop before the dolphin floater.

They were awfy quick to get the parafin budgies flying again, so there was lots of talk about everyone thinking pilot error rather than a mech/tech issue

Of course there are still those "tigers" who want the fleet scrapped.. but i dont think they've thought it through and wonder what they'll say when the layoffs started rolling should, what is 40% of the flying fleet in the NS, the SP get canned.

Yes its a tragedy that 4 souls perished, and i know the SP has a bit of a tarnished name but come on folk still smoke knowing that its more than likey going to give them cancer or do them in early..

Heli flight is dangerous.. after all its true that a budgie is far more technically complex than a fixed wing aircraft.. sh*ts bound to go wrong more often!

Offline DaveB@Vagbremtechnic

  • Trader - 2014
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 130
  • Posts: 1315
    • Vagbremtechnic.com
    • Email
Re: Flying Puma's...
« Reply #9 on: September 07, 2013, 10:12:54 pm »
Personally I don't think fine sand would cause a problem, there's probably 3 filters between fuel pickup and the nozzle and I'm not on about the paper halfords job, these are the proper fine micron mesh versions which also have a bypass triggered by a pressure delta on the input and output. That triggers a light on the dash way before the donkey stops

Ive seen our S76C++ fly a ILS and come to the hover over the numbers of the runway without any pilot intervention whatsoever, sometimes we get fed up with the AP as it can be jerky or transition to a vertical speed mode as despite what the avionics manufacturers tell you what it will do sometimes as a consequence of the air we're flying in it doesn't work well..

The report goes on about crew monitoring....that's a pretty sure fire smoking gun that it was pilot error.

The whole point of two crew is that the total is greater than the sum of its parts

Try won't ground it, there's too much of a requirement for the lift it provides. offshore moddable Helis are like rockin horse poo, one of 76s which had a very very VIP fit was very nearly bought and had it ripped out as it was being converted into a Gulf of Mexico roughneck chariot