Helicopter down in the North Sea.

Profile picture for user Mr Creosote

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 1,376

Fingers crossed all are OK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23821083
Original post
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

That makes worrying reading in the light of yesterday's tragedy.
Profile picture for user EGTC

Member for

10 years 8 months

Posts: 2,828

So sad to hear of the fatalities. RIP.
Profile picture for user Stuart H

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 216

I heard on the news today that there are approximately 100 flights per day to oil rigs, and around 50% of those are Super Puma. There have been 4 accidents in 4 years involving the Super Puma. The maths would suggest there are approximately 50 Super Puma flights per day, which over 365 days equals 18250 flights, and the figures over 4 years suggest that at a rate of 1 accident per year, so there is a 1 in 18250 chance that a flight will end in an accident. A worker, one month on, one month off will fly 24 times per year which by my calculation means they have a 1 in 760 chance of being involved in an accident over a year. Are my maths skills at fault, or would workers be justified in refusing to fly in this series of helicopter?
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

Presumably someone has produced statistics for fatalities per hour for the particular model of Super Puma involved, just as they are available for most modes of travel. Rig workers will be aware that risks are involved. This is in no way meant to diminish the tragedy but just to comment on your analysis.
Profile picture for user Stuart H

Member for

9 years 6 months

Posts: 216

Like the unfortunate families of those who were lost, I have family and friends who work offshore and when one of these stories breaks there's always a period of anxious uncertainty which made me think about the 'analysis'. I was both hoping and wondering if I was way off track. Of course the workers are aware that there are risks involved but they are entitled to expect that safety and not expediency is put first. There are enormous sums involved in grounding these aircraft and assurances that they are safe somehow rings hollow. I'd like to see comparative stats for aircraft safety records.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 864

Two bodies recovered and one still missing. A history of problems with the main gear box of the Super Puma were reported this morning. Is that accurate?
This was a Super Puma EC332L2 which has a different gearbox to the EC225 which had the gearbox problems.

Member for

11 years 6 months

Posts: 1,059

David Learmount is right, of course, but that wouldn't stop me feeling a little apprehensive flying aboard a Super Puma if I was an oil-rig worker.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

David Learmount is right, of course, but that wouldn't stop me feeling a little apprehensive flying aboard a Super Puma if I was an oil-rig worker.
You have to admit though that having the main rota detach in flight is a pretty big non survivable failure. Are there any other helicopter types that have suffered such a fate?
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

But apart from the April 2009 tragedy there is no other record of that being the cause of an accident.

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 462

The 2009 incident was not caused by the main rotor detaching, that was caused by catastrophic failure of the gear box. This was G-REDL which was an AS332L2, not an EC 225 I do work offshore, but not on rigs. The Puma is disliked by many as it is really uncomfortable to fly in. If in the seats were there is somebody facing you, there is no legroom, and legs often have to be intertwined. Smaller windows plus large guys in survival suits make these things hard to get out of. In an emergency, even more so. It is a credit to the training and coolness of the guys on the recent crash that so many survived. If given the choice of a Puma or an S61 or S92, the puma will never be my first choice. 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

Member for

9 years 7 months

Posts: 4,993

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 ?

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 462

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.
Profile picture for user charliehunt

Member for

7 years

Posts: 11,141

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.

Member for

10 years 1 month

Posts: 2,535

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.