The workers being ferried by these companies were supposed to have been given survival suits that that would have allowed them to float and survive 30 hours in frigid water. I am sure that neither Husky nor Hibernia Management will be held accountable for the dead having been denied that protection. We can't put a dent in Big Oil's mega-profits, now can we? Crocodile tears and a nice statement from the CEOs will do just fine.
17 workers dead in Hibernia/Husky helicopter crash off Newfoundland
Thu, 2009-03-12 15:21
#1
17 workers dead in Hibernia/Husky helicopter crash off Newfoundland
Thu, 2009-03-12 15:45
#2
The report indicated that the crew was likely wearing survival suits. Do you have any evidence that they were "denied that protection"?
Thu, 2009-03-12 19:07
#3
I thought I had read it in one of the news reports, but I can't find it now. We wil have to wait for the inquiry report.
But I find it damn significant that what the S&R officials keep repeating is that the men SHOULD have been wearing these survival suits, while they are keeping mum on whether the two people found - one alive and one dead - were in fact wearing them.
Thu, 2009-03-12 19:09
#4
They just said they were, on the CBC news.
Saying they're all dead is jumping the gun, IMO.
Thu, 2009-03-12 21:51
#6
What is your point?
I find terrifying the busy brown-nosing dominating the Comments section of the CBC story: "our safety standards are high enough, Husky and Cougar are tremendous folks, those survival suits are excellent, authorities are confident the workers were wearing them, lazy know-nothing critics ought to be censored, our boys were just doing their job, etc. ad nauseam" the kind of stuff used to silence critics of kids being blown up in Afghanistan in an unwinnable war.
"Oh God said to Abraham 'Kill me a son."
Thu, 2009-03-12 22:11
#7
RevolutionPlease
I think his point was your thread title is factually incorrect at the moment unless you're clairvoyant.
Thu, 2009-03-12 22:17
#8
Close, RP.
I had no point, other than citing what was currently reported by a reputable source of information.
St. Martin's contributions to this horrible accident further raise my suspicions that he's an agent provocateur, trying to make lefties appear to be hysterical crazies.
I hope whatever powers there are in the universe help the search teams find those missing workers.
Thu, 2009-03-12 22:41
#9
So do I... and then they can come here and help me escape the throes of hysteria that have me thinking that someone who has been under freezing water for more than 12 hours is, yes, dead... even if it is politically inconvenient for some, and I know we're all supposed to wait for the powers-that-be to finish assembling their cover-up of a dismal crisis response and acknowledge it.
Meanwhile, why don't you try and go tell these workers' families that their tears are "jumping the gun" or that their anger risks making some look bad?
Thu, 2009-03-12 22:49
#10
RevolutionPlease
Martin, I think that it's a reasonable request that if you put something in the title you have a link that backs it up.
But you want to pull out the weeping families card, whatever. I agree with your purpose but not the execution.
Hoping for a miracle.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:01
#11
Do they actually make survival suits intended to keep someone going for 30 hours??
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:04
#12
RevolutionPlease
Considering some can survive longer without them, I'd guess the affirmative.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:37
#13
From the CBC comments blog, a realistic comment from an actual worker:
"As I diamond driller I have worked in settings where we had to take a 30min heli-ride to the drill and then 30min ride back to camp every day. On a job in the Northwest Territories we had a helicopter crash where people were severely injured and died. The drilling barely skipped a beat. We had to wait for a two day inspection and then were sent right back out to continue drilling as though nothing happened. I think these types of crashes happen a lot more than the general public is aware of because they usually happen in remote places to people who don't spend a lot of time in the civilized world. I know my experience is not on the same scale as this incident but the fact is that these large companies don't care about individual workers all they care about is pumping oil from the ground or finding diamonds. They can go out and find new rig-hands within days while the families are destroyed forever. Its just such an imbalance. The companies involved (helicopter company, oil companies) should be forced to support the deceased's families for the remainder of their lives at least. Most likely it will make only a small a dent in the insane profits they gain off of the backs of their workers."
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:41
#14
RevolutionPlease
Martin, you're doing what I hate when the right wing does it. Make your case with facts, just don't do it like this.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:43
#15
RevolutionPlease
Survive longer than 30 hours in March in northern newfoundland?
Wish I had those for camping this weekend
Surviving is a lot different than camping my friend. A lot.
Fri, 2009-03-13 00:48
#16
Survive longer than 30 hours in March in northern newfoundland?
Wish I had those for camping this weekend
Fri, 2009-03-13 01:32
#17
"Make your case with facts, just don't do it like this."
The testimony I quoted isn't factual enough to your taste?
So far, Big Oil, their contractor and their friends in government are sitting on the technical facts of this specific accident, and I would be surprised if they volunteered ammunition to state any case against them.
Still, this shouldn't silence anyone about what can be deduced from what little information has transpired - e.g. a fully-loaded helicopter having been asked to fly 37 minutes with a main rotor gearbox losing oil pressure - and what can be observed about people's interventions in the debate.
Fri, 2009-03-13 07:09
#18
Martin, I believe that if you look at the footage it appears that the rescued man IS wearing a survival suit. (you can see red on the arms and a hood first when he comes out of the chopper).
Fri, 2009-03-13 10:53
#19
Martin, Don't be so quick to point the finger. These types of things happen, WHICH IS NOT AN EXCUSE. It's called evolution. The hard facts of it is that we learn from mistakes. We are human, not perfect. People in industry carry forward learning new procedures that sadly come from catastrophic incidents to minor incidents. Get the small ones first and reduce the major ones. Plus natural resources put bread and butter on your table too. Have some compasion and pride. This should not be a discussion of Big Oil.
God bless the occupants of the flight and their families.
Fri, 2009-03-13 11:44
#20
Still, this shouldn't silence anyone about what can be deduced from what little information has transpired - e.g. a fully-loaded helicopter having been asked to fly 37 minutes with a main rotor gearbox losing oil pressure - and what can be observed about people's interventions in the debate.
Your powers of deduction seem to be a little off. Where did you see that they were asked to fly for 37 mins with a main rotor gearbox losing pressure? They declared an inflight emergency and turned back, which is nothing like forcing them to fly for 37 minutes. They HAD to fly for 37 minutes BECAUSE THEY WERE OVER THE OCEAN!
Fri, 2009-03-13 13:32
#21
Read the little news that leaked out. The emergency they reported WAS the main rotor gearbox losing oil pressure. It seems to me that, clearly, an option was settling down gently on the sea where another helicopter or boat would have picked them up off the life rafts. The decision taken by Cougar - for reasons I leave you to deduce - was obviously to have them turn back and fly for as long as they could, hence an uncontrolled crash, most likely with the main rotor seized, which would preclude autorotation capacity.
As for the survivor being seen with a survival suit when taken off the rescue helicopter, neither you and know for sure whether the other workers wore one (all we were told is that unnamed authorities "believe" they did since they should have), or for that matter whether that man was zipped into one to retain body warmth after being fished out.
Why does it seem so important for you folks to have people suspend any judgment, albeit preliminary but using the information made available?
Fri, 2009-03-13 14:08
#22
It seems to me that, clearly, an option was settling down gently on the sea where another helicopter or boat would have picked them up off the life rafts. The decision taken by Cougar - for reasons I leave you to deduce - was obviously to have them turn back and fly for as long as they could, hence an uncontrolled crash, most likely with the main rotor seized, which would preclude autorotation capacity.
Do you really have any idea of what you're talking about? Seriously!
1. It is the pilot's decision, not the company's, on what procedures are to be taken. This includes the decision to return to shore or to land.
2. Landing at sea is by far the worst possible option.
3. The pilots indicated that they were ditching in the mayday call. They knew as soon as they called in that the chopper was going down.
source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/13/helicopter-search-nfld.html
A mayday was issued at 9:40 a.m. NT Thursday as the helicopter crew reported mechanical problems, McGuire said. Until Friday morning, search and rescue officials had said the mayday was issued 30 minutes earlier, with authorities mistakenly calculating Atlantic time as Newfoundland time.
Authorities later said the crew indicated it was "ditching," implying that a controlled crash was planned. The chopper, which sank beneath the water, went down about eight minutes later. They turned back likely to get them at least a little closer to shore.
This is just a tragedy Martin, and if you were half the man you pretend to be, you'd apologize for being wrong. But I won't hold my breath.
Fri, 2009-03-13 14:42
#23
ElizaQ
A 'controlled crash' in a helicopter is as much an oxymoron as a possible 'gentle' chopper landing at sea'. What were the waves like? What were the winds? How high were they? Did the chopper have pontoons, skids or wheels? Were they autorotating? In absolute perfect conditions, on a flat glass, windless sea...maybe....and that a big, big maybe. I always hated flying in heli's for the reason that if something major goes wrong it's not likely to end well. If it was the gearbox that crapped out that likely made the rotors stop which means auto rotation. When something goes wrong like this you might as well be sitting in a spinning brick.
Fri, 2009-03-13 15:05
#24
Boom Boom
Ther coverage from CBC yesterday mentioned that the seas were rough with quite high waves (I think three metres was mentioned but it could have been more). In light of what has happened, I suspect there will a lot of second-guessing as to whether a so-called controlled landing on water would have been preferable to trying to make it back to base, but I also suspect the prospect of landing in a very heavy sea simply was too terrifying to consider seriously. This sounds to me like an incredibly unfortunate and sad incident and my heart goes out to all involved.
Fri, 2009-03-13 15:07
#25
Boom Boom
....it was that the helicopter turned back and flew back toward Nfld for 37 minutes before crashing. They even said that the pilot had requested clearance for landing there!
Landing where - on the water? I'm a bit unclear on what you're saying here.
Fri, 2009-03-13 15:08
#26
You think I need to apologize for the "authorities" not making the difference between Nfld time and Atlantic time... if this is indeed what happened?
Stop trying to hang blame on me, "HeywoodFloyd": I have flown navigation on helicopters in the far North, but am simply going on the "information" being put out and until just now, it was that the helicopter turned back and flew back toward Nfld for 37 minutes before crashing. They even said that the pilot had requested clearance for landing there!
Also, in the CBC story hyperlinked in your comment, one can plainly read: "...the chopper - which was returning to St. John's after it encountered mechanical problems - went down." So give me a break, eh?
I don't know about you, but don't you recognize pathetic damage control P.R. when you see it? May I suggest that the people not being accountable to a tragedy are those *|"+*%! "authorities" you seem so respectful of?
Fri, 2009-03-13 15:09
#27
Here is the exact quote from the source in the OP:
"The helicopter was heading to two offshore oilfields. At about 9:18 a.m. NT, or 7:48 a.m. ET, its crew issued a mayday and an alert about technical problems, saying there was a main gearbox oil-pressure problem and requesting clearance to return to St. John's."
Fri, 2009-03-13 15:22
#28
Boom Boom
Read the little news that leaked out. The emergency they reported WAS the main rotor gearbox losing oil pressure. It seems to me that, clearly, an option was settling down gently on the sea where another helicopter or boat would have picked them up off the life rafts. The decision taken by Cougar - for reasons I leave you to deduce - was obviously to have them turn back and fly for as long as they could, hence an uncontrolled crash, most likely with the main rotor seized, which would preclude autorotation capacity.
Okay, this is your point I was responding to. From what I heard on the CBC yesterday, the seas at the time were rough and your suggestion of setting the helicopter down gently probably wasn't a valid option, although, in light of what has happened, there will be a lot of second-guessing going on. My guess (and it's only a guess) is that the pilots preferred to try to make it back to base over trying to land on a very rough sea. In light of what happened, again, I'd expect a lot of second-guessing is going to start.
Fri, 2009-03-13 16:14
#29
Another informative posting on the CBC website:
"When I first heard about this SAR situation I was very optomistic about the chances for survival. I don't cliam to know all the facts, but I do know this... Cougar Helicopters is by many people's estimations a well run operation with a good track record. The Pilots are very experienced and all the passengers are well trained in evacuation and survival from a ditch in this very aircraft. The fact too that it occurred in near ideal conditions: happening in daylight hours and in a fairly good seasonal sea state. The Pilot crew even had the advantage of calling in their distress (Lat & Long likely reported). The helicopter itself has location emitting back ups. The Helicopter was even still in the air for 10 minutes after calling in their situation. In short, there are alot of very good things working in the Pilot and Passengers favour.
This is what doesn't make sense. Instead we have a Helicopter that "Hit Hard" with a wide debris field and with only one survivor (and one verifiable deceased). Things are just not adding up here.
This aircraft (at first blush) should have ditched successfuly if it actually had the 10 minutes of workable air time. The Crew and Passengers should have escaped (even with a roll) as they are trained , and either floated in their suits or climbed into the rafts and cut themselves free with dozens of EPIRB's transmitting. (...)"
Fri, 2009-03-13 16:18
#30
Wave height, I don't know about, but the earliest CBC news story - now pulled off the Web - quoted a spokesman of the S&R operation who said a 37 km per hour wind was blowing at the time of the incident.
Fri, 2009-03-13 16:51
#31
If the aircraft suddenly lost power it would drop like a brick into rough seas. People on board would probably be knocked out or killed.
The one person that was rescued suffered from severe injuries..he was probably thrown from the craft. Its an accident......the pilots were highly trained. If they did not ditch earlier there must have been a compelling reason. All people can say is what if....what if not. We don't know the facts so lets wait. I'm sure the survivor will shed light on the accident.
Fri, 2009-03-13 17:06
#32
Are these off-shore oil workers part of a union?
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Fri, 2009-03-13 17:12
#33
Calling it second-guessing is unnecessarily pejorative and protects the authorities' ass, in my view. I - and a lot of other people, I suspect - want to know who actually held sway over the decisions taken, including those not to have S&R resources on immediate call in Nfld. As for the pilots, I would think that when you are considering ditching a 80 million $ aircraft, your boss' advice enters the equation. (The CBC now reports that the helicopter crashed "within 10 minutes" of its mayday signal. A story that will no doubt go on changing, probably on some unnamed lawyers' advice...)
Fri, 2009-03-13 17:14
#34
Boom Boom
Calling it second-guessing is unnecessarily pejorative and protects the authorities' ass, in my view.
What do you call it when folks speculate that the pilot could have made a controlled or soft landing and possibly everyone could have survived?
Fri, 2009-03-13 17:31
#35
Calling it second-guessing is unnecessarily pejorative and protects the authorities' ass, in my view.
What do you call it when folks speculate that the pilot could have made a controlled or soft landing and possibly everyone could have survived?
Fri, 2009-03-13 17:35
#36
ElizaQ
Another informative posting on the CBC website:
"When I first heard about this SAR situation I was very optomistic about the chances for survival. I don't cliam to know all the facts, but I do know this... Cougar Helicopters is by many people's estimations a well run operation with a good track record. The Pilots are very experienced and all the passengers are well trained in evacuation and survival from a ditch in this very aircraft. The fact too that it occurred in near ideal conditions: happening in daylight hours and in a fairly good seasonal sea state. The Pilot crew even had the advantage of calling in their distress (Lat & Long likely reported). The helicopter itself has location emitting back ups. The Helicopter was even still in the air for 10 minutes after calling in their situation. In short, there are alot of very good things working in the Pilot and Passengers favour.
This is what doesn't make sense. Instead we have a Helicopter that "Hit Hard" with a wide debris field and with only one survivor (and one verifiable deceased). Things are just not adding up here.
This aircraft (at first blush) should have ditched successfuly if it actually had the 10 minutes of workable air time. The Crew and Passengers should have escaped (even with a roll) as they are trained , and either floated in their suits or climbed into the rafts and cut themselves free with dozens of EPIRB's transmitting. (...)"
Who said this? Do you have a link to the statement?
Fri, 2009-03-13 17:36
#37
The authorities are to blame. 
The authorities coulda, shoulda, woulda. It was an accident.....the authorities happen to be the best in the world when it comes to search and rescue.
If the pilot could have made a soft landing Im sure he/she would have.
Fri, 2009-03-13 18:19
#38
They are so good they can afford to have their team out of Newfoundland and in Halifax for exercises, so the helo had time to sink before a rescue copter arrived an hour after the first sighting of the floating Sikorsky helicopter by a fixed-wing aircraft.
"Search and rescue aircraft that responded to a helicopter crash east of Newfoundland on Thursday were dispatched from Nova Scotia because no local crews were available, officials have confirmed." (CBC)
I hope you are getting paid for all this preventive whitewashing, "nussy"...
In response to ElizaQ, the comment was posted here - CBC comments blog - by one RandallMiller at 1:29 PM on the 13th.
Another good one:
"Here's a thought... since it's the Oil companies who stand the most to gain by taking the oil out of the ground 300kms offshore, why shouldn't they have to have their own integral SAR assets on standby for such an occurence? They're making billions of dollars per year, and this debate is all about why our CG or CF SAR assets couldn't do better or more? I get the whole gov't funded SAR coverage for all maxim, but given the added risks taken in the name of profit, I think the companies should be more liable for providing the first response." (Landswood)
Fri, 2009-03-13 23:17
#39
I'm sure the offshore oil workers are all unionized.
As for the Gander SAR crew being in training in Cape Breton and the Greenwood SAR crew having to go to the scene, the company, who's helicopter crashed, is fully equiped and is contracted out to do SAR as they are closer to the scene (St. John's vs Gander). If you watch the footage of the chopper landing at the Health Science in St. John's with the survivor, its a Cougar chopper (blue and white), not a SAR chopper (yellow and red).
Boats from all over responded too, from the oil plateforms, from the Coast Guard in St. John's, and those in the vicinity.
As long as the propeller is rotating enough, that chopper remains in the air, less rotation, higher thud. An air emergency like this over water in a chopper is quite survivable, provided the water is calm. It wasn't. A three metre swell, which was being reported, would be enough to tip the chopper over. Likely the rafts deployed upon contact with the salt water, and likely the bodies of a good number of the passengers and crew are still strapped in the seat belts of that chopper on the bottom of the ocean.
Incidently, the chopper that went down is the same type the Navy is getting to replace the Sea Kings, which are always having problems.
Sat, 2009-03-14 10:05
#40
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/14/helicopter-crash.html
Martin's hysterics and gun-jumping notwithstanding (seriously, shame on him for his behaviour in this thread - where have the moderators been?), the 16 missing crew have been declared dead. Their suits would have given them 24 hours or so in the water, but that has long passed. TSB is going to be sending a remote vehicle down to the wreck, possibly to raise it. Looks like what happened was the 16 simply didn't make it off to helicopter.
Also, in spite of the false information Martin has been spreading here - production at both Hibernia and White Rose was shut down since this happened, and Husky employees are being brought back to shore (by boat) from the White Rose platform.
Anyone interested in more information, the St. John's Telegram has (as you would expect) been providing a lot of coverage:
Sat, 2009-03-14 15:08
#41
You think I need to apologize for the "authorities" not making the difference between Nfld time and Atlantic time... if this is indeed what happened?
No. You should apologize for spreading uninformed speculation about the deaths of those workers.
Sat, 2009-03-14 15:42
#42
Well, if you are the kind of person who duly awaits word from the "authorities" to acknowledge tragic realities - at the time and in the terms that suit them - I apologize for not being like you.
Good enough?
I won't comment on your other aspersions.
Sat, 2009-03-14 15:58
#43
Reasonable people wait for all the facts before they make uninformed judgement calls especially where human life is involved.
They are not quick to point fingers.
Sat, 2009-03-14 17:07
#44
I apologize for not being like you.
I thank god that you aren't like me. I'm glad that I can admit when I'm wrong and that I'm not a dogmatic asshat.
Sat, 2009-03-14 17:09
#45
Typical male response, being incapable of being wrong. Do you know how to ask for directions or are you just never lost.
Sat, 2009-03-14 17:13
#46
Im never lost. I just don't know where I am.
Thu, 2009-03-19 18:54
#47
"Preliminary indications suggest that Cougar Flight 491 slammed into the North Atlantic nose down, the lead investigator into the helicopter crash that killed 17 said today.
One week after the tragic accident, officials with the Transportation Safety Board began examining the battered fuselage of the helicopter in an effort to determine what caused the aircraft to plunge so quickly.
"I would suspect that it was basically nose down," the federal agency's Mike Cunningham said in an interview."
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/604949
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Thu, 2009-03-19 21:58
#49
(From a CBC comments forum)
"Anyone interested in the Sikorsky S92 helicopter transmission can read the following forum. I started it on page 61 it starts at the March 13th post. Lots of info for those who are speculating as to cause.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/163206-sikorsky-s-92-design-operations-... "
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This blog contains the most relevant information I have yet seen about the possible scenarios leading to the accident. For anyone with a technical interest I highly recommend it.
I believe that we are going to hear exactly this kind of discussion in the inevitable future inquiry. It is going to stir up a lot of controversy and possible law suits."
This blog is written by international helicopter pilots, and they seem to know their business when they blast the Sikorsky S92's problems and the need to set down the aircraft immediately when oil pressure is lost in its main gearbox, the absence of a clutch precluding autorotation when it seizes up.
Mon, 2009-04-06 11:21
#50
Helicopter model in offshore crash flunked safety test (CBC, April 6)
(March 25) The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today grounded the Sikorsky S-92 fleet so that operators can replace certain original equipment that could have precipitated the 12 March crash of a Cougar Helicopters S-92 off the coast of Newfoundland, killing 17 of 18 on board. The agency says investigators on the crash had found that two of the three main gearbox (MGB) filter bowl assembly mounting studs had broken.
"Prior to the accident, the manufacturer was investigating a July 2008 incident that also involved broken studs," says the FAA in today's emergency airworthiness directive (AD). "In both cases, the broken studs resulted in rapid loss of oil. The failures have been tied to fretting and galling of the original titanium studs; therefore, we are requiring the removal of all titanium studs and replacement with steel studs. We are issuing this Emergency AD to prevent failure of a stud which could result in rapid loss of oil, failure of the main gearbox, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Sikorsky yesterday said that most of the 91 S-92 helicopters in service would have retrofitted steel main gearbox (MGB) oil filter bowl studs by week's end, closing out a January manufacturer's air safety bulletin that called for replacing three titanium studs with steel within 1,250h or one year from the release date. Sikorsky said 50 helicopters had already been updated. The airframer, a participant in the crash investigation, says it is unclear whether the components failed before the crash or as a result of the crash
Pilots of Cougar Flight 491 issued a "mayday" all with air traffic control enroute to two oil platforms that morning, reporting MGB oil pressure problems. Seventeen of the 18 on board perished after the twin-engine heavy helicopter ditched or crashed into the sea, 47nm (87km) off the coast.
(Source: The Aussie Aviator blog)
Mon, 2009-04-06 12:29
#51
It may seem counter intuitive to some that the harder and more resiliant titanium is being replaced by steel. However, certain steels have an elastic property that the harder titanium might not possess. A good example is the steel bolts that hold car and truck wheels to the axel hub. They need to be tightened to a certain rating that stretches the stud or bolt, and under driving stress pulls the attached wheel back to the mounting surface when and if it should vibrate away.
I'm no expert, but I'd guess that the titanium studs stretched a bit (all it might take is a movement of a few ten thousandths of an inch) and didn't snap back, allowing vibrations to increase the gap even more, until the hard titanium broke.
It's things like this that just reinforce my fear of flying. There's a gazillion of these seemingly little things that can go wrong.
This tragedy began, it seems, when the blueprints were first drawn up.
It would be interesting to know why the engineer settled on titanium rather than steel.