Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:54:37.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Night-time offshore helicopter operations: a survey of risk levels per phase of flight, flying recency requirement and visual approach technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

F. A. C. Nascimento ,
A. Majumdar ,
W. Y. Ochieng  and
W. Schuster
F. A. C. Nascimento*
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, The Lloyd’s Register Foundation Transport Risk Management Centre, Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, London, UK
A. Majumdar
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, The Lloyd’s Register Foundation Transport Risk Management Centre, Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, London, UK
W. Y. Ochieng
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, The Lloyd’s Register Foundation Transport Risk Management Centre, Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, London, UK
W. Schuster
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, The Lloyd’s Register Foundation Transport Risk Management Centre, Centre for Transport Studies, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, London, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The analysis of risks per phases of flight is fundamental for safe helicopter operations, of which night-time offshore oil- and gas-related missions form an important part. The safe execution of such missions also depends on pilots’ recent flying practice and a stable visual approach segment prior to landing. However, the poor quality of the safety data currently available prevents accurate analysis of risk on a per-phase-of-flight basis, establishment of a meaningful flying recency requirement and identification of any preferable visual approach design. To redress these problems, this paper develops a bespoke taxonomy of phases of offshore helicopter flights and uses it as the basis for a questionnaire survey on the phase-specific risk levels experienced by pilots in the night-time, perceived optimal flying recency requirement and preferred visual approach design. With the responses obtained from pilots located in seven countries, extensive statistical hypothesis testing shows that the phases involving visual scan techniques at high speed regimes are problematic, especially the visual segment of instrument approaches. Moreover, the between-night-flights time gaps required for assured flying recency were found considerably shorter than currently standardised across the industry. Finally, no preferred visual approach technique was identified. A number of important implications have been highlighted and should form the basis for future safety interventions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1222: A Rotorcraft Special Issue , December 2015 , pp. 1475 - 1498
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Khatwa, R. and Roelen, A.L.C.An analysis of controlled-flight-into-terrain accidents of commercial operations, 1988 through 1994, Flight Safety Digest, 1996, 17 (11-12), pp 166–212.Google Scholar
2.Helmreich, R.L. and Khatwa, R.Analysis of critical factors during approach and landing in accidents and incidents and normal flight, Flight Safety Digest, 1998, 18 (1-2), pp 1–77.Google Scholar
3.Harris, F.D., Kasper, E.F. and Iseler, L.E.US civil rotorcraft accidents, 1963 through 1997, 2000, NASA, Moffett Field, CA, USA.Google Scholar
4. JSSI – Occurrence Data Analysis Working Group, Analysis capabilities specification document – Mandatory occurrence data, 2006, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
5.Taber, M. and McCabe, J.Helicopter ditching: Time of crash and survivability. SAFE J, 2006, 34 (1), pp 5–10.Google Scholar
6.US JHSAT, Calendar Year 2000 Report to the International Helicopter Safety Team, 2007, US Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team, USA.Google Scholar
7.Jarvis, S. and Harris, D.Investigation into accident initiation events by flight phase for highly inexperienced glider pilots, Int J Applied Aviation Studies, 2008, 8 (2), pp 211–224.Google Scholar
8.Menzel, R.ECCAIRS SC 2011 – EASA update, 2011, EASA, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
9.Pang, M. Aviation safety data collection and processing (SDCP) – ECCAIRS Software, 2011 [cited 2013 11/10]; http://www.asc.gov.tw/media_fles/31_pap.pdf.Google Scholar
10.Barroso, J.M.Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 – laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, European Commission, Editor, 2012, Offcial J European Union, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
11.Nascimento, F.A.C, Majumdar, A. and Ochieng, W.Y.Helicopter accident analysis. J Navigation, 2014. 67 (1), pp 145–161.Google Scholar
12.Nascimento, F.A.C., Majumdar, A. and Ochieng, W.Y.Investigating the truth of Heinrich’s pyramid in offshore helicopter transportation, Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting, 2013, TRB, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
13.Nascimento, F.A.C., Majumdar, A. and Ochieng, W.Y.Investigating the truth of Heinrich’s pyramid in offshore helicopter transportation, Transportation Research Record: J Transportation Research Board, 2013, 2336, pp 105–116.Google Scholar
14.Nascimento, F.A.C.et alA multistage multinational triangulation approach to hazard identification in night-time offshore helicopter operations, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2012, 108 (0), pp 142–153.Google Scholar
15.Hoh, R.H.et alDecision-height windows for decelerating approaches in helicopters – Pilot/vehicle factors and limitations, DOT/FAA/CT-90/14, 1991, FAA, VA, USA.Google Scholar
16.CAA, CAP 382 – The Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Scheme. 2005, CAA, Gatwick, UK.Google Scholar
17.EASA, Annual Safety Review 2008, 2009, EASA, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
18.Majumdar, A.et alA causal factors analysis of helicopter accidents in New Zealand 1996-2005 and the United Kingdom 1986-2005. Aeronaut J, 2009, 113 (1148), pp 647–660.Google Scholar
19.US JHSAT, The Compendium Report: The US JHSAT Baseline of Helicopter Accident Analysis, Volume I (CY2000, CY2001, CY2006), 2011, US Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team.Google Scholar
20. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. ECCAIRS 4.2.8 Data Defnition Standard – Event phases, 2012, [cited 2013 10/04], http://eccairsportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/Products/83/0/.Google Scholar
21.Nascimento, F.A.C., Majumdar, A. and Ochieng, W.Y.Incident reporting in offshore helicopter transportation, 38th European Rotorcraft Forum, 2012, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
22.Nascimento, F.A.C., Majumdar, A. and Ochieng, W.Y.A 15-year multivariate analysis of worldwide offshore helicopter accidents, AHS 69th Annual Forum and Technology Display, 2013, AHS, Phoenix, AZ, USA.Google Scholar
23.Nascimento, F.A.C., Jarvis, S. and Majumdar, A.Factors affecting safety during night visual approach segments for offshore helicopters. Aeronaut J, 2012, 116 (1175), pp 303–322.Google Scholar
24.Nascimento, F.A.C., Majumdar, A. and Jarvis, S.Nighttime approaches to offshore installations in Brazil: Safety shortcomings experienced by helicopter pilots. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2012, 47 (0), pp 64–74.Google Scholar
25.CAA, Helicopter flight in degraded visual conditions, CAA Paper 2007/03, 2007, CAA, London, UK.Google Scholar
26.Stevens, M.Aviation safety in the oil & gas business, 2013, CHC Safety and Quality Summit, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
27.Olsen, O.E. and Lindøe, P.H.Risk on the ramble: The international transfer of risk and vulnerability, Safety Science, 2009, 47 (6), pp 743–755.Google Scholar
28.Vinnem, J.E.Risk indicators for major hazards on offshore installations, Safety Science, 2010, 48 (6), pp 770–787.Google Scholar
29.Vinnem, J.E.Evaluation of offshore emergency preparedness in view of rare accidents. Safety Science, 2011, 49 (2), pp 178–191.Google Scholar
30.OGP, Safety Performance Indicators – 2011 data, 2012, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers.Google Scholar
31.Okstad, E., Jersin, E. and Tinmannsvik, R.K.Accident investigation in the Norwegian petroleum industry – Common features and future challenges, Safety Science, 2012, 50, (6), p 1408–1414.Google Scholar
32.CAA, CAP 1145 – Safety review of offshore public transport helicopter operations in support of the exploitation of oil and gas, 2014, UK Civil Aviation Authority, London, UK.Google Scholar
33.Howson, D.A.Enhancing offshore helideck lighting, Maritime Operations of Rotorcraft, 2008, RAeS: London, UK.Google Scholar
34.CAA, Hazard analysis of the use of GPS in offshore helicopter operations, 2010, CAA, Gatwick, UK.Google Scholar
35.CAA, CAP 437 – Offshore helicopter landing areas – Guidance on standards, 2010, CAA, Gatwick, UK.Google Scholar
36.CAA, CAA Paper 2010/01 – The SBAS offshore approach procedure (SOAP), 2010, CAA, Gatwick, UK.Google Scholar
37.Howson, D.A.Research initiatives for improving the safety of offshore helicopter operations, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1113), p 14.Google Scholar
38.EASA, Notice of Proposed Amendment 2013-10 – Helicopter Offshore Operations – RMT.0409 & RMT.0410 (OPS.093(a)&(b)) – 06/06/2013, 2013, EASA, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
39.Keating, C.Stabilised approaches at night, 2009, CAA, Gatwick, UK.Google Scholar
40.Howson, D.Review and analysis of UK and European Part 27 Helicopter incident and accident data, Sixth EASA Rotorcraft Symposium, 2012, EASA, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
41. CAST/ICAO. Phase of Flight – Defnition and Usage Notes. 2011, [cited 2012 10/06], http://www.intlaviationstandards.org/Documents/PhaseofFlightDefnitions.pdf.Google Scholar
42.Teixeira, S., Helicopter flight operational quality assurance (HFOQA): Development of HFOQA analysis software, 2006, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, USA.Google Scholar
43.Kirwan, B. and Ainsworth, L.K.A Guide to Task Analysis, 1992, Taylor and Francis, London, UK.Google Scholar
44.Stolzer, A.J., Halford, C.D. and Goglia, J.J.Safety Management Systems in Aviation, Ashgate Studies in Human Factors for Flight Operations, 2008, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
45. Skybrary. Flight phase taxonomy, 2010, [cited 2012 05/06], http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flight_Phase_Taxonomy.Google Scholar
46.Ross, C. and Gibb, G. A risk management approach to helicopter night offshore operations, 2008 [cited 2010 15/10], http://asasi.org/papers/2008/Risk%20Approach%20to%20Night%20Offshore%20Operations%20Presented%20by%20Gerry%20Gibb%20&%20Cameron%20Ross.pdf.Google Scholar
47.Couch, M. and Lindell, D.Study on rotorcraft safety and survivability, 2010, AHS 66th Annual Forum, AHS, Phoenix, AZ, USA.Google Scholar
48.Herrera, I.A.et alHelicopter safety study 3, Main Report, 2010, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
49.Morrison, G., Helicopter Safety Offshore, 2000/089, 2001, Health and Safety Executive, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
50.Brooks, C.J.et alCivilian helicopter accidents into water: Analysis of 46 cases, 1979-2006, Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 2008, 79 (10), pp 935–940.Google Scholar
51.ICAO, The Convention on International Civil Aviation – Annex 19 – Safety Management, 2013, ICAO, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
52.ICAO, Safety Management Manual (SMM), 2009, ICAO, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
53.Boschert, G., Dery, M. and Hustwit, J.Pilot safety survey 2005: What pilots are saying, Air Medical J, 2007, 26, (1), pp 34–37.Google Scholar
54.Dery, M., et alResults and recommendations from the helicopter EMS pilot safety survey 2005, Air Medical J, 2007, 26 (1), pp 38–44.Google Scholar
55.Kontogiannis, T. and Malakis, S.A systemic analysis of patterns of organizational breakdowns in accidents: A case from Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) operations, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2011, 99 (0), pp 193–208.Google Scholar
56.Huber, M. Airline safety system comes to helicopter sector, 2013, [cited 2013 3/5], http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2013-05-03/airline-safety-system-comes-helicopter-sector.Google Scholar
57.ATSB, Perceived pilot workload and perceived safety of RNAV (GNSS) approaches, 2006, ATSB, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
58.Subotic, B., Ochieng, W.Y. and Straeter, O.Recovery from equipment failures in ATC: Determination of contextual factors, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2007, 92 (7), pp 858–870.Google Scholar
59.CAA, CAA Paper 97009 – A questionnaire survey of workload and safety hazards associated with North Sea and Irish Sea helicopter operations, 1997, CAA, London, UK.Google Scholar
60.Mitchell, S.J. and Braithwaite, G.R.Perceptions of safety and offshore helicopter travel, Int J Energy Sector Management, 2008, 2 (4), pp 479–498.Google Scholar
61. Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, Offshore Helicopter Safety Enquiry, 2010, p 324, St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.Google Scholar
62.Barnett, R.D. Middle East-(GCC)-JHSAT Safety Team Overview Briefng. 2009, [cited 2010 20/11]; Available from: http://www.ihst.org/portals/54/montreal/GULFOPERATION.pdf.Google Scholar
63.Sridharam, K. Update on Activities of JHSAT (India), 2009, [cited 2010 Web Page], http://www.ihst.org/portals/54/montreal/AVMKSRIDHARAN.pdf.Google Scholar
64.Burns, R.P. and Burns, R.A.Business Research Methods and Statistics Using SPSS, 2008, SAGE Publications, London, UK.Google Scholar
65.Simons, R., Wilschut, E.S. and Valk, P.J.L.Sleep and alertness in North Sea helicopter operations, Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 2011, 82 (7).Google Scholar
66.Ebbatson, M.The loss of manual flying skills in pilots of highly automated airliners, Systems Engineering and Human Factors, 2009, Cranfield University, UK.Google Scholar
67.Nascimento, F.A.C., Majumdar, A. and Ochieng, W.Y.Nighttime offshore helicopter operations – Identification of contextual factors relevant to pilot performance, Advances in Human Aspects of Aviation, 2013, pp 224–236, Landry, S.J., Editor, CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.Google Scholar
68.Smith, P.C. and Kendall, L.M.Retranslation of expectations: an approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales, J Applied Psychology, 1963, 47 (2), pp 149–155.Google Scholar
69.Rollenhagen, C.et alThe context and habits of accident investigation practices: A study of 108 Swedish investigators, Safety Science, 2010, 48 (7), pp 859–867.Google Scholar
70.ICAO, Safety Management Manual (SMM), 2012, ICAO, Montréal, Canada.Google Scholar
71.Likert, R.A Technique for the measurement of attitudes, Archives of Psychology, 1932, 140, pp 1–55.Google Scholar
72.OGP, Aircraft Management Guidelines, 2013, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, London, UK.Google Scholar
73.Nascimento, F.A.C., Majumdar, A. and Ochieng, W.Y.Nighttime offshore helicopter operations – identification of contextual factors relevant to pilot performance, 2012, 4th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE), San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
74. IHST. The developing history of an accident-free future, 2011, [cited 2013 04/11], http://www.ihst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1780&language=en-US.Google Scholar
75.Corbet, A.T. and Anderson, J.R.Knowledge Tracing: Modelling the Acquisition of Procedural Knowledge. User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction, 1995, 4, pp 253–278.Google Scholar
76.Chipman, S.F., Schraagen, J.M. and Shalin, V.L.Introduction to cognitive task analysis, Cognitive task analysis, 2000, pp 3–23, Schraagen, J.M.Chipman, S.F. and Shalin, V.L., Editors, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
77.JAA, JAR-OPS 3: Commercial Air Transportation (Helicopters), 2007, JAA, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
78.ANAC, Regulamento Brasileiro de Aviação Civil RBAC, 2010, 135, (00), ANAC, Brasilia.Google Scholar
79.Frakes, M.A., High, K. and Stocking, J.Transport nurse safety practices, perceptions and experiences: The Air and Surface Transport Nurses Association Survey, Air Medical J, 2009, 28 (5), pp 250–255.Google Scholar
80.Harris, D., Head-down flight deck display design, Human Factors for Civil Flight Deck Design, 2004, Harris, D., Editor, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
81.Field, A., Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Third edition, 2009, SAGE, London, UK.Google Scholar
82. IBM Corporation. Friedman’s Test (nonparametric tests algorithms), 2011, [cited 2013 08/05/], http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/spssstat/v20r0m0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.spss.statistics. help%2Ftwo_independent_samples_test_types.htm.Google Scholar
83. IBM Corporation, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test (nonparametric tests algorithms), 2011, [cited 2013 08/05/], http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/spssstat/v20r0m0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.spss.statistics.help%2Ftwo_independent_samples_test_types.htm.Google Scholar
84.Agresti, A.Categorical Data Analysis, Second edition, 2002, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, Wiley, Hoboken, USA.Google Scholar
85. IBM Corporation. Mann-Whitney test (nonparametric tests algorithms), 2011, [cited 2013 06/03]; Available from: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/spssstat/v20r0m0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.spss.statistics.help%2Falg_nonparametric_independent_mann-whitney.htm.Google Scholar
86. SAS Institute, Base SAS® 9.2 Procedures Guide: Statistical Procedures, 2010, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
87.van der Schaaf, T. and Kanse, L.Biases in incident reporting databases: an empirical study in the chemical process industry, Safety Science, 2004, 42 (1), pp 57–67.Google Scholar
88.van der Schaaf, T. and Kanse, L.Checking for biases in incident reporting, Accident Precursor Analysis and Management: Reducing Technological Risk Through Diligence, 2004, Phimister, J.R., Bier, V.M. and Kunreuther, H.C., Editors, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar