Oral evidence: Offshore helicopter safety, HC 992Monday 27 January 2014

Oral evidence, 27 January 2014.

Witnesses

Robert Paterson, Health, Safety and Employment Issues Director, Oil and Gas UK, David Eherts, Vice President Environmental, Health and Safety and Chief Safety Officer, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Alex Sharp, Sales Director, Europe, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, and Gilles Bruniaux, Vice President, Fleet Safety, Airbus Helicopters, gave evidence

Chair

Good afternoon and welcome to the Transport Select Committee hearing in Aberdeen. Could you please give us your name, your position and the organisation you are representing? We will start at the end, please.

Gilles Bruniaux

Gilles Bruniaux, Vice President of Airbus Helicopters, formerly Eurocopter.

Robert Paterson

I am Robert Paterson, Health and Safety Director with Oil and Gas UK, the trade association for the oil and gas industry.

David Eherts

I am David Eherts; I am Vice President and Chief of Safety for Sikorsky Aircraft.

Alex Sharp

I am Alex Sharp, and I am Sales Director for Europe and Scandinavia for Sikorsky Aircraft.

Chair

Thank you very much. Around the time of the Sumburgh crash last August there were reports in the national press that oil workers had been told to put on big-boy pants or quit if they were worried about helicopter safety. What is the oil industry doing to reassure workers that they are indeed safe? Mr Paterson, what are you doing to reassure them and to make sure they are indeed safe?

Robert Paterson

I am proud to say that in our industry we have a very high level of engagement with the workforce, a high level engagement with all the stakeholders indeed, lots of co-operation and collaboration. We have a Health and Safety Steering Group on which the trade unions and workforce representatives sit, along with the CAA and operators. There is a Helicopter Task Group as well, where the trade unions are involved. So there is a considerable amount of collaboration, co-operation and communications with the workforce. In addition, we have put out a number of frequently asked questions. A lot of information is there to ensure the workforce is fully engaged. We recognise that following incidents of that sort it is bound to cause a pause for thought among the workforce, so confidence does need rebuilding and communication is fundamental.

Chair

We heard about the results of the Unite survey that showed that around 40%—I think it was higher than 40%—of the workers felt very concerned. Isn’t that something that makes you think you have to do things differently?

Robert Paterson

Of course, we have to continue that work. When you get a shock to the system like that—and this hit the industry very hard, and no accident is ever going to be acceptable as far as we are concerned—it does take time to rebuild confidence. We have been through a process of engaging with the workforce through a variety of forums we have had. I know that the helicopter operators have had open days at their premises where wives and families can come along to these events. We continue to run helicopter awareness courses, or the helicopter operators do, where safety representatives and other offshore workers can go along. Step Change in Safety ran a number of information sessions at the Aberdeen Conference and Exhibition Centre, where families and offshore workers could come along and be told about the reintroduction of the EC225 helicopter that had been suspended from service for a long period of time. Then, of course, there are the management briefings and pilot briefings—both onshore and offshore—all aimed at trying to rebuild workforce confidence in helicopters.

Chair

Mr Bruniaux, there have been five major helicopter crashes in four years and they have all involved Super Puma helicopters, isn’t that something that concerns you?

Gilles Bruniaux

First of all, I think each accident is a tragedy for workers, for Eurocopter as well, and for me personally. I am a pilot. I am a flight test engineer, so I cannot accept accidents as my firm also, I guess, cannot accept accidents. If you have a look at the fleet in the UK, the vast majority are Super Puma helicopters. In fact, the Super Puma helicopter is a family. It is not only one type of helicopter. We have the first generation, which is the Mark I, we have the second generation, which is the Mark II and now we have the brand new one, 10 years ago, the EC225. These helicopters are different, even if they have the same name. Everybody knows the Golf car. You had the Golf car 30 years ago. Now you have the modern Golf car. All Golf cars are safe but you have a different modernity in the car. It is the same thing we are talking about here. A different helicopter but we have a lot of them, of the whole Super family, here in the UK. In addition to that, each accident is different. Sometimes you can have similarities but each accident is different. The root causes are different. The contributing factors that can come from something in air traffic control, human factors, or it can be a pilot issue. You can have a lot of different issues. After having understood all these kinds of complexity, we can react and put in place corrective measures.

Chair

Would you say that the problem with gear boxes has been solved?

Gilles Bruniaux

The problem with the gear box, I have to apologise for that. We had a problem that led to two controlled ditchings. But you have to understand that it was a controlled ditching. In poor light the pilot landed on the water. It was not a controlled flight into water. It was really a ditching, and hopefully everybody escaped safely from the helicopter. Technically speaking, the problem has been completely fixed. So we have in place some monitoring tools and we have a second stage that is ready and will be available, as of the second semester of 2014, with a new shaft.

Chair

After a helicopter crashes the next critical time is survival in the sea at the point of that crash. What is being done in relation to Sikorsky—if I could ask the representatives first—to make things safer for passengers and workers?

David Eherts

Yes. Egress is critically important, so it starts with training and proper equipment for the passengers but it is also based on the design of the aircraft. The S-92 has five floats so it can stay afloat in sea state 6. They have an emergency egress window for each row. We have four type 3 exits from the aircraft, even though only type 4 are required. One last point about the 92 is that the height of the cabin is very high, so most people can stand erect and, therefore, move more quickly around the cabin and get out safely. We think because it is a newer design we were able to build those things in and make it easier to egress and that is very important.

Chair

Airbus?

Gilles Bruniaux

I would have said almost the same as David. We have the same type of things that are better on one helicopter or on the other one. For a long period we have had big windows for escape, but it is almost the same for the competition.

Miss Smith

As it happens, I am a Golf driver and I would not aspire to the level of skill that I am absolutely confident that pilots in this industry have. One of your employees who showed us some of your products earlier this morning almost led us to believe that if you obey the safety features you are safe, frankly, there is little that would need to be done on top of it. I am not sure that that is a true reflection and certainly as a driver I would not take that approach. How much can modern safety features contribute to this situation?

Gilles Bruniaux

You speak about safety features; you speak about safety equipment, tools, and this kind of thing. It is very difficult. As I said, each accident is very different and there are a lot of contributing factors. Of course, some safety equipment, like tools, can avoid some of the contributing factors of an accident. So it can contribute to improved safety but it is very difficult to quantify. You cannot quantify this kind of thing. It is only judgment or feeling.

David Eherts

Can I comment there? I think it is very important for the manufacturers to work closely with the operators and the pilots, for instance, to reduce pilot workload. We know it is a critical time when approaching a rig. So the S-92 just came out with an automated rig approach, so it is coupled to the GPS. It brings the aircraft just off to the right side of the rig at a certain height and speed, so the pilots can look over and make sure that the heli-deck is clear, those cranes are not moving, there are no personnel in the way. It frees them up to keep a good eye on their environment. Working closely with the operators and getting feedback from them on what they think is most important then allows the manufacturers to build these things into the aircraft and make the whole industry safer.

Gilles Bruniaux

I fully share the point, and of course we have some interaction with operators. We are working very closely with the operators and taking their advice into account. We have discussions training pilots and the operator. Taking that into account we designed the new helicopter. For example, on the 225 you have a safety feature with the autopilot. If at one 150 feet you continue to descend the helicopter will automatically level off, which will avoid a controlled flight into the water. Of course, these kinds of new systems are very useful.

David Eherts

Can I just add one other comment. I think that also understanding human factors is critically important because, even when the real cause is pilot error, the action the pilot took made sense to him or her at that time. So I think it is very, very important, instead of just saying it was pilot error for all the parties involved to understand what the pilot was thinking and how we can change their thought process in the future. This study of human factors is critically important to the future of the industry.

Miss Smith

Thank you very much and, Mr Eherts, you also get a bonus prize for being the first person to include the possibility of there being a female anywhere involved in the whole industry, from everything we have heard today, so thank you for that. But can I just say that you have the opportunity of a Parliamentary Select Committee that wants to know all about what is going on in this industry. If we now have super safe mechanics doing some of the load for us, and we have good quality training and we have a safety culture throughout the industry that the previous panel certainly expanded on at length, what else ought to be done?

Gilles Bruniaux

As I said, we have been working very closely with the oil and gas industry for the past decades, but what we try to do is reinforce the partnership with the operators. That is exactly what we have done with the operator in Aberdeen by trying to lead the joint operator review, which was spoken about during the last session. We have been working co-operatively to propose some safety measures that we could do in the future.

David Eherts

I have a little different perspective on this. I am a 35-year safety professional. I am not a pilot and I am not an engineer. I have been doing safety organisation, processes and culture for quite a long time now and what strikes me is the need for work around culture. The other comments about the offshore passengers being concerned, I think that is critically important. Those concerns need to be elevated through organisations efficiently. They need to find out exactly what the concerns are and I think they need to be addressed. We call that at Sikorsky “soft signals”. We encourage complaints and we encourage disgruntled employees be heard. We encourage our suppliers and our customers and they are pleased to tell us what they think. We want to set up the system so there are no stupid questions, so nobody is embarrassed by their questions. We set it up anonymously if they are worried about whistleblower retaliation. But we need all that data. It is very critical to us. Then when we get that data—I think it is the same at Eurocopter—what we do is we funnel that to product safety model teams. Then they go through and investigate it and do quantitative risk assessment on that and, hopefully, what we are going to find is an accident long before it happens. There is quite a bit more work that can be done around human factors and the culture of safety in the industry.

Miss Smith

May I just briefly come back to Mr Eherts before I go to Mr Paterson. It does seem that we are starting to get conflicting evidence this afternoon. Clearly, a number of accidents have happened recently and they were not caught before they did, although I personally agree with what you say about culture being quite so important, it does, after all, eat strategy for breakfast. But, for example, in the last panel, Mr Taylor from Unite has a contrary story, which says that people do not feel free to do that, does that occur in Sikorsky?

David Eherts

We have set up four or five different ways for employees to get information to management, so we have a raise-your-hand programme. When employees work electronically they can send notes to their supervisor saying, “This doesn’t look right to me” or, “We’re doing this a little different than the op sheet says”. Then, if their supervisor knows the answer, the supervisor can answer it or they can elevate it to the manager or the director, all the way up to the Vice President level, very quickly. But it is done without bells and whistles and flashing lights, and so the employee does not have to hit a button and bring all the attention upon him or herself to make the point. We have various programmes, including e-dialogue programmes, that are all anonymous. We feel it is very, very important for employees to bring this information to us. If you are a learning culture and continuously improving, the information I heard around the table this afternoon is critically important to these companies; before an accident occurs.

Miss Smith

What more will you do to bridge the gap between that aspiration and what Mr Taylor was laying out?

David Eherts

The final thing that needs to be done is to have—in fact, we have just published one—a very strong policy prohibiting retaliation. You can have all those policies and you can talk a great game but the first time an employee perceives retaliation—perhaps they did not get to go a business trip, perhaps they did not get a promotion they felt was deserved—the whole thing goes to heck. The last thing we needed to do at Sikorsky was put a very strong anti-retaliation programme in place, and we have just published that. At that point we have closed the loop and have a very good programme.

Robert Paterson

I would just like to say, what we believe is that there needs to be a multifaceted approach to this whole thing. From the offshore industry perspective we need to continue to invest in a modern helicopter fleet and increasing the modern fleet. We also need to work at the interfaces where the helicopter lands. A few years ago we put in better perimeter lighting around the heli-decks, so that there was a contrasting lighting pattern around there and it was not confused particularly during night landings, because there is an awful lot of light sign installation, so having contrasting green lights did help. We are also in the last stage of the process of producing some new lighting to light up the centre of the heli-deck, the circle and the ‘H’ on the heli-deck, which gives pilots much better visual cueing when they want to come in to land. We have that role as well, to try to improve things from our side of the interface as well. A few years ago we produced a virtual radar system, which covers the whole of the North Sea. Traditional radar goes about 80 miles off the coast but now air traffic controllers can follow flights all the way out to the installations in the middle of the North Sea. This was a world first. The technology had never been applied in that scale before anywhere. We are very proud that we have taken the time and trouble to do that. We are also very proud of the fact that we have a high level of workforce engagement, because we do need to be listening to the workforce. It is only those guys, from John Taylor, the trade unions; they sit on all of our committees. We have non-trade union workforce representatives as part of our committees. They provide us with invaluable insights into their concerns and that way we can make sure we address that.

Miss Smith

Thank you very much, Mr Paterson. I know that OGUK has probably the advantage in this situation of spanning the whole supply chain, and that supply chain is very impressive too. Who among it is going to pay for some of these improvements?

Robert Paterson

The oil and gas companies pay for those improvements at the end of the day. The companies paid for the radar system. They will pay for the improvements in lighting. They will pay for the technology that we believe is appropriate in the modern helicopters. So, yes, it will be the oil and gas companies who will pay and are prepared to pay.

Miss Smith

Have you ever had to help them broker those solutions?

Robert Paterson

Yes. One of the recommendations that came out from an AAIB report was a need for an improved weather data network across the North Sea. I worked to develop that network in conjunction with our companies. We established this weather data network so that pilots can get their pre-flight weather data in a regular and consistent fashion, and it gives them a lot of confidence that they know the weather all the way out to the installation. So yes.

Miss Smith

Thank you, Mr Paterson. One more if I may, on a related topic. We briefly heard—almost in passing this morning—about the challenges posed by the closure of heli-ports at some points along the continental shelf. Sumburgh itself was mentioned in a different context. Who benefits from such closures, and who is benefiting commercially from doing so, while presumably it is clear that it causes other stresses and strains on the rest of the chain to respond?

Robert Paterson

I am not familiar with what is being closed, to be perfectly honest. If you can provide me with some more information I will come back to you, but I am not familiar with those closures that you mention.

Miss Smith

It was a passing comment, so I am sure the Committee can look into what was being referred to. Could you not even generalise the point? Are you aware of cases where the logistics chain contains very many decisions as to what is a viable stopping point and what is not, and how those are dealt with in the industry?

Robert Paterson

I think those will largely be dealt with in the discussions with the helicopter operators and the practicalities of using a particular location. For example, if you want to approach a particular operator and they say, “You want to fly an S-92 out of this base but we have no maintenance facilities there. We would have to take crew. There is another company that may already have S-92 facilities there”. Then they will say, “We can do it more easily”. There are these commercial issues and it is not just about pilots; it is about ground crew. Ground crew is probably just as important as the pilots in this whole process to make sure that aircraft can be effectively maintained at the base from which they are flying.

Karen Lumley

Most of what I wanted to ask has been asked, but this morning there has been some confusion about some of the things we have been told during the various visits we have made. One of the things that has massively confused me is this: when a new helicopter comes on stream, whose responsibility is it to make sure that everybody knows what that helicopter can do?

Alex Sharp

I guess I will take that as a start. Each manufacturer has its own training system. You heard earlier that some go to Marignane for training. Sikorsky has elected to have a long-term training partner, Flight Safety International, and all of our pilots go through Flight Safety International training, whether that is simulators in West Palm Beach or Farnborough or in Stavanger Norway. We publish a rotor-craft flight manual that gives you limitations and performance and exceedences and basically gives you the envelope that you can fly the helicopter in. The actual training we sub out to Flight Safety whose focus is on training pilots and has been for a long period of time. Our focus is on the actual manufacture of the helicopter.

Gilles Bruniaux

Perhaps just to complement a little bit, as was said, the flight manual is key because for the pilot it is a reference that says how the helicopter can perform. Also the maintenance manual is key, because it describes what the operator has to do in terms of maintenance. It is very rigorous and very stringent. We also have a list of spare parts that are authorised for use on the helicopter. You cannot buy spare parts wherever you want; you have to buy the correct spare part. So it is the spare parts, the flight manual and the maintenance manual. That is why we developed a training centre on a full flight simulator worldwide, so that operators are trained on the helicopter.

Karen Lumley

We saw your simulator at lunch time and we were of the opinion that—from what was told to us—if some pilots had used different equipment then two crashes in the last two years would not have occurred. When I asked that question earlier, that is not quite correct because they did not have those parts on them, did they?

Gilles Bruniaux

If you are speaking about the accidents in September, they are still under investigation so we do not have the conclusions of the AAIB, so it is speculation to say the accidents would have been avoided with such equipment. Are you speaking about the September accident?

Karen Lumley

We were told that in simulator and explained that if the automatic override had come on then the aircraft would not have crashed into the sea as it did. That is not quite correct, as far as I understand the situation from the previous session.

Gilles Bruniaux

It was a personal view of a pilot, a very professional pilot, a very passionate pilot. He has his own view and he explained his own view. Of course what I said is that some safety features can improve safety, but I will not speculate that it would have avoided such an accident or things like that.

Karen Lumley

One last question. That simulator would be available for all pilots to come and use? I am guessing that you have the same sort of principle that they would be able to come and train with your people if they want to do that? Is that something that operators pay for, or do they take advantage of it?

Gilles Bruniaux

The training is an agreement between the manufacturer and the operator for the training because, as was said during the previous session, when we provide a new helicopter we provide training for free. At the beginning we are the only ones who know how the new helicopter operates. But later on the training can be provided by the operator, as Luke Farajallah said a few minutes ago. Afterwards the refresher training, the mission training is the operator’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of the operator either to come with his instructor or to ask for an instructor from Airbus Helicopters. You can have different ways of working.

Alex Sharp

As the S-92 has rolled out in the last couple of years, we have seen a lot of demand for it both on the Norwegian shelf and here. What we found was that we had increased demand from operators who saw the simulator as a great way to increase training and proficiency for pilots, while at the same time not putting as much stress on the airframe. If I am going to go out and train in the airplane and it is a non-revenue flight, I am straining and putting strain on the parts, whereas I could go to the simulator and get all of that training and get yourself in a training position in the simulator that you would not want to get yourself into in a real airplane, and really have to test yourself. What we have done in Norway was we saw such great demand there that we put a second simulator there in addition to the one at Farnborough. Originally we were going to just move the one from Farnborough, but there was enough demand. Already we have seen folks wanting to do recurrent training every six months. There is strong, strong demand for that. We think that is good safety-wise. The more that you can train in the simulator the more you can work out anything that you need worked out before getting in the airplane.

Martin Vickers

Mr Paterson and others have mentioned the level of engagement with all the various parties involved. Now returning to the safety perceptions among you or the workers, are you particularly concerned at the level of dissatisfaction there are with many aspects mentioned, particularly the design of the aircraft. We are dealing with a hardened workforce in a dangerous industry that recognise that there are dangers involved, and yet we have 80% or 90% figures showing that they are dissatisfied—we have a whole range of headings here—with the safety aspects. Would you comment on that?

Robert Paterson

I think it was a nasty shock to the industry. I am talking about the whole industry and all the people in it when these things happen. We recognise that a considerable amount of work needs to take place to rebuild that confidence. We are going through that process, a full engagement with the workforce and the trade unions in the various meetings that I talked about: the Helicopter Safety Steering Group, the Helicopter Task Group looking specifically at the issues arising from the Shetland crash to rebuild that confidence, but it is going to take time. We do need to work with the helicopter operators and they in turn need to work with the original equipment manufacturers to make sure we do get the safest possible helicopter operations that we can reasonably have.

Gilles Bruniaux

Yes. It is key that we have to rebuild the confidence of the workers, and we are working closely together. As a manufacturer we have participated in various helicopter group meetings. We have provided a knowledge centre on the website and we have contributed to family days, organised by the operators, so that they understand that our products are safe. So it is huge effort in terms of communication that we have to perform together to rebuild the confidence of the workforce.

David Eherts

If I can just comment also on the financial side of things. We have done an awful lot of work about this in my company, and it was based on a book that Stephen Covey wrote Business at the Speed of Trust. He quoted Best Buy in saying that for every 0.1% improvement in engagement in their sales force they earn $70,000 more per employee. So we have taken that at Sikorsky and we understand that if we can build engagement around safety the workers are more productive and more loyal. The quality goes up. Everything gets better. I think perhaps the industry waited too long to engage the workforce in this case if it got that bad. But I think that everything we do to bring them back is going to pay off very handsomely for the companies. The second point I want to make is that I have done an awful lot of work in my career on return on investment for safety investments. To be honest, I have not found one yet that does not pay back. When you talk about lighting on the rigs—and you asked Mr Paterson who was going to pay for it—I think the oil companies will pay for it and I think that they will recoup their investments handsomely, because they will have smoother operations, less interruptions, better flow. I think it is all good for business.

Chair

Mr Paterson, do the oil and gas companies ever try to undermine operators and, therefore, risk safety standards by giving financial support to potential new entrants?

Robert Paterson

We rely heavily on helicopters for getting our workers offshore. There is no alternative means of transport. It is very important that we have good relationships with all our helicopter operators, whoever they are. Indeed—

Chair

You have not answered the question, Mr Paterson.

Robert Paterson

No, I was trying to put things into a bit of context there. Because smooth operation and reliability of the service is very important. It is a competitive market for helicopter services out there. All of the helicopter operators have to comply with the legal requirements placed upon them by the Civil Aviation Authority or under the European Aviation Rules, whether they come from abroad or whether they come from the UK. Now it may happen that if you have a helicopter company come from Denmark that the enforcement of any requirements has to go from the UK CAA to the Danish Civil Aviation Authority to enforce the rules.

Chair

You have not answered the question of do the companies ever give financial support to potential new entrants, with the consequence of undermining existing operators and possibly the safety of the—

Robert Paterson

Certainly not, nobody is undermining anything.

Chair

Has the industry ever given financial support to new entrants?

Robert Paterson

No.

Chair

You can say that categorically?

Robert Paterson

I am not aware of any company giving financial support of any sort to bring in a helicopter operator.

Chair

Can you tell me something about the commercial pressures faced by the companies? We have heard a lot in the first session about concerns that commercial pressures from the companies have an impact on the operators and might undermine safety. Can you tell us something about what those commercial pressures might be?

Robert Paterson

We live in a business competitive environment. Competition is a good thing, but safety is never part of the competition. We have reputational issues and we want smooth operations. We do not want interruption of service. So nobody is consciously jeopardising safety through negotiation of contracts.

Chair

What is the nature of the commercial pressures the industry faces?

Robert Paterson

To get value for money while also being safe.

Chair

Do you think it is ever possible that in pursuit of value for money corners could be cut?

Robert Paterson

No, I do not believe those corners are cut. I think it sometimes might affect the margins, but it is not cutting safety.

Chair

You do not think that is possible? If there is a real pressure to cut corners and to introduce competition—

Robert Paterson

I do not believe that is happening in this industry at this time.

Chair

You do not think it has every happened?

Robert Paterson

I cannot go that far back into history. But since I have been working in this industry for the last 20 years, I do not believe it has happened.

Chair

Has the industry considered funding a study to look at helicopter safety in the same way that the Norwegian sector has?

Robert Paterson

No, we have not. We carry out an annual review; our statistical report appears in our annual report on safety. I think that was referred to in the submission that we made to you, but we have not undertaken a study in the same way that the Norwegians have. However, I have looked through the SINTEF report and the initiatives that they describe in there as having made significant improvements to safety are all initiatives that either we have a similar or a slight variation on adopting in the UK. So I think we are in a very similar place in terms of adopting initiatives as they are in Norway, and I think we are ahead of them in some areas.

Chair

However, our recent accident rate is far worse than that of Norway, is it not?

Robert Paterson

The recent numbers of accidents have given us pause for thought. But if you look at the SINTEF report, certainly—and that was written in 2010 after the crash at Peterhead in 2009—it said that, in essence, all of those accidents could have happened in Norway and that the low rate in Norway could just be a random result, and that was shown by sensitivity analysis to be the case. Since then we have had three further accidents. Two of those accidents involved technical issues, failures of a shaft in the two EC225 incidents. Clearly those are the sort of incidents that could have happened elsewhere. The accident on 23 August is still under investigation and we are waiting to find out what the root causes of that are.

Chair

You are saying that the recent records have given you pause for thought, has it given you any thought for action?

Robert Paterson

We are taking action through the Helicopter Safety Steering Group, which is steering that action. It has set up this helicopter task group to look very specifically at that incident and respond to workforce concerns. We spent a considerable amount of time working with Eurocopter or Airbus on the EC225, and in fact there has been a huge amount of workforce engagement, trips down to Marignane to see what Eurocopter were doing to improve safety with that. So, yes, there has been a huge amount of effort into rebuilding that confidence in the workforce again.

Chair

Are there any other views of the panel on whether the accidents that have occurred could have indeed have happened in Norway? Or whether it is something to do with our industry?

David Eherts

My graduate work was around epidemiology and statistics, and I look at this from a statistician’s point of view and I think the sample size is too small, with just those many accidents with that many flight hours. I think more importantly, though, each one of them is a tragedy in its own right and each one needs to be investigated, whether it is a cluster or not. I think they have done a very good job of getting to the root cause. I would argue that we all learn when that is done well. If I could make one other comment, back on the commercial pressures. I have spent some time with the operators and I think what the gentleman from Bond talked about this afternoon with his chief pilot. The pilot in charge briefed the passengers directly while the co-pilot readied the aircraft. I think that is a best practice. In fact I spent some time at Bristow where they did some of the same things. I feel from a human factors point of view that balance is important. The pressure the pilots may feel to fly when there is marginal weather because they know that the customer wants the aircraft back and forth. They have to change crews; they have to bring equipment out. So there is pressure to take a flight. But if you go down and talk to the passengers and understand their families concerns, that counterbalances that pressure. I think that is the best practice.

Chair

What about the work of EASA in relation to the CAA? Are there any views on whether that is likely to change regulation in a favourable way or not?

Robert Paterson

I think one of things that we fear is that it will lead to a dilution. I think somebody earlier on referred to an averaging down of standards. There are a considerable number of helicopter operators across Europe that have one or two helicopters. We have two or three companies around the North Sea that have large numbers, and we have a CAA that is very focused on helicopter safety in a hazardous environment offshore. We do not see the EASA centralising that work as having a focus and expertise that the CAA brings to regulating this industry. What we do want to see at the end of the day, as with any regulator, is that there is a strong competent regulator that stands up and is counted. But one that also looks at big picture issues as well as just safety from the cockpit.

Chair

Is this a specific concern or a general one about how EASA might change things?

Robert Paterson

I think it is a general concern. We favour that local regulation where you have the real expertise rather than general regulations that have been averaged down from the centre of Europe.

Chair

Can I ask the operators their views? Mr Bruniaux, what is your view about EASA?

Gilles Bruniaux

For the manufacturer we are more in front with EASA because EASA is regulator for the airworthiness, so the certification of the helicopter. So EASA is clearly a strong regulator for that, no problem. My perception is also that UK CAA is a strong organisation. I know that there is some transfer responsibility between UK CAA and EASA in progress. But for me it is too early to have some conclusion about that.

David Eherts

I was going to come in on the certification basis of the aircraft. As a manufacturer we like to drive that hard. As we come out with new safety devices we would like them to be considered as part of certification for all models. So we think EASA has an important role there.

Alex Sharp

Madam Chair, if I could just say what I was thinking hard about what my colleagues said just a minute ago and if I could just expand on that for one second. One of the things we want to look at, in terms of best practice, we all acknowledge that every accident is a tragedy. I think everybody here at the table agrees that, whether it is our helicopter, their helicopter, we all hold our heads when something bad happens. But, after 29 years in the US Navy I hate to navigate by looking at my wake. I would rather look at stars and move forward. So along that line I think we really need to use technology today and really focus on how that helps us to prepare to prevent an accident. What I am talking about is HUMS and the way it is then used, where we take helicopter usage monitoring systems and how we tend to look at what happened in the flight. We are able now with our fleet management operations centre, where all of our operators—Bristow, CHC, PHI, etc.—download it and send it every night. So we look at a vast quantity of helicopters, over 200 helicopters every night, and we see them by operator and we send that data back to them. We can see small incidents, where something could start to trend and we can talk to them about what is happening in the data. That some sort of hangar bearing is starting to show undue vibration ahead of time and we can pre-position a part. It helps us; it helps them, so there is not an AOG waiting, there is a part already getting there. But rather than looking back and trying to figure out what went wrong, I think the idea of using the technology to be predicative of something that might be starting to go a little bit wrong helps us all. If we can take that as a best practice, and then share it across all operators and all manufacturers, I think we all benefit.

Chair

Do you really think these are alternatives? Surely we need to know what went wrong, as well as looking to the future.

Alex Sharp

Certainly we need to find a root cause. I am not suggesting that we would not look for the root cause. I am just saying that we need to also embrace the new technology that is available and use that to our betterment and the betterment of all the operators and the safety of the people that use the helicopter.

Miss Smith

I would like to come back to the workforce involved, and I am looking at the suggestions that were brought forth from Unite’s campaign, which we briefly spoke about in the previous session. Forgive me if you are not familiar with it I can give you a couple of stats from it. The top on the wish-list was that there would be a larger fleet. Could you give us your views on whether that is a means to improve safety? This is 95% of workers nominating that they would like that as their number one improvement.

Robert Paterson

Certainly. It is an area that we are looking at, at the present time, because we recognise that if we have a particular type of helicopter unavailable that creates problems, risks for the people who are continuing to work offshore. They want to finish their tour offshore; they want to get home. We are looking at all sorts of possibilities. Fundamentally, helicopter transport is the only practical way of getting people to and from installations, particularly in the winter months. We are able to use some boat transfer arrangements in the more benign parts of the year. They are still relatively limited in terms of ability to transfer people, and in fact there are risks in terms of transferring people from boats to installations, which you do not have in the same way. It is an area that we are examining carefully at the moment. We are having some discussions with the helicopter operators, you have heard the sort of views that Luke Farajallah expressed earlier on about spare capacity. There may be some mileage in a modest amount of additional helicopter variation in the fleet and so on, but I think there are limits to how far you can realistically take that. It is about getting the right balance.

David Eherts

As a manufacturer we think it is a great idea.

Miss Smith

Indeed. If you are familiar with the survey can I ask the panel’s views on some of the other popular items? For example, changes to the design, including the internal seat configuration or improved floatation devices, just to pick two from the top of the list. Who wants to give a view on that?

David Eherts

I think it is more a question for Gilles because I think our configuration right now is a bit more modern. I think it is more of a question for Gilles.

Gilles Bruniaux

All configurations are certified, okay, 19 seats, certified by the authority and by us, with some tests, some very rigorous tests. Now, for comfort reasons, for the perception of people feeling comfortable in the helicopter we are working on a new arrangement of seats, on new seats, but it is not for safety improvement it is more for comfort and the perception of passengers.

Robert Paterson

I will just add something. Since the beginning of last year we have had a representative on an EASA Group looking at ditching survivability. That group is intending to complete its work later this year; I think their next meeting is in March. It is looking at floating stability of helicopters and survivability in the event of a survivable crash and how that may be best enhanced.

Miss Smith

If I may, one final question on a slightly different topic? Where do you see this industry in 50 year’s time? I can think of several trends that will happen in the broader oil and gas industry within that time, and indeed with other associated energy sources and equipment. Where do you think we would be in 50 year’s time?

Robert Paterson

Now 50 years is an awfully long time. It is amazing how much new technology is coming along, which is enabling us to get much more out of reservoirs that we used to think would be depleted several years ago. It is quite clear from our member companies that some installations, which were probably only originally ever envisaged an operational life of say 25 years will end up with operational lives in terms of 60, 70 or perhaps 80 years. I can imagine that technology will continue to move on and enable us to get much more out of the existing reservoirs as we apply that technology. Although as an industry we are only predicting another sort of 30 to 40 years at the moment, I think as technology moves forward that boundary will move further back. That also depends on the price of oil and other technologies and many other factors come into that.

David Eherts

Can I just comment on the area that Sikorsky is focusing on—autonomous flight? In fact we have done it very recently; we put a skid into an old aircraft and it is flown autonomously. I think that as workers accept that—and I know that is going to be quite a hurdle to get over—we can get the error rate very, very low. In fact maybe much lower than a pilot, much better than a pilot and to the point that we may be doing without pilots 50 years from now.

Gilles Bruniaux

I do not know exactly how but in terms of safety, the safety vision that we have for 50 years is zero accidents. That is all.

Chair

Do you support calls for a public inquiry into helicopter offshore safety?

Robert Paterson

There are quite a number of investigations taking place at the moment, quite a number of reviews, and I think it will be appropriate to wait and see the outcome of those and then focus on what needs to be done in a public inquiry, in the light of new information that comes out of those inquiries and investigations. The CAA review is due to be published sometime in February and AAIB reports will follow on later in the year. That will give us an opportunity to look carefully at what we may need to focus a public inquiry on.

Chair

Any other views?

Gilles Bruniaux

I fully share the view. After a period of time when we get the AAIB reports, if the Government thinks that we have to have a full inquiry then Airbus Helicopters would be more than happy to contribute actively.

Alex Sharp

I think if we were called to contribute we certainly would. For our part we would let the on-going investigations go on and we would continue to focus on those aviation groups, the OGP Aviation Sub-Committee, IHST, where we are all actively involved looking for continuous improvement and best practices that my colleague talked about earlier.

Chair

Do you think that confidence can be restored without a public inquiry?

Robert Paterson

Yes, I do. It will take some time, and it has taken some time but I have already seen confidence growing in the workforce. The representatives of the workforce that I see at various fora are already talking more confidently about helicopter safety.

Chair

Thank you very much to everyone for coming and answering our questions. Thank you. Oral evidence: Offshore helicopter safety, HC 992 17