Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:38:59.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting safety during night visual approach segments for offshore helicopters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

F. A. C. Nascimento ,
A. Majumdar  and
S. Jarvis
F. A. C. Nascimento*
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, The Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust Transport Risk Management Centre, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, London, UK
A. Majumdar*
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, The Lloyd’s Register Educational Trust Transport Risk Management Centre, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, London, UK
S. Jarvis*
Affiliation:
Cranfield University, Department of Systems Engineering and Human Factors, College Road, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Accident rates for night sorties, by helicopters operating offshore, are estimated to be five times higher than for daytime. Recent attempts to redress this problem include new instrument descent procedures and changes to helideck lighting. However, there still remains a need for pilots to transition from automated flight to a manually flown night visual segment during the arrival, and three recent accidents have again highlighted the dangers of this phase. In order to explore what factors affect safety during night visual segments 33 semi-structured interviews were administered to pilots from a number of companies, and grounded theory was employed to analyse the narratives. From this, a template was developed representing pilots’ perceptions of factors affecting safety, and the relationships among factors were hypothetically mapped. Visual spatial disorientation figured as the main concern of participants, stemming from substandard pilot communication, loss of scanning skills during summer months, autopilot limitations, and the requirement to fly to too low meteorological minima. Concerted actions and further areas of research have been proposed to the different stakeholders involved in offshore nighttime operations, going beyond ongoing safety initiatives.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1177 , March 2012 , pp. 303 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

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. OGP, Safety performance of helicopter operations in the oil and gas industry – 2007 data. 2009, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers.Google Scholar
2. Mitchell, S.J. and Braithwaite, G.R. Perceptions of safety and offshore helicopter travel, International J Energy Sector Management, 2008. 2, (4), pp 479–498.Google Scholar
3. Oil & Gas UK, Economic Report 2010. 2010, Oil & Gas UK, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
4. OGP, Aircraft Management Guidelines. 2008, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, London, UK.Google Scholar
5. OGP, Air Transportation – Recommended Practices for Contracted Air Operators. 2008, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, London, UK.Google Scholar
6. OGP, Aviation Weather Guidelines. 2005, Int Association of Oil & Gas Producers, London, UK.Google Scholar
7. Hart, J. Managing Helicopter Risk, APPEA J, 2005, 45, pp 657–665.Google Scholar
8. CAA, Safety Plan 2009/11. 2009, CAA, Gatwick, UK.Google Scholar
9. US JHSAT, Calendar Year 2001 Report to the International Helicopter Safety Team. 2009, US Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team, USA.Google Scholar
10. US JHSAT, Calendar Year 2000 Report to the International Helicopter Safety Team. 2007, US Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team, USA.Google Scholar
11. Rotor On Line. Safety the Shell Way. 2007 (cited 2010 21/04); Available from: http://www.euro-copter.com/w1/jrotor/70/nh90-program.html.Google Scholar
12. Humphries, B. IS-BAO, International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations, The Ready-made Solution for Improving Helo Safety, in 3rd EASA Rotorcraft Forum. 2009, EASA, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
13. Ross, C. and Gibb, G. A Risk Management Approach to Helicopter Night Offshore Operations. 2008 (cited 2010 15/10); Available from: http://asasi.org/papers/2008/Risk%20Approach%20to%20Night%20Offshore%20Operations%20Presented%20by%20Gerry%20Gibb%20&%20Cameron%20Ross.pdf.Google Scholar
14. AAIB. AAIB Bulletin S4/2009 Special. 2009 (cited 2010 23/11); Available from: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S4-2009%20G-REDU.pdf.Google Scholar
15. AAIB. Accident report, registration G-BKXD. 2008 (cited 2010 29/04); Available from: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/july_2008/aerospatiale_sa365n_dauphin__g_bkxd.cfm.Google Scholar
16. OGP, Safety performance indicators – 2009 data. 2010, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers.Google Scholar
17. CAA, Report of the Helicopter Human Factors Working Group, CAA Paper 87007. 1987, CAA: London.Google Scholar
18. CAA, DGPS guidance for helicopter approaches to offshore platforms, CAA Paper 2000/05. 2000: London.Google Scholar
19. CAA, DGPS guidance for helicopter approaches to offshore platforms – follow on studies, CAA Paper 2003/02. 2003, London.Google Scholar
20. CAA, Effect of helicopter rotors on GPS reception, CAA Paper 2003/07. 2003, London.Google Scholar
21. Rowe, S.J., Howson, D. and Turner, G. A turbulence criterion for safe helicopter operations to offshore installations. Aeronaut J, 2006. 110, (1113), pp 749–758.Google Scholar
22. CAA, Hazard Analysis of the Use of GPS in Offshore Helicopter Operations. 2010, CAA, Gatwick, UK.Google Scholar
23. Howson, D. Enhancing Offshore Helideck Lighting, in 34th European Rotorcraft Forum. 2008, RAeS, London, UK.Google Scholar
24. AAIB. Accident report, registration G-BHYB. 1988 (cited 2010 13/11); Available from: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/5-1988%20G-BHYB.pdf.Google Scholar
25. AAIB. Accident report, registration G-AYOM. 1996 (cited 2010 05/03); Available from: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Sikorsky%20S61N%20Sea%20King,%20GAYOM%2003-96.pdf.Google Scholar
26. AAIB. Accident report, registration G-BMAL. 2003 (cited 2010 04/03); Available from: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_507889.pdf.Google Scholar
27. AAIB. Accident report, registration G-BLUN. 2008 (cited 2010 04/04); Available from: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/7_2008_g_blun/g_blun_report_sections.cfm.Google Scholar
28. NTSB. Accident report, registration N22342. 2006 (cited 2010 05/05); Available from: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061101X01599&key=1.Google Scholar
29. NTSB. Accident report, registration N343AA. 2008 (cited 2010 05/05); Available from: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080711X01019&key=1.Google Scholar
30. BASI. Accident report, registration VH-WOF. 1993 (cited 2010 05/05); Available from: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24791/199100126.pdf.Google Scholar
31. RVTV. Accident report, registration PH-KHB. 2000 (cited 2010 05/05); Available from: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/docs/rapporten/017e_LV_1997-74-A-25_PH-KHB_Sikorsky_S76B_bij_Den_Helder.pdf.Google Scholar
32. Kern, T. Approach and Landing, 2002, New York, USA, MacGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
33. 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
34. Mckinney, D. Operations and Training Working Group Final Report (Version 2.0). Flight Safety Digest, 1999, 18, (1-2), pp 78–92.Google Scholar
35. Gibb, R.W. and Olson, W. Classification of Air Force Aviation Accidents: Mishap Trends and Prevention, Int J Aviation Psychology, 2008, 18, (4), pp 305–325.Google Scholar
36. Wiegmann, D.A. and Shappell, S.A., A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis: the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System. 2003, Aldershot, Ashgate, UK.Google Scholar
37. Bellenkes, A., Bason, R. and Yacavone, D.W. Spatial disorientation in naval aviation mishaps – A review of class A incidents from 1980 through 1989, Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1992, 63, (2), pp 128–131.Google Scholar
38. Braithwaite, M.G. et al Spatial disorientation in US Army rotary-wing operations, Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1998, 69, (11), pp 1031–1037.Google Scholar
39. Cheung, B., et al. Spatial disorientation-implicated accidents in Canadian Forces, 1982-92. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1995, 66, (6), pp 579–585.Google Scholar
40. Green, R.G., Muir, H.C. and James, M. Human Factors for Pilots 1991, Aldershot, UK, Avebury Technical.Google Scholar
41. Reason, J. Human Error, 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.Google Scholar
42. Tormes, F.R. and Guedry, F.E. Disorientation Phenomena in Naval Helicopter Pilots, Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1975, 46, (387–393).Google Scholar
43. Schmidt, R.T. Reduce risk of inducing spatial disorientation using physiological compatible ground lighting, Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1999, 70, (6), pp 598–603.Google Scholar
44. Young, L.R. Spatial Orientation, in Principles and Practice of Aviation Psychology, Tsang, P.S. and Vidulich, M.A. (Eds). 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, USA, pp 69–114.Google Scholar
45. Cheung, B. Nonvisual Spatial Orientation Mechanisms, in Spatial Disorientation in Aviation, Previc, F.H. and Ercoline, W.R. (Eds) 2004, AIAA, Reston, VA, USA, pp 37–94.Google Scholar
46. Kraft, C.L. A Psychophysical Contribution to Air Safety: Simulation Studies of Visual Illusions in Night Visual Approaches, in Psychology: from Research to Practice, Pick, H.L., Leibowitz, H.W. and Singer, J.E., (Eds). 1978, Plenum Press, New York, USA, pp 363–385.Google Scholar
47. Navathe, P.D. and Singh, B. An operational definition for spatial disorientation. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1994, 65, (12), pp 1153–1155.Google Scholar
48. CAA, Helicopter Flight in Degraded Visual Conditions, CAA Paper 2007/03. 2007, CAA, London, UK.Google Scholar
49. Hoh, R.H., et al Decision-Height Windows for Decelerating Approaches in Helicopters – Pilot/Vehicle Factors and Limitations, DOT/FAA/CT-90/14. 1991, FAA, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
50. Berbaum, K.S., Kennedy, R.S. and Hettinger, L.J. Visual tasks in helicopter shipboard landing, Applied Ergonomics, 1991. 22, (4), pp 231–239.Google Scholar
51. Gibson, J.J., The optical expansion-pattern in aerial locomotion, American J Psychology, 1955. 68, pp 480–484.Google Scholar
52. Gibb, R., Schvaneveldt, R. and Gray, R. Visual misperception in aviation: glide path performance in a black hole environment, Human Factors, 2008, 501, (4), pp 699–711.Google Scholar
53. Previc, F. Visual Illusions in Flight, in Spatial Disorientation in Aviation, Previc, F.H. and Ercoline, W.R., (Eds) 2004, AIAA: Reston, VA, USA, pp 283–322.Google Scholar
54. Zago, M., et al Visuo-Motor Coordination and Internal Models for Object Interception, Experimental Brain Research, 2009. 192, (4), pp 571–604.Google Scholar
55. Smith, A.J. and Foster, H.J. Helicopter Pilot View, CAA Paper 95014. 1995, CAA, London, UK.Google Scholar
56. Dunford, S.J., et al Spatial Disorientation: A Survey of US Army Helicopter Accidents 1987-1992, Report number 95-25. 1995, USAARL, Fort Hucker, Alabama, USA Google Scholar
57. Wickens, C.D. and Carswell, C.M. Information Processing, in Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Salvendy, G., Editor. 2006, Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp 89–129.Google Scholar
58. Kirwan, B. and Ainsworth, L.K. A Guide to Task Analysis, 1992, London, UK, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
59. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed, 1998, London, UK, Sage.Google Scholar
60. Huddlestone, J. and Harris, D. Using grounded theory techniques to develop models of aviation Student Performance, Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 2006, 6, (4): pp 371–382.Google Scholar
61. Jarvis, S. Development of a bespoke human factors taxonomy for gliding accident analysis and its revelations about highly inexperienced UK glider pilots, Ergonomics, 2010, 53, (2), p 9.Google Scholar
62. Partington, D. Essential Skills for Management Research, 2002, London, UK, Sage.Google Scholar
63. Robson, C. Real World Research: a Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. 2nd ed, 2002, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
64. Fleiss, J.L., Levin, B and Paik, M.C. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2003, Hoboken, N.J, USA, J.Wiley.Google Scholar
65. Butterfield, L.D. et al Fifty Years of the Critical Incident Technique: 1954-2004 and Beyond, Qualitative Research, 2005, 5, (4), pp 475–497.Google Scholar
66. JAA, JAR-OPS 3: Commercial Air Transportation (Helicopters). 2007, JAA: Netherlands.Google Scholar