Offshore helicopter flights may have to be limited to times military SAR is available: MP



St. John’s East MP Jack Harris spoke before the offshore helicopter safety inquiry today. — Photo by Gary Hebbard/The Telegram

St. John’s East MP Jack Harris spoke before the offshore helicopter safety inquiry today. — Photo by Gary Hebbard/The Telegram

Published on September 8th, 2010
Published on September 8th, 2010
 
Topics :
Department of National Defence , Canadian Forces , Newfoundland

St. John’s East MP Jack Harris said helicopter inquiry commissioner Robert Wells won’t be able to ignore the Department of National Defence’s role in search and rescue (SAR) for the offshore oil industry.

The inquiry’s mandate prevents Wells from making recommendations on where the military locates SAR bases.

But Harris told the inquiry today that Wells must take the military’s “slow” response time to emergencies into account when he make his recommendations.

“He can’t tell the Canadian Forces to reduce their response times,” Harris told reporters following the hearing. “It’s not in his jurisdiction, but he can tell Cougar that they can only fly when the Canadian Forces are available between eight and four on weekdays.”

Wells expects to make his recommendations next month.

The inquiry was established following the March 12, 2009, helicopter crash off Newfoundland that killed 17 people. One man survived.

Cougar Helicopters, which flies offshore workers to and from the province’s oilfields, is also contracted by the oil companies to provide first-response SAR services to the offshore.

Under Wells’ early recommendations, Cougar’s SAR helicopter must be airborne in 15-20 minutes — down from the previous one hour.

“He can’t tell the Canadian Forces to reduce their response times. It’s not in his jurisdiction, but he can tell Cougar that they can only fly when the Canadian Forces are available between eight and four on weekdays.” - MP Jack Harris

“A first responder may not be enough if we actually have a crash in which they are 18 survivors,” Harris told reporters. “One helicopter is probably not going to be sufficient to provide what’s required in terms of rescue.”

To deal with this, Harris said the commissioner may need to limit helicopter flights to times when military SAR is available on a more timely basis — namely between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. on weekdays.

“The commissioner has to make a recommendation about whether or not there can be (offshore) flights outside of this eight to four window.

“As long as that Canadian Forces response time is as slow as it is — and inadequate in my view — then you know there may have to be more severe restrictions on the use of helicopters to transport offshore.”

The Department of National Defence’s (DND) search and rescue response times are 30 minutes on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and two hours at all other times.

Response time refers to how long it takes a SAR aircraft to get airborne.

Comments

  • Username
    Highlander
    - September 9th, 2010 at 11:55:46

    A westerner, I'm not too clear on the politics involved, but Danny Wiliams' feud with Ottawa surely doesn't promote a spirit of willingness on their part to MANDATE the provision of ADEQUATE S&R services for the offshore oil industry. If government(s) is completely unable (or unwilling) to help, and the electorate can't make them change, the oil companies need to get off the dime and pay the costs associated with doing the business. If that makes the oil too expensive, then leave it where it is. 'Mark' and Mr. Harris aren't wrong, but everyone needs to take their share of responsibility, Ottawa especially. Governments are raking enough loot from this resource - they should spend ALL of it, if necessary, to provide adequate S&R services.

    Submit a Comment

  • Username
    Mark
    - September 9th, 2010 at 11:24:06

    Itoatally agree with Mr. Harris' comments, i think that the fact that the representitive from the petroleum board stood there and say that no changes need to be made should think about the safety hazards involved instead of holding his job. I think him and his board members are putting dollars ahead of safety. I have worked offshore for 5 years and safety is pushed down our throats and thats what we live by when we are out there. We are told if something goes wrong and equipment is broke its ok, but dont worry about that as long as the person is ok. If this guy truely believes this, then i have no reason to believe that he has spoken to anybody that works out there that actually cares about their value of life. I do have reason to believe that this is all about money. For example, the unionized employees recieve a double day rate if still on the rig after 21 days, which can add up to a nice bit of money for the employee (pocket change for the employer) but it does add up if you are held out there for a few days and the number of employees are around 20 or more a day. I think that his point of view is a political one, and a sence of job security, but if he can explain to me that it is just as safe to have one SAR on the scene rather then two or three, i would still have to say that "you are wrong". if a chopper goes down in a controlled landing and all 18 on board survive, some with injuries, and only one Sar shows up at 9 in the night when its pitch black, do you think that that one SAR can take all them passengers in a timely fashion?..........no it cant. Will it be able to accomadate the injured, which could be all 18 passengers?.........no it cant. what are the possibilities that it will only be able to take so many and have to come back for the rest ?.......Very high. And from my experience working for an oil company and recieving the training that i did, towards safety, i would called that a hazard, a high risk one at that. So i was trained to eliminate the hazard before something happens. Common sence right? Another example: If a chopper goes down and all the survivors are waiting to be rescued do you think that the possibility of hypothermia are higher if they are waiting a few hours (ill throw the number 4 out there cause the time it takesthe military chopper to get ready and arrive on scene) rather then maybe a max of 2?............I sure think so. Common sence right? So there is an easy way to notice a hazard and there is an easy way to try and eliminate it. After thinking about it you might come back and say, "maybe there should be changes in the suits to minimize the chances of hypothermia", good point, so in the meantime would you still keep the previous hazards while you play with the suits or would common sence kick in and and listen to Mr. Harris's comments and these cmments. Nobody can tell me different that the petroleums point of view is one that comes from the oil compnanies and its all about the mighty dollar.

    Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

This form is NOT used for emailing the article to a friend. Please use the "Send to a friend" link at the top of the page for that purpose.

The Telegram is not responsible for posted comments. Please be polite and confine your comments to the subject of the posted story. If you have an account, please sign on to it..

(we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

Tely Twitter

Advertising