The text of a news release issued today by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board:
The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) says it does not believe there is a safety issue with the suits currently in use for transporting offshore workers. There have been issues around comfort and convenience, but no safety issues have been identified. If a safety issue arises, it will be assessed and appropriate action taken.
The Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) introduced the current Standard for these suits in 1999, replacing a previous Standard issued in 1989. The suits currently used in the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area are certified by Transport Canada as being in compliance with this Standard.
The CGSB has in place a committee to provide advice and input into this Standard. The C-NLOPB is represented on this committee, along with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NSOPB), the National Energy Board (NEB), the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Marine Institute, the oil and gas industry, the fishing industry and suit supplier representatives. In all, there are 28 members on the CGSB committee. Several of the committee members have identified concerns with the technical content of the current Standard, but importantly, no safety issues have been identified with the suits.
Committee members are currently in the process of developing a project agreement with the CGSB for the revision of the Standard during the 2009-10 fiscal year. The C-NLOPB has had discussions with both governments and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) on this issue. Consequently, we all agreed to contribute financially to the cost of developing a revised Standard, which would seek to address any concerns in the current Standard, and are in the process of conveying this message to the CGSB.
In response to the current helicopter tragedy, we have asked the Transportation Safety Board, the RCMP and the Medical Examiner’s office to advise us if their investigations reveal any evidence that the suits worn by the helicopter passengers, in any way, contributed to the injuries or fatalities that occurred as a result of the accident.
In addition, the C-NLOPB has asked CAPP to provide us with a list of any issues their offshore workers have raised concerning the current suits, and details on actions taken to address any such issues.
The C-NLOPB, the Provincial Government, the Federal Government, other regulatory agencies and the industry are committed to working with the Canadian General Standards Board to remedy any concerns with the Standard. For more information about the Standard, contact the CGSB or Transport Canada.
Looks like everything in yesterday’s provincial government scrum was already well underway.
Of course, the provincial government would have known that before calling reporters together. After all, it’s not like the provincial government isn’t directly involved in these issues. Makes you wonder why the Premier volunteered not one but twice that they weren’t.
-srbp-
11 comments:
The CGSB has in place a committee to provide advice and input into this Standard. The C-NLOPB is represented on this committee, along with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NSOPB), the National Energy Board (NEB), the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Dear Premier (May His Preternaturally Thick Hair Always Be Perfectly Parted) said on the TV yesterday that the province doesn't have a regulatory role. The CNLOPB, which is run by Ottawa from a bunker in Kent Street or Hull or something, must be mistaken. That or someone got up on the wrong side of bed.
Obviously, they have never had to wear on. They don't fit.
It's really simple, Anonymous 1823.
If you fly offshore and your suit doesn't fit, make it known immediately to the authorities. The situation will get fixed.
If you have no direct personal knowledge of the situation, then that probably explains why you won't identify yourself.
I am betting on the latter.
Ed,
1. "Suits used by staff are the most recent technology."
2. Mr. Decker who survived, suffered from hypothermia after less than two hours in the ocean.
3. Two people in imersion suits were sighted at accident scene. "One face down in the water." One of these two people drowned, the other was rescued suffering from hypothermia.
When I did both MED training, and later BST, we were assured that all state of the art suits were "self righting". Even if you were unconsious the suit would orient you "face up". Items 2 and 3 indicate that while point 1 may be true, there is a cause for concern with the suits. This is too important an issue to be lost in the usual political snipe-fest.
RPS
Well, RPS, as I said, if you are the original anonymous commentor, and you have direct current knowledge, the place to make the statements is directly to those responsible for investigating and sorting out the situation.
Anonymous comments are meaningless and useless. That's the standard approach around here: if you won't put your name behind the comment, it's pretty much not worth paying too much attention to.
As for the rest of your comments, I think you've made a few logical leaps which aren't necessarily founded.
The survivor suffered from hypothermia. We don't know the condition of his suit and we don't know the circumstances in which he left the aircraft.
He may not have been able to completely don the suit until after he exited the aircraft. Given his other injuries he may have had difficulty doing so. That could explain his condition more readily than the idea that suits which are relatively new (two years old) somehow failed completely in 18 out of 18 cases.
Likewise in the case of the other 17, all were in immersion suits and, likely all drowned. That doesn't mean in any case that the suits failed. The self-righting question may also be answered by that sort of detail as how Ms. Maher left the aircraft and whether she was able to don the suit fully prior to winding up in the water.
Until the investigators nail the details, there are questions to be answered but not necessarily a reason to question suits which are current as of two years ago.
The problem in the current case is not what you term the usual political snipe-fest.
It's people leaping to conclusions without having all the information or in some cases in spite of having the necessary information. (SAR, PLBs are just two cases in point)
Like I said, if you've got current information, the place to offer it up isn't here: it's to the offshore board, the TSB and somewhere else where it can be acted on.
Unless you have the autopsy reports, how do you know the cause of death of the other person found floating on scene?
@aness:
Very simple.
Her father said so publicly today on radio.
Last fall, photographer Greg Locke and I had a unique opportunity to wear the suits in question for quite a long time, roughly around 5 hours straight. I was shooting hi-def video and he was shooting stills. This was for an air-to-ground shoot out at the White Rose field. Maybe I should call it air-to-sea.
We had an S-92 all to ourselves for the whole trip and a SAR tech was assigned to help in any way he could. We had half of the front door removed and were shooting through the opening. Both of us at the same time.
First, the very professional people on the ground at Cougar worked hard to make sure my suit fit properly. Making sure I was safe was their priority, but it was up to me to feedback about how the suit fit. I know from experience that if it isn't fitting properly the Cougar people will work with you to fix the problem. There is no doubt that safety is their number one priority and they did a tremendous job.
Secondly, there is no question the suits are uncomfortable, and in fact prior to the shoot I had asked to be allowed to remove it at the field in order to manage my camera better. Of course, that request was denied. So, Greg and I spent a fair bit of time on our feet in the helo's open door, elbowing one another out of the way to try and get our shots.
We had a lot of time to gauge the freedom of movement the suit afforded and I can categorically state that it did not interfere with my movements at all. Uncomfortable does not mean restrictive, and while the suit was uncomfortable it was not restrictive in any way.
Not only were we moving in the doorway, but I had to move back to my camera bag a few times, try to accomplish some fine motor skills movements replacing lenses and that kind of thing. I almost didn't feel like I was wearing the suit after a few minutes.
I felt safe in the suit. It seemed pretty new to me and was of the highest quality. I can't see how these suits would have limited movement of any survivors - pending they did not have any injuries effecting their ability to move - especially if the adrenalin was pumping.
The only complaint I would have, and it's a small one, is that doing the zipper up the final 6 inches past your face was tricky. It took strength to do so, but was not impossible. Once I had the technique - because we had to do it a few times - it was not a problem. I think for people who fly regularly this would not be an issue. But for smaller people with less strength and less familiarity with the suits, this could pose a small risk. But, Greg and I helped each other to do this, and I can only imagine this would be the case. If you asked someone to help, they would.
In the end I think the suits and the people were top notch and I have no complaints. As for the chopper, it worked fine for us, but obviously there are some mechanical design issues. It's a terrible thing that happened, but that's part of life at sea. I've worked on board a number of vessels and I've flown many aircraft. I was once onboard a Sea King that had a hydraulic failure in flight and we had a very fast forced landing on a naval vessel. Basically it was a crash landing - straight down. The pilot was magnificent and the SAR Tech on board made sure I was buckled in before he even attempted to buckle himself in. The hardest part of that experience was flying the same chopper back a few hours later after the hydraulics were restored.
The bottom line is be aware of the risks and your own limitations and then make your own decision on whether to proceed. If it doesn't feel right, don't do it. You are in charge of your own life and are able to make the decisions necessary to safeguard it. We all have different tolerances. I love flying and working in the air, and I will do it again. But that's me.
"This is too important an issue to be lost in the usual political snipe-fest."
Truer words were never spoken.
and another spam bites the dust. "Clarke'.
Post a Comment