Photo Info

Under Pressure: the CAA’s North Sea safety review

By Elan Head

by Elan Head | October 8, 2014

Published on: October 8, 2014
Estimated reading time 16 minutes, 23 seconds.

Earlier this year, the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority announced sweeping measures to improve the safety of helicopter operations in the North Sea. Did they go far enough?

Five helicopter accidents since 2009 have shaken the confidence of workers in the U.K.’s offshore oil-and-gas industry. Measures announced this year by the CAA aim to restore this confidence, but some feel there is more to be done. CHC Photo

In February of this year, the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) published CAP 1145, its safety review of offshore public transport helicopter operations in support of oil and gas exploitation. The CAA initiated the review last September, following the Aug. 23, 2013, crash of an Airbus Helicopters AS332 L2 Super Puma operated by CHC Helicopter off the coast of the Shetland Islands. Four offshore workers were killed in the crash, which was the fifth U.K. accident since 2009 involving a helicopter transporting oil-and-gas personnel to and from offshore installations in the North Sea. Understandably, the tens of thousands of workers who travel regularly by helicopter to their jobs on the U.K. Continental Shelf had become anxious about their safety, and the wider public was also questioning the frequency of North Sea helicopter accidents.

Compared to other sectors of the helicopter industry, helicopter operations in the North Sea have historically been regarded as some of the safest in the world. According to the CAA, the accident rate for U.K. offshore helicopter operations from 1992 to 2013 was 1.35 per 100,000 flight hours — well below the International Helicopter Safety Team’s baseline international civil helicopter accident rate of 9.4 per 100,000 flight hours from 2001 to 2005. The fatal accident rate for U.K. offshore helicopter operations from 1992 to 2013 was 0.37 per 100,000 flight hours, which is also low compared to other types of helicopter operations.


Helicopter operators have been adamant that commercial pressures have not compromised the safety of their operations. According to Bond, “Safety is our paramount concern.” Bond Helicopters Photo

Nevertheless, the CAA found room for improvement. In conjunction with CAP 1145, the agency announced a series of measures designed to strengthen safety in North Sea helicopter operations. Most immediately, from June 1, 2014, it prohibited routine helicopter flights in conditions exceeding sea state 6, and required helicopter operators to ensure that emergency flotation systems are armed for all over-water departures and arrivals. In helicopters not equipped with a side-floating system, the CAA also prohibited the occupation of passenger seats not adjacent to emergency exits unless all passengers are provided with enhanced, “Category A” emergency breathing systems (although it later extended the effective date of this restriction from June 1 to Sept. 1 for several reasons, including delays in the availability of enhanced breathing system units).

There was more. The CAA established a new offshore operations safety forum “to work for a substantial improvement in the safety of helicopter operations on the U.K. continental shelf.” It announced other actions on a longer timescale, including a requirement for offshore helicopters to be equipped with a side-floating system or Category A emergency breathing systems for all occupants by April 1, 2016 (an effective date later moved up to Jan. 1, 2015) and, from April 1, 2015, a restriction on offshore passengers who are too large to fit through push-out window emergency exits. In all, the agency identified 32 actions for itself, plus made an additional 29 recommendations to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), helicopter operators, oil and gas companies, and other North Sea stakeholders.


The CAA’s restriction, from April 1, 2015, on offshore passengers who are too large to fit through push-out window exits has received widespread attention. The Offshore Helicopter Safety Action Group has said that the introduction of the requirement will be “sensibly managed,” with the aim that no one will lose their job as a result of the change. Heath Moffatt Photo

“The safety of those who rely on offshore helicopter flights is our absolute priority,” CAA chair Dame Deirdre Hutton stated when unveiling the measures. “The steps we are announcing today will result in significant improvements in safety for those flying to and from offshore sites in the U.K. and potentially worldwide.”

But not everyone was convinced. While the CAA’s safety measures received broad support, there were some who felt they didn’t go far enough. Among those were the members of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, who undertook their own review of offshore helicopter safety, separate from the CAA’s. In July, the Transport Select Committee published the results of its investigation, and called for “a full, independent, public inquiry” to address whether commercial pressure from oil and gas companies affects the safety of offshore helicopter operations.

“Despite work by the CAA, serious questions remain unanswered about offshore helicopter safety in the competitive commercial environment of the North Sea,” stated Transport Select Committee chair Louise Ellman. “We fear a creeping complacency may be affecting safety standards.” The Transport Select Committee also called for examination of the role and effectiveness of the CAA itself, pointing out that “it would obviously be inappropriate for the CAA to lead on such work.”

The response to the Transport Select Committee’s report has been mixed. Labor unions have welcomed the call for a full public inquiry, but others in the industry see yet another investigation as unnecessary and redundant. Certainly, the North Sea helicopter industry has been under intense scrutiny recently, and it remains so, as the investigation into the August 2013 CHC crash is ongoing. Is a public inquiry warranted anyway?


The August 2013 crash of a CHC Super Puma while on approach to Sumburgh Airport prompted the latest inquiries into offshore helicopter safety. CAA Photo

Cutting Costs?
Two of the most serious allegations cited in the Transport Select Committee’s report on offshore helicopter safety come from the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA), a trade union representing U.K. pilots. According to the report, BALPA told the committee that oil and gas companies enforce cost-cutting in the helicopter market by structuring multi-year contracts with a 90-day notice period for termination of contract, allowing them “to threaten operators with market-testing exercises and to pull out of the contract at short notice, if their market testing finds another operator to undercut the price.” BALPA also contended that oil and gas companies artificially distort competition in the operator market by providing financial backing to new entrants, forcing existing operators to cut costs to stay competitive.

In its own report, the CAA acknowledged a prevalent perception among North Sea helicopter operators that “contracts are offered at too short a timescale and awarded on lowest cost,” and stated, “The CAA considers that this may reduce a helicopter operator’s capacity to recruit and train for a new commitment, and may challenge standards in the drive for a successful bid.” However, this issue is not explored in greater detail in the report, or reflected in the CAA’s recommendations for the oil-and-gas industry — one reason why the Transport Select Committee deemed the CAA’s consideration of commercial pressures to be inadequate.

In an email to Vertical, BALPA elaborated on its concerns, writing, “BALPA’s evidence to the Transport Select Committee highlighted the history of the oil-and-gas industry bringing new entrants into the U.K. market to increase competition and drive down prices on the North Sea, a trend which has continued with the increasing number of European-based helicopter operators servicing U.K. installations. We have highlighted the need for the latter’s operations to be as strongly regulated as those of U.K.-based operators to prevent cost cutting and commercial advantage being gained at the expense of safety.”


The industry has moved quickly to adopt enhanced emergency breathing systems for offshore helicopter passengers.

Oil & Gas U.K., a trade association representing the U.K. offshore oil-and-gas industry, flatly rejects these allegations, as the Transport Select Committee notes. In an email to Vertical, Robert Paterson, Health, Safety, and Employment Issues director at Oil & Gas U.K., reiterated a statement previously issued in a press release: “We have yet to see any evidence to support the unsubstantiated allegations concerning improper commercial pressure affecting safety outcomes. It is vital that everyone plays their part in keeping the workforce safe and if anyone has evidence of commercial issues overriding good safety practices, they must report this immediately.”

The three major helicopter operators that support the U.K.’s offshore oil-and-gas industry — CHC, Bristow Helicopters, and Bond Offshore Helicopters — are also adamant that commercial pressures have not negatively impacted safety in their organizations, and point out that they have been working together cooperatively on safety issues through the Joint Operators Review, which they founded together in 2013. Bond Offshore Helicopters spokesperson John Fyall told Vertical, “Our strategy as a business hinges on providing a service that is reliable, dependable, and trustworthy; but above all else, safe. Competitive advantage is gained through delivering operational excellence . . . Lowering standards will never provide a basis for a successful, sustainable business.”

CHC had a similar take. “At the [Transport Select Committee] hearings, CHC certainly emphasized that the safety of our operations is not compromised in any way by customer demands,” stated CHC spokesperson Melinda de Boer. “As a commercial organization, we need to build in flexibility to respond to customers’ changing demands, but in doing so we never compromise on training our people to the highest international standards and on our continuous commitment to safety as we carry people to and from their remote workplaces.”


On the record, most operators have been neutral about the prospect of a public inquiry. Said Bond’s John Fyall, “We would fully support any initiative that is deemed appropriate to furthering the safety of our staff and customers.” Bond Helicopters Photo

According to de Boer, CHC did make the case to the Transport Select Committee for more collaboration around auditing and standards, “because we feel a more joined-up approach would improve clarity and reduce complexity.” The lack of harmonization among oil and gas companies in the U.K. is something that the CAA addressed in its report, noting that the large number of customer organizations in the sector has resulted in an audit and inspection commitment that can be overwhelming for helicopter functional managers (one operator reported more than 100 audits in a year). In a recommendation, the CAA directed the oil-and-gas industry to review its audit and inspection practices and pool audit schemes to reduce the impact on helicopter operators, (as is currently done in Norway).

The CAA also noted the lack of standardized operational procedures in the U.K. offshore sector, the result of varying customer requirements applied through contracts. “Pilot experience levels, different passenger loads, and different weather minima for airborne radar approaches are examples of where there are differences between customer requirements,” the CAA reported, concluding that “this lack of standardization may inhibit the helicopter operators’ ability to conduct a more balanced operation in accordance with safety priorities.” As a result, the CAA recommended that offshore helicopter operators “identify a set of ‘best practice’ standard procedures and engage with their customers to agree how these may be incorporated into contractual requirements.”

The Transport Select Committee criticized this recommendation, saying it was “disappointed” that the CAA did not choose to take the lead on standardizing customer requirements. “It is unclear how much influence operators have in standardizing the numerous rules demanded of them by their customers,” the Transport Select Committee stated. “BALPA believed that the financial clout of the oil and gas companies gave them the whip hand over operators in contract negotiations. Oil and gas companies have begun work on standardization but the limited progress to date suggests that operators are not best placed to achieve reform. Operators told us that the CAA should be responsible for that task.”


Through the Joint Operators Review, the U.K.’s major offshore helicopter operators are working together to drive safety improvements in areas including automation, training, manufacturing, and emergency services. Heath Moffatt Photo

Reviewing the Regulator
Is the CAA effective in its role as a regulator? Although the agency gave itself a long to-do list in CAP 1145, its nearly 300-page report does not critically examine its own role in ensuring the safety of North Sea helicopter operations. The Transport Select Committee report quotes the CAA’s Mark Swan, group director, Safety and Airspace Regulation, as saying, “There have been calls of, ‘Well hang on, CAA. You haven’t looked at yourself and how good you are at your job.’ Clearly, that is for others to remark on, not me.”

This may be the most straightforward argument for a public inquiry: to complete the probe of offshore helicopter operations in the U.K. by scrutinizing one of its largest players, the regulator. “The CAA’s role is key to offshore safety. Any review which failed to examine it cannot be considered complete,” the Transport Select Committee report states, declaring that only a full, independent public inquiry would have “the resources, remit, and power” to adequately examine the CAA’s impact on offshore safety, as well as the topic of commercial pressures. The role of the CAA has particular significance given its increasing transfer of power to EASA, which many in the U.K. offshore industry worry has undermined its ability to be a strong regulator for the U.K. sector.

Against the arguments in favor of a public inquiry must be weighed the time and effort that such an inquiry would entail, and its potential to delay or distract from the safety initiatives already in progress. “The industry is already continually seeking ways to improve offshore and helicopter safety,” stated Oil & Gas U.K.’s Robert Paterson. “There are already a number of ongoing investigations following the helicopter crash in 2013, including the AAIB [Air Accidents Investigation Branch] investigation and the Police Scotland investigation into the circumstances of the passenger deaths. Any decision to hold a public inquiry should await the outcomes from these investigations and be based on real evidence rather than speculation and unsubstantiated allegations.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notice a spelling mistake or typo?

Click on the button below to send an email to our team and we will get to it as soon as possible.

Report an error or typo

Have a story idea you would like to suggest?

Click on the button below to send an email to our team and we will get to it as soon as possible.

Suggest a story