Safety of airborne geophysical survey flights (FUGRO)

[kilou]

Hi,

I was looking for information about aviation safety and "landed" on this forum and I think you can probably help me.

I'm interested to apply for a job as airborne survey operator in a company called Fugro Airborne Surveys. I'd probably be hired in their Australian office but they also have an office in Ottawa. Since I'm not a pilot and don't really know much about aircraft safety, especially in these kind of operations, I'm slightly worried about the risks because first globally general aviation seems to have a non negligible risk of accident but I'm even more concerned by this activity because it requires low level flying at "slow" speed to maximize resolution of geophysical data collected during the flight.

I know that the Australian office operates mostly Cessna 404 Titan II aircrafts as well as one CASA. They had at least 2 crashes, one in 2003 in Perth, Australia and another one in 2004 in Mozambique. I've also come across this paper from Fugro that has a chart with fatalities per 10000K hours of flight and also the numbers may appear low I think they are actually fairly high:

http://www.pdac.ca/pdac/publications/pa ... Carson.pdf (look at page 31)

Do you know if this kind of survey flights are risky and why they are? Do you know if the canadian branch of Fugro airborne survey had fatal accidents?

I must say that it sounds to be a nice job but I don't really feel confident with all I've seen about general aviation....

Is anybody here working as airborne survey operator??

Thanks!

[rfcPilot]

Aviation is a dangerous thing. Just like driving your car. Or like being a Leaf's fan in Ottawa right now

I looked at the graph, and given the type and nature of those hours, those stats seem fairly low IMO. Especially in recent years.

Also, dont be fooled by the presentation stating old aircraft (30 to 40 years) as being a bad thing. Unlike cars, airplanes are VERY well maintained by professional mechanics. And have to be done so on a strict schedule. If cars were maintained in such a way, you'd still be driving that 1970's beauty your dad had when you were 10. But alas, a lot of car owners dont take care of their cars (and engine) so they get scared when we say we fly 40 year old airplanes.

[wallypilot]

Low level airborne surveying is inherently more risky than other types of flying. This is obvious. However, most airborne survey companies take precautions to try and mitigate the risks associated with the type of flying they do.

First, most survey companies adhere to the standards set out be IAGSA (International Airborne Geophysical Safety Association). These guidelines are voluntary, but major clients will not use a survey company unless they adhere to these standards. The standards dictate maximum pilot flight time, safety precautions on different aircraft to be used, and other things from standards of accomodation to airstrip quality and condition.

To address the issue of the aircraft that are used, the C404 does have a history in survey of an abnormally high rate of crashes. The one in mozambique was most probably caused by bad fuel (I don't know for sure so don't quote me on that). But I have seen the photos of the wreckage and it appeared that both props stopped turning before impact. The other possibility is that the pilot shut down the wrong engine when one failed after take off. I don't think that was the case though...i knew this guy and he was a very competent and safe pilot. Anyhow, the C404 has terrible single engine performance, especially in hot conditions where the air is thinner as is the case with most light piston twins. Aircraft choice for a project is critical. If a turbine powered twin had been used (Cheyenne, C406, etc) this crash probably wouldn't have happened. The industry has been humming and hawing over the use of piston powered aircraft for years, specifically because of these concerns. But this happened in Africa where you have to be much much more careful of your fuel supply...standards are not respected the same way they are in north america or europe or oz. Don't let this concern you though....a well maintained, properly managed, and smartly flown piston twin is a very safe airplane. Most of the 404 crashes in survey history (especially the ones from the 80's & early 90's) can be attributed to pilot error. I know of one that ran out of fuel just short of the runway. But that was in a time when pilots were paid based on production. that doesn't happen anymore. it's usually salary or daily rate.

As for the CASA212, it is an excellent airplane for the job it does and is a very safe twin engine turbine aircraft.

The Fugro office in Canada has a great safety record and has not had any crashes over the last 20 years. Prior to being Fugro it was Geoterrex which had an exemplary safety record. And many of the same people are still running the show there.In general, the aircraft are maintained impeccably, and the pilots have good experience before they are let loose as captains.

Fugro in general has very high safety standards, with the Canadian and Australian offices probably being the best of the entire bunch worldwide. If the lifestyle appeals to you, I would jump at it. the CASA would be more interesting for an operator since it's a more complex system...the 404 a bit boring once you have mastered the job...which wouldn't take long.

anyways, if you have more specific qestions, feel free to PM me. There are lots of questions you probably have, and i have only just touched the surface of this whole issue with the above comments.

cheers
wp

[Widow]

Fugro GEOS has received a prestigious safety award from one of the world's leading training and advisory bodies
August, 2006

Fugro GEOS has received a prestigious safety award from one of the world's leading training and advisory bodies. Following comprehensive tests by an independent adjudicating panel, Fugro GEOS was given the International Safety Award by the British Safety Council for the third consecutive year. Only companies with below average accident rates are eligible to apply, and winners must also have good safety policies, plans and commitment to health and safety.

If your going to work geo survey, looks like Fugro would be a safe bet. Working low to the ground has to add an element of danger to the work. I think well-trained, experienced and non-complacent pilots and mechanics are what mitigate most aviation danger.

[wallypilot]

Fugro GEOS is a marine survey company...has nothing to do with the aviation side. Totally separate company...similar in name only. However, I think you're right to say that non complacent pilots and conscientious engineers definitely mitigate a lot of the inherent risks in aviation.

http://www.geos.com/

as opposed to:

http://www.fugroairborne.com/

[Widow]

They are both part of Fugro Worldwide though (note the logo ...)

http://www.fugro.com/corporate/about.asp

[LostinRotation]

I used to work as a survey pilot. "Slow" flying still means well within the A/C's limitations. This type of work is only dangerous if the pilots are low time guys and the A/C are in bad shape. Other than that it's probably less dangerous than you driving to the shops.
If you have any questions P.M me, I still know alot of the operators.


-=0=LiR=0=-

[tesox]

Wally, your response was amazing, I really enjoyed reading your comments...just thought Id throw that out there!

[Cel]

Fugro and Sanders are excellent companies. I had a great/safe time flying survey and I would reccomend it to anyone. Heres the link to IAGSA which both Sanders and Fugro abide by http://www.iagsa.ca/index.html
I would say your greatest danger is when your on the ground in some foreign country trying to decide what to eat or possibly where to go out at night.

[wallypilot]

I would say your greatest danger is when your on the ground in some foreign country trying to decide what to eat or possibly where to go out at night.

Agreed. At least if we are talking about Fugro Canada and Sander. Other companies overseas, as I have already stated, don't necessarily have the same respect for standards that we do....maybe some do, but many don't. (this doesn't apply to Oz...I mean south america, southern asia, middle east, and africa primarily).

Widow, as for the same logo...you're right in assuming Fugro is one big company. It obviously is. But the different branches are run very very separately from each other, almost as if they were different companies, and hence if one wins an award (or get's criticized, for that matter) you can't and shouldn't automatically assume that all the hundreds of independent Fugro offices suffer the same problems, or exhibit the same qualities....necessarily. Fugro Canada alone has dozens of different offices, only 2 of which are airborne geophysics....one in Ottawa, and one in Toronto that does rotary wing operations.

[kilou]

WOW Thanks a lot for all these replies guys!! A special thanks to Wallypilot for the very detailed information! That is very interesting but I must say it's not very good to read that the C404 has a bad safety record in survey flights. The information I could get is that Fugro airborne surveys, at least in Australia, mostly operates this kind of airplane. Moreover what you say about bad engine performances in hot weather doesn't sound very good for Australia as well even if the fuel quality may be good. It's about as hot there as in Africa! The first crash that happened in Australia (Jondakot airport near Perth in april 2003) was due to one of the engine stopping too as far as I could understand and it was on a C404 as well (operated by Fugro Spatial solutions). The guys were very close to the airport but they didn't have time to return...

Well I understand that anything we do in life is associated to risk. We often compare the risk of flying and the risk of driving a car because this is something that non pilots like me can "feel" or understand. The statistics I could see about general aviation compared to driving (see http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/n ... iving.html) were quite "scary" in fact: we all know that driving a car is somewhat dangerous but it seems that general aviation is more than 20 times more risky than that (based on number of fatal accidents per millions hours flown/driven) and this leads to 33 times more fatalities per millions hours flown/driven These numbers are for USA and year 2004:

GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100M miles
Driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100M miles

GA: 11.2 fatal accidents and 19.7 fatalities per million hours
Driving: .528 fatal accidents and .588 fatalities per million hours

So this is for overall general aviation. With airborne survey we are introducing more risks due to low-level/slow flying and knowing that most of these will be performed in a C404 that has bad single engine performances in hot weather (like....in Australia) really worries me For a person unused to aircraft like me, this sounds HUGE!

Wallypilot and LostInRotation, thanks for having offered your help. I'll have plenty of questions about the job so I'll PM you probably in the next few days but I must admit that all this doesn't feel right to me for now because I don't want to step in the aircraft each time and thinking "what if....". In fact this is probably my main concern, maybe more than actually having an accident...


By the way I've been in Canada last year, working in Ottawa at the geological survey. Nothing related to aircraft there but I really enjoyed Canada a lot. You have a nice country guys!! I'd love to come back there

[Sky thief]

Low level airborne surveying is inherently more risky than other types of flying. This is obvious. However, most airborne survey companies take precautions to try and mitigate the risks associated with the type of flying they do.

First, most survey companies adhere to the standards set out be IAGSA (International Airborne Geophysical Safety Association). These guidelines are voluntary, but major clients will not use a survey company unless they adhere to these standards. The standards dictate maximum pilot flight time, safety precautions on different aircraft to be used, and other things from standards of accomodation to airstrip quality and condition.

To address the issue of the aircraft that are used, the C404 does have a history in survey of an abnormally high rate of crashes. The one in mozambique was most probably caused by bad fuel (I don't know for sure so don't quote me on that). But I have seen the photos of the wreckage and it appeared that both props stopped turning before impact. The other possibility is that the pilot shut down the wrong engine when one failed after take off. I don't think that was the case though...i knew this guy and he was a very competent and safe pilot. Anyhow, the C404 has terrible single engine performance, especially in hot conditions where the air is thinner as is the case with most light piston twins. Aircraft choice for a project is critical. If a turbine powered twin had been used (Cheyenne, C406, etc) this crash probably wouldn't have happened. The industry has been humming and hawing over the use of piston powered aircraft for years, specifically because of these concerns. But this happened in Africa where you have to be much much more careful of your fuel supply...standards are not respected the same way they are in north america or europe or oz. Don't let this concern you though....a well maintained, properly managed, and smartly flown piston twin is a very safe airplane. Most of the 404 crashes in survey history (especially the ones from the 80's & early 90's) can be attributed to pilot error. I know of one that ran out of fuel just short of the runway. But that was in a time when pilots were paid based on production. that doesn't happen anymore. it's usually salary or daily rate.

As for the CASA212, it is an excellent airplane for the job it does and is a very safe twin engine turbine aircraft.

The Fugro office in Canada has a great safety record and has not had any crashes over the last 20 years. Prior to being Fugro it was Geoterrex which had an exemplary safety record. And many of the same people are still running the show there.In general, the aircraft are maintained impeccably, and the pilots have good experience before they are let loose as captains.

Fugro in general has very high safety standards, with the Canadian and Australian offices probably being the best of the entire bunch worldwide. If the lifestyle appeals to you, I would jump at it. the CASA would be more interesting for an operator since it's a more complex system...the 404 a bit boring once you have mastered the job...which wouldn't take long.

anyways, if you have more specific qestions, feel free to PM me. There are lots of questions you probably have, and i have only just touched the surface of this whole issue with the above comments.

cheers
wp

. I'm new to this forum and wish I'd found it earlier, however I feel I qualify due to an accident I had when flying a Geophysical low level survey in South Africa in 1974.
The story of the accident is to be found at http://www.Avcom.co.za under the title "Snatched from the Sky" and is in three parts. My tuppence worth. Always lessons to be learnt !!
Click on "Touch and Go series" and you can be a Bush Pilot in Southern Africa.
Cheers

[Sky thief]

Hi gents
Herewith a story of an accident that occurred 40 years ago in the Western Cape, South Africa. I contribute to AvCom.co.za in the RSA and my avatar is "Skytramp". The story is in 3 parts and is titled "Snatched from the Sky". As an aside I lived in Canada from 1954 to 1958 mostly in BC.

http://www.avcom.co.za/aerocont/?p=544

[Sidebar]

The Fugro office in Canada has a great safety record and has not had any crashes over the last 20 years.

Fugro Canada had a fatal CASA 212 accident in 2011. http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 1c0047.asp

[co-joe]

Just how much does that survey equipment weigh anyway if you say the 404 is no good on one engine? Isn't it just a 402 but with the GTSIO engines from the 421? 375 horse power right? Especially at the low altitudes you operate at shouldn't it be an outstanding single engine performer even at 40 degrees C?

[flyinthebug]

The Fugro office in Canada has a great safety record and has not had any crashes over the last 20 years.

Fugro Canada had a fatal CASA 212 accident in 2011. http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 1c0047.asp

You are quoting wallypilot from 2007...this accident you cited was was 2011. Wally`s info was accurate 7 years ago.

[Flutterbye]

Hi gents
Herewith a story of an accident that occurred 40 years ago in the Western Cape, South Africa. I contribute to AvCom.co.za in the RSA and my avatar is "Skytramp". The story is in 3 parts and is titled "Snatched from the Sky". As an aside I lived in Canada from 1954 to 1958 mostly in BC.

http://www.avcom.co.za/aerocont/?p=544

This is worth reading. Another amazing story Out of Africa

[wallypilot]

Just how much does that survey equipment weigh anyway if you say the 404 is no good on one engine? Isn't it just a 402 but with the GTSIO engines from the 421? 375 horse power right? Especially at the low altitudes you operate at shouldn't it be an outstanding single engine performer even at 40 degrees C?

Wow...talk about digging up old threads. Very interesting to go back and read one's own comments from 7 years ago.

I never did learn the cause of the 2011 Fugro CASA 212 crash.

Anyways, regarding the 404 and other light piston twins of similar size used in survey, it is normal to take off close to MTOW as we always took as much fuel as we could....and the 404 has a huge fuel capacity....2400 lbs. The survey gear was probably (guesswork here, as it has Been a long time) 400lbs, plus don't forget aerodynamic penalties if you have wingtip sensor pods, which the one in Mozambique did. The 404 is a larger airframe and at 8400lbs is a significantly bigger airplane than the 402 (6300lbs). And to answer your question, it was not a very good single engine performer at MTOW. yes, maybe at mid weights it would be better...but not very good near gross weight. You have one chance to catch that yaw, and keep 'er straight. Remember a very large percentage of survey pilots(or any type of light piston twin pilot for that matter) have never had any ME sim training, so no practice with engine failure just after takeoff. And that scenario is totally different from engine failure in cruise or on approach. An engine failure in a piston twin just after takeoff is something almost no one would ever practice, so I expect on average not well handled by pilots who haven't had SIM training.

[CD]

I never did learn the cause of the 2011 Fugro CASA 212 crash.

From the TSB website:

Mechanical failure in one engine, fuel starvation in second engine led to April 2011 fatal airplane crash in Saskatoon

Gatineau, Quebec, 8 January 2013 — The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) today released its investigation report (A11C0047) into the 1 April 2011 crash of a CASA C-212 aerial survey aircraft, operated by Fugro Aviation Canada, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

During a geophysical survey flight east of Saskatoon, an internal component in the right engine of the Fugro CASA C-212 failed, causing the engine to lose power. The crew of three then completed the engine failure checklist, stowed the survey equipment and turned toward the Saskatoon airport. Fourteen minutes later, with the aircraft just short of the airport, the left engine lost power. The aircraft impacted a concrete noise abatement wall as the crew executed a forced landing adjacent to a road. The survey equipment operator was fatally injured, the first officer was seriously injured, and the captain suffered minor injuries. The aircraft was destroyed.

The left engine lost power due to fuel starvation. Investigators found debris in a fuel pump nozzle, which reduced the amount of fuel the pump delivered to the left collector tank. Fuel depletion in the left collector tank caused the engine to shut down while usable fuel remained in the left inboard tank. Additionally, the fuel crossfeed valve remained closed, which meant that the left engine was only receiving fuel from the left fuel tank, rather than from both tanks.

Following the accident, the company improved its CASA C-212 one-engine-inoperative emergency procedures and equipped similar aircraft with a cockpit-operated cable cutter to immediately jettison deployed survey equipment during an emergency. This will provide an additional safety defense against fuel starvation and allow for better aircraft performance when one engine is inoperative.

[chipmunk]

Anyways, regarding the 404 and other light piston twins of similar size used in survey, it is normal to take off close to MTOW as we always took as much fuel as we could....and the 404 has a huge fuel capacity....2400 lbs.

For several years now (IIRC, shortly after the crash in Mozambique), the SOPs (for the Canadian office's C404, at least) stipulate that takeoff weight must be such that one engine climb performance is at least 200 fpm. Depending on the type of survey equipment on board, that can reduce fuel load by over 400lbs in hot temperatures.

Re: the CASA accident - the quoted excerpt from the TSB doesn't include part about how the manufacturer itself changed the emergency procedures for single engine operation. It was discovered during extensive testing by the TSB after the accident that the existing procedure, which was followed to the letter by the crew, could lead to fuel starvation in the other engine. It's worth reading the whole report.

[wallypilot]

Thanks chip! Very interesting, and good to know that the 404 procedures have been changed since the 2004 accident.