Maybe we choose not to speculate at this early post incident stage. Amongst other things, in my opinion, it shows a lack of respect for those who have perished and the families they leave behind.

Speculate? Where did I ask anyone to speculate? I simply asked if there was anyone who would care to offer comment, whether it be the lack of acknowledgement from IOSH/HSE, comment on the travel to the rigs, the fact that these choppers are banned in Norway or simply to offer condolences. My thoughts are with the families at this time and I truly hope that a robust investigation is done and the industry fully implements any changes that drastically need to happen to prevent any re-occurrence.

Sorry hit the post button too early. http://www.norwaypost.no...ore-helicopters-grounded

I understand fully that its not within the enforcement remit of HSE, please see below: http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...etings/iacs/oiac/hlg.htm The HLG don't have any jurisdiction, but the HSE are relied upon by Trade Unions to enable Safety Reps to keep constituents up to date. Also, duty holders are required to demonstrate suitable precautions against major accident hazards, as part of their safety case - regulated by......the HSE. If we can't rely on our enforcement agency to represent the workers and advise the duty holders of what is considered suitable and sufficient - if they don't have a strong voice (I saw little literature from the final report on the last tragedy) , how on earth can they be of any use in protecting our employees? My apologies, Super Pumas aren't banned in Norway, they have a fleet of about 5 - I'm not sure of the numbers we have here in the UK, but they are the main mode and we run these choppers way beyond their capabilities. I think what I'm trying to say is that why are 20 deaths in 4 years not enough to unite the HSE profession, regardless of who's jursidiction it is and refuse to accept this unacceptable risk. We promote HSE at every step of the working day - some of the lads say you can't break wind in a 500m zone without getting a permit, so why oh why does the industry fail them at the last hurdle. Come on HSE, come on IOSH - regardless of juristiction, get back to basics, do the right thing and bloody unite. You may chose to ignore my "rantings", but this industry is so small that this is a real risk to our Tigers.

Just for clarity, i was mearly bringing it to the attention of fellow safety professionals. In no way was i or would i be disrespectul after such a tragic event. As i live in Scotland, i thought this would have been covered locally , before national members were aware.

Expect? Accept - no. http://abcnews.go.com/Bl...ticking/story?id=9669621 4 people died and this led to a massive recall: http://pressroom.toyota....play.cfm?article_id=1844 However, are Super Pumas the equivelent of the Ford Pinto.....cheaper to pay lawsuits than recall?

I think this incident is in the scope of HSE becsuae the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is the main legislation providing for the health and safety of workers offshore. HSE inspections visit offshore installations to inspect helidecks on offshore installations andf helicopter operations so cannot see how it outside of the scope of the HSE.

Offshore Installtions do indeed fall within HSE. If you're a jack up, well intervention. semi sub etc, you fall under IMO/ISM/flagstate regs, or Merchant Shipping Act/Regs whilst you're essentially a boat (until 12 miles from shore, then it falls under HSWA and subsequent regs) is my understanding. Unlike the MIAB, there is no Memorandum of Understanding which includes HSE involvement for AAIB, so my interpretation is that its regulated by the CAA until it lands.

This may clarify where HSE stands - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/17/292013Annex%20...