A Case Study of Regulating Helicopter Safety in the Canadian Offshore Oil Industry: The Crash of Cougar Flight 491

S. Hart
{"title":"A Case Study of Regulating Helicopter Safety in the Canadian Offshore Oil Industry: The Crash of Cougar Flight 491","authors":"S. Hart","doi":"10.1080/14774003.2015.11667813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper assesses the effectiveness of the Canadian offshore oil safety regulatory regime leading up to a helicopter crash in 2009 with 17 fatalities, and in the context of international concern about offshore helicopter safety, a previous Canadian offshore disaster and international debates on the impact of the continuing shift towards goal setting in a deregulatory environment. The study was informed by assessment criteria synthesised from the literature, namely the evaluation of institutional design (the likelihood of independence) and regulatory process (gathering information on risk, setting standards, enforcement, participation and transparency). Qualitative analysis of documentary data generated from provincial and national investigations — including verbatim transcripts of inquiry evidence provided by industry, labour and government, plus regulatory and media sources — was used to assess the role of the regulators involved. The paper concludes that the regulatory framework had been largely ineffective leading up to the crash. The institutional design of the offshore regulator, which had dual responsibility for resource development and safety, was concluded as problematic and likely to have been connected to failures regarding all the regulatory process criteria. The federal regulator, responsible for Canadian aviation safety, was also seen as ineffective. In particular, safety standards were low in the operators’ contracts with the helicopter company, featuring many regulatory gaps, with missing or inadequate emergency technology in the helicopter itself, personal survival equipment, and search and rescue. Subsequent improvements in regulatory process are seen as limited by the low likelihood of important structural reform and the closure of vital regulatory gaps, given current government deregulatory policies.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667813","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667813","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The paper assesses the effectiveness of the Canadian offshore oil safety regulatory regime leading up to a helicopter crash in 2009 with 17 fatalities, and in the context of international concern about offshore helicopter safety, a previous Canadian offshore disaster and international debates on the impact of the continuing shift towards goal setting in a deregulatory environment. The study was informed by assessment criteria synthesised from the literature, namely the evaluation of institutional design (the likelihood of independence) and regulatory process (gathering information on risk, setting standards, enforcement, participation and transparency). Qualitative analysis of documentary data generated from provincial and national investigations — including verbatim transcripts of inquiry evidence provided by industry, labour and government, plus regulatory and media sources — was used to assess the role of the regulators involved. The paper concludes that the regulatory framework had been largely ineffective leading up to the crash. The institutional design of the offshore regulator, which had dual responsibility for resource development and safety, was concluded as problematic and likely to have been connected to failures regarding all the regulatory process criteria. The federal regulator, responsible for Canadian aviation safety, was also seen as ineffective. In particular, safety standards were low in the operators’ contracts with the helicopter company, featuring many regulatory gaps, with missing or inadequate emergency technology in the helicopter itself, personal survival equipment, and search and rescue. Subsequent improvements in regulatory process are seen as limited by the low likelihood of important structural reform and the closure of vital regulatory gaps, given current government deregulatory policies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加拿大海上石油行业直升机安全监管案例研究:美洲狮491航班坠毁事件
本文评估了导致2009年17人死亡的直升机坠毁事故的加拿大海上石油安全监管制度的有效性,以及国际上对海上直升机安全的关注,之前的加拿大海上灾难以及在放松管制的环境中继续转向目标设定的影响的国际辩论。该研究采用了从文献中合成的评估标准,即对制度设计(独立性的可能性)和监管过程(收集有关风险的信息、制定标准、执行、参与和透明度)的评估。对省和国家调查产生的文件数据进行定性分析——包括行业、劳工和政府提供的调查证据的逐字记录,以及监管机构和媒体来源——用于评估相关监管机构的作用。这篇论文的结论是,导致此次危机的监管框架在很大程度上是无效的。对资源开发和安全负有双重责任的离岸监管机构的制度设计被认为是有问题的,可能与所有监管过程标准的失败有关。负责加拿大航空安全的联邦监管机构也被认为是无效的。特别是,在运营商与直升机公司签订的合同中,安全标准较低,存在许多监管漏洞,直升机本身、个人生存设备和搜救中缺少或不足的应急技术。鉴于目前的政府放松管制政策,重要的结构改革和填补重要的管制空白的可能性很低,因此监管过程的后续改进被认为是有限的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Safety risk factors in two different types of routine outsourced work: a systematic literature review Multimodal virtual environments: an opportunity to improve fire safety training? Road traffic collisions leading to human casualties in Riyadh: a retrospective study Addressing essential skills gaps among participants in an OHS training program: a pilot study Farewell from the editor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1