New CHC S-92

[NorthSeaTiger]

Does anyone where this S-92 is destined ?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1269660&WxsIERv=Fvxbefxl%20F-92%20Uryvohf&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Hagvgyrq%20%28Fvxbefxl%20Uryvpbcgre%20Pbec.%29&QtODMg=Purfgre%20Pbhagl%20%28ZDF%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Craaflyinavn&ktODMp=Frcgrzore%2015%2C%202007&BP=0&WNEb25u=Ovyy%20Fuhyy&xsIERvdWdsY=A4502E&MgTUQtODMgKE=Oenaq%20arj%20F-92%20ynaqvat%20ng%20Xrlfgbar%20nsgre%20gur%20nvecbeg%20bcra% 20ubhfr.%20Guvf%20jvyy%20fbba%20or%20qryvirerq%20gb%20Pnanqv na%20Uryvpbcgref%20Pbec.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=892&NEb25uZWxs=2007-09-18%2003%3A10%3A56&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=920056&static=yes&width=1025&height=695&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Fvxbefxl%20F-92%20Uryvohf%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=4&prev_id=1270835&next_id=1268029

[Richard Taylor]

Scrap? :E:E

[Rotorchic]

My guess, Denmark......

[Hippolite]

Probably heading to Miri for MHS

[quichemech]

Since when have MHS been part of the CHC group?

[cyclic]

NST

You need to get out more....

[212man]

Quiche, never. On the other hand, you could ask "how long have CHC been subcontracted by MHS?" There has be a 92 in Miri since March 2006, and another is expected shortly.

[S92mech]

The FAA database reports this aircraft (N4502R S/N 920056) has been exported to Norway.

[ramblingrotors]

212Man, you forgot to mention the 76C++ that has been in Miri for a while now.

[DECUFAULT]

A new CHC S92 will be arriving in Miri on the 9th November, flown in and the transport is booked. So I would guess.....:rolleyes:

[unstable load]

S92mech,

If that is the case, it could be going to Heli-1 in Norway for mods before it goes on to Miri, or indeed anywhere.

UL

[molen]

New one for CHC Norway.

LN-OQF

[NorthSeaTiger]

Does chc have any plans to Introduce anymore 92's to Aberdeen ?

[Richard Taylor]

I thought the plans was for 225s (2?) ? For ops to Alwyn/Beryl?

[purge98]

Probably the nearest engineering hangar for the first 3 months :(

[NickLappos]

VANCOUVER, November 1, 2007- CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC") (TSX: FLY.A and FLY.B; NYSE: FLI) announced today that its worldwide helicopter support division, Heli-One, has entered into new purchase contracts for delivery of 12 Sikorsky S-92 helicopters with a subsidiary of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation ("Sikorsky"), and, 13 AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters with Agusta S.p.A ("Agusta"). These purchases support CHC's commitment to acquiring new technology aircraft and are part of CHC's fleet renewal plan to meet the demands of its global customers.The first S-92 helicopter from this order is expected to be delivered to CHC in June 2009 with deliveries continuing through March 2012. The first AW139 helicopter from this order is expected to be delivered to CHC later this year, with deliveries continuing through late 2011.
CHC has already acquired 16 S-92 and eight AW139 helicopters under previous orders.
Including the 12 S-92 helicopters from this order, essentially all of CHC's heavy helicopter orders to be delivered in fiscal 2008 are committed to customer contracts, with approximately 55% of heavy helicopter orders committed on contract for all years. Including the 13 AW139 helicopters in this new order, approximately 85% of CHC's medium helicopter orders to be delivered in fiscal 2008 are committed to customer contracts, with approximately 45% of medium helicopter orders committed on contract for all years.......



http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/IndustryNews.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=8c17709c-b122-490c-955a-d244c3f0fdb7

[CH274]

Hope they have enough pilots to fly them...

[vaqueroaero]

To anyone that is interested there are two sitting on the ramp at KAFW, sans blades, awaiting a transport ship (Antonov?).

Don't know where they are headed. One has Canadian registry and we can't see the other one.

They flew in Friday.

[Stoey]

I dont now if the destination is Denmark, I know about a couple of guys flying from dallas to Denmark on a ferry flight. but the helicopter is on a Danish registration?

the trip is: Dallas - detroit- quebec - over North west terratories - Greenland, Island, Færøerne, Shetlands islands, Norway and then Denmark. En trip of about 5500NM.

source: http://www.helikopterpilot.dk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2975

Stoey.

[steve_oc]

The C reg is going to Miri and the other is for Norway (LN-OQF)

[Variable Load]

Steve
Any idea when the Miri machine is going to get there? I'd like to know when I'm actually going to do some work :hmm: :ugh:

[212man]

I'm sure there'll be plenty to do when you get there!

Mmm, Pina Colada or Tiger, Factor 10 or 25, decisions decisions.....;)

[Brilliant Stuff]

Stoey good luck to them doing the long trip wish I could do this one day.

[vaqueroaero]

The Antonov arrived, they loaded up yesterday and have now departed......

[212man]

they loaded up yesterday and have now departed......

I'm sure the Miri machine will arrive to a slick paperwork process and will be airborne within days/weeks/months (delete as appropriate)......:E

[Blackhawk9]

Just looking at the photo of the Bristow S-92 in the UK, don't you love the logic of big operators..... CHC have 2 x S-92's operating in Miri and one in Australia all operating in over 30 Oc with blade de-ice fitted and Bristows operate S-92's in the North Sea with none!!

[HeliComparator]

The first S92 did not have RIPS on delivery (for some reason eminating from Sikorsky) but it has now been retrofitted. As far as I know, the subsequent deliveries will have RIPS. Without the limited icing clearance enjoyed by the AS332L/L2/EC225 family, non-RIPS S92s would be stuck down in the weeds in winter, so its pretty much essential.

That said, its interesting to note that our de-iced S92 can barely fly on any more days than non-deiced French offerings. Yes the Super Puma family must have a positive temperature band starting 500' above the min operating height (500' over water) - ie it must be +0 deg C at 1000' above sea level.

But there are a number of RIPS failures on the S92 which require the pilot to "vacate icing conditions" straight away. The RFM omits to tell the pilot how he is supposed to do this. The only realistic way is if there is positive air into which he can descend. For this reason the BHL S92 fleet has very sensibly decided to require positive air temp at 500' above sea level.

So all the complexity, cost, maintenance penalty, weight etc of the RIPS just allows the S92 to depart on a day that is 1 deg C colder than the coldest day that the Super Puma family can depart (taking 500' = 1 deg C). Its only worth having RIPS because the limited icing clearance is a concept not invented by Sikorsky and so they are damned if they are going to certify for it on the S92!

HC

[NickLappos]

As usual, helofacomparison, you advocate NO equipment as being a better solution to operational safety issues....where do we get such men?

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Hippolite]

Heli Comparator

I don't think it was EC or their forebears Aerospatiale who pioneered the icing clearance. While Sikorsky may not have "invented" the icing clearance (and wouldn't claim to have done), the S61N had some sort of icing clearance before the 332L was in service.

I believe it could legally depart in "forecast light icing" conditions which in practical terms meant it could fly in light icing.......and did...very well.

[cpt]

The Russian did it also very well !!!!!....Mi 8s, 17s and so on are de-iced. Although I don't know to what level of icing they are certified, it seems to be very efficient and the anti-icing normal mode is automatic ( If I remember well there is a manual mode and an emergency mode in case of 1 alternator failure)

[HeliComparator]

Nick - you just can't help yourself can you... Never mind, keep taking the tablets... I would say that RIPS represents a considerable safety hazard as it encourages flight into icing conditions with no requirement for an escape route, when there are a number of single-point failures that require icing conditions to be immediately vacated. Definitely a trap for the unwary.

Hippo - As you know I flew the S61 many years ago but to be honest I can't remember about the icing clearance. You are probably right though, and of course the limited icing clearance for the Super Puma family was a UK thing, not a manufacturer's thing. With the advent of EASA we had a bit of a struggle to explain to the Europeans what it was all about, but were sucessfull eventually.

My snipe at Sikorsky is due to their ongoing refusal to consider having a limited icing clearance for the S92, preferring instead the flaky RIPS that has to be rebooted regularly.
I suppose one can understand why - consider how much cash they get from a customer specifying RIPS versus how much they could get for a piece of paper allowing limited icing flight?

HC

[212man]

Well, it is certainly true that there are single point failures that require vacating icing conditions "As soon as possible", but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a flight safety hazard! There are single point failures that require a 225 (or any type) to ditch, but that doesn't stop you flying over the sea in 60 kt winds at night (definitely not the time to ditch!)

If you look at Cougar's operations you will see the true value of a de-icing system (T.R. and I were shown some interesting photos recently!) It makes Aberdeen look like the tropics :uhoh:

[HeliComparator]

212 - I suggest it all depends on the probability of these sorts of failures. The probability of having to ditch a 225 (especially with its true 30 minute dry running time, unlike Brand X) is very low but of course not zero. Surely the probability of a RIPS failure that requires icing conditions to be vacated is several orders of magnitude higher than that.

I agree that RIPS does not represent an operational hazard in Brunei:}, nor much in the N Sea where there is almost always an escape route, but it could lead the unsuspecting into a flight over high ground in IMC / cumulo-granite where there is no escape route for several hours.

HC

[NickLappos]

Leave it to the mindless heliconfuser to declare rotor icing protection to be an "operational hazard"! What thoughtless, mindless drivel from EC's biggest salesman! Because the 225 does not offer RIPS, he must find it worthless, or worse, a hazard, else the 225 becomes less, and it is afterall his mistress! What is next HC, crashworthy helicopters might make pilots crash on purpose?

He is a Master at how to take a competing aircraft and take one of its strengths and declare it a weakness! HC must be on Blair's Iraq Cabinet, as chief strategist!

Never mind that the S-92's rotor icing protection system is entirely redundant, and protects in icing at blithering levels that would turn an EC-225 into a submarine, HC actually pontificates that a true icing protection kit is only a minor hazard! What Balls!

Still looking for the WMD, Minister of Strategy?

[HeliComparator]

Nick - those were the wrong pills!

Just to correct your attempts to mislead

1) The EC225 does not come with RIPS. That is because RIPS is a Sikorsky registered name! Doh! It does of course come with its own rotor blade de-icing system, an option just as it is on the S92.

the S-92's rotor icing protection system is entirely redundant

2) You say that the rotor de-icing system is entirely redundant but as you well know, that is a lie. Well that is unless you are using "redundant" to mean "superfluous, outmoded, disused, surplus, unneeded, unnecessary, uncalled-for" all of which are alternative words for redundant, according to my thesaurus.

HC

[NickLappos]

So where are those WMD's?

[HeliComparator]

Wasn't it your (Bush's) lot that invented the WMD search?

HC

[David Stepanek]

Nick and HC: I truly have enjoyed your debates over the years. Please don’t stop; it keeps our industry interesting. I’ve never investigated the fixed wing message boards but I fail to imagine Boeing and Airbus have two as colorful characters as you two.

[Night Watchman]

Good to see the banter is still flying around here!

A quick question for you learned gentlement concerning S92 hydraulic's...

In the event of of leak in one of the hydraulic systems the LDI system (with the reservoir at 50%) will close the tail rotor isolation valve. What happens if there is a leak in the other system? I had heard, and I'm happy to be corrected (very happy in fact!), that both systems isolation valves will open and close continually until both hydraulic systems are dry which happens in a very short period of time. So if you had a leak on the tail rotor side of the valves in both systems then you have no way of stopping it dumping the fluid.

Incidentally, one S92 had a RIPS failure halfway across the Scottish Mountains so I can see the argument for a positive temperature band but I'd still rather have RIPS than not.

[DECUFAULT]

The 225 can only do one flight...you then have to replace the tial boom for all the cracks, thats why there is a spare tail boom held in ABZ...I'm sticking to the 92...RIPS or not...

Don't mention frame 5295...:{

[HeliComparator]

DECUFAULT - I think there is a fault in your decu - have you been taking the same pills as Nick?

Dave - thanks for the appreciation - how is life after Sikorsky?

HC

[NickLappos]

It's really great asking Heliconfuser for S92 technical data, like asking George Bush for political advice!

HC has said:


That it is not worth having EGPWS since AVAD should work.
Having a fully approved anti-icing system is a hazard.
The size of the windows is more important than if your passengers are sitting on non-crashworthy fuel tanks
He has bet his career on the fitness and superiority of the 225 against the 92, so you can expect his demeaning comments to continue. ANYONE who thinks more safety kit increases the flight hazard is a hazard themselves, and does a disservice to the industry they pretend to support. It is thankful that his importance in the Bristow system is now just above the guy who services the windshield washer fluid.

If HC said it was 2PM and my watch agreed, I'd throw my watch away.

[3D CAM]

Nick, careful with your comparisons!
The guy who services the washer fluid is the highly trained, long serving, low paid, Licensed/Unlicensed Engineer who keeps all these flying machines in the air, French and American!! :=

[HeliComparator]

It's really great asking Nick for S92 technical data, like asking George Bush for political advice, only with added hysteria and spin.
HC

[heliski22]

Helicomparator vs NickLappos - I'm intrigued (and entertained!)

[Droopystop]

I do wonder at all this dick swinging. I have some questions:
Is a more reliable helicopter safer than a less reliable one?
(Yes crashworthy seats would be nice if the company would pay for them, but I'd rather be strapped to something that isn't going to crash in the first place)
Why does it seem that modern helicopters are less reliable than the older ones?
So are new helicopters safer than old ones?
And which is the most reliable machine on the North Sea at the moment?

I anticipate Nick hunting out his photo of a '60s automobile and asking if we think that is safe. I would pull out a photo of Mr Boeing's biggest, which is still selling (and safe).

My final question: Are the main men in Sikorsky not a little red faced at the success of a certain Mr Carson?

[NickLappos]

Droopystop,

Some answers to your apt questions:

1) Reliability is very important, but usually it is used in the economic sense, where a lost trip is an economic crusher for the company. Among helo systems, reliability is certainly a safety issue, since the triggering of failures is sometimes how accidents happen.

2) Yes, you should only strap yourself to a helo that never crashes. When you find one, let me know! It would be nice if helos didn't crash, then we could have you sit on a cement block, but the dream of a crashless helo is the dream of one without people in the loop, since about 70% of all accidents are not the helo's fault, but rather the crew's. For those cases, if nothing else, pray that your boss is wise enough to buy a modern helo with the latest safety features.

3) Modern helos are newer, and do not have the 40 years of lessons learned, part-by-part, to make them as reliable as the older ones. The original S61 had its great share of problems, but back then I was a junior pilot and you were a zygote, so you think those old helos came out of the box working like charms. The story of how the 61 became a classic is one that left more than a few machines crumpled, and many, many parts removed by tired maintenance crews. You just don't know that, so it seems in your view that "new" and "safe" are the enemy of reliability.

4) Old "reliable" or new "safety equipped" - The decision isn't yours, anyway, nor is it heliconfuser's, thank God. The safety gurus in the oil companies, in their great wisdom, help set the contract terms. The decision is up to the customers who actually pay for the service, and they have voted overwhelmingly for the newest safety features, as they are sick of flying in less safe helos with poorer margins, where a scratch can make an accident happen, and where a pilot error can take the machine and its occupants apart. The oil companies are sick of helos with fuel in the floors below the passenger seats, and with seats that break their worker's backs. They want helos with these safety features, and their contract requirements tell us so.

5) Mr. Boeing knows what I am saying, his company (and Airbus) are making millions by selling safer, more comfortable airplanes than the old ones that are being passed off the third-run air services. The 380 and the 787 are both heads and shoulders above the 707/747/300 and the like in passenger safety, since their regulations have evolved just as helo regs have.

I do detect some snide wish to show that your 1960 Chevy is a better car, with its metal dashboard, cotton ply tires, lack of seat belts, single brake system, and the structural design that assures that you eat the engine in a crash. Put your family in that clunker, if you wish, but I have my daughters ride in a modern car with dual anti-lock brakes, strengthened passenger cage, 8 air bags and steel belted tires.

[HeliComparator]

Blimey Nick, those pills are at last having the right effect. Worryingly, I find myself mostly in agreement with what you say (personal insults aside). But I try to look at the big picture whereas you are stuck in the minutia of your personal achievements.

Safety is very important but designing the overall safest option is not always the most obvious option. Take your beloved RIPS, just how exactly does it improve safety? Yes, it makes the pilot's life a bit easier but is it safer? I would say not because without it, you know exactly where you are. With it, you are tempted to go places you would otherwise not go, despite the trap of the single point (and fairly common) failures, taking you from fat, dumb, & happy, to scared in the blink of a warning light.

I agree it doesn't represent much of a safety hazard in the right hands, but as you point out its pilot error that generally is the cause of the problem and the wrong hands its just another vehicle for human error to manifest itself. It would only be safer if it was totally reliable, and we all know its far from that.
And priorities in safety are role-specific. Fuel under the floor has not been an issue for offshore ops, whereas cabin escapability has. Whilst the 92 represents a safety improvement in the former (no doubt relevant if your ops are mostly over land) its a retrograde step in the latter.

But as Droopy rightly implies, safety is not just about crashworthiness. In fact crashworthiness is the part you have to design when you have admitted defeat, because as DS says its far better to design the aircraft with pilot-tolerant features, than the aircraft that is prone to "pilot error" but which might not kill all aboard in the crunch.

The 92 does have good crashworthy credentials as required by the JAR/FAR 29 amendment valid on certification but in my opinion its well behind the French offering when it comes to pilot-tolerance, the man-machine interface or whatever you want to call it. That's why I'd rather fly my machine, even though it does have fuel under the floor.

Regarding the question about the most reliable fleet on the N Sea, that has to be the AS332L. And therefore I would say that its probably the safest. But there is the dreaded bathtub curve and the 332L is starting to creep up the gentle slope at the end of its life, whilst the 225 and 92 are still decending the steep slope at the start of their lives.

If the oil companies stuck with the known technology (AS332L) then its reliability would gradually decrease and there would be an accident. So you have to suffer the pain of initial reliability (safety) problems with new types.

You cannot just stand still.

HC

[[email protected]]

Helicomp - in the last crash in UK (Morecambe Bay) , the size of the windows was wholly irrelevant - it was the crash (and possibly lack of helmets) that killed the pax. Crashworthy is good.

[212man]

Yes, there are lots of helicopters that can fly into the sea at 120 kts in a diving turn and, with suitable seatbelts and the pax wearing helmets, all is well!

[HeliComparator]

Crab, as 212 says you (as usual) miss the point. No amount of crashworthiness (with currently available technology), nor RIPS nor external fuel, would have helped with that one. What could perhaps have helped is a modern autopilot system where when the pilot gets into difficulty he can press the go-around button and let go, plus better training in a simulator. The S92 scores 5/10 for its autopilot system, whilst the 225 scores 9/10. On the other hand Sikorsky scores 8/10 for having a simulator at delivery, EC scores 0/10 for still having no simulator over 2 years after introduction of the 225. Take your pick!

HC

[Droopy]

Nick, it's a minor point but the other fella is droopystop....I'm staying out of all this.

[NickLappos]

No, helicomparitor, you miss the point entirely. In fact you miss all the points,:

Point 1 = Safety is the sum of all the things we do to save the lives of our passengers, in spite of your arrogance. It is a arrogant pilot who does not fly a crashworthy helicopter because he is foolish enough to decide that he will not crash. Crashworthiness is not optional, except to pilots who decide to purposely buy older machines, less safe machines while they rationalize their decision.

Point 2 = We in the design world use reams of accident data to help guard the lives of his passengers.It is an arrogant pilot who takes the last crash he remembers, and plans his flight according to what happened. The helo in that Morecambe Bay crash has old non-crashworthiness. It is arguable that a 120K sea impact with a fully compliant modern machine could be survivable, many Sea Hawk and Black Hawk crews have escaped injuries in such impacts, in spite of arrogant pilot's calm, ignorant disbelief. The Difference in crashworthiness between the soft, crumply fuselage of the older helicopters and the crashworthy fuselage of a modern helicopter is the difference between approximately the 20th percentile crash and the 95th percentile crash. The arrogant pilot doesn't know this, he thinks all crashes are equal. His passengers die in agony when his mistake causes an otherwise survivable crash.

Point 3 = Safety does not stop at the start of the crash sequence, yet the arrogant pilot bolts his passengers to the top of a fuel tank, in spite of the reams of data that shows that post crash fires are much more likely in such an old-fashioned design. The entire General staff of one mid-east country perished in such a fire in such a poorly designed helicopter (his pet helicopter). Fire protection is important enough that the newest design regulations require belly fuel to meet extra design penalties if the manufacturer is foolish enough to put the fuel there.

Point 3 = Safety is enhanced by extra gear that widens operational capability. The arrogant pilot actually takes it as a virtue that his helicopter, if subjected to icing at 1.0 g/M3, will crash. That is a good thing, and ice protection is a bad thing.

Point 4 = EGPWS, a colored terrain hazard map and altitude warning system, with voice warning, vastly reduces the hazard of CFIT, but arrogant pilot doesn't like itbecause his pet helicopter doesn't offer it.

Point 5 = The arrogant pilot ignores newest data, argues with national experts who upgrade requirements, and belittles safety findings that make these requirements, because he, God-like in his depth, knows much more than those silly oil company experts, safety experts and design engineers. He guides newbies in his "wisdom", a pied piper of stupidity.

Point 6 = The newer helos of arrogant pilot's pet helicopter company incorporate the design virtues that he belittles. He is the apologist who must make excuses for their rear-guard products, explain why the mediocre is better, and sacrifice the truth in the process.


Droopy, I fixed it, thanks.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

Good use of colour (color?) but too much repetition of "arrogant" - I made it a count of 9 plus one of "arrogance".

Hey-ho here goes

Point 1 - Crashworthiness is a good thing but not crashing in the first place is also important

Point 2 - In the case of the Morecambe Bay crash, your pet S92 would probably have broken up but even if not, the pax would have been disabled by the impact and would not have got out through the minimum-sized windows. Of the pax that died in Morecambe Bay, how many of them had unsurviveable injuries and for how many was drowning the primary cause of death?

Point 3 - Like I said, safety priorities are role specific and for offshore ops, fuel under the floor has never been an issue. Escapability is the primary issue.

Point 4 - EGPWS offshore does not give you a coloured terrain hazard map because there is no terrain (Doh again!), it has a voice warning system that is inferior to AVAD, has an incomplete and hence misleading obstacle database, and you are wrong, the EC225 does offer EGPWS but we declined to take it because in v24 guise its less safe than AVAD for offshore ops. In v26 guise I hope it will be better and we are planning to take it.

Point 5 - Not sure if this pilot is supposed to be me (yeah, right!) but if so I am well aligned with the oil company priorities - Its Sikorsky that are not. That's why, for instance, they don't consider cabin escape to be important, and don't bother with other things like HOMP (not invented here!), and have ridiculous and unsafe proposed profiles for PC2E.

Point 6 - You are rambling to the point that I am not sure what you are saying. Have another pill and do wipe that drool from your mouth please!

HC

[NickLappos]

Let me waste a bit of time explaining the most telling points:

Point 6 means that all the items that you belittle are incorporated into the latest products from EC, and are bragged about in EC's literature. You have become the unfortunate shill for the older technology, while your pet company has left your ancient views in the dust. The proof of your incorrect judgment is contained in the newer designs that EC offers.

Your ignorance is also pointed out in Point 2, where you foolishly believe that if the crash impact had disabled the victims in a 365N the it would have in any other helo. Simply wrong. The G forces that rip the seats from the weak floors and toss them around the cabin of a 365 or 225 are a paltry 2 to 6 G's. Therefore the unfortunates who picked your captaincy get bashed around the cabin, while the seats in an S92 or A-139 are still solidly in place as the structural cage of the helo (which does not allow any deformation up to 20G's) protects them. Thus, in a proper helicopter, there exists opportunity to allow pax to wait till the crash stops, release their belts and escape. Your mistaken belief that the condition of the unfortunates in the 365 offers any clues as to their survival in a stronger, safer machine shows how unequipped you are to understand the issues that you try to judge.

Regarding whose points are the more accepted, care to publish the number of 225's that have been ordered anywhere in the civil world, and those delivered?

I could go on with the other points, but it bores me, frankly, and I think that about now you are looking an awful lot like a small furry dog when wet.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

You always have to spoil your point with inaccuracies. Shame! You continue to forget (though are frequently reminded) that the seats in "my" helicopter meet the latest certification requirements just as they do in "yours". And whilst it helps to have a strong fuselage, ultimately the human body is weak and would be damaged by flying into the sea at 120 knots in a dive regardless of whether or not the structure takes the load. But my point (admitedly not based on much evidence) was that it was probably not the structural failures nor g loading that killed them, rather it rendered them incapacitated and they subsequently drowned.

But lets be quite clear - you are claiming that had the same accident occurred to an S92, the pax would all have survived?

I am in possession of neither the S92 sales figures nor the 225s (though I know the waiting list for a 225 is well over 18 months) but here in the UK there are 6 EC225 in service and 2 S92s right now, and to the best of my knowledge there will be 12 EC225 in service by end 2008 and 8 S92s, so I am not sure what your point is?

Escpecially considering that the S92 is so much cheaper than the 225. Fortunately most oil companies recognise a quality product when they see it, rather than the cheap and (not very) cheerful one, and are prepared to pay the extra.

I could go on with the other points, but it bores me, frankly, and its walkies time, but I think that about now you are looking an awful lot like an old bull sea lion who is wallowing along over land when really he is suited to the ocean, and making a lot of grunting noises about it.

(Apologies to the Seal Lion Preservation Society)

HC

[HeliComparator]

ps is this thread drift or what?

SP - perhaps you should give us both a good slapping?

[NickLappos]

Heliconfuser,
Again, your ignorance shows itself. The seats on the 225 meet the old standard, and are bolted to the floor against the old standard, so they can come off in 6 g's of crash loads. As can the fuel below the floor.

Regarding the 365 crash, you might brush up on your reading skills. You foolishly try to prove the crash was NOT survivable by showing that they didn't survive. I pointed out that the flimsy seats in the 365 or 225 can come loose in low impact crashes, and that the seats in a 139 or 92 would stay in place and protect the occupants in much higher crashes. It would be possible to tell if it was survivable in a modern helo, that is a question yet to be answered. What the crash PROVES is that it was UNSURVIVABLE in seats like those on the 365 or 225.

You gerrymander sales numbers to suit. I count that Bristow will have 7 92's by next spring, the SAR service will have 4, there are 6 in Norway now, and the count goes on. If we count the helos in your bathtub (one presumes 0), the sales look similar, don't they, but if we count the actual units delivered, the vast popularity of the 92 over the 225 comes clear.

No answer from you as to why all the truly new Eurocopter helos have the safety features that you say are not necessary. Cat got your brain?

[HeliComparator]

No, the seats in our EC225s are certified to the current standard, with strengthened floor to boot. If you knew anything about certification you would know that grandfathering only works when you don't significantly change the design. Our 225s have an all-new crashworthy floor with all-new crashworthy stroking seats that meet the current regulations. As I have said many times before...click...as I have said many times before...

You said
What the crash PROVES is that it was UNSURVIVABLE in seats like those on the 365 or 225 which is first of all incorrect as the 365 and 225 seats are not certified to the same standard (see above) but in any case, what's your point? Did we need that to be proven? It would be more interesting to prove that the new seats fitted to the S92 and 225 would have made a difference, though I doubt that it would.

Ref the sales I think I mentioned that I was talking about the UK. Last time I looked Norway was not in the UK (but I realise that from the other side of the Atlantic it all looks much the same, and I appreciate that the World Geography classes at your school didn't cover anything beyond the USA - just like their other world series ).

I was also talking about oil and gas, though I agree I didn't make that clear. So I will give you the extra S92s for SAR. My current figures were correct, and as far as I know Bristow UK will have 6 S92s by next spring. So that makes it 12-all so hardly the runaway difference you are implying. If the oil companies and Sikorsky are such buddies with only HC as the enemy, why is it that it isn't 24 - 0 in favour of the S92 especially considering the oil companies have to pay so much more for the 225?

Not quite sure which safety features that EC are offering that i say are not necessary, and the cat ran off when I shook my wet fur. Well EGPWS for offshore perhaps but the others are good - TCAS, 30 min dry running time (remember that one - that's the one that the S92 failed to achieve), PC2E data, automatic (as in "don't touch the controls!") fly-away on 1 engine (that's another one the S92 can't quite do), crashworthy seats, HOMP (Oh yes, another one the S92 doesn't do), Intrinsic N2 overspeed protection (rather than allowing the turbine disc to burst but hoping the shielding works a la S92).

Some give greater safety contribution than others, that balance is role specific as I have said. I would not consider rotor de-icing to be a safety features. Its a feature that allows operations on days when you otherwise would not launch. That's not a safety feature, its a commercial expedient and offered by EC to those for whom its important - not N Sea-ites (unless there is no limited icing clearance), but no doubt for example SARites. Its most certainly not a new feature. The AS332L and L2 have offered rotor de-icing from a time when the S92 was just a twinkle in your eye.

Woof!, time to find a lamp post...

HC

[Dave_Jackson]

A picture (film) is worth a thousand words.


Glidden Doman hosted the American Helicopter Society dinner meeting on Feb. 7, 1953. Igor Sikorsky attended the meeting and Flettner was the guest speaker. A film of the Flettner Fl-282 was shown. Mr. Doman said that when the lights came on he look over at Igor. He said that Igor's face showed his shock at seeing the technology in the superior Flettner craft; a craft that had been in production and in use before his.

However, in 1967 an advertisement for the S-62 helicopter said; "Leonardo had the right idea, but it took Igor Sikorsky and his Connecticut craftsmen to build a workable helicopter".

That promotional hype was four decades ago.

Nick, perhaps you would like to take us back three more decades. Would you comment on the truth or fiction regarding Sikorsky's use of a slow-motion film to promote his early single rotor helicopter?

Interestingly, Charles Lumsden has stated that in 1938; "[Young] Impressed by Igor Sikorsky's film, he concentrates on main rotor/antitorque tail rotor configurations."


Has a litany of misinformation or perhaps disinformation resulted in the state of today's rotorcraft?

[bobsaget123]

The S92 scores 5/10 for its autopilot system, whilst the 225 scores 9/10.


Could you expand on this comparison? What goes into your rating? I would love to hear about the differences between the two. Thanks.

[NickLappos]

Dave thank heaven you changed the subject!

But do you really think a film changed the course of rotor craft history? I think it was a B-17 raid....

[SASless]

HC,

I shudder to think you might actually believe what you are saying.....

I would not consider rotor de-icing to be a safety features. Its a feature that allows operations on days when you otherwise would not launch.

As I recall from my youth....the MET Forecasts for the North Sea on the odd occasion contained flawed data regarding icing....and did sometimes make life a bit interesting as rotor de-icing on commercial helicopters in those days was something we talked about over an ambient temperature beer but never saw on the aircraft.

Has the MET's crystal ball gazers improved to the extent that icing never occurs unless forecast?

Or...perhaps....there is a surplus of hot air that can be diverted to the rotor system in times of unscheduled need?

I would assume in the extreme....today's backup system is to seek warmer air just above the oggin if it can be found just as we did in those long ago years.

[Dave_Jackson]

Nick,But do you really think a film changed the course of rotor craft history?Naughty, naughty. You shouldn't answer a question with a question. :)


P.S. My lawyer has advised that a positive answer to your question might be construed as libel and a negative answer might be construed as nonsensical.
.
.
.
.

[Droopystop]

Nick,
I must say that my tongue was in cheek when refering to a helicopter that doesn't crash. I am also not so naive to believe that old helicopters weren't without their teething problems. But it seems that lessons are not always learnt.

Would I be right to think that where old helicopters were designed with a slide rule and a bigger safety factor, the new ones are designed by computer and a lower safety factor? If so, why haven't helicopter manufacturers recognised that a small increase in safety factor for components might reduce costly re engineering at a later date? I am thinking of one or two specific cases here relating to a new design and of course the constant battle with airframe cracking.

I don't believe that modern analysis tools can model (with sufficient accuracy) the myriad of load cases that each component on a helicopter will see.

Also I don't believe that the oil companies are a) as bothered about safety as they make out and b) know as much about helicopters as they think. Politics (and personalities) have as much if not more to do with helicopter choice than technology, safety and reliability.

[bondu]

Well said, Droopystop! :D:D

bondu

[finalchecksplease]

HeliComparator said 30 min dry running time (remember that one - that's the one that the S92 failed to achieve), PC2E data, automatic (as in "don't touch the controls!") fly-away on 1 engine (that's another one the S92 can't quite do), crashworthy seats, HOMP (Oh yes, another one the S92 doesn't do), Intrinsic N2 overspeed protection (rather than allowing the turbine disc to burst but hoping the shielding works a la S92).


For the benefit of some of us that know less than you both have forgotten would you care to comment on these statements Nick?

Also sorry to be ignorant but what is PC2E?

Greetings,

Finalchecksplease

[carholme]

Droopystop;

I am sure that from the moment of design inception of a new aircraft or component, a fair amount of time passes. When the concept is at a point where it must be pegged before going to production, I would presume that many technological advances have been made known. The point is, that for the allocated budget of the design, will those advances be incorporated now or kept for a future design, maybe incorporated into after market production, possibly offered as an option, or whatever.

No matter how concious we are of the aviation world and its desire for safety, the harsh truth is that safety is dollars. A product will go to market with a sales estimate based on the thoroughness of the manufacturers sales team. That is why he decided to spend the money in the first place, he thought the design would produce a profit.

Then again, the design is pegged and the unit goes into production and a whole new world of tech problems are encountered. Look at the A380 problem with different software being utilised by the different manufacturers and the resultant delays and cost overruns this caused.

I am sure that when design improvements are found even during the design stage, they are seriously considered for incorporation at this time vs the investment or would they be better utilised downstream when the market may be much brighter. Possible even utilised in after market production to enhance sales.

I sometimes wonder if it is far removed from the automobile production. If you design the perfect unit, where will the future sales be after everybody owns one of these perfect units.

Regards

carholme

[HeliComparator]

I feel a long post coming on so I will split into two and answer SAS and finalchecksplease first - cos that's easier!

SAS, I agree that the forecasting of icing is not particularly accurate but that does not really matter. If we are going to depart and fly at sub-zero temperatures, if by day I can avoid scattered clouds. If by night or where the cloud is unavoidable I will ensure that I have my "warm" band 1000' amsl and below. That is very predictable as its related to sea temperature, which only changes very very slowly. So if light icing is forecast but it becomes more than my aircraft's limited icing clearance can accept, I just have to descend into the warm band. Its a nuisance and reduces com range etc but not really a big deal. It would be a brave person who departed without an escape route into sub-zero cloud reliant on the fact that only light icing was forecast (brave = daft!).

So I maintain that rotor deicing does not improve safety, and unless its used cautiously (with an escape route) one day it will all end in tears. The fact the the RFM does not mention the need for an escape route is negligent IMHO.

finalchecksplease - you have not been keeping up with your reading of pprune! JAR-OPS3 used to allow Performance Class 2 (PC2) over a hostile environment (N Sea) only with conditions and only until end 2009, after which PC1 would be required. PC1 offshore is not realistic so JAR-OPS3 has been modified to allow PC2E which is Performance Class 2 Enhanced. PC2 had exposure time between the takeoff /landing decision point and achieving Vtoss/landing (exposure meaning you might crash or ditch if the engine failed during this time). PC2E uses manufacturers drop down data, deck edge clearance data etc to allow mass adjustment so that the exposure time is nominally zero. So its not PC1, but its probable (not certain) that with an engine failure at any time there will be a sucessful outcome.

HC

[finalchecksplease]

HC,

Guilty as charged your honour, better go and swot up on pprune, thanks for your answer.
I hope that Nick can comment on the points you made about the S92 and give straight answers and not like politicians avoid the though ones.

Greetings,

Finalchecksplease

[Senior Pilot]

SP - perhaps you should give us both a good slapping?

The thought has crossed my mind :p

[chc&proud]

Gentlemen
Here are but a few opinionated views on relevant issues:

All helicopters suffer from vibration levels which are unpleasant and/or unhealthy both for man and machine. The interior noise leves are too high, and subjects a pilot to a significant risk of suffering damage to his/her hearing.

The problems of the S92A is not all the bells and whistles. High vibration levels leading to all sorts of cracks is. Also, parts falling off, dual failure of the lubrication system for the main gear box gives reason for consern.

Operating in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea the confidence in the aircraft seems to have been constantly fading since the introduction.

A few weeks back one S92A developed a crack in the main gesr box during final approach. This lead to all of the oil in the main gear box being drained. Even if the manufacuter claims dry-run capability, this is not a good thing.

The customers and the passengers organisations are not overjoyed by all of this. Still, the alternative aircraft types in the market are limited to the EC225, with its cramped cabin. According to colleagues flying the EC225, it does offer a smooth flight experience.

Since the EC products also suffer from its fair share of maintenance challenges, the whole selection process comes to down to a choice between poor alternatives, none of which really would be the preferred alternative if a smooth, quiet and reliable product entered the market place.

Keep in mind that none of the manufacturers are able to deliver aircraft in sufficient numbers at present, due to increased demand for new technology. To a certain extent this leads to the operators ordering aircraft from whomever can deliver in the next 2-5 years.

The good alternative should offer:
* Good ergonomics in the cockpit and cabin
* Standup cabin like the S61/S92.
* 5 blades like the EC225
* Performance in accordance with PC1
* De-icing, just in case, even though normal operations into known icing is not a preferred option
* Digital autopilot and flight director with quick and direct control of flight path, like the AS332L2 AND EC225, not like the S92A, which is a bit mushy
* Air conditioning, separate for the cockpit and cabin
* All sorts of bells and whistles to enhance work environment and reduce work loads, as well as impress wives, girlfriends and kids
* Etc.....


Regards, Olav

[212man]

The good alternative should offer:
* Good ergonomics in the cockpit and cabin
* Standup cabin like the S61/S92.
* 5 blades like the EC225
* Performance in accordance with PC1
* De-icing, just in case, even though normal operations into known icing is not a preferred option
* Digital autopilot and flight director with quick and direct control of flight path, like the AS332L2 AND EC225, not like the S92A, which is a bit mushy
* Air conditioning, separate for the cockpit and cabin
* All sorts of bells and whistles to enhance work environment and reduce work loads, as well as impress wives, girlfriends and kids
* Etc.....

That would be the AS332 Mk3, pity they scrapped the project :{ (the 225 was known internally as the Mk2 plus)

[diginagain]

From a frequent pax perspective, a couple of thoughts, if I may? I won't comment on servicability or front-end ergonomics and whistles and bells.

Having been invited to see inside the S-92, the school-bus style seating layout looks uncomfortable. The EC aircraft seats, which in many cases are offset from adjacent seats, offer an opportunity to stretch your legs.

A stand-up cabin isn't that attractive - once we're strapped in, we won't be wandering around too much. While the EC cabin may be cramped, again we're unlikely to do much more than grab some kip or read the Daily Sport. More serious an issue is having an adjacent window large enough to double-up as an emergency exit.

Vibration levels from a five-bladed head appear to be much lower than from four blades, which is particularly important from a passenger perspective on a long sector. (I have a susceptabilty to vibes, after 1000+ hours on Lynx, and I've only recently weened myself off Brufen after 10 years, so alighting at journey's end without buzzing knees is important to me).

A/c in the cabin has never been a problem, at least in the North Sea. If we want more, or less, the request has never gone unanswered when bleed-air is available. I'm sure an efficient a/c system would be welcome in warmer climes. A new job in Oz beckons, so I may well find out soon.

We work in an environment where we are constantly considering risk v probability. Having the fuel cells under the floor doesn't appear to be an issue that gives pax cause for concern. I has to go somewhere, or we don't get home, is how most of us would see it.

Thanks for the indulgence of intruding - please continue with the entertainment.

[HeliComparator]

bobsaget123

I wrote a long tome about autopilots then clicked the wrong thing and lost it all! So here goes again...

Several books could be written about this but I will address 3 areas: 1) flight path prediction, 2) power / Nr awareness, and 3) flight envelope protection / Go-around (Flyaway) mode.

1) Most autopilots, including the 332L, L2 and S92, work by detecting a deviation, and a rate of deviation, from the required flight path. So for example when engaged on ALT mode, the datum altitude is compared with the actual altitude to get an altitude error. As that error starts to increase from zero, a correction is made according to the magnitude of the error and the rate of change of that error. This means that there has to have been an error in the first place before the autopilot does anything. In other words, the autopilot waits for an error and then fixes it.

The 225 uses accelerometer data to predict the flight path and correct it before an error has developed. In the case of ALT mode it would resolve the triaxial accelerometer data (lateral, longitudinal and normal) into the earth's plane using the pitch roll and yaw data and monitor the normal (relative to the earth) acceleration. In level flight this should of course be 1g, so if it sees the g falling to 0.99 then it knows that a descent will ensue. So before the descent has even started, it can make a correction to restore 1.0g.
This flight path prediction is why, for example, a 225 engaged on ALT and IAS in straight flight can be banked to 45 degrees by the pilot, holding it for 360 deg then rolling out and, with no pilot input to fore/aft cyclic or collective, throughout the whole manoeuvre the altitude will change by no more than 10'.

This is why it can level off at a preselected altitude having climbed/descended at 2000'/min with no more than 10' overshoot, more normally zero overshoot.

And the principle also applies to lateral navigation. Using gps ground track and wind data it of course knows what heading to fly to intercept and track the localiser (it doesn't just set the heading to match the localiser course and then adjust heading in response to a deviation), but its also monitoring the accelerometers to predict the flight path, so when a lateral gust occurs it knows that its flight path will start to deviate but doesn't have to wait for an error in the flight path to develop before it makes a correction. This is why it can hold the localiser and glidepath exactly in the centre, down to DA and below, when there is a 70kt crosswind blowing over the hills at Dyce.
This is why you can come down the ILS at 165kts / 80% torque and at 500' dial up 30kts IAS. As the torque goes from 80% to 20% in a couple of seconds to deccelerate, perhaps the glidepath might move a smigin but it would be no more that 5% of the scale.

And because its fixing acceleration deviations as they occur, its a very smooth experience for pilots and pax.

225 pilots relish really crap days because they love to fly down the ILS and have it auto-level off, slow it down to 30kts IAS and trickle up the runway exactly on the centreline, beep it down to 30' or so all on the automatics. If you can't see the ground then..... Not that we ever bust the minima, but we get a cosy feeling knowing that if despite the TAFS it all turned to rats# we are fine.

The 92 will of course fly a coupled approach but only on nice smooth days.
2) Unlike the 92 autopilot, the 225 is power and rotor rpm aware. Power is a limited commodity and the 225 will give priority to vertical mode when IAS is above Vy, and to IAS mode when below Vy. This means for instance that you can select 175 kts IAS and 5000' (or whatever) and the 225 will fly along at 5000', at max continuous power minus about 2% (allowance for turbulence etc), going as fast as it can (less than 175!) without fuss.

This means for instance that when going around from an ILS on one engine, it will climb at 1000'/min, washing off airspeed to achieve the climb rate. But as the IAS reaches Vy, priority will change to maintaining Vy and now it will sacrifice climb rate. So the OEI go-around procedure is to press go-around and watch it all happen.

The 225 is also rotor rpm aware so when an engine fails, of course there is no need to touch the controls as the collective is automatically lowered (if necessary) to give 96% Nr (the optimum Nr OEI). If the daft pilot pulls the collective up too far then lets go, it just adjusts itself to give 96% Nr again. If upper modes are engaged it will raise the collective as required to give no less than 96% Nr.

Because its power-aware if (on twin engine) you exceed MCP or takeoff power (according to airspeed), as well as an audio cue, if you release the collective it will automatically gently reduce to take you out of the transient range.

The cleverness of the S92 is limited to a statement in the RFM that tells you not to demand excessive power from the autopilot, otherwise the collective will rise without limit even though the rotor rpm slows down at the AEO FADEC stop.

3) There are various clever features - here is one: You have ALT engaged on cyclic, then you reduce power to slow down, but too much. The nose is raised to maintain altitude at the expense of IAS and in some helis this could result in excessive loss of speed so that either the mode drops out or worse, you enter a tail slide! Not in the 225 - at around 65kts it flashes a warning and then automatically engages IAS on the cyclic, moving ALT to the collective and increasing power to stabilise things.

The GA (Go-around) mode is really clever, eg you are in an OGE hover, when an engine fails. Of course there is no need to touch the controls - just press GA (under your thumb on the collective) and the aircraft will transition away by selecting 10 degrees nose down, adjusting collective to maintain 96%, then as the airspeed is around Vtoss-10kts, starting to raise the nose so that it gets to the climbing attitude just as Vtoss is reached.

We use GA mode on every takeoff. Preselect the desired IAS and altitude on the ground, preset the nominated Vtoss (if its greater than the actual Vtoss) then (for an airfield takeoff) press GA at decision point (V1) and let go. GA mode will set 1000'/min on vertical speed and raise the collective to MCP, climbing at whatever IAS it can muster. Should an engine fail, of course there is no need to touch the controls as it will reset the IAS datum to Vtoss (or current airspeed if that's higher) and climb away OEI. You do have to press the FADEC stop buttons to take the power down from 30 second power to 2 minute power, and again to continuous power. Its a hard life!

Now I am going to post this quickly before I lose it again!

HC

[212man]

HC,
before you find someone jumping down your throat, you will need to correct your section 2 arguments: The S-92 became 'power aware' with the introduction of AMS 3.2.

AEO (DEO as they say) it respects the MCP limits. On the other hand, you can't fly it at MCP (86% Tq) as it would shake itself to death! Most operators either fly at 70-75% Tq, or a fuel flow or, in our case, an IAS. Many still fly the cruise in 3 axis coupling, for that reason (not us of course!)

In the event of an engine failure, it will re-datum the IAS to Vy and then respect the OEI MCP limits. This is a somewhat crude method, and the significant collective lowering to decelerate from cruise power results in a guaranteed 200 ft height loss (which slowly corrects.) One consideration is that the OEI Vne is 120 kts IAS so, it couldn't simply keep the ALT as that would posssibly result in Vne being exceeded, if the failure occured in the cruise. You couldn't use 120 kts as the datum, because in the event of a failure at a lower speed, the a/c would then accelerate, probably undesirably. So, Vy it is!

What it won't do, which ECF products do, is automatically couple the collective in the event of an engine failure, when previously 3 axis coupled. So, those operators who fly '2-cue' in the cruise will have to lower the collective promptly, whereas a 225 pilot flying 3 axis coupled would simply look up from his breakfast and say "oh, an engine failed, let's just monitor Monsieur Sagem dealing with it".

It is difficult to adequately explain in words, though HC has atempted well, how much more superior the 225 auto flight systems are by comparison to the 92: not just the physical coupling but also the MMI (Man Machine Interface) aspects. They are not perfect, but by golly they're good!

[NickLappos]

Its been a busy weekend, I haven't had the time to post some rebuttal to helicomparitor's drivel. His misrepresentation of the strength and safety shortfalls of the EC225, which is basically a 332 fuselage, with all the inherent weaknesses of that fuselage. Why did the 332MKIII not get built? Because the civil authorities would not let EC build it unless they also promised to meet the latest safety features, an impossible task in a short time and with only a few francs. That doomed the MKIII, and in its stead, the lesser 225 was born.

Helicomparitor says that it "meets" seat strength, but the FAA, JAR and EASA say he is simply either lying or misinformed (I prefer misinformed, because I think HC has integrity, he just doesn't have much else.) In the next few days, I will explain each 225 shortfall in detail. For now, let it suffice that a 332 is a 332 is a 332.
You can find this type data sheet easily, just Yahoo EC-225 TCDS and it will be one of the first hits. Note it is the same data sheet as all the other Pumas, all the way back to 1965! Change the chrome, change the paint, it is still an old, old helo. Note the shortfalls are things like overall structural safety, fatigue strength, fuel tank puncture resistance. Nothing important to HC, he will never crash.


http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/225Oldsmall.jpg

[212man]

Because the civil authorities would not let EC build it unless they also promised to meet the latest safety features, an impossible task in a short time and with only a few francs. That doomed the MKIII

It might have helped if in the early '90s oil wasn't $10-15 per barrel, the civil market wasn't in the doldrums and the MK3 would have been competing against the soon to be released NH-90!

[sox6]

Nick

Perhaps someone will go through the Gulfstream product line and look at its lineage too.

[HeliComparator]

212 - thanks for the correction, I flew the 92 some time ago and I am glad to see that things have improved a bit since then.

Nick - if you read my post you will see that I said "our seats" not "the seats". When the 225 was certified it was with the original seats from the 332 family - not compliant with the latest regs as you say. But shortly after that (and probably thanks to Sikorsky) EC offered a new floor and seats that are compliant with the latest regs. Yes, its an "option" but an option that is standard for the offshore oil & gas support configuration and built into the price, and fitted to all the aircraft operating in the oil and gas sector both now and in the foreseeable future.

HC

[froggy_pilot]

To Nick Lappos

It's really clear that for you eurocopter products are not good enough.

If the 225 is an old helicopter (upgrade of SA330 and AS332) what is your opinion about the Boeing 737 is it a new or old aircraft ? :confused:

If I follow your logic the 737 is still an old, old plane (it was designed in the 60's) :yuk:

but as it is an american product, I am sure you will find a way to explain me that the 737 is a new and perfect plane.... :E :ugh:

[unstable load]

Froggy,
I think that the issues Nick has are not with the quality or lack thereof of Eurocopter products, per se, rather that they are not the ONLY aircraft worth flying at the exclusion of all others, as per the opinion of others.

Neither the 225 nor the 92 are perfect, and as stated quite often, it is the client who decides what equipment goes onto the machines, not the helicopter company.

If a 92 in Aberdeen/Wherever does not have de-icing it is because when the contract was being thrashed out, it was decided then not to have it, because sometimes the oil companies are quite happy to have the machine on the ground for a week due to bad weather as the costs of those lost flights are often FAR less than the costs of having all that gear installed for the duration of a contract.

That does not make the 92 a crappy aircraft by comparison to the 225 that does have the gear installed, all it does is make it differently specced for the desired missions.

I have worked on a 76 in Nigeria that had snow blankets fitted to it! That did not make it a crappy aircraft, all it did was make it heavier. I have worked on offshore 61's that did and did not have AVAD installed and niether of them crashed because the crews flying them were aware of the different limitations and worked around them, as will the guys with no de-icing.

[victor papa]

What exactly is the point of arguing the age of the original airframe design and using it as a tool to compare "modern" with so-called prehistoric and a tool for measuring safety? I refer to the argument of the 225 "only" being a 332.(Actually it get's worse if you have been to Marignane. The 332's start their life in the 330:eek: jig to ensure exact eng/mgb etc mounting positions. It must be working as you never have to shim anything onto a 332 other than the bbq plate)

Isn't the S76C++/D just a prehistoric old 76 then, unsafe?
Isn't a 407 just a prehistoric Long Ranger, unsafe?
Is a B3+ Squirrel now also prehistoric and thus unsafe?
Where does that leave the B412, B430??????

I saw a program on Discovery about the Chinooks being upgraded to digital and all the bells. Funny that's happening with so many "newer" designs not passing the test flight stage and that in the land with the big budget?

[NickLappos]

froggy pilot and victor papa,

You rightly ask "So what's the point?" about the "new" 225 being, under its skin an old helicopter. You also ask, "So what does that make an S76, Chinook and 737"?

Answers:

1) "So what does New mean?" - The newer airframes that meet the latest regulations are safer, as defined by the national authorities. Like a car with anti-lock brakes and other safety features, these helos are simply better for you and your passengers. If you do not value these features, you help turn the manufacturers away from innovation and safety improvement. If you follow, sheep-like, the notion that a new name means a new helo, you help the salesmen blur the distinction, to the harm of future passengers and crews.

This is NOT a US vs Europe argument, even though you want to make it so. The real "new" helos meet the regs, plenty of truly New European helos are in the mix. In fact, helicomparitor has NEVER answered the what I think is my strongest barb - Eurocopter has put the fuselage strength and safety features into its truely new helos, in spite of hc's apologia that such technology is worthless.

2) "So what does that make an S76, Chinook and 737"? It makes them old helicopters, about as old as the 225, and therefore makes a competing new helicopter comparatively safer. It is a goose/gander argument, and not a "what can I do to slam that helicopter" argument, unlike hc's arguments that compare window size to how easily the engines fall through the cabin roof and land in the passenger's laps.


If YOU, the customers, do not support better, safer helos, the national authorities won't push as hard to improve them, and we all will find the same old LTE, post crash fire, crushed-cabin helos for our grandchildren. That is a crime, gentlemen.

[David Stepanek]

HC: Good, thanks for asking. But it was good at Sikorsky too! It is interesting to have an operator's perspective of the helicopter world, broadens your view a bit. And it the work is a much faster pace.

[zalt]

Nick

The FARs are just mimimas - vespel splines, TR blades and TR servo bearings come to mind. Isn't it up to the the manufacturer to develop improvements and sell them based on their actual benefit?

[Dave_Jackson]

To what extent do specific manufacturing companies participate in the creation of these new, and perhaps self-serving, regulations?

[zalt]

As far as they can get their snouts in. Most have nearly full time 'airworthiness' people on working groups with AIA acting as a major lobbying group.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

I totally agree that the newer standards for crashworthiness are a good thing - hence my comment that it was thanks to Sikorsky raising the bar that EC developed the crashworthy floor and seats for the 225. When the helicopter is built that is totally crashworthy and has a fantastic MMI and autopilot, I will be the first in the queue (to get our company to purchase - I am not that rich!). But that helicopter does not exist so it comes down to a choice between a heli that meets the latest crashworthy regs but has a poor MMI, vibrates etc, versus a really slick one that doesn't fully meet the latest regs in a few areas. I choose the latter, I guess you would choose the former.

As an aside, FAR/CS 29 is all very well but the whole certification process is a long way from perfect - for example the S92 will brag about its fault tolerant design, FAR29.561 fatigue evaluation etc but the reality is that its the S92 that has suffered fatigue cracking of the main transmission resulting in major loss of lubricant, not the EC225.

I prefer the actions to the words. Safety is of critical importance but you have to get the big picture. Fixating on a few details that happen to be in FAR29 latest version does not make for a safe helicopter.

HC

[NickLappos]

hc, at least now we are on the same page!

I agree with all you said, and I also saw the Airworthiness Directive issued fto Eurocopter for the EC-225 rotor head cracks, which I am sure are corrected by now, right?

This is not a mud slinging contest, aside from our entertainment value, there are those who watch us kick each other in the crotch that are actually looking for answers. I believe this is a technical argument and that the answers are technical.

[roundwego]

Awe no. Don't tell me HC & NL are going soft on each other and are agreeing on something.

[Mikila1A]

If this keeps up it will be time for a "group hug"!!!!:p

Nick, HC...knock it off and get back in the ring, many of us have paid good money for these seats!

All good info lads, keep it up and remain professional as you both are a wealth of knowledge!

[NickLappos]

helicomparitor said, "it was thanks to Sikorsky raising the bar that EC developed the crashworthy floor and seats for the 225."

Actually, that is only partly true. The somewhat strengthened floor and seats (still not JAR compliant) were introduced after Offshore Logistics rejected Bristow's request to buy the 225. This purchase request was made by Bristow (you?) even knowing full well that the seats, fuel cells, cabin strength, etc were not as safe as the modern standard. An impassioned French sales team descended on Lafayette HQ for Offshore Logistics, and put the full court press to have the sale go through. I have a copy of the powerpoint pitch they gave.

O Log rejected the sale, and the French then designed the new seats and floors.

So, yes, it was Sikorsky's better safety design that forced the French to design somewhat stronger seats, but Bristow was quite willing to just roll over and let their passengers sit in 30 year old design seats. It was O Log managemment that forced Bristow to buy the stronger seats.

The fight for better equipment is made harder when folks like you make apologies for sub-standard designs. Sub-standard means literally not meeting the current standard, see the reversions and exemptions on the Type Sheet for the EC225 to see what I mean.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

I was getting pretty nervous when you apeared to be being nice to me in your last post - something was up! By the way, the "rotor head" AD was not for the rotor head itself, rather for the "beanie hat" mounting lugs which was prone to cracking (still not a good place to have cracks though!). Of course its fixed now but the point of all that is that one aircraft meets FAR29.561, the other doesn't (which according to you is a big deal) and yet both have cracks in important places (and I would say that the MGB is more important than the beanie hat).

Anyway, glad to see that your next post is as outrageous as normal as no, that is not true and we all know that you, as a major competitor, would not have access to what went on behind closed doors between OLOG and EC. At the time of the initial purchase of the 225s OLOG was not involved.

So I guess its back into our corners for round 173. Feels much better!

HC

[NickLappos]

HC said, "you, as a major competitor, would not have access to what went on behind closed doors between OLOG and EC. At the time of the initial purchase of the 225s OLOG was not involved."

heliprocrastinator, who do you think corrected your mistaken year 2001 "study" that showed the payload of the S92 as 1300 lbs too low? Who do you think showed O Log the data to prove the true safety posture of the 225, which the French did their best to obscure (as you continue to do)?

The "initial" purchase decision was probably made by Bristow years earlier, as you say, but the actual sale was made only after O Log's approval, since by that time Bristow was owned by O Log. That O Log approval was ONLY granted when the French acquiesced and designed the stroking seats. No thanks to Bristow, or you.

[sox6]

NickLappos said:
An impassioned French sales team descended on Lafayette HQ for Offshore Logistics, and put the full court press to have the sale go through. I have a copy of the powerpoint pitch they gave.


Nick

As a current VP Government Programs (http://www.gulfstream.com/news/releases/2005/050314.html)for an aerospace company do you not feel nervous about bragging about having copies in your previous job of what is no doubt proprietary data from a competitor?:eek:

I suspect OLOG/Bristow & Eurocopter will be pretty unahappy. No doubt Sikorsky will be pretty embarrassed and don't the Dept of Justice take a dim view of this sort of thing? Fines of 10% of turnover for anti-competative practices ring a bell. I seem to recall a few major ethical scandels at HP and particularly Boeing (in an air refuel contract) over the last few years over having data unethically.

I seem to remember OLOG have fired senior people to get their house in order in early 2005

[NickLappos]

sox6, I'd be more worried about how long it has taken hc to admit his part in attempting to keep safety out of helicopters!

The data I have is not proprietary, it is a public pitch.

The canvassing of various competitors is common practice, even you do it when you visit different car dealers. Do you think the French have a brochure that lays out the various deviations and regressions they have taken so that thier customers know the real status of their helicopters? I recall a press release where they announced the IFR cert in bold statement that it met "the latest JAR regulations" without explaining that the underlying helicopter did not!

BTW, did you ever wonder why you should believe anything that has been posted by a person who won't admit his name?

[sox6]

So Sikorsky put those big fat confidentiality statements on their own presentations for fun then?

And the 'the full court press' was just a download off the EC website and a bucket of escargot?

Do you have a brochure that lays out the various deviations and regressions your employeers have taken so that your customers know the real status of their aircraft?

Sadly knowing someones name does not mean they spreak the truth.

[212man]

As a current VP Government Programs for an aerospace company do you not feel nervous about bragging about having copies in your previous job of what is no doubt proprietary data from a competitor

It's okay: he doesn't work for McLaren :E

[NickLappos]

sox6 asked, " Do you have a brochure that lays out the various deviations and regressions your employeers have taken so that your customers know the real status of their aircraft?"

Gosh, sox6, you caught me!! OK, I confess, here are ALL the deviations and regressions that the S92 has taken with the latest FAR/JAR:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/s92tcds.jpg

I can look up "inclusive" if you wish. The entire Type Cert Data Sheet is here:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/7cd106795a8eee0086256f1f00693e71/$FILE/R00024BO.pdf

[Mars]

A few weeks back one S92A developed a crack in the main gesr box during final approach. This lead to all of the oil in the main gear box being drained. Even if the manufacuter claims dry-run capability, this is not a good thing.Why hasn't this been commented on? In the absence of a run-dry capability, isn't it considered to be serious?

Mars

[pumaboy]

This is getting boring now

Can we not change the subject!!!!

Nick and HC who bloody care's about the S-92 and EC225

They are both entirley different machine's you can not compare them so why bother.

I think this slang match between the both of you has gone on long enough.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[HeliComparator]

pumaboy - so sorry - I didn't realise you were being forced to read it!

HC

[HeliComparator]

Nick

Yes a good TCDS. You fail to mention the equivalent safety findings nor the special conditions which some might consider to be fudges. Personally I would let you off with them though 'cos I'm a nice chap.

However it has to be pointed out that the crisp piece of paper does not do much for safety. JAR29.927 (c) says (and I guess FAR29.927 is the same)

(c) Lubrication system failure. For lubrication systems required for proper operation of rotor drive systems, the following apply:
(1) Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote, it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued safe operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flight crew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant.

And yet despite apparent compliance with this para, we know that the S92 cannot run for 30 mins following loss of gearbox oil. Quite how you got away with this cheat eludes me, but I can only assume that you fooled them into thinking it was "extremely remote". I guess that was because your fatigue evaluation didn't turn up the weak gearbox casing? Neither did your FMEA consider the consequences of the oil pump drive failure.

Since there have now been 2 in-flight incidents (that I know of, perhaps there are more?) where an S92 had a major loss of lubrication (in 1 case both pumps, in the other the oil), it can no longer be considered "extremely remote" so are you going to change the TCDS to show non-compliance? No, I didn't think so and that is why your tcds is not really worth the paper its written on. Its about as accurate and reliable as a Sikorsky performance graph. What other fudges are lurking in there that we have yet to find?


HC

[JimL]

Pumaboy,

As HC indicates, you do not have to read the thread.

I for one find the whole discussion extremly enlightening and, as I know both of the protagonists and their backgrounds, welcome the technical content of their discussion. (The recent post on autopilots was particularly interesting as was their discusion on EGPWS)

If you were to poll the readership, I would hazard a guess that the majority have learned a great deal from the writings of Nick and HC; like most others, I deplore the personal insults and find them somewhat superfluous (and not really amusing) but put up with them.

As Nick points out, unless customers and pilots take a stand on these enhancements, the necessary improvements in the safety record will not be seen.

If only we could have similar discussions on Human Factors.

Jim

[Dave_Jackson]

http://www.kqed.org/weblog/food/villagepub_frites300.jpg
.

French Fries http://www.unicopter.com/Boxing.gif Freedom Fries

[HeliComparator]

JimL said

If only we could have similar discussions on Human Factors

Perhaps NL and I should go flying together - Jim you can sit in the jump seat and film the goings on, then we can discuss it afterwards!

HC

[NickLappos]

HC,
You squirm well. You think equivilent safety is worth discussing, while you do not answer the question of the deviations and regressions for all the safety rules. Nice touch. I call you back to the chart below where the 225 takes major exception to all the modern safety regulations. Cat got your tongue?

Here is one to discuss:

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/crash.jpg


Regarding transmission lube, please be reminded that the S92 fully meets the FAR/JAR, in fact it ran the test to 3 hours, not the 30 minutes that the EC225 is reported to have run.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

So if the S92 met the 30 min dry running time, how come the flight manual instructs the pilot to land/ditch immediately if the MGB oil system fails? Either Sikorsky is very stupid or in fact the S92 does not have the 30mins dry running time required by the FAR.

HC

[[email protected]]

Is this alleged 3 hour run dry time at min pitch on the ground or at cruise speed?

Maybe Sikorsky would like to look at the Emergency Lubrication System bolted on to the Sea King after many years of MRGB oil being dumped over the side.

[NickLappos]

Just what part of "Inclusive" regarding full Part 29 compliance with the latest regs do you not understand, heliconfuser?

Still no answer about that missing 225 crashworthiness, huh, HC? Frog got your tongue?

How about the puncture resistance of the fuel cells on the 225 "Exemption, Part 29.963 Fuel Tanks, Puncture Resistance." Exactly how does the 225 fuel system in the belly fall short of modern fireproofing requirements?

Today's language lesson for Helicomparitor

English- Reversion: an act or the process of returning to an older condition
French- Réversion

English- Exemption: releasing or delivering from requirement to which others are subject, excusing. To make an excuse
French- Dérogation

English- Inclusive: comprehending stated limits or extremes
French- No direct translation, unknown word in French

[NorthSeaTiger]

Now that winter is upon us has there been any increase in the reliability of the intakes for the 92 ?

[3D CAM]

Just a small diversion.
Crab.
The S61 has had an emergency lube system for longer than I can remember,which in itself says nothing, but certainly the mid seventies. If the 61 needed it then, quite why the S92 was built without it is anyones guess!? New technology/materials in the MGB perhaps? Maybe Nick can answer that one.
P.S.
I bet "Wastelands" charged the MOD a fortune to embody and certify the system on your old buses!!

[SARCO]

So could you answer Crab's question then please Nick?

Was it dry on the ground or at cruise speed?

[NickLappos]

SARCO,
I know nothing about the oil leak, I have emailed folks to find out. Stand by, please.

Regarding the aux lube systems in the 61, it is only for the high speed inputs, which are at 18,000 rpm, and are just bronze sleeve bearings. They fail utterly in about 30 seconds if not lubed, and usually result in dual cut shafts (autorotation) and possibly a fire. The ports for the sleeves were the last ports in the oil system, and therefore were starved if anything happened upstream of them (blockage or a jet failing to full flow.)

For the EC 225, the water/glycol aux lube was needed to certify the box because the transmission has so many old style lube lines snaking over its surface, each used to port the oil around the outside of the transmission to feed all the internal jets. This is 1960 design, most manufacturers dropped it 20 years ago. These external failure points, dozens of them, are judged by the JAR to be irredeemable as leak points, so the aux system had to be used.

The 92 has only two external lines, going to and from the cooler. These are protected by the indicator/isolation system and deemed by the JAR/FAR folks as fully compliant with the regulation as to oil system protection. All the other oil transmittal passages are part of the internal gearbox, immune from mechanic's feet and bad threads on line fittings and the like. The probability of needing the aux lube system was deemed an order of magnitude better than the older design that the 225 has.

Since these two lines might create a leak, the oil level is monitored by an oil level system, and any leak is indicated to the pilot, who then isolates the transmission from the cooler. The fly home is much more than 30 minutes, the test showed that the box allows flight at hot day for over 3 hours.

The rules for protecting a gearbox are the same for the intermediate and tail boxes, which on the 225 and the 92 are deemed compliant without any aux lube system. Remember, the consequences of such a failure are the same in every helo.

To advocate that another helo is not satisfactory for this logic while depending on it for your helo is a little duplicitous, frankly, or shows some ignorance about helicopter engineering.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

At last you have finally admitted (in a roundabout sort of way) that the 92 has no dry running time. Its only taken 2 years!

Just to correct your justification, the 225 like the 332L/L2 before it, only has external pipework to the oil cooler. In the event of loss of oil, the oil cooler is automatically bypassed. If you look at the 225 transmission you will see a lot of pipes but those are for the glycol injection to give the 30 mins dry running time. There is no oil in them.

In the 92, similar external leaks require pilot intervention. Does the RFM still say "within 5 seconds"? If so, that is a very poor system for a multi-pilot helicopter.

Lets just check the safety score for a minute. You have the wonderous S92 which meets the letter of the FAR29 admirably. Then you have the EC225 which is a worthless piece of junk because it has the wrong writing on the TCDS. Well the 92 is the clear winner isn't it!

Or maybe we should get in touch with reality?

I know of all the events on the 225 fleet. I only know of some of the events on the S92 fleet - those that became public knowledge. In the first 10,000 hours of operation:

Engine failures: S92 - two. EC225 - none
Fires: S92 - one. EC225 - none
Bits falling off in flight: S92 - one (anti-vibe actuator). EC225 - none
Transmission lube critical failures: S92 - two. EC225 - none
Rotor system problems: S92 - one (tail rotor). EC225 - none.

That's all I can think of at the moment but I'm sure there are more. As I have said before, compliance with the letter of FAR29 does not make for a safe helicopter.

Whilst you might fare better in a crash in the S92, that is just as well because you will almost certainly need that protection. Given the choice between crashing in a crashworthy helicopter or not crashing in a non-crashworthy helicopter I choose the latter thanks.

HC

[Shell Management]

HC

You missed a run on landing in Norway so
Rotor system problems: S92 - two (one tail rotor blade - one tail rotor control). EC225 - none.

[[email protected]]

Shell - thanks for that, it seems Nick's definition of 'run dry' isn't the same as the rest of the world's.

The Sea King ELS is a bit more sophisticated than the S61 system sounds - it has a seperate sump and utilises the torquemeter oil supply to lubricate all the crucial areas of the MRGB, especially the input shaft bearings. It may use external lines but allows several hours of fly home time providing the MGB oil temp remains below 145 deg C.

[HeliComparator]

Shell, thanks for the correction.

Can somebody remind me what "extremely remote" in JAR-speak actually means. Am I right in thinking is one step less probable than the one that is "not in the lifetime of this helicopter type" - something like "not in the lifetime of this or any other helicopter type"?

In which case there is no way that the 92 should have got past 29.927. That means its currently not airworthy. What are the airworthiness authorities doing about that?

HC

[HeliComparator]

OK I answered my own question. Here is the EASA definition of "extremely remote":

"means unlikely to occur when considering the total operational life of a number of aircraft of the type in which the equipment is installed, but nevertheless, has to be regarded as being possible. Where numerical values are used this may normally be interpreted as a probability in the range 10–7 to 10–9 per flight hour."

That's one event in 10 million to 1000 million flight hours. Nick, with actual failures running at one in 25,000 hrs do you still think your baby meets 29.927 or was it a con job? Maybe you could still persuade your FAA buddies that it does, after all its only a factor of a thousand out and what's that amongst friends!

HC

[Shell Management]

HC

Thats the generic definition but it is not specifically defined in CS29 or FAR29.

It is however defined in AC29, but "the objective of § 29.1309 is to ensure an acceptable safety level for equipment and systems as installed on the rotorcraft" and so does not apply to the MGB in most manufacturers points of view.

Extract below for completeness.


From AC 29.1309. § 29.1309 (Amendment 29-40) EQUIPMENT, SYSTEMS, AND INSTALLATIONS.

(iv) EXTREMELY REMOTE. (The term “REMOTE” is not related to the structural use of the term.) (This is the upper part of the range 10-9 to 10-5 previously applied to the term “IMPROBABLE”.) Extremely remote events are not expected to occur during the total operational life of a random single rotorcraft of a particular type, but may occur a few times during the total operational life of all rotorcraft of a particular type, that are based on a probability on the order of between 10-7 to 10-9.

PS:
Juest recalled that aircraft certified to the OLD BCAR standard did have to meet a numeric standard for the gear boxes:
http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Certification/Public%20Documents/Rotorcraft%20Transmission%20Seminar/Design%20Assessment%20of%20Rotorcraft%20Xmsn%20Seminar.pdf

[NickLappos]

Extremely remote is the chance of finding an EC225 that meets current safety standards.

[Outwest]

:D:D Good one Nick:ok:

[sox6]

No, that's just a sign of someone who has had their bluff called and doesn't have the intellectual hand to back the claims they have made.

And what about the S76 and the entire Gulfstream product line?

This is a case of a desperate clinging to one marketing claim through ego.

[HeliComparator]

Nick said

Extremely remote is the chance of finding an EC225 that meets current safety standards.

But that is not the case. The chances of finding an EC225 that meets current safety standards in their entirity is nil as anyone glancing at the TCDS can tell. What is not so obvious is that the S92 does not meet them either - it just pretends to meet 29.927. At least the 225 is honest about it.

The dry running is a pretty clear cut case (RFM says land immediately) but the interesting question is "which of the other more esoteric requirements of JAR 29 does the S92 in fact not meet" when you examine more closely?

HC

[Mars]

Shell:

I'm not sure there is any logic in the contention that the quantitative value of 'Extremely Remote' can be 'established' by a manufacturer independently of AC 29.1309. There just cannot be 'n' values of the term - each relevant in its own context. Thus the implication that the value is somehow qualitative is, frankly, laughable.

It would be quite surprising if the failure modes of the lubrication system could be limited to some subset which would leave the oil intact in the gearbox. Reading of the text in FAR 29.927(c) "Unless such failures are extremely remote,.." would appear to indicate that the test is only required if the FMEA indicates that the failure could occur to a lesser probability than 'Extremely Remote'. The fact that the test was carried out at all appears to indicate that there was a serious situation which had to be managed. Surely testing - if it is called up following an assessment of failure other than Extremely Remote - had to call up the procedure for testing in AC 29.927A!

An extract from the text of the AC appears to be unambiguous and it is not clear how any testing other than with a dry gearbox would suffice:


"The transmission lubricating oil should be drained while the transmission is operating at maximum normal speed and nominal cruise torque (reacted as appropriate at the main mast and tail rotor output quills). A vertical load should be applied at the mast, equal to the gross weight of the rotorcraft at 1g, and the lubricant should be at the maximum temperature limit. Upon illumination of the low oil pressure warning required by § 29.1305, reduce the input torque for Category A rotorcraft to the minimum torque necessary to sustain flight at the maximum gross weight and the most efficient flight conditions. To complete the test, apply an input torque to the transmission for approximately 25 seconds to simulate an autorotation. The last 10 seconds (of the 25 seconds) should be at the torque required for a minimum power landing. A successful demonstration may involve limited damage to the transmission, provided it is determined that the autorotative capabilities of the rotorcraft were not significantly impaired."
Mars

[NickLappos]

The value contained in the clear fact that EASA and FAA have measured an entire helicopter against a new standard cannot be "exploded" by one pedant who sticks to one detail and pounds it repeatedly while ignoring all the misrepresentations he has been caught making.

He has never explained any of the shortfalls that he misstated and that the 225's documentation exposed.

Yes, it appears that the S92 has been reported to have had one maintenance or otherwise fault exposed, this is not the Holy Grail to Super Puma lovers. To those of you who like to be fooled by a bit of new chrome and a new name on an old, less safe design, have at it.

The sales record shows that of the 38 S-92's delivered so far, and three year's worth on order, a number that is perhaps 3 times that of the 225 (those with numbers please tell us!) It is comforting to know that those with the technical savvy and buying decision power have a better, safer future in mind, even if anonymous usernames on pprune do not!

And for the record, these safety regulations are not the sole property of the S92. The various new products of Agusta and Bell firmly embrace them, as well, and are the better for it. HC, run quickly to explain how the ancient creaky design of the 155 is better than the 139, and how the Huey is better than the 429. There is a little time left before the sales of the newer machines swamp the older ones, as the S92 has swamped the EC225.

[nbl]

Nick,
I am a simpleton in these matters.
If you are flying along in a S92 and for whatever reason you lose all the oil in the MRGB can you continue to fly safely to somewhere or do you have to land immediately/ ditch.
No theorys or things I dont understand - just a straight forward yes or no.

[SARCO]

Does anyone know why the CHC S92 (CHCK) has so many IFE's? For a new airframe it seems to be a little bit unreliable compared to the EC225's also based at ABZ. Not wanting a slagging match but both Nick and HC are quite rightly fighting their corners and I am just curious about the reliability regarding the S92 and the EC225 at ABZ.

[Dave_Jackson]

IMHO, the most profound statement in this thread is; Given the choice between crashing in a crashworthy helicopter or not crashing in a non-crashworthy helicopter I choose the latter thanks.
The alternative congers up a ridiculously perverse thought. The thought that the loss of a life makes a manufacture look bad, where as the loss of a craft means more business.

[NorthSeaTiger]

has the abz 92 had more problems ?

[HeliComparator]

CHCK does seem to be particularly unreliable but to be fair to the breed, our 92 in Scatsta seems to be fairing better. In terms of serviceability rate, a big factor can be spares availability. A minor unserviceability requiring a new bit that could be fitted in minutes, can turn into a day or two of AOG (or three or four if over a holiday period) if the part is not in our stores. Both manufacturers suffer from this problem and the operators are in part to blame because they do not want to hold stock of unneeded parts. The trick is in identifying in advance those parts that you will need!

HC

[NorthSeaTiger]

Re SARCO's post I think the 92 has faired so badly against the 225 in ABZ because there is only 1 92 but 6 225's, if a 225 goes down simply roll out another, no one knows, the others take the slack, the 92 goes u/s everyone knows as it can't be replaced and it's noticed to be abscent. As HC rightly says it's a spares problem that's the bain of the 92.h

[SARCO]

Thanks very much folks :)

[HeliComparator]

NST said
if a 225 goes down simply roll out another

but all 6 of our 225s have full flying programmes (typically 4 flights a day) so whilst NST might be right from a public perspective point of view, its certainly not the case from an oil company point of view. We have to keep the aircraft serviceable to avoid financial penalties, there are no spare aircraft. If one goes U/S there is a big impact. Overall the 225s have been quite good and as I mentioned, mostly its a question of non-availability of spares, and not just big items. Sometimes its as ridiculous as plastic washers etc.

HC

[nbl]

HC Whilst waiting for NL to reply can you answer for the 225 on my post #129

[Mars]

nbl:

This was already answered by Shell Management in #116 - i.e. yes.

Mars

[nbl]

MARS
Sorry I did not realise you were HC'S or NL'S spokesperson.

[unstable load]

CHC Helicopter Corporation announced today it has secured a contract renewal and upgrade with StatoilHydro ASA for the provision of one Eurocopter EC225 all-weather search and rescue helicopter in support of StatoilHydro's offshore operations in the North Sea.
The helicopter will be based at StatoilHydro's Oseberg field and is an addition to the contract awarded in June 2007, in which CHC agreed to provide two EC225 all-weather search and rescue helicopters. The 7.5 year contract term will commence in October 2008, with additional options for up to four years.
CHC currently operates one all-weather search and rescue Eurocopter AS332L1 for StatoilHydro's Oseberg field. The AS332L1 currently operating will continue to operate as part of this new agreement, until the new EC225 arrives in late 2009. At that time, CHC will operate a total of three all-weather search and rescue EC225s for StatoilHydro in Norway.
This contract extension and upgrade is valued at approximately $115 million (all figures in Canadian dollars) over the contract term (excluding option periods).


Quoted from: http://www.verticalmag.com/control/news/templates/?a=5999&z=6

[HeliComparator]

nbl

Mars is not my spokesman but he is correct. Following complete loss of MGB oil the EC225 can continue flight for 30 minutes at 80kts using the glycol injection system. In fact it lasts about 50 minutes but the certification is only for 30 minutes.

HC

[SASless]

The helicopter will be based at StatoilHydro's Oseberg field and is an addition to the contract awarded in June 2007, in which CHC agreed to provide two EC225 all-weather search and rescue helicopters. The 7.5 year contract term will commence in October 2008, with additional options for up to four years.
CHC currently operates one all-weather search and rescue Eurocopter AS332L1 for StatoilHydro's Oseberg field. The AS332L1 currently operating will continue to operate as part of this new agreement, until the new EC225 arrives in late 2009. At that time, CHC will operate a total of three all-weather search and rescue EC225s for StatoilHydro in Norway.


Are these all weather aircraft equipped with blade de-icing/anti-icing?

If not....then they cannot be "all weather" aircraft.

[nbl]

HC- Thank you -a straight forward answer
Nick - your turn

[chc&proud]

All of the AWSAR EC225 aircraft will be equipped with de-icing systems for the StatoilHydro operation.

[NickLappos]

nbl, Sorry for the delay, somebody has to work around here!

You asked, "If you are flying along in a S92 and for whatever reason you lose all the oil in the MRGB can you continue to fly safely to somewhere or do you have to land immediately/ ditch."

If the leak occurs in any point external to the gearbox housing, the pilot can isolate the box and fly home for several hours. The oil level is monitored and a shutoff valve is provided.

If the box should develop a hole in it at any point above a few inches from the bottom, the case is the same, as the amount of residual oil needed to fly home is quite small and low in the box.

If the speculated leak is at the very bottom, the leak could drain the box, triggering the same warning, but it is possible that it could drain the box, forcing a need to land immediately.

I do not know if the 225 system relies on recirculation of its fluid, if so, it could be the same case, in that a bottom leak would cause loss of the secondary fluid as well. If the fluid is only sprayed and not recovered, however, this last case could be covered by the 225's design. I wonder if someone can answer that.

In terms of the uninformed speculation of certification of the 92's design, the type certificate of the S92 was issued based upon the design and testing as described, so those who do not possess FAR/JAR examiner ratings yet spout that the system does not meet FAR/JAR are simply off base. FAR/JAR authorities have fully approved the box, and the rest of the 92 design (as they have the AB-139 and several other truly new designs, and as they have specifically not approved the EC225's design to the latest standards.)

I must add that the protection for the EC225's intermediate and tail gear boxes as well as the 92's (and every other helicopter) are identical to this protection of the main GB, because of the same FAR/JAR. Leaks of the primary housing are not considered, and immediate landing is required in all those cases.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

The 225's emergency lube system is a total-loss system - ie when activated, the glycol (which is primarily for cooling rather than for lubrication) is continuously pumped from its holding tank and sprayed onto various hot areas in the gearbox. Whether it subsequenly leaks out or not makes no difference. The capacity of the tank is such that it takes around 50mins to empty, though the system is certified only for 30 mins of operation.

For the tail and intermediate gearboxes, there is no equivalent system but as the boxes are far less stressed than the MGB, continued flight at Vy for an indefinite time is authorised (RFM says "Land as soon as possible").

You said FAR/JAR authorities have fully approved the box, and the rest of the 92 design (as they have the AB-139 and several other truly new designs, and as they have specifically not approved the EC225's design.)

Which, apart from not making sense, is technically correct! But only because you are out of date and have not realised that EASA do the certifying, not JAR. What was JAR29 is now the EASA document CS29. If you are implying that the European airworthiness authorities have not certified the 225's gearbox then you are really struggling! Do you really think that anyone will believe that?

As you know and I have said before, when a design is changed any possibility of grandfathering goes out of the window. The EC225 gearbox bears a passing resemblance to an AS332L one but is substantially modified to allow for the greatly increased power. As a result it had to meet the current certification requirements, which it does in a clear and unambiguous way.

The bottom line is that with a crack / hole in the bottom of the gearbox, the EC225 can fly for 30mins whereas the S92 cannot.

Even you have admitted that...If the speculated leak is at the very bottom, the leak could drain the box, triggering the same warning, but it is possible that it could drain the box, forcing a need to land immediately.

I'd give up now if I were you...

HC

[Limpopo]

Have I got this wrong in that the FAA has not certified the EC225? If so how have ERA got 8 on order? A US company I believe. The item below comes from the HAI website at http://www.rotor.com/Default.aspx?tabid=510&newsid905=56567

Era Helicopters, LLC signs for four additional EC225, Bringing its Total to Eight

Duxford, October 3, 2007 Helitech 2007-Era Helicopters, LLC (“Era”) of Lakes Charles, Louisiana, signed a contract for an additional four EC225 helicopters at Helitech on October 3 , bringing its total orders for this aircraft type to eight. Era is the first offshore oil and gas operator to have selected the EC225 for operations in the Gulf of Mexico, having signed its first Memorandum of Understanding for initially two EC225s at HeliExpo 2006.
Neill Osborne, Era’s President, commented, “We thoroughly reviewed the global supply and demand of heavy helicopters and the current fleet structure of our competitors. We selected the EC225 as our heavy helicopter of choice due to its superior versatility, advanced technology and greater payload/range for the demands of offshore oil exploration and production. The EC225 will play a pivotal role in our growth not only in the Gulf of Mexico but also as we expand into the international market. This order provides Era with strategic delivery positions in the coming years to meet the unprecedented demand for new technology helicopters in our market.”
Olivier Lambert, Eurocopter’s Senior Vice President Sales and Customer Relations, stated: Demand for new-generation helicopters by the oil and gas industry is at an all-time high. Since the EC225’s market launch, we have booked firm orders for a total of 51 aircraft with 18 options, of which 31 were sold in 2007 alone. We are very proud of Era’s confidence in our new product and appreciate the company’s forward planning to anticipate a further increase in demand. The six EC225s which are presently in service in the North Sea have clocked up an amazing 10,000 flight hours since the first one went into service only two years ago. Even more amazingly, this fleet has flown a total distance of 1.7 million miles, the equivalent of flying to the moon seven times. We are sure that this helicopter type will serve Era efficiently and reliably wherever they will be deployed, in the Gulf of Mexico and worldwide.”
The EC225 combines proven technologies derived from Eurocopter’s successful Super Puma/Cougar family with latest systems and enjoys high acceptance in the demanding offshore oil and gas market. The unrivalled safety features of the EC225, its strong economic productivity and the positive introduction into service in the offshore role have paved the way to remarkable sales success of this aircraft for the service of the oil and gas industry.
David Stepanek, Era’s Vice President of Business Development, remarked, “Era is a long-standing Eurocopter customer, operating a diverse fleet including the AS350 B2, BO105, EC120, AS350 BA, and the EC135 helicopters. We are continually pleased with Eurocopter’s innovative products and look forward to the addition of the EC225 as we expand our services to customers around the globe.”

[HeliComparator]

Limpopo

Because the FAA's FAR29 and EASA's CS29 are nearly identical documents, there is no need for the FAA to certify the EC225, in the same way that EASA (or was it the JAA before them?) did not need to certify the S92. They just accepted their FAA opposite number's approval (which in the case of the S92 MGB was probably a mistake!).

I don't know precisely what the process would be, but its likely that the FAA would accept the EASA certification. They would perhaps only want to check that it met the operational rules applicable in the States.

Good for Neill and Dave for bringing some decent large twin helicopters into the Gulf at last!


HC

[roundwego]

Any truth in the rumour that CHC has refused to accept their first 225? The team that went down to bring it home came back empty handed from what I hear.

Anyone know why?

[NickLappos]

This thread has become like the painting of the Golden Gate Bridge, a never ending task.:ugh:

The point that that has been made and proven:

The S92 is in the class of helicopters like the A-138 and the Bell 429 (shortly, one hopes) that meet the most current FAR/JAR regulations without equivocation or regression.

Since the EC225 takes numerous exceptions and regressions in the safety rules, the EC225 does not meet the latest FAR/JAR regulations. Certainly, the EC225 meets the older, less rigorous and less stringent regulations, and as a grandfathered helicopter, is still allowed to fly (as is the entire class of older machines).

[HeliComparator]

Nick

The point that that has been made and proven:


is that whilst the S92 may have a piece of paper saying otherwise, signed by some misinformed/hoodwinked FAA guy, in fact it does not fully meet FAR29. The known area where it does not meet the FARs is in its ability to stay airborne with a single-point failure (crack in the MGB or other total loss of MGB lube) and this failure mode has already occured twice. A ditching was avoided on these events only through luck - the aircraft was very close to a landing site. Ditching in bad weather in the N Sea is likely to result in fatalities regardless of crashworthiness pedigree.

The 225 meets all the current FAR29 regs except for the few mentioned in the TCDS, most of which are related to crashworthiness.

Bearing in mind the demonstrated increased unreliability of the S92 critical technologies compared to the 225, and that crashworthiness only grants survivability in a narrow range of crash scenarios (those that would be fatal with the older standard but are not in the newer standard) and the poor escapability of the S92 cabin in the offshore role, its pretty clear that there is little to choose between them in overall safety, and I would prefer to be a passenger in a 225 because its a much smoother experience and yes, because it has realistically sized escape windows.

This is why ERA has decided to buy 225s instead of S92s, paying probably 3 million usd extra for the priviledge, and probably paying higher pbh as well. Do you think that they just wanted to throw some money away? Do you think they are stupid?

HC

[chc&proud]

When the Commander of the S92A is discussing with the First Officer how to cope with a technical discrepancy such as total loss of oil pressure in the MGB, severe vibration caused by one of the anti-vibration "thingies", or discussing why severe vibration is causing total loss of real readability of the instruments, he is also wondering why his seat is no good ergonomically.


I fully believe that the S92 has the potential of becoming a good aircraft, popular with both pilots and passengers.


At this point in time, sadly this is not the case. The EC225 would most likely win a popularity contest if pilots in the North Sea were to cast their vote. Of course, who cares what a pilot feels like?


Regards, Olav

[NickLappos]

http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/225Old.jpg

[Lutefisk989]

Have I got this wrong in that the FAA has not certified the EC225? If so how have ERA got 8 on order?

The FAA has not yet validated the 225...it's in progress. ERA's order assumes that the approval will be made beforehand.

there is no need for the FAA to certify the EC225, in the same way that EASA (or was it the JAA before them?) did not need to certify the S92...
I don't know precisely what the process would be, but its likely that the FAA would accept the EASA certification. They would perhaps only want to check that it met the operational rules applicable in the States.

The FAA does a validation of the EASA certification. The validation process includes looking at the certification basis, then evaluating those items from Part 29 that the FAA views as critical. The validation process does consider differences in the Ops Rules, which are substantatially different between Europe and the U.S. (unlike the cert rules, which are essentially identical).

[nbl]

Nick, thank you for your reply.
Maybe for an operator to answer:
How many warnings are there for loss of MBG oil.
Presumably you get a 'MGB PX' WARN' and or HIGH TEMP?
I assume you have no way of knowing where the oil is leaking from?
Do you use the 'isolate' switch' that Nick mentions and then monitor the oil px or temperature and hope they dont get worse.?
What warning light (lets hope not ) stipulates you must land immediately.?

[HeliComparator]

Nick, you posted that before. If its Golden Gate bridge syndrome (or Forth Road Bridge if you are Scottish) you are worrying about, could I suggest you cease being the initiator of it. I'm getting bored now, can't you think of something new and even more outrageous to mislead us with? And why not do it in bigger writing?

HC

[HeliComparator]

Lutefisk

Thanks for explaining the details of the FAA acceptance to us. Although I maintain that there is no need (in the theoretical sense) for the FAA to validate the certification, of course they can choose to do so and if I were them I would do the same. Its a pity that JAA/EASA didn't do the same for the S92 - they would have declined to accept that it complied with 29.927.

HC

[northseaspray]

he is also wondering why his seat is no good ergonomically.


Sikorsky had Martin Baker seats installed, but no ejection system, probably would've been too tempting i guess.... :}

[HeliComparator]

Lest anyone should be interested, I got some figures from EC:

Total sales (firm orders) to date for the EC225/725: 72 aircraft, of which 37 are for oil and gas support.

It seems that the S92 has more actual deliveries to date than the 225 (though not by a massive margin), but EC tells me that more than half of 2008's total 225 production will be delivered for oil and gas support, so they are catching up!

HC

[ptcpuller]

This morning the atmospheric pressure at our base was 1044 HP. This made all our 92`s go balistic by showing a climb or descent rate of 9999 feet pr minute. anyone out there who experienced the same?

ptcpuller

[HughMartin]

Hello Shell Management,

CHC has taken delivery of its 3rd EC225 at Aberdeen. Our 225's will be slightly heavier due to the improved cabin soundproofing, the leather pax seat trim and the fact we have ACAS, EGPWS & marine VHF.

We can still carry 19 pax + bags to the East Shetland Basin with fuel fuel so the heavier weight is not an issue.

A great machine to fly.

[HeliComparator]

Slightly confused as this thread says "S-92" in the title. For info BHL's next EC225s will be a little heavier, probably much the same as CHCs, due to ACAS, TAWS, homer, FM, better soundproofing, provision for aircon etc. As Hugh says, we currently have some payload we can't use (19 + baggage + full fuel is still below MTOW) so we might as well fill it up with some toys!

HC

[HughMartin]

I forgot the homer - luckily haven't had needed to use it yet.

The inflight MP3 music system will be good when ECF get the WiFi approved.

[jolly girl]

Just a bit curious... what weight do you use for the North Sea pax during CG calculations?

[212man]

Where standard weights are used, it's 196 lb for male adults with survival gear. Some client require the use of actual weights, in which case the average pax weight would be used for c of g calculations.

Aircraft like the 225, 92 and 332 generally don't have an issue with c of g, and standard loading configurations are used to avoid having to make such calculations. Smaller types such as the 76 and 155 are more critical and, commonly, a PDA or similar is used to do the calculations in flight.

[finalchecksplease]

212man,

I think 196 lbs has changed to 216 lbs as standard weights for male passengers (170lbs for females).
It must have something to do with the Scottish diet of deep fried mars bars & pizza. ;)
Just out of interest what standard weights do you use in your neck of the woods?

Greetings,

Finalchecksplease

[212man]

just had a look at the ANO and it seems to imply it's now 209 lb (92Kg + 3kg for suit.) Oh well, obviously not 196 lb anymore.

We use actual weights, as indeed do all Shell ops I believe.

[HeliComparator]

Its 216lbs including suit, lifejacket, airpocket etc

HC

[Sailor Vee]

HC, I always thought the lifejackets were included in the ZFW calcs, and could be removed if seats were taken out, i.e. xx seats=xx Ljs. Are they now included in pax weight? If so, is this because different clients may use different styles of Ljs?

[HeliComparator]

SV you make a very valid point! FODCOM 27/2005 is the source of the change to standard weights. It says:

For adult males this will be 98 kg and for females it will be 77 kg. These figures include a 3 kg allowance for an immersion suit and associated safety equipment.

I take "associated safety equipment" to mean the lifejackets/airpockets but as you rightly say, these are also included in the DOM/ZFW (and have to be since 19 or 20 are carried regardless of the number of passengers carried). So it looks as though we count the lifejacket/airpocket twice. In practice however, they don't weigh very much so perhaps overall its not a big deal?

HC

[Limpopo]

Talking of weights, any truth that the EC225 has a disposable load approaching 450Kgs (1000lbs) greater than that of the North Sea modded S92s?

Have heard that the S92s cannot carry a full payload and full fuel unlike the EC225s of BHL and CHC based on comments from HC and HM.

[HeliComparator]

Limpopo

Yes, that's true however its both important and difficult to compare like with like. The 92s have RIPS, aircon(?) and an APU whereas the 225 do not.

However the 92 needs RIPS whereas the 225 does not in practice need the EC equivalent in the N Sea, the 92 has an APU as standard and you can't start the engines without one, whereas the 225 only needs APU to keep the cabin cool before start in VIP machines. And aircon is a nice-to-have on those 3 days a year when its hot on the ground, but no use once you are airborne.

So if you wanted to be nasty to Sky you could say that yes the 225 has 1000lbs more payload. If you wanted to be nasty to EC you could say that a 225 of the same spec as a 92 only has about 200lbs more payload.

Or you could be simplistic and say that both aircraft do pretty much the same job and the 225 has an extra 1000lbs which means its ability to carry 19 is never an issue, which is not the case for the 92. This is my preferred answer:ok:

HC

[206Fan]

Awsome aircraft that 225, can't wait to see one painted up in bonds colours..

HC, (just being nosey and curious here) was there alot of work involved transitioning over to the 225 from the 332L2 which i presume you done yourself?

Cheers Dave..

[HeliComparator]

Davy07

No, its pretty straightforward to move up to the 225 - after all its a variant and only a differences course... EC recommended only 5 hrs to go from L2 to 225, but that worked out OK, plus a non-rev line check.

You will recognise the philosophy and concepts for the screens from the L2, but on the 225 all those annoyances on the L2 have been done away with - its really a very easy aircraft to operate. Just a few problems eg the button that was used to select OEI HI/LO on the L2 is the one that selects OEI CT on the 225 (yes, there is a third OEI FADEC stop on the 225) and the forward button under the collective is the one for OEI HI/LO. I found that was the hardest part and just kept pressing all the buttons including the windscreen wipers until I found the right one! That was my excuse anyway:eek:

You will find the "user interface" including the autopilot takes another step up of about the same size as the step from 332L to L2. Even manual flying is easier. Enjoy...

HC

[206Fan]

Ah cool cheers for that.. Not a pilot yet myself but did visit bond in jan past, sat up in their L2, was very surprised at how small the cabin is in them, im a tall lad thou but i did treasure that few mins sitting up in it:O

Cheers D

[Limpopo]

Or you could be simplistic and say that both aircraft do pretty much the same job and the 225 has an extra 1000lbs which means its ability to carry 19 is never an issue, which is not the case for the 92.

Thanks HC, sounds good to me ;)

[Fareastdriver]

Think of the poor S92 that has been lanquishing under tarpaulins in the open thoughout this cold northern Chinese winter. When China General took delivery with a great fanfare last autumn to operate in the Bo Hai bay area they forgot one minor detail. None of the decks are stressed for more than 8.6 tonnes.

[he1iaviator]

Are we all wondering if Mr Lappos is still going to rush to the defense of the 92 when he works for Bell?? :}

Maybe SK will buy Bell so he can :8