Haven't you guys figured out by now that "Shell Management" is NOT part of Shell's management organization? Someone in a management role in any company would not expound in such an arrogant manner on any subject in a public forum as this idiot is doing. Now, where were we? S-92 issues, I think it was.
Maxwelg nailed it, though only through Shell Management's prodding.
The product is badly flawed, and needs to be revised. SAC needs to address the product safety issues through a follow-on B' model, or exit the business. A very simple choice, either alternative of which also addresses the lingering issues of marginal profitability due to low volume as an 'also ran' in the commercial helo space.
My fear is that SAC is going to muddle along, selling a marginal product into a market for which it is unsuited, further risking PAX and crew lives - in the hopes the US government bails it out from its mistakes from 'doing it on the cheap' by paying for the necessary, significant upgrades to the machine in the form of a VH or CSRX derivative contract.
Haven't you guys figured out by now that "Shell Management" is NOT part of Shell's management organization? Someone in a management role in any company would not expound in such an arrogant manner on any subject in a public forum as this idiot is doing.
NonSAC, most, if not all, new aircraft go through a maturing process and it's often an unfortunate fact that in the course of that process people may be maimed or lose their lives. The Huey went through it, the 206 went through it, the Puma went through it, the Boeing 727 went through it, the DC-10 went through it, the DC-4 went through it, the Boeing 377 went through it, and now the 92 is going through it, as is the 139. The lessons were learnt and the necessary fixes made. Sometimes those fixes meant a redesign of components, sometimes a change of procedure, sometimes a change of certification requirements. Whatever it takes, the 92 will come through its rough patch and be seen on the flight line for decades to come.
Ever heard of cars being recalled for design or production faults? Helos are just a tad more complex.
The Huey went through it, the 206 went through it, the Puma went through it, the Boeing 727 went through it, the DC-10 went through it, the DC-4 went through it, the Boeing 377 went through it, and now the 92 is going through it, as is the 139
So how come the lessons learned from previous engineering "oversights" are not being applied to the latest helos? Looking for cracks every 10 flying hours on a 92 or using an aluminium hammer to check for debonding on tailbooms on the 139 is not exactly showing signs of technological advancement is it?
Get design right first time round and there will be no need for "B" variants to address serious safety issues.
Roll on the teleporter "A" model, send the real guinea pigs first before PAX...beam me up Scotty.
An ancient engineering class question asked what was the 'perfect' design. The answer was a single ball bearing. Two or more put together would require some type inspection sooner or later. The point that followed was that aircraft inspections are simply engineering's inability to perfect something and it therefore needs to be looked after forever (via timed inspections).
It can then be assumed that once engineers redesign out the 'inperfection' and it is made 'perfect', then the inspection can go away and without any aircraft inspections, you would theoretically have the 'perfect aircraft'.
Another factor is the time interval between identifying a problem and fixing it.
If you recieve a notice from the manufacturer of your car that a possible mechanical malfunction had been identified that, although the chance of it occurring was remote (or extremely remote), it could result in loss of control of your vehicle, how long would it be before you got it fixed ?
Can anyone comment on how the completely severed mounting foot referenced in the EASA Airworthiness Directive of October 23 was detected? Was it found by chance from of a simple visual inspection, a check of the HUMS data, or was the helicopter exhibiting some unusual vibes or noises and checked out at the request of the pilots? The main thing is that it was found before it caused an accident.
I can only talk for our incident, the foot was NOT severed!, the crack ran from one bolt hole to the nearest outboard edge.
Problem found on a normal end of day check. with a "mark I" eyeball and torch.
Linear Mode
