I am looking to download a Pilot Operating Handbook for the S-92 or at least the emergency section checklists.
I don't know if there is a copy in the public domain, but, if anyone can help me on this quest, many thanks.
Good luck with that one. I have no idea why you would want one, as if you are a S92 pilot you will have one, if you are not, it will make absolutely no sense to you. I am pretty sure it is not in the public domain, and for good reason. It is amended regularly, and is therefore rendered obsolete if not amended each time. Little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing. At the same time the last thing we would want to see is the checklist published in the paper after an accident from someone who downloaded it from the internet. I am sure this is not your intention, but it may be the intention of some. Please don't take any offense at my comments, as none is intended. If you have concerns, address them through your union or management. If you have specific questions there are routes to address them. Other than that, just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. Changes on both attitudes and practices have come about even in the last few months, that have made the business of flying offshore safer than ever. Certainly in the company I work for, it has always been the case that if we the crew have the slightest concern, and we decide to delay/cancel/turn back, no-one will question our decision on the basis of a safety call, and I am quite sure that is the same with most S92 operators.
Last edited by Horror box; 21st Jun 2009 at 07:45.
Reason: Inappropriate comment.
Good grief! You are right, a little knowledge is a bad thing. Thanks for the dissertation on passenger perspective; however, I am a test pilot with 89 helicopter types and tens of thousands of hours in my log books and one of the last things I consider doing is flying as a passenger in a helicopter. I am not looking for advice from an offshore pilot on whether a POH would be of any use to me – I can determine that myself. I have requested the manual from Sikorsky staff I know, but, was looking for a faster resolution this weekend to aid in research I need to do before flying the type.
Nonetheless, thanks for all the advice – ever think of becoming an aviation writer? I can help get you there….
As I said, no offence is intended, but asking for a checklist online on a public forum is not exactly the best way. Wait for Sikorsky to send it to you if you indeed need it, rather than get an unauthorized, unamended copy, surely as as test pilot with tens of thousands of hours you should appreciate this. If you are involved with the S92 you will have one, if you are about to fly the type you will get one very shortly, but if it is not in the public domain that is for a very good reason.
Thank you for your input. Matari, with regards to the British helicopter museum, firstly, it states it has over 80 helicopters. Unfortunately, the museum lists many gyro planes (I have flown several), and they are not helicopters – although those with pre-rotators come close – but, still short. That might seem to support your argument somewhat – but, I try to be honest and balanced with opinions. To my reckoning, there are two to three times more types in the world than the (89) I have flown. Mind you, I have never taken the time to research and publish the world total – I would rather write articles relating to safety and professional flying techniques. (My articles have appeared in all of the North American helicopter magazines and several overseas.) By the way, that museum is not the largest collection of helicopters in the world, the USSR is.
While I have flown a number of the aircraft in the museum, some of the types I have flown that are not in the museum include: Bell 47 series (4 variants including Soloy conversion) 206 (many variants including L series and four blade prototype), 204, 204 1/2 (204 with 205 engine and drivetrain components), 205, various Huey versions, 209 Cobra, 212 & (UH-1N), 412 (2 versions), Augusta Bell 109 II; Enstrom F-28 series; Sikorsky S-55T, S-58T, Whisperjet, S-61 (Seaking and HH-3), S-76 (A & B); Robinson R-44 series and R-22 series (not all which are in the museum); Hughes/MD (500 series [A,C,D,E], 900, 902, 600N, 520N; Boeing BV-107 series (CH 113A, CH-46), 234/Chinook series as well as a mixture of types including; Alouette II (different variant than the museum), Alouette III, Gazelle, Lama, Astar, Twinstar, AS532 (Cougar II), MI-8 (various versions), EC 120, MI-17 Mark 2 - to name a few that readily come to mind. Additionally, as a test and evaluation pilot and previous rotary wing editor of a major US magazine with contributions over 25 years, I have likely flown and evaluated more “amateurbuilt/homebuilt” helicopters and gyros than anyone else on the planet. Some of the helicopters include: Rotorway series (4+ variants), A 600 Talon, CH-7 Angel Turbo, Mosquito, Mini 500, Baby Bell and Canadian Home Rotors series, Hummingbird (Sikorsky S-51 drivetrain). This is not a complete list. For instance, it does not include experimental helicopters on which I have flown as a pilot/engineering consultant, or helicopters flown internationally under circumstances that are privileged information nor of course the types I have flown that are in the British Museum.
I had hoped this would be a useful forum and one in which we could help each other with a useful exchange of information – but, it appears I was wrong and wasted my time. I came to this forum not to substantiate my background of which only a small part is provided here, but seeking help and what I mostly found was doubters and negativism…. So you can perhaps understand Matari, it would be imprudent (and wrong) of me to tell the British Museum they are short 9 helicopters when in fact they are short several hundred types of the world’s helicopters.
Wishing you all safe and happy flights and a successful pursuit of true understanding of facts - in lieu of providing opinions from those of little knowledge.
The Rotorheads Forum on PPRuNe does indeed have much to offer but you will find a thick skin and certain lack of sensitivity to brick-bats a useful trait. Please don't give up on us so readily for a man of your experience will have much to offer and your opinions are likley to educate us all.
PS - the confusion between the British Museum and the British Helicopter Museum may have been deliberate - if so it was a wonderfully contrived piece of humour. If not then well said anyway - there are too many dinosaurs on PPRuNe already.
A-H, you got off lightly. It can get pretty macho around here as the following riposte might confirm.
I read PPRuNe regularly but try to avoid the temptation to post anything because I don't feel like getting into a pissing contest with the likes of those jumped-up little turds who have been giving you a hard time on the forum lately.
Stay with us as Geoff invites. The place needs new blood. But not to spill.
To horror box, having been so wrong on your observations I hope you will be more reticent and thoughtful before showing your lack of knowledge in the future.
To Matari. If you would like another number to choke over, I have flown more than 300 fixed wing aircraft. You will likely note that some museum – somewhere – does not have that many aircraft on display… Mind you, I do not consider several hundred aircraft in my log books as significant as I know other acquaintances who are aviation writers as well who have more than a thousand. BTW, the number two person behind me on helicopters is also a Canadian test pilot/aviation writer and sits at 55 types when I last talked with him at Canadian Helicopter Corporation Safety Seminar in Vancouver a few months ago.
To 212man, yes, you are correct a wait is in order and I have been advised that I will not receive the current printed POH for ten days. Unfortunately too late for the imminent work I had planned before heading off on flying ops.
To SASless, (should that be senseless – or is your implication that you are directionless and uncontrolled as is without a stability augmentation system?), it’s not the bait that smells, it’s your opinion on the veracity of my enquiry. As a broadly published aviation writer, (I hesitate to say in over 60 aviation and fire suppression magazines worldwide lest some of you want to query that too), I often request information from others to provide in depth coverage of a topic. SASless, do you write so often and so much on these forums because you can’t get published elsewhere?
To Brian Abraham in Australia, cheers mate. Flew for Vowell Helicopters out of Tyabb on numerous contracts years ago, long-line magnetometer work in Tasy, and geological/mineral work in Lithgow, Cobar, The Gardens (Alice Springs outback areas) etc. . To say I was paid well beyond the Aussie “award” scale would be an understatement –given the flying challenges of flying the magnetometer 60 feet about ground surface in treed areas of mountainous Tasmania. The year of operations with the mining technicians discovered a lot of new minerals in Oz and it was a blast to fly a brand new 206 with electronics aboard that were worth three times the helicopter’s value. All landings in the desert locations (that were not with a magnetometer) were autorotations from throttle cut at 30 knots on final to avoid erosion on compressor blades due to flying sand associated with hover landings, The additional benefit of course was the various rotor blades were “drooped” to 70% of their normal landing rpm thereby reducing their erosion by 50%. (I wonder if the math wizards like Matari know how to figure that one out?) All in all, it was a wonderful experience for a man who was in his early thirties. If you ever run across Bill English, the company owner in 1980, wish him the best from the Canadian – he will know who I am.
For Jeffincornwall, Thanks, but no thanks on future submissions. I appreciate your honesty and sincerity on this request; however, I have followed the threads and generally not participated in forums that feature a lot of mindless people with nothing better to do than attempt to pull others down to their level. I needed help to get some data quickly and found nothing but criticism and no help. It is better to invest my time writing an opinion that tens of thousands can read in a magazine or on line versions of the magazines rather than join the forums of supposed professionals. We get much better reader response that is of value to other readers in magazines. And yes, I often do write with my tongue in cheek and use plays on words – often missed by many….sometimes it is embarrassing to identify myself as a helicopter pilot and be lumped into the morass of the many and the public’s opinion of our group.
To WhirlwindIII, thank you for your comment. Indeed my aviation life has been exceptional. I am wealthy, respected and sought after in the courts by law firms for my opinions (and never lost a case since starting in 1994), won many awards for my editorial contributions and heroism and lucky indeed. Mind you it was necessary to work hard after leaving the excellent initial training of the RCAF/CAF, apply myself and place the customer as number one, the charter company second and my own interests last to excel in the industry. (BTW Horror Box I always listened to my passengers/customer as they are the driving force in the business – not supposedly professional pilots.) I started writing with my first article published in Wings magazine in 1976 when I took a sabbatical from rotary wing ops and became sales manager and chief demo pilot for Cessna. The truth of the matter is that a large number of near death experiences convinced me to leave helicopter ops. The industry hasn’t changed and our accident rate is abysmal and shameful. Mind you I returned three years later because I missed the challenges associated with helicopter flying…. My reason at that time for writing was to help others by passing on knowledge since most high time, broadly qualified pilots do little to help others through education and I felt I “owed” the industry for the blessings it gave me. Obviously, this forum format is not a suitable vehicle for attempting to have meaningful, informative interchanges and since time is important to me will not exchange ideas again.
So, I hope those of you who use witless barbs as your source of humour will enjoy my meager offerings in reply. To the others who have responded in a positive manner, may you be successful in our trade and bring it honour and respect.
Once again, best wishes for safe flying to you all.
I would swear you just went married accompianed in Warri yet again and have to have an outlet for begging SWMBO for some physical forms of affection....if I did not know better! I reckon now we will hear of your experiences flight testing Zeppelins.
The additional benefit of course was the various rotor blades were “drooped” to 70% of their normal landing rpm thereby reducing their erosion by 50%. (I wonder if the math wizards like Matari know how to figure that one out?)
Well, that's just great, but I would humbly, ney hesitate, suggest that the benefit gained in reduced erosion (actually a 51% gain) would be greatly outweighed by the fatigue life damage caused by operating in gross contravention of the RFM (that's the POH for you) limits! That bit isn't quite so great!
I'm still non-the-wiser as to why you can't get a copy of what you need from the owner/operator of the aircrat you are going to fly??? For a start, they won't be using the RFM for the checklist(s) - it's not useable in the cockpit in it's written form and requires interpretation and reformatting to be of use to the crew, so they should be able to furnish those documents quite readily, even if they are unable/unwilling to give you the RFM.
Let us know what you think of it - hey, fly a couple more types before then and you can make the 92 your 92nd type!
According to the TCDS (its been 32 years since I flew one) the min power off RRPM is 90%, but pulling pitch at the bottom of an auto, touching down with 70% would seem reasonable. Stand to be corrected.
A-H, only ever met Bill English on one occasion about '78 or '79. Was spending the weekend with one of his pilots and wife before they headed "North". Bill invited his pilot and wife out to a slap up feed and drinks and finding the pilot had house guests invited us along as well, and picked up the tab for us, which I thought most magnanimous and generous. Know he gave a chap a leg up as well, and gave him a start where others might have not been so generous. Seemed to earn the loyalty of his troops.
Brian, based upon doing this in the S-61, S-67, S-70 and S-92, touchdown Nr ought to be in the low 90's to mid-80s ( percent ). It will decay to lower than that of course after the touchdown. Lift is a V-squared function, and if one uses up the energy too early ( too high ), and lands at 70%, the resultant landing will be harder.
Thanks John, A-H was referring to a Bell 206 though. Do I remember right the 76 has a 68% limit - been a long time? Remember a flight with a Bell test pilot when they were trying to sell it to the Australian military, fully loaded, completed a touchdown auto then picked it up and did a 360 pedal turn. Remarkable what you can do with the requisite skill (not me).