Bristow MAYDAY off Stavanger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once upon a time one could, with a Puma or Super Puma, take off with offshore diversion so that if you lost an engine you would, quite safely, land offshore with one engine. Helicopter Services also did it with S61s in the 70s but after a couple of training accidents the practice was banned in Norway.
The UK oil companies cried off in the early eighties so everybody carries onshore diversion fuel. For a simple engine failure the land option is always used unless there are signs of something else going wrong; collateral damage, dirty fuel etc.
The UK oil companies cried off in the early eighties so everybody carries onshore diversion fuel. For a simple engine failure the land option is always used unless there are signs of something else going wrong; collateral damage, dirty fuel etc.
Do they actually try to make it home or would they also consider landing on the nearest rig/vessel?
HC - past my bedtime
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: LA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 shaft failure
Shame the quality is not there!!
The S-92 involved in Tuesday’s flight turnaround is operated by Bristow Norway. The aircraft was reportedly on its way to the offshore rig Maersk Reacher with 17 people on board when, according Jackson, “a high speed shaft coupling failed,” causing automatic protective features to kick in.
One of the helicopter’s engines shut down, as designed. The aircraft is certified to operate on one engine and was able to return to base safely.
The S-92 involved in Tuesday’s flight turnaround is operated by Bristow Norway. The aircraft was reportedly on its way to the offshore rig Maersk Reacher with 17 people on board when, according Jackson, “a high speed shaft coupling failed,” causing automatic protective features to kick in.
One of the helicopter’s engines shut down, as designed. The aircraft is certified to operate on one engine and was able to return to base safely.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame the quality is not there!!
The S-92 involved in Tuesday’s flight turnaround is operated by Bristow Norway. The aircraft was reportedly on its way to the offshore rig Maersk Reacher with 17 people on board when, according Jackson, “a high speed shaft coupling failed,” causing automatic protective features to kick in.
One of the helicopter’s engines shut down, as designed. The aircraft is certified to operate on one engine and was able to return to base safely.
The S-92 involved in Tuesday’s flight turnaround is operated by Bristow Norway. The aircraft was reportedly on its way to the offshore rig Maersk Reacher with 17 people on board when, according Jackson, “a high speed shaft coupling failed,” causing automatic protective features to kick in.
One of the helicopter’s engines shut down, as designed. The aircraft is certified to operate on one engine and was able to return to base safely.
Any helicopter can suffer a high speed drive shaft failure. Many of those that have previously, have been so catastrophic that the occupants were not lucky enough to continue to land to make an uneventful single engine landing. I personally have known several people who have perished in this way in various types. Unfortunately none of these had an automatic overspeed protection system which shut the engine down safely in a split second as soon as a breakage had been sensed. The human reaction to this would be far slower and is very often far too slow to prevent the awful consequences.
I strongly suggest you wait and see exactly what the cause was before claiming quality issues. I very strongly suspect (with good reason) that the cause is not purely related to the design.
I do not quite understand your "head-butting smiley" sentiment. To my mind this is a very good endorsement of the design in that the protective systems did exactly what they should have done and made a potentially very serious, catastrophic event, into a rather undramatic engine shutdown and safe return to base. As an S92 pilot this gives me more confidence and reassures me that the overspeed protection system is a very good and robust one. The system sensed the breakage as opposed to a simple overspeed, as Np exceeded Nr and shutdown the engine before it was able to explode and destroy other components.
Last edited by Horror box; 23rd Sep 2011 at 21:30.
Where was the HUMS
Sikorsky advertises their Goodrich HUMS and the Sik support center as gods gift to helicopter safety. It would appear with all the claims that this kind of failure could not progress to failure without adequate detection time. Did the box fail or the support center?
The Sultan
The Sultan
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: where-ever my head hits a pillow
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sultan
Having experienced one of these myself, on a Puma, it showed up on hums 12min before landing offshore and failed 10 min after t/o from the platform, in total about 35min of increased vibrations. So if there were no indication on hums during the previous flight there would be no way of knowing that it's going to fail. Hums on the s-92 will pick this up and I'm sure it would not be dispatched if it had been there.
Having experienced one of these myself, on a Puma, it showed up on hums 12min before landing offshore and failed 10 min after t/o from the platform, in total about 35min of increased vibrations. So if there were no indication on hums during the previous flight there would be no way of knowing that it's going to fail. Hums on the s-92 will pick this up and I'm sure it would not be dispatched if it had been there.
oryxs
I agree with your statements. There are certain failures that can not be detected (planetary gears?) yet the HUMS suppliers continually over reach. Is HUMS a major safety enhancement - Yes!! However, those vendors that claim total coverage are self serving and will try to shift blame elsewhere.
The greatest "crime" related to the HUMS PR machine is the blame that went to HS on the Puma overspeed when the HUMS vendor claimed that if an accel had been fixed they would have saved the aircraft. At that time they failed to mention the 100/1+ false alarm rates which has still poisoned the waters for the benefits these systems can provide..
The Sultan
I agree with your statements. There are certain failures that can not be detected (planetary gears?) yet the HUMS suppliers continually over reach. Is HUMS a major safety enhancement - Yes!! However, those vendors that claim total coverage are self serving and will try to shift blame elsewhere.
The greatest "crime" related to the HUMS PR machine is the blame that went to HS on the Puma overspeed when the HUMS vendor claimed that if an accel had been fixed they would have saved the aircraft. At that time they failed to mention the 100/1+ false alarm rates which has still poisoned the waters for the benefits these systems can provide..
The Sultan
Replace N.L. offshore helicopters, says union - Nfld. & Labrador - CBC News
A union representative is calling for offshore helicopters used east of St. John’s to be replaced after a reported problem with a Sikorsky helicopter in Norway earlier this week.
"Those helicopters are trouble,” said Kevin Kelly who works on the Hibernia oil platform east of St. John’s and speaks for the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which represents some offshore workers.
"We all know that, right? Like one fellow said, 'What else do you do, what else do you do, right?' We're hoping these helicopters will go the way of the dodo bird."
Kelly's comments come after a Sikorsky S-92A chopper — the same model that crashed off Newfoundland in March 2009 killing 17 — was forced to return to base Tuesday after reporting engine trouble.
The Norwegian company's fleet of 11 Sikorsky S-92A choppers were briefly grounded, but have since been inspected and returned to service. The company, Bristow, said cracks were discovered in the connection between the gearbox and engine.
The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) said Wednesday it has reviewed the incident and confirmed that the S-92A choppers transporting workers to offshore oil installations east of St. John’s have been inspected and are airworthy.
A Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation concluded the chopper that crashed southeast of Newfoundland went down because of a catastrophic loss in oil pressure that happened after studs in aircraft's main gearbox sheared off.
"Those helicopters are trouble,” said Kevin Kelly who works on the Hibernia oil platform east of St. John’s and speaks for the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which represents some offshore workers.
"We all know that, right? Like one fellow said, 'What else do you do, what else do you do, right?' We're hoping these helicopters will go the way of the dodo bird."
Kelly's comments come after a Sikorsky S-92A chopper — the same model that crashed off Newfoundland in March 2009 killing 17 — was forced to return to base Tuesday after reporting engine trouble.
The Norwegian company's fleet of 11 Sikorsky S-92A choppers were briefly grounded, but have since been inspected and returned to service. The company, Bristow, said cracks were discovered in the connection between the gearbox and engine.
The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NLOPB) said Wednesday it has reviewed the incident and confirmed that the S-92A choppers transporting workers to offshore oil installations east of St. John’s have been inspected and are airworthy.
A Transportation Safety Board of Canada investigation concluded the chopper that crashed southeast of Newfoundland went down because of a catastrophic loss in oil pressure that happened after studs in aircraft's main gearbox sheared off.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an absolutely ridiculous statement by a so-called union official in NL. What the hell does he want, and is he really speaking for the the rest of his colleagues or is he just an uncontrolled mouth? What would he suggest they replace them with? A 225 perhaps? There just so happened to be a 225 engine failure in the same week in Norway, and have been others in the last 12 months. More than have occurred with the S92. A 139 maybe? Has he seen the various accidents around the world involving the 139? No - maybe they should do all the crew change by ship. Oh no wait a minute - Norway provides us with another obstacle there with a passenger ship that had a catastrophic engine explosion that nearly sank the ship and killed a couple of the crew.
This whole debate is moving into the realms of the ridiculous in NL I fear and all logic and perspective has been abandoned in favor of the uninformed being given audience.
This whole debate is moving into the realms of the ridiculous in NL I fear and all logic and perspective has been abandoned in favor of the uninformed being given audience.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally have known several people who have perished in this way in various types. Unfortunately none of these had an automatic overspeed protection system,