Sikorsky S-92: Operations
HB/TM
I believe FW Jockey is referring to the capability of the SAR S92 that Cougar have on standby as maxwelg intimates in his reply.
BTW, Cougar also operate to different minima on their ARA!
I believe FW Jockey is referring to the capability of the SAR S92 that Cougar have on standby as maxwelg intimates in his reply.
BTW, Cougar also operate to different minima on their ARA!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 61
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night Flights
Yes, assuming the s92 pilots are comfortable with night time IFR approaches on moving helidecks, my question is regarding ditching during nighttime and the survivability. I will assume that if night ops resume, our pilots are comfortable with it. If they are comfortable with it, i as a passenger will be as well.
Neither NVG nor FLIR can see through cloud although you can see light sources further away and through a shallow layer of cloud on goggles.
One of the most disorientating environments is intermittent IMC/VMC on NVG.
If you want safety then a properly established instrument approach with a specific minima and overshoot using as many autopilot functions as you can is most definitely the way forward.
One of the most disorientating environments is intermittent IMC/VMC on NVG.
If you want safety then a properly established instrument approach with a specific minima and overshoot using as many autopilot functions as you can is most definitely the way forward.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VL
Contrary to what you may have heard or read in the comments section of recent news articles on night flying here in NL, the union has no agenda in maintaining the ban on night flights just so that its members can pick up extra pay for holdover days. That's crazy...insane. And the commentary on the Grand Banks weather being better at night so that night flights can usually take place is not supported by the facts. It does happen at times but is certainly not something you could count on.
As a union member I won't apologize for the fact that we receive fair compensation for overtime; but any insinuation that we want the night flying ban so we can profit from it is simply ridiculous. Recent comments suggesting this came from offshore workers who admit that they don't receive fair compensation for their overtime when they are held over. That being said, their statements seem to imply that they might be quite happy to accept the ban on night flights if they did receive fair compensation, so go figure. The fact is, however, that offshore workers everywhere only want to get home when their rotation is done whether they are unionized or not and I don't know of anyone in their right mind that would prefer to stay an extra day offshore for the extra pay versus going home, on time, after 21 days.
The only thing driving this are the valid safety concerns that contribute to the short odds of surviving a night ditching versus the considerably better odds when ditching during daylight hours. The unique circumstances of the NL offshore environment only add to the challenges involved. The present ban on night flights is only following the oil industry's principle of ALARP, or reducing risk to as low as reasonably practicable and is fully supported by expert testimony and evidence from the recent helicopter safety inquiry, as well as the recommendations of the Inquiry Commissioner. If anything, the present ban on night flying has clearly shown that the industry can still get its business done without any substantial impact.
The presence of a full time, full capability SAR helo in St. John's staffed 24/7 is a no doubt a major improvement but is only one part of the debate for and against night flights. The fact is that that this was a key recommendation from the Hickman Inquiry into the Ocean Ranger disaster and was supposed to be in place when production started up on Hibernia in 1997. As someone who has worked offshore NL since that time I was one of many who felt betrayed when it came to light just after the crash of CGR 491 that Cougar's SAR capabilities up to that point were daylight only. To put it bluntly, we were deceived and in some cases outright lied to...by the oil companies, the helicopter operator, and worst of all by the C-NLOPB who were complicit by their silence and allowing it to go on.
Contrary to what you may have heard or read in the comments section of recent news articles on night flying here in NL, the union has no agenda in maintaining the ban on night flights just so that its members can pick up extra pay for holdover days. That's crazy...insane. And the commentary on the Grand Banks weather being better at night so that night flights can usually take place is not supported by the facts. It does happen at times but is certainly not something you could count on.
As a union member I won't apologize for the fact that we receive fair compensation for overtime; but any insinuation that we want the night flying ban so we can profit from it is simply ridiculous. Recent comments suggesting this came from offshore workers who admit that they don't receive fair compensation for their overtime when they are held over. That being said, their statements seem to imply that they might be quite happy to accept the ban on night flights if they did receive fair compensation, so go figure. The fact is, however, that offshore workers everywhere only want to get home when their rotation is done whether they are unionized or not and I don't know of anyone in their right mind that would prefer to stay an extra day offshore for the extra pay versus going home, on time, after 21 days.
The only thing driving this are the valid safety concerns that contribute to the short odds of surviving a night ditching versus the considerably better odds when ditching during daylight hours. The unique circumstances of the NL offshore environment only add to the challenges involved. The present ban on night flights is only following the oil industry's principle of ALARP, or reducing risk to as low as reasonably practicable and is fully supported by expert testimony and evidence from the recent helicopter safety inquiry, as well as the recommendations of the Inquiry Commissioner. If anything, the present ban on night flying has clearly shown that the industry can still get its business done without any substantial impact.
The presence of a full time, full capability SAR helo in St. John's staffed 24/7 is a no doubt a major improvement but is only one part of the debate for and against night flights. The fact is that that this was a key recommendation from the Hickman Inquiry into the Ocean Ranger disaster and was supposed to be in place when production started up on Hibernia in 1997. As someone who has worked offshore NL since that time I was one of many who felt betrayed when it came to light just after the crash of CGR 491 that Cougar's SAR capabilities up to that point were daylight only. To put it bluntly, we were deceived and in some cases outright lied to...by the oil companies, the helicopter operator, and worst of all by the C-NLOPB who were complicit by their silence and allowing it to go on.
The reason night ditching survival rates are low is because they are not 'ditchings' - they're mostly CFIT accidents! That's the point!
That might be a bit simplistic since escaping in the dark is always going to be more difficult.
By day the recovery of the survivors is likely to be quicker too since much of the flying can be done manually with just a height hold in but by night it will almost always be with hover trim or equivalent which just takes longer.
By day the recovery of the survivors is likely to be quicker too since much of the flying can be done manually with just a height hold in but by night it will almost always be with hover trim or equivalent which just takes longer.
Crab, obviously your comments are factually correct. My point was, though, that in the offshore industry most night ditchings were not ditchings in the classic sense. Cormorant (G-TIGH,) Blackpool (G-BLUN,) Etap (G-REDU) to name but 3.
That being said - and to get the thread back to the S-92! - I've just seen the new Rig Approach function that should be certified very soon, and I'm sure it will be a major safety enhancement for night operations.
That being said - and to get the thread back to the S-92! - I've just seen the new Rig Approach function that should be certified very soon, and I'm sure it will be a major safety enhancement for night operations.
Last edited by 212man; 14th Sep 2012 at 10:44.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212 & Crab
You've basically pointed out the two most important factors that influence 'ditching' survival before effective SAR can even be considered. That being (1) the overall probability of the pilots being able to execute a ditching at night without hitting the water hard or inverting almost immediately and (2) the detrimental effect that darkness will have on the ability of passengers to egress an inverted, submerged helicopter; all in one of the most hostile environments in the world.
If you're lucky enough at night to get out of an inverted aircraft in one piece without significant injury you then first have to prevent yourself from being washed away after you pop up from your window exit and maneuver your way into position to board the life raft. That is assuming of course, that your life rafts actually deployed and were not damaged by a hard impact or the shards of carbon composite that the rotor blades devolved into after they impacted the water at several hundred RPM. If worst comes to worse after that you may consider yourself lucky just to be alive, floating alone in the open ocean waiting for rescue that will ideally be 2-3 hours away.
Either way, this scenario and all of its dire consequences is all the more likely during the night versus the day. I do know that the pilots from Cougar who sat on the Implementation Team for the inquiry recommendations pulled no punches in describing just how difficult it would be to safely ditch the S92 at night, especially in the prevailing conditions that exist on the Grand Banks during the winter. At night, the lack of visual cues and the inability to assess sea conditions makes it very difficult to execute a successful auto rotation on the open ocean. And let’s face it; this whole push by the oil companies to resume night flights is to increase the flight operations window when the days are shortest, during the winter months when the weather and sea conditions are least favorable for survival.
As for the new rig approach system that Sikorsky has developed for the S-92, I would hope that it works equally well in fog,
which we have in abundance here on the Grand Banks. From what I've read this system has the promise of increased safety margins, decreased pilot workload and reduced missed approaches during times of limited visibility, which ultimately should alleviate much of the pressure to conduct night operations because of backlog.
You've basically pointed out the two most important factors that influence 'ditching' survival before effective SAR can even be considered. That being (1) the overall probability of the pilots being able to execute a ditching at night without hitting the water hard or inverting almost immediately and (2) the detrimental effect that darkness will have on the ability of passengers to egress an inverted, submerged helicopter; all in one of the most hostile environments in the world.
If you're lucky enough at night to get out of an inverted aircraft in one piece without significant injury you then first have to prevent yourself from being washed away after you pop up from your window exit and maneuver your way into position to board the life raft. That is assuming of course, that your life rafts actually deployed and were not damaged by a hard impact or the shards of carbon composite that the rotor blades devolved into after they impacted the water at several hundred RPM. If worst comes to worse after that you may consider yourself lucky just to be alive, floating alone in the open ocean waiting for rescue that will ideally be 2-3 hours away.
Either way, this scenario and all of its dire consequences is all the more likely during the night versus the day. I do know that the pilots from Cougar who sat on the Implementation Team for the inquiry recommendations pulled no punches in describing just how difficult it would be to safely ditch the S92 at night, especially in the prevailing conditions that exist on the Grand Banks during the winter. At night, the lack of visual cues and the inability to assess sea conditions makes it very difficult to execute a successful auto rotation on the open ocean. And let’s face it; this whole push by the oil companies to resume night flights is to increase the flight operations window when the days are shortest, during the winter months when the weather and sea conditions are least favorable for survival.
As for the new rig approach system that Sikorsky has developed for the S-92, I would hope that it works equally well in fog,
which we have in abundance here on the Grand Banks. From what I've read this system has the promise of increased safety margins, decreased pilot workload and reduced missed approaches during times of limited visibility, which ultimately should alleviate much of the pressure to conduct night operations because of backlog.
Last edited by nl_backseater; 14th Sep 2012 at 13:56.
212man
The nap will last a little bit more now
:
Sikorsky S-92 cleared for automated rig approaches : Sikorsky S-92 cleared for automated rig approaches
.
That being said - and to get the thread back to the S-92! - I've just seen the new Rig Approach function that should be certified very soon, and I'm sure it will be a major safety enhancement for night operations.
The nap will last a little bit more now
:Sikorsky S-92 cleared for automated rig approaches : Sikorsky S-92 cleared for automated rig approaches
.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Amazon Jungle
Age: 38
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That might be a bit simplistic since escaping in the dark is always going to be more difficult.
Last edited by Soave_Pilot; 7th May 2013 at 20:28.
yeap!! how would you know which way is the right side up? it will be all dark!
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Aberdare, Wales
Age: 31
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 sales into China
Sikorsky Aircraft have confirmed the sale of two offshore and one corporate S92 to China.
Quote:
yeap!! how would you know which way is the right side up? it will be all dark!
Chem lights in the door. I hear that's been used before.
There is emergency exit lighting as standard fit.
yeap!! how would you know which way is the right side up? it will be all dark!
Chem lights in the door. I hear that's been used before.
There is emergency exit lighting as standard fit.
Sultan
The S-92 airframe and the Cyclone airframe are not exactly the same structurally so what you suggest while technically possible is highly unlikely to be commercially viable.
The S-92 airframe and the Cyclone airframe are not exactly the same structurally so what you suggest while technically possible is highly unlikely to be commercially viable.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened to the new version MRGB?
Doing some Sunday browsing and don't see any progress in the public forum on the new design S92 MRGB that was meant to supersede the phase III version down the road. This was the last article I could find that mentioned their proposed plans.
Sikorsky Upgrades Gearbox for S-92 | Aviation International News
Anyone heard anything new on this?
Cheers
Max
Sikorsky Upgrades Gearbox for S-92 | Aviation International News
Anyone heard anything new on this?
Cheers
Max
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSB report issued on S92 near miss from 2011
Posting a link to the report here as it pertains to the S92 type AP when used incorrectly. A lot of good findings for raising awareness.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A11H0001
Safe flying
Max
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A11H0001
Safe flying
Max
The S-92 airframe and the Cyclone airframe are not exactly the same structurally so what you suggest while technically possible is highly unlikely to be commercially viable.
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 19th Sep 2013 at 15:29.