Sikorsky S-92: Operations
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Country
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would I be right in thinking operators are still having to do the 10-hourly checks on the gearbox foot mount, and is there any update on when they will start retrofitting this new main transmission housing from the H-92 they announced a year ago?
The IDMGB is not finished. The H92/CH148 is flying with an interim S92A gearbox in Canada right now, likely incorporating the foot-crack-prone housing with 6-stud adapter filter bowl.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like there will be a vast range of modification states in service across the fleet for several years to come.
The Phase III housing due from this summer on still has the same 1400 hour life limit as the Phase II (i.e. just 8 or 9 months for a high usage S-92). Its installation needs a far bit of specialist work on fuselage frames at STA 328 and 361 as it is dependent on removing current bushes, drilling the frames and then installing larger press-fit bushes.
Next, in Q4 2011, come 'stronger' gears with a higher spec finish to reduce spalling damage. These will only be installed at overhaul.
Their benefit will be traded for an increase in aircraft gross weight. Time will tell what the affect of a weight increase on durability. Does any one know what Phase Housing will be a pre-requiste for the 27,700 lb gross weight?
After that is the Phase IV, or 'Improved Durability' housing (the IDMGB mentioned above). That will come in 2013, over 10 years after the original certification. Only one feature currently claimed for that unit is clearly a direct durability improvement as the others deal with known failure modes or detection problems:
At Heli-Expo there was also talk of a new filter insert this year to tackle the problem the current filter has coping with normal spec oil.
Has anyone got the automatic oil cooler bypass installed yet?
The Phase III housing due from this summer on still has the same 1400 hour life limit as the Phase II (i.e. just 8 or 9 months for a high usage S-92). Its installation needs a far bit of specialist work on fuselage frames at STA 328 and 361 as it is dependent on removing current bushes, drilling the frames and then installing larger press-fit bushes.
Next, in Q4 2011, come 'stronger' gears with a higher spec finish to reduce spalling damage. These will only be installed at overhaul.
Their benefit will be traded for an increase in aircraft gross weight. Time will tell what the affect of a weight increase on durability. Does any one know what Phase Housing will be a pre-requiste for the 27,700 lb gross weight?
After that is the Phase IV, or 'Improved Durability' housing (the IDMGB mentioned above). That will come in 2013, over 10 years after the original certification. Only one feature currently claimed for that unit is clearly a direct durability improvement as the others deal with known failure modes or detection problems:
- Adding another means to scavange oil from the input modules to stop the build-up oil oil that caused problems in Brunei in 2008
- Repostioned chip detectors
- An 'integrated bypass valve' - which is seemingly different to the new bypass automation.
- Stronger free wheel bearings - the one clear durability improvement
At Heli-Expo there was also talk of a new filter insert this year to tackle the problem the current filter has coping with normal spec oil.
Has anyone got the automatic oil cooler bypass installed yet?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: not where I want to be
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just canīt wait for an increase in max gross weight,since it already is the smoothest helicopter on the market 
,
Maybe they can even come with a modification for the airco/vent system,so that we get some increase in noise as well
,Maybe they can even come with a modification for the airco/vent system,so that we get some increase in noise as well
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a really radical idea...why don't SAC just take back all the S92s and give their customers nice shiny new Blackhawks in a civvie format?
And while they're at it they can give us an update on how that new teleporter system is going...beam me up Scotty...
I have a new name for the S92, it's the Elvis chopper, at least he did his shake rattle and rolling in style..."and it's one for the money, two to get ready, three to start the engines and go go go..."
I give up on this a/c, taking too long to fix what IMO is a relatively simple MRGB swap-out albeit with controlled modifications. I continue to fly in this a/c with the view that big oil doesn't give a
as long as they don't fall out of the sky too often..calculated risk and loss management come to mind here, and we're the shmucks who have to accept it. What else can explain the tardiness in addressing the inherent design issues still present and by now well documented.
Safe flying (or is that shake rattle and rolling)
Max
And while they're at it they can give us an update on how that new teleporter system is going...beam me up Scotty...
I have a new name for the S92, it's the Elvis chopper, at least he did his shake rattle and rolling in style..."and it's one for the money, two to get ready, three to start the engines and go go go..."
I give up on this a/c, taking too long to fix what IMO is a relatively simple MRGB swap-out albeit with controlled modifications. I continue to fly in this a/c with the view that big oil doesn't give a
as long as they don't fall out of the sky too often..calculated risk and loss management come to mind here, and we're the shmucks who have to accept it. What else can explain the tardiness in addressing the inherent design issues still present and by now well documented.Safe flying (or is that shake rattle and rolling)
Max
I can see you drivers are going to have to turn up early to check which mod you have, then check to see if SLP are happy to fly under it. 
more to the point are you? still no mention regarding the 30 min RD I suppose ?
more to the point are you? still no mention regarding the 30 min RD I suppose ?
Last edited by 500e; 27th Mar 2011 at 17:32.
Max
Occasionally, some of your posts have almost asked some sensible questions. This last one does you no credit, it is frivolous.
You are becoming quite an expert. Of course, its just a simple MGB swap out. Can't think why Sikorsky is making it so complicated, can you? You imply that no one is working on MGB safety improvements - wrong.
If the corrective actions are so glaringly simple, then why not email the company directly and suggest a more rapid implementation strategy or a new MGB design?
Occasionally, some of your posts have almost asked some sensible questions. This last one does you no credit, it is frivolous.
You are becoming quite an expert. Of course, its just a simple MGB swap out. Can't think why Sikorsky is making it so complicated, can you? You imply that no one is working on MGB safety improvements - wrong.
If the corrective actions are so glaringly simple, then why not email the company directly and suggest a more rapid implementation strategy or a new MGB design?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
II
My response is simple, I'm not an aviation expert, just a frustrated PAX with how long this process is taking to move things forward. Anybody with common sense can see what the issue is and the obvious way forward.
As for being friviolous i.e. unworthy of serious attention, well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it just as I am to mine. In the cold light of day we are all frivilous unless directly involved with actually fixing the issue.
You obviously missed the point I was making i.e. is this just an issue that is unworthy of serious attention, because at the progress rate to date and lack of clarity on the root cause for the MRGB cracking I would have to assume that SAC are not doing their product's reputation any good whatsoever. They may well be working diligently behind the scenes but I've been patiently waiting to see the outcome. Based on the latest future MRGB release dates and our immediate need for the upgraded MRGB I personally am extremely disappointed. We are over 2 years now from 491, coming up on 4 years since Broome, more than 9 years since SAC knew that the MRGB couldn't last more than 11 minutes.
So tell me then how is that progress?
I'm sure an e-mail from myself to SAC will have about as much effect as posting on this forum appears to have i.e. zero. I'll leave that to the industry experts and insiders to deal with and patiently wait with the rest of us for a positive way forward.
Safe flying
Max
My response is simple, I'm not an aviation expert, just a frustrated PAX with how long this process is taking to move things forward. Anybody with common sense can see what the issue is and the obvious way forward.
As for being friviolous i.e. unworthy of serious attention, well that's your opinion and you're entitled to it just as I am to mine. In the cold light of day we are all frivilous unless directly involved with actually fixing the issue.
You obviously missed the point I was making i.e. is this just an issue that is unworthy of serious attention, because at the progress rate to date and lack of clarity on the root cause for the MRGB cracking I would have to assume that SAC are not doing their product's reputation any good whatsoever. They may well be working diligently behind the scenes but I've been patiently waiting to see the outcome. Based on the latest future MRGB release dates and our immediate need for the upgraded MRGB I personally am extremely disappointed. We are over 2 years now from 491, coming up on 4 years since Broome, more than 9 years since SAC knew that the MRGB couldn't last more than 11 minutes.
So tell me then how is that progress?
I'm sure an e-mail from myself to SAC will have about as much effect as posting on this forum appears to have i.e. zero. I'll leave that to the industry experts and insiders to deal with and patiently wait with the rest of us for a positive way forward.
Safe flying
Max
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're relegated to riding in the back of most any flying contraption, perhaps your best frame of mind should be from the "Ignorance is bliss" perspective. Becoming intimately aware of the details of how you stay aloft will only destine you to be eternally "Whistling in the dark past the graveyard"' when flying.
Imagine pilots in combat losing one friend after another. Some actually do go cuckoo worrying about the aircraft's abilities AND whether there's a bullet speeding up from below with their name on it. Now then, they deserve the right to be concerned.
If your chosen career includes riding in helos that make you worry then perhaps another way to pay the light bill is called for.
For what it's worth, I can tell you from past experiences with SAC that they do have the very best folks working this issue and they certainly wouldn't allow the S-92 aloft if it wasn't safe.
Imagine pilots in combat losing one friend after another. Some actually do go cuckoo worrying about the aircraft's abilities AND whether there's a bullet speeding up from below with their name on it. Now then, they deserve the right to be concerned.
If your chosen career includes riding in helos that make you worry then perhaps another way to pay the light bill is called for.
For what it's worth, I can tell you from past experiences with SAC that they do have the very best folks working this issue and they certainly wouldn't allow the S-92 aloft if it wasn't safe.
Last edited by Dan Reno; 28th Mar 2011 at 10:01.
The problem stems from obfuscation, SAC using the small print to move the goal posts, then when it is found that move was suspect, not telling operators (as far as we know) the whole story, & as time goes on & further problems arise people will draw their own conclusions.
I suggest you read MWs paragraph again
"You obviously missed the point I was making i.e. is this just an issue that is unworthy of serious attention, because at the progress rate to date and lack of clarity on the root cause for the MRGB cracking I would have to assume that SAC are not doing their product's reputation any good whatsoever. They may well be working diligently behind the scenes but I've been patiently waiting to see the outcome. Based on the latest future MRGB release dates and our immediate need for the upgraded MRGB I personally am extremely disappointed. We are over 2 years now from 491, coming up on 4 years since Broome, more than 9 years since SAC knew that the MRGB couldn't last more than 11 minutes."
I suggest you read MWs paragraph again
"You obviously missed the point I was making i.e. is this just an issue that is unworthy of serious attention, because at the progress rate to date and lack of clarity on the root cause for the MRGB cracking I would have to assume that SAC are not doing their product's reputation any good whatsoever. They may well be working diligently behind the scenes but I've been patiently waiting to see the outcome. Based on the latest future MRGB release dates and our immediate need for the upgraded MRGB I personally am extremely disappointed. We are over 2 years now from 491, coming up on 4 years since Broome, more than 9 years since SAC knew that the MRGB couldn't last more than 11 minutes."
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan, appreciate your feedback and I completely understand where you're coming from, however IMHO the more information and clarity the better. It's not like flying in a plane where the general populace doesn't really know what the risks are. In that specific case it's all down to statistics and media to inform et al the percieved risk involved. How many ASBs and ADs are in effect on civilian a/c, a lot more than most people realise.
We have different rules when it comes to the workplace. Everybody likes to believe that when we go to work we'll come home safe and in one piece. People deserve to know what risk factors are involved, oil companies are legally responsible to do that and make their industry as safe as reasonably practicable, and that includes all the equipment that they use in order to operate.
Working in the oil industry has been my chosen career for nearly 20 years now, never had any real concerns about a/c type until the S92. As we advance technology you would think that we would make this industry safer, not the opposite. People make mistakes, it's learning from them that's key. As a minimum that should have occured after Broome.
I'll continue flying fully aware of the inherent risks with my chosen vocation, that's not the issue, it's the painfully slow response to addresss the S92's well-documented issues that's infuriating. If the MRGB feet cracks, run-dry time capability and inherent vibration/noise issues are resolved with this type we may actually have moved forward to a better a/c for offshore use. Until then I'm still not convinced that this is the most suitable a/c for our current working environment over here in the Grand Banks. As we further develop the oil industry into the Flemish Pass and further east in the Southern Grand Banks we're going to be asking even more from the bus. I just hope that we've moved on from the current situation before then...this could be a major limiting factor in how far we can grow this industry.
An old Texan once told me "it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil" so I guess I'm just squeaking away here until I see progress.
Safe flying
Max
We have different rules when it comes to the workplace. Everybody likes to believe that when we go to work we'll come home safe and in one piece. People deserve to know what risk factors are involved, oil companies are legally responsible to do that and make their industry as safe as reasonably practicable, and that includes all the equipment that they use in order to operate.
Working in the oil industry has been my chosen career for nearly 20 years now, never had any real concerns about a/c type until the S92. As we advance technology you would think that we would make this industry safer, not the opposite. People make mistakes, it's learning from them that's key. As a minimum that should have occured after Broome.
I'll continue flying fully aware of the inherent risks with my chosen vocation, that's not the issue, it's the painfully slow response to addresss the S92's well-documented issues that's infuriating. If the MRGB feet cracks, run-dry time capability and inherent vibration/noise issues are resolved with this type we may actually have moved forward to a better a/c for offshore use. Until then I'm still not convinced that this is the most suitable a/c for our current working environment over here in the Grand Banks. As we further develop the oil industry into the Flemish Pass and further east in the Southern Grand Banks we're going to be asking even more from the bus. I just hope that we've moved on from the current situation before then...this could be a major limiting factor in how far we can grow this industry.
An old Texan once told me "it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil" so I guess I'm just squeaking away here until I see progress.
Safe flying
Max
Join Date: May 2008
Location: US of A
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max,
An old Texan once told me "it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil" so I guess I'm just squeaking away here until I see progress.
Another old Texan completed that thought . . .
"it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil" "or replaced".
However, you're unlikely to be replaced.
I have no comment on SAC's situation except that it would seem frustration is appropriate.
An old Texan once told me "it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil" so I guess I'm just squeaking away here until I see progress.
Another old Texan completed that thought . . .
"it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil" "or replaced".
However, you're unlikely to be replaced.
I have no comment on SAC's situation except that it would seem frustration is appropriate.
The Sumburgh Refueller who heard it from the Scatsta Refueller says that Bristow S-92 G-IACC has had a hard / heavy landing after an lifting off unintentionally? Aircraft has frame damage and dynamics will have to be removed and overhauled. Anyone know more?
heavy landing after an lifting off unintentionally
Don't think we can blame it on the MGB, maybe should be another thread.
Not sure what happened exactly Malabo but the occurrence itself has been confirmed.
I don't know how you unintentionally lift off but someone nearly did it to me in an S-76 one day grabbing the collective in lieu of the parking brake. Even so, landing normally shouldn't be too hard.
Maybe someone else will have some more news soon.
I don't know how you unintentionally lift off but someone nearly did it to me in an S-76 one day grabbing the collective in lieu of the parking brake. Even so, landing normally shouldn't be too hard.
Maybe someone else will have some more news soon.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nottingham uk
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sumburgh S92, Bristow, incorrect application of collective, pulled up inadvertently when applying parking brake, collective released, aircraft had gotten airborne, slammed down and did untold damage. Write off? From the story I heard last night, they were lucky!
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are AAIB involved?
I do seem to remember a story from EC that there had been a vaguely similar incident on a EC225 a few years ago albeit control was regained while still inadvertantly airborne.
I do seem to remember a story from EC that there had been a vaguely similar incident on a EC225 a few years ago albeit control was regained while still inadvertantly airborne.