FH1100 Pilot prophetically wrote on 26th November 2011 concerning the S-92 Cougar crash:
"Well of course the S-92's airworthiness certificate should have been revoked following the Cougar crash! Of course. That's not even in question anymore.
SAC managed to convince the FAA guy (whose name we don't need to mention because everyone already knows who signed-off on it) that the ONLY possible source of a leak of transmission oil would be the lines leading to the oil cooler. Filter won't/can't leak...driveshaft inputs can't leak...the mast seal can't leak...the list goes on!
And the (unnamed) FAA guy said, "Yup, I agree!" But if they were using the S-92 design to justify that "extremely remote" crap, they had no historical base to draw from. If they (SAC) were using an industry-wide base for loss of transmission oil, they STILL were not on solid ground, because such things happen more than extremely remotely. (Admittedly they don't happen often, but "extremely remote" is a defined term.) SAC took the awkward wording of section 29.927(c)(1) and used it to their financial advantage.
So no, the S-92 does not IN FACT meet the requirements of FAR part-29 when it comes to the transmission. I would venture to say that there is no helicopter in existence that would qualify under that "extremely remote" clause. Why do we care? Because when you design an aircraft that's going to take LOTS of people out over some very inhospitable parts of the earth, then you are - and should be - held to a higher standard.
We know now that the S-92 transmission cannot withstand a complete loss of oil. Sikorsky admitted that their testing showed (and Cougar proved in the field) that you get "about" ten minutes of run time with no oil. This is undisputed. What's truly disturbing to me is that so few people seem to care. Pilots in particular are so very cavalier about this, as if it's a trivial or inconsequential point. It boggles my already-feeble mind.
What it boils down to is that it would have been economically unfeasible, unrealistic and unreasonable to summarily ground the S-92 fleet and force Sikorsky to redesign the transmission. Passenger safety takes a back seat to money. It's not the first time this has happened in aviation. Shamefully, it probably won't be the last. Personally, I think we owe the paying passengers - and the pilots who fly them! - more than that...better than that.
I mean, why have rules at all if exemptions and "work-arounds" are allowed and applied so freely?"
Are we facing a similar situation with Eurocopter and its EC225 this time?
To some extent yes, but there are differences. The S92 blatantly does not meet the certification criteria, but as you said, it was too commercially and politically difficult to withdraw the certification. A technical fix is probably n the way but these things take a long time.
Of course one of the reasons it takes a long time, is the time to get certification. So we have the ludicrous situation that the certification system that rolled over to allow the 92 to achieve certification when in most people's opinion it was not compliant, is the very same system that delays fixing the problem. It would be funny if not so depressingly serious!
From the UK CAA perspective, the accident that killed a number of people was not in their back yard so had less impact on any possible decision to ground the heli.
The EC 225 does meet the certification criteria, but there is clearly a design or manufacturing issue with a single component that has caused 2 ditchings in the UK CAA's back yard. That issue needs to be fixed, and then the heli will resume flights and be fully compliant with the spirit and letter of the certification rules.
The fact is the 225 has a lot more than one problem. One problem would be no issue in the 225 design, two+ resulted in two ditchings.
SAS
If the Aussie S-92 had ditched instead of landing on solid ground for the same failure it is doubtful that Newfoundland would have happened. So "any we are better than you" is BS.
All,
The Bell 429 main transmission ran 4+ hours in the same basic test the 92 failed in 12 minutes with no backup lube system (high torque and everything else).
The Sultan
Last edited by The Sultan; 31st Oct 2012 at 00:47.
Normally I try to give you a gentle poke in the ribs over things you say....and usually do so to evoke some reaction from others to move the discussion along.
This time I think a firm kick in your backside is more what is called for.
Quote:
From the UK CAA perspective, the accident that killed a number of people was not in their back yard so had less impact on any possible decision to ground the heli.
So I take you to mean that the UK CAA turns a completely blind eye to fatal crashes elsewhere in the World despite the very Type and Model Aircraft is being operated under their Authority within their jurisdiction.
If anyone was silly enough to believe that....he certainly does not pass any medical grounds for issuance of a Flying Medical. That is sheer idiocy.
The decision may have been a "political" decision but it certainly was never made for "safety" or "certification" reasons.....unless they concurred with the other Aviation Authorities investigating the accident and who had also certified the Aircraft.
If I were a CAA Inspector, I would take great exception to your comment as it implies the CAA does not consider Safety of Pasengers and Crew to be an important part of their function.
You want to revise what you said and perhaps pass along what you meant to say as surely what you said cannot be what you really meant to say....is it?
Quote:
The EC 225 does meet the certification criteria, but there is clearly a design or manufacturing issue with a single component that has caused 2 ditchings in the UK CAA's back yard. That issue needs to be fixed, and then the heli will resume flights and be fully compliant with the spirit and letter of the certification rules.
If there is a design or manufacturing issue that causes two ditchings in a short time frame....how does the EC-225 then be considered meeting the Ceritication Criteria in your opinion? You cannot have your Kate and Edith you know.
SAS, you have your views on how the location of an accident affects how seriously it is taken by an aviation authority, I have mine. If you think I am insane, I think you are naieve.
Which para of the certification rules require the heli to be able to continue flight after main and backup oil pumps fail?
Of course we would both like the certification rules to say that a heli can never need to ditch, but they don't say that and if they did, no helis could be built.
You my friend are a nincompoop! Continually referring to which helicopter has caused the most fatalities is not only insensitive, but demonstrates that you have nothing good to say about your aircraft and have resorted to trying to bash the competitor to make yours look better! It’s a form of argument called ad hominem.
Yes the 92 has had its problems, all new aircraft do. Luckily the initial fix for the 92 only required waiting for some new bolts to arrive in the mail, waiting for a redesign of internal workings in a gear box may take a little longer. Since the Cougar incident the 92 gear box has been redesigned and the chances of the same incident happening again are as close to zero as it can get. Will there be other problems, who knows, but as it stands the gear box is working just fine thanks.
The 225 gear box achieved certification with the help of the emlube system which has proven to be 100% ineffective in the field. If it was not for this additional shonky engineering the outcome of the two ditching may have been different. Thank god they were not!
II and TS, I don't think you have any concept of how certification works. First of all, with which para of CS 29 is the 225 no longer compliant? Is is TCDS still vald? Has it been grounded by EASA, FAA or even CAA (no it has not, only severe operational restrictions applied). If you know the answers to the above, it is obvious that certification has not been withdrawn or reasonably could be.
10-post TS you are perhaps not aware of the history of the whole 92vs225 slanging match on Prune, something started by Nick Lappos in 2005. SAS likes to wind me up about it, I respond, and let's face it, there is not much else going on in Prune at the moment. Feel free to not read my posts in future.
Looking ahead does this create an opening for some other machinery? What about AW101 (Merlin) for instance? It's a good load carrier, has speed and range and with 3 engines pretty good redundancy when operating over the sea where land-immediately options are few.
Also what about some of the former Soviet bloc machines. The Mi-17VS (with Western avionics) and flotation gear?
HC....using your logic...why should the FAA do anything about the 225....all the problems have been with British operators. You criticize the FAA for not doing anything about the 92....yet you defend them for not doing anything about the 225.
HC, It may be an idea to think quite carefully and tone down your rhetoric before saying someone has "no concept". They may know more than you think.
But, I take your point that the EC225 is only restricted, not fully grounded in the UK.
But, there are other markets where there are currently no restrictions on flying the EC225 imposed by the regulator. The only restrictions which apply are those (3 hour MARMS) limits placed on the type by the ASB. However, your company still isn't flying the EC225 in those "unrestricted" markets.
Why not, have you lost confidence in the 225 and the ability of the MARMS to diagnose a problem in sufficient time?
Last edited by industry insider; 1st Nov 2012 at 13:10.
Absence of a published retrofit design corrective action for the first ( I could have missed it ).
That after the first lower shaft failure, an incorrect technical assessment was made.
My guess is that there are some design guys/girls at Eurocopter that would love to only be worrying about things like oil filter attachment bolt material and pattern*. Excedrin Headache No 89 would be if they have to redesign and requalify a new shaft.
*Should have added the transmission foot cracks, too. ( That one should have been a major embarrassment to anyone at SA who remembers the S-61 station 290 transmission support cracking 10 year saga ).
92vs225 slanging match on Prune, something started by Nick Lappos in 2005
HC
Reminds me of a certain Fawlty Towers sketch
Anyway, irrespective of who started it (albeit not by invading Poland!), the fact that you continue the "225 vs 92 PPRuNe war" makes you just as culpable IMHO. Especially as Nick L is no longer present to be your adversary.
Location: Italy & Cornwall in equal measure - usually
Posts: 853
Madbob
The Mi 17 will need an EASA Certification and from I have seen of it I think that would be a tough call.
The fuel cells amount to four thin wall aluminium external tanks with no liners. Imagine those in a crash! Not sure how many emergency exits they have now but Shell have managed to get the 'porthole' windows replaced by push-outs although their size might be a bit of a challenge for the larger 'bear'.
I've taught some ex-Mi 17 crews in the last few years and they were not terribly complimentary about certain aspects of its handling. Hearsay is a bad basis for conclusions I know but maybe someone with actual Mi 17 experience can comment.
So eurocopter engineers have been sat around tables with paper and cappuchinos figuring how to resolve the latest gearbox failure but what is the process to get the type back in service??
Testing? Or is that of the have a go and see type?
North Sea helicopter operators are scrabbling to acquire additional aircraft as they struggle to cope with the effective grounding of certain Eurocopter Super Puma types following a controlled ditching of an EC225 on 22 October.
Although a European Aviation Safety Authority emergency airworthiness directive states the aircraft are allowed to fly, providing data collected by vibration monitoring systems is downloaded with increased frequency, a ruling issued by the UK's Civil Aviation Agency on 25 October prohibits overwater flights of EC225s and AS332s fitted with a potentially faulty gearbox component.
CHC Scotia, which operated the helicopter (G-CHCN) involved in the incident, has nine UK-based aircraft out of service - five EC225s and four AS332 L2s. Bristow Helicopters, meanwhile, has grounded 11 EC225s from its UK fleet. The other large-scale operator in the region, Bond Offshore Helicopters, has also pulled four AS332s from service, along with three EC225s.
"We are trying to bring in helicopters where we can, but there's not a lot of them just lying about," says CHC Scotia.
Its comments are echoed by Bond: "The whole industry up there has been thrown up in the air. We are trying to bring in additional assets but there is a chronic shortage of airframes."
Bristow adds: "[Our] European fleet comprises 55 helicopters, of which at least 75% remain operational across the region. We are currently calling on additional support from other areas of the business to help us best match capacity with our customers' critical needs in the short to medium term."
The problem is not only affecting the UK. Bristow is not flying three EC225s in Australia, another EC225 in Norway, and an AS332 L2 in Nigeria, it says. CHC has grounded its EC225 and AS332 L1 and L2 fleets globally - a total of 64 airframes, including those in the UK.
For its part, Eurocopter has begun a detailed examination of G-CHCN's gearbox, which arrived at its factory in Marignane, France on 29 October. It is still trying to trace the root cause of the incident, which was triggered by the failure of the bevel gear vertical shaft in the main gearbox. A ditching in May involving an EC225 operated by Bond was downed by the same fault.
It is also testing the emergency lubrication system fitted to the EC225 using a test bench at a site belonging to engine supplier Turbomeca.
In the May ditching, the back-up system was functioning correctly but sensors indicated a system failure. Although Eurocopter says it is too early to definitively link the events, indications are that a sensor was again at fault.
Industry Insider, my apologies, I hate it when posters make personal attacks as a substitute for a good point and now I have pretty much done that myself. Sorry about that. However as I think you now realise, your point that the aircraft is no longer certified was incorrect for the reasons you state in your later post. There are ways of pointing that out though!
VL, if you actually read this thread properly you would have seen that a comparison of the issues affecting the S92 and 225 were raised by PeterPanPan in post 227. I was responding to an interesting and valid question.
Were this your forum, I am sure you would promulgate a list of those questions I am allowed to answer and those I am not, but since it isn't, you will have to like it or lump it. Since you have made no useful contribution to this thread at all, instead using it only to attack me, it would be better for everyone if you stopped reading it.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 1st Nov 2012 at 09:22.
