Cheers SASless, this should not be about EC/SK, as the thread title implies.
So what criteria do we go with, if helo is predominately used over water and > 30 minutes between landing options, 30-minute run-dry time is mandatory?
If sea state warrants SS6 flotation design, then this is also a mandatory requirement for these operations?
No usage of extremely remote and statistical data to justify a dispensation from the above?
So for the Grand Banks operations the S-92a fails on the dry-run requirement, and the SS5 flotation implementation means tighter weather/sea state restrictions.
Assuming that the revised RFM takes into account no dry-run capability with tightened land immediately requirements, we still have the issue of no SS6, and inadequate flight suits IMO. We've still go some way to go before PAX will be more comfortable with this helo's application.
FYI at least one of the oil operators over here has gave PAX the option to return by vessel until further flight suit evaluation is complete, as we've all noted how poor the sealing properties are with the current versions during our HUEBA training.
On a side-note, it is true that SK didn't retain the removed titanium studs for further analysis as stated in the US lawsuit? The TSB are still investigating the root cause of the failed studs on Cougar 491, having the removed studs from the rest from the fleet would surely have allowed a more detailed analysis to have been performed...