PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
View Single Post
Old 29th Oct 2010, 12:46
  #1847 (permalink)  
maxwelg2
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That one gearbox withstood more than was needed to safely ditch that helicopter.
Lt. Fubar, good point, and one I'm sure will be pressed hard during the next month or so as the TSB report is issued.

Your second valid point relates to "what do we consider an acceptable run dry capability". My personal opinion is "consider none exists", it should be a safety contingency to allow the PIC to consider options such as landing on the nearest helideck/landing area. Where that is not possible then our PPE and helicopter safety evacuation training should be our safety system that we rely on. This then raises the issue of flying a civilian helo in adverse weather conditions and the current sea state/flying limits.

Variable Load, it is not emotions but the cold facts that form my current opinion of the S-92. It is only via extensive additional control measures and inspections that our operator still agrees to fly this helo i.e. MGB feet visual inspection prior to each flight. This may have changed as I have not flown in 6 months but I haven't heard of the uprated MGB mounting feet being implemented. Is this the case now?

Was the S92a not meant to take the advanced technology previously developed for the Blackhawk/Seahawk to make it the safest helicopter available? If that was the case then why was there no 30-minute run-dry time capability as would be expected to be a requirement for the MIL versions? It certainly is with the CH-148 and only now is it being pushed forward.

Why was the filter housing bowl stud failure not foreseen as a possible failure mode for the S-92a instead of only the intercooler system? Vespel spline failure was another one that wasn't accounted for in failure mode analysis or it wouldn't have to have been resolved post-production.

Why did the Broome stud failures and subsequent independant failure analysis report not prompt an immediate SB with immediate effect, especially in light of the FAR29 extremely remote classification that the MGB/lube oil system had?

These questions and many more have been already posted on this forum, I guess as a mere PAX I'm just curious as to where the definitive answers will come from.

Safe flying

Max
maxwelg2 is offline