As usual the press and lawyers are ill-informed and spew incorrect facts.
I'm assuming that SAC will state that the Cougar S92 POH will be the applicable legal document albeit based on the S92 RFM, so the false temperature indication issue on loss of MRGB lube oil not captured in the RFM is valid and SAC should IMHO be liable, but not the run-dry statement which was not stated in the RFM albeit in historical SAC sales literature and a perceived abiility by some.
Safe flying
Max
Arguing jurisdiction [The Telegram] The following text has been excerpted from the media outlet cited and is provided to NOIA members for information purposes only. Any opinion expressed therein is neither attributable to nor endorsed by NOIA.
11/24/2010
Cougar Helicopters says St. John’s the proper venue for $27-million lawsuit
Cougar Helicopters argued in court Tuesday that its $27-million lawsuit against helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. should be tried in Newfoundland Supreme Court.
The ongoing hearing will decide whether that case is heard in a courtroom in St. John’s or in Connecticut.
The lawsuit stems from the March 12, 2009 helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland that killed 17 people.
Patrick Saul, one of the lawyers for Cougar, said the case is one of negligence by Sikorsky — and the effects of that negligence were mainly felt in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Cougar operates a fleet of Sikorsky S-92 helicopters to transport offshore workers to the oilfields off Newfoundland.
On the day of the crash, Saul said the decisions and actions of the Cougar Flight 491 pilots were affected by “representations and omissions” by Sikorsky.
En route to the White Rose and Hibernia oilfields, the pilots reported a loss of oil pressure in the main gearbox, which powers the helicopter’s rotor drive. They headed back to land. As the pilots wrestled with the oil-pressure problem, Saul said they relied on the S-92 emergency procedures manual published by Sikorsky.
It said an increase in oil temperature occurs when the oil pressure indicator light comes on. What the manual didn’t say, according to Saul, is the oil temperature gauge doesn’t function when all the oil is lost. He said Sikorsky’s procedure manual “failed in its purpose.”
Saul also said the pilots relied on the information that the S-92 helicopter had a 30-minute run-dry capability — meaning it could continue flying for one-half-hour after losing all oil in its lubrication system.
On the day of the crash, the helicopter flew for 11 minutes after the loss of oil pressure was reported.
The oil lubricates the main gearbox. The lubrication system was attached to the main gearbox by three titanium studs.
Loss in oil pressure
The Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the cause of the crash, has said two studs broke in flight, resulting in the loss of oil pressure.
Sikorsky has since redesigned the oil lubrication system and replaced the titanium studs with stronger steel studs.
Saul said the titanium studs posed an “unreasonably high risk of failure” — and were a departure from the usual practice of using steel studs. He said the titanium studs were supposed to be replaced every 500 hours of operation; instead, they needed to be changed more frequently.
Saul also said the oil, which is under pressure, was almost completely emptied from the lubrication system on the day of the crash.
At this point, Sikorsky lawyer Robert Bell said Saul had gone too far in stating his case. Justice Richard LeBlanc instructed Saul to stick to the facts contained in Cougar’s statement of claim.
That statement of claim was filed in Newfoundland Supreme Court in June.
Sikorsky has yet to file a statement of defence. It did file an application saying the U.S. District Court in Connecticut is the proper venue for the lawsuit.
The hearing to decide which court has jurisdiction resumes this afternoon in St. John’s.