Has TSB failednto analyse tehcrew decision probably.
TSB gave short shrift to key infoBy LOUIS DESJARDINS
Cougar Helicopters Flight 91 lost oil pressure during a flight from St. John's to the Hibernia SeaRose oil platform almost two years ago. The Sikorsky S-92 (a version of which is on order for our armed forces) was approximately 20 minutes from shore when the pilot turned back. Tragically, 17 people died when the chopper crashed into the Atlantic Ocean some 11 minutes later.
Cougar launched a lawsuit against Sikorsky Aircraft in part because they had advertised that the S-92 was able to continue operating for half an hour after losing oil pressure.
However, our Transportation Safety Board's review of the accident said that neither the pilot nor the co-pilot would have thought this to be the case because they did not "make a comment" to that effect while trying to determine their best course of action.
But would they have found it necessary to comment on something if both believed it were so? Is it not just as likely that their decision on whether to ditch or head for shore was influenced by Sikorsky marketing's original claim that the craft could operate for 30 minutes on residual oil?
Or perhaps the claim, after tests showed that the first claim was untrue, that a feature of the S-92 was "thirty minutes safe operation following an oil leak"? The TSB gave very short shrift to what may well have been a very large factor in the calamity...
TSB gave short shrift to key info - Belleville Intelligencer - Ontario, CA