PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland - 18 aboard, March 2009
Old 28th Feb 2011, 21:26
  #966 (permalink)  
squib66
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GT Thanks for that.
LW Especially if they were confident in the aircraft.


I've just looked back at a presentation given by the 'Director - S-92 Programs' in May 2003:

Page 2 starts by setting up requirements as a key part of the sales pitch

The S-92 is the 21st Century Aircraft

Complies with the Latest Standards and Regulations
Only the S-92 complies with all NEW FAA requirements of Part 29, amendment 45


Page 4 is ironic considering the parts that failed in Broome and St Johns

Only the S-92 is Flaw and Damage Tolerant
Critical Structures Absorb Flaws, Damage and Corrosion

From now on, helicopters will not be brought down by small corrosion pits, dents and damage due to field use!
Slide 42 rings very hollow now

Sikorsky Design Attention Will Continue Long After Production Delivery
Failure reporting and Corrective Action System (FRACAS)
  • Has been in effect since first flight on S-92
  • FRACAS System studies Items that affect safety, reliability, andcost
  • Relentless pursuit of problems will continue through Sikorsky World Wide Customer Service
  • Design engineers will continue to study and fix these problems
  • Operators, Sikorsky, Partners and Suppliers will work as a team to continue to improve the S-92 long into the future.
Continuous Improvement After Delivery
Page 53 confusingly states

Only S-92 Is Designed and Tested to the Latest Standards for Safety and Robustness
  • To keep ahead of increasing safety standards, S-92 was designed to meet regulations not yet adapted {SIC} at the time
Considering what was after the gearbox change the use of 'adapted' rather than 'adopted' looks like a Freudian slip.

Page 54 then has a photo of the Collier Trophy, awarded for 2002 to the S-92.

Other observations:
Amusingly on page 18, in discussing an accident, the identity of the type involved is deleted as 'not germane' (though their is a web address and date for the accident report), whereas on page 21 the S-92 is compared to another type, but the references are for S-92 and EH101. Is it churlish to point out that is was very germane to the VXX cometition?

Page 32 covers the SAR modes, not yet certified by FAA.
squib66 is offline