212man - just seen your post. So you don't think much of JimL's comments then? Do you know his backround by any chance
. Pity - I though there were some forward thinking ideas from Jim there.
Unions are still pretty unimpressed with the S-92 too:
The union representing some Newfoundland and Labrador offshore workers is supporting a call on the federal government to investigate the certification of the type of helicopter that killed 17 people after crashing off the coast of Newfoundland in 2009.
The families of Cougar crash victims and the sole survivor, Robert Decker, want Transport Canada to find out why the chopper – a Sikorsky S–92a – was permitted to fly in Canada when it was shown in 2002 that it couldn't run for 30 minutes without oil.
Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union representative Kevin Kelly, who speaks for some workers on two offshore oil platforms east of St. John's, said the union supports the families' request.
Kelly said the S–92a dry-run time isn't the only problem that needs to be addressed.
"We also had cracked footing mounts … so over time, if they can't resolve these issues they'll look to another chopper, right?," he said.
Last May and earlier in January 2010, a Cougar Helicopters Sikorsky chopper was been grounded in St. John's because of a crack near the gearbox.
U.S.-based manufacturer Sikorsky said the crack is in a footing that attaches the main rotor's gearbox to the body of the aircraft. In a separate incident, another Cougar S–92a helicopter was grounded in Halifax in November 2009, after a hairline crack was found.
Last week, the families and Decker wrote Federal Transportation Minster Chuck Strahl to investigate certification of that model of helicopter by the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) released its final report on the crash Feb. 9.
Relatives of the passengers killed and Decker have had time to review the report and believe fundamental issues related to the S-92a's certification have not been addressed.
"Did Transport Canada succumb to pressure from the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or Sikorsky, or did they simply fail to recognize a serious safety/certification issue?" said the letter to Strahl.
Cougar flight 491 crashed 11 minutes after its pilots saw an indicator suggesting the helicopter's main gearbox was losing oil pressure.
The letter said it should have been "obvious" to Sikorsky and the FAA in 2002 that the S–92a did not have the 30-minute run-dry time it was advertised as having.
"On Aug. 6, 2002, Sikorsky carried out its initial certification test to demonstrate to the FAA that the MGB could run dry … the main gearbox suffered a catastrophic failure approximately 11 minutes into test," the letter said.
"At that point, it was obvious to Sikorsky and the FAA that the helicopter was incapable of meeting the run dry requirements for certification."
Minister supports recommendations
"We support the intent of the TSB recommendations to improve helicopter safety," Strahl said last week in a response emailed to the CBC.
"We intend to respond within the required 90 days. However, I have instructed my department to respond to the recommendations as soon as possible so that appropriate action can be taken to improve the safety and security of Canadian aviation."
The Minister also said he has directed his department to work with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration "to ensure we have a closely aligned and appropriate system in place for assessing the airworthiness of aircrafts and parts."
N.L. union joins call to investigate chopper - Nfld. & Labrador - CBC News
I'd be really interested in hearing from anyone in Shell what their views are on this.
After all, Shell's 7/7=1 strategy is heavily underpinned by a move to aircraft that comply with the lastest certification standards.
Its ironic that the S-92s first fatal accident has been so closely linked to a failuer to meet a certification requirement that other types have achieved (or exceeded) and a failure that earlier generation types could actually better cope with.
The suggestion that pressure during certification to waive a safety rule resulted in a fatally flawed design being released in to service is clearly one that is exercising a lot of concern here in Canada.