PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
View Single Post
Old 10th Nov 2012, 03:17
  #312 (permalink)  
Geoffersincornwall
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong...

... but didn't the S92 have a design flaw in the way the two oil pumps were driven? Something about the debonding of a plastic component that had been glued to a metal shaft.

If so then in my book this would count as exposure to extreme risk via single failure in both systems.

Or was this classified as another 'extremely remote' possibility.

Where else could we look for a single design flaw that has serious consequences in the multiple systems of our helicopter fleet.

When you take a well established type of helicopter and make the slightest change to the profile of it's design, manufacture or overhaul you are exposed to the possibility of disaster. Are the certification authorities alive to these possibilities? Are they in the loop?

Examples of what I mean :-

Chinook gearbox - gear wheel design
S61 gearbox - following the outsourcing of overhaul tasks there was a spate of freewheel failures put down to incorrect overhaul procedures.

Perhaps one of our technical guys who subscribe to Prune can add to that list. I'm sure it would be longer than you imagine. Stories abound about the inspector who retired and then his replacement had to pick up the job without the benefit of his years of experience.

One amusing version of the same story was what happened to us at KLM Helis back in the late 90s. Redundancies where being dished out willy nilly as the focus on costs came down to the need for multitasking. We had two storemen who had been there since the year dot but one of them had to go. KLM being what it is - a state run airline - just sent one from Den Helder back to mainline in Amsterdam. Chaos ensued when after a month or so there was a lack of spare hydraulic components. It was then they found out that one guy in stores was in charge of 'parts returned from overhaul' and the second for 'parts to be sent for overhaul'. They made the second guy redundant but turned out he was the only one who knew where each component was supposed to be sent. All outgoing parts ended up in the wrong place and screwed up the turn around times. Sometimes you don't know what you don't know until it bites you in the arse.

G.
Geoffersincornwall is offline