PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
View Single Post
Old 29th May 2013, 13:48
  #925 (permalink)  
HeliComparator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,093
Received 43 Likes on 22 Posts
SASA, I suppose its because we all knew there were some issues with the Emerg Lube, this is no surprise. Yes its frustrating that EC seem to have got this wrong in a number of ways, on the other hand at least they tried, unlike their opponents to tried to bull**** their way around it!

I am with you on the qualtiy of the certification process. Very slow, expensive and bureaucratic but with no guarantee of an airworthy helicopter at the end of it. Why bother?

You should however bear in mind that there is no requirement for "run dry" in the certification rules, merely continued operation after a major oil leak resulting in loss of all oil. Whilst you might think run dry is a good idea, for large helicopters heat dissipation is a big deal. To make the gearbox able to cope would almost certainly require big compromises in design in terms of weight, complexity and cost. If you bear in mind that in the entire history of the Super Puma family there has never been a total oil loss event, just how much extra complexity do you want to introduce to make it "dry run". You might find that in terms of overall safety, your requirement actually reduces safety taken in the context of dry run never actually being required. Anyway, surely it would be better to expend your energies ensuring that the heli doesn't lose all its oil in the first place?


500e - Yes, I think so. The plan is for a warning light and plain text message to illuminate showing the threshold value and the current value (greater than the threshold value presumably), perhaps with the time of detection or time elapsed since detection. There will be no judgement required, it will be "black and white".

Last edited by HeliComparator; 29th May 2013 at 13:50.
HeliComparator is offline