"The pilots had been taught during initial and recurrent S-92A simulator training that a gearbox failure would be gradual and always preceded by noise and vibration. This likely contributed to the captain's decision to continue towards CYYT."
The pilots experienced difficulties controlling the helicopter following the engine shut-down, placing the helicopter in a downwind autorotative descent with main rotor rpm and airspeed well below prescribed RFM limits. This led to an excessive rate of descent from which the pilots could not recover prior to impact.
SAS - I have already made it clear that I did not mean to imply that Nick or JD were responsible for the above.................................
My point is that "the above" is the kind of inappropriate information that can directly lead to crews making mistakes. Stressing that in the case of S92 the investigators have only noted this was likely to have contributed. This is not about the S92. The old girl would have served the crew well no doubt had the crew been inclined to follow the procedures, but as your post suggest, even these were ambigous in this case.
SAS - CALLING FOR ME TO APOLOGISE
I will not apologise for implying that misleading pilots into the belief that the RPM can readily decay beyond the RFM limits is acceptable especially since this post was lodged in direct contradiction to the sound advice offered by Peter. I note that in doing so (see above) the horrible subject of decayed Nr and low airspeed seems to have eventually caused the loss of the crew and PAX in the S92. I wonder if that poor crew had had the benefit in hindsight of Peter's post whether they may have been able to fare better. Who knows.
I will apologise to all, including
Nick and JD if any of you inferred from my posts that the misinformation stated above that you SAS posted kindly for us, had anything to do with them.
SAS the detail you have posted above serves only to remind us of the
folly of listening too, being subjected to and following inappropriate advice and guidance especially when it is beyond the limits cleary stated in the flight manual. The limits in the flight manual are provided by the likes of Nick and JD, at significant personal risk to them, to keep us all safe. My respect for them and the work they do is implicit in my continued stated belief that we should follow the flight manual. That is my tribute to them!!
For John Eacott, thank you for recognising that I am capable of an apology when I am wrong. It does not happen often (being wrong) and hurts a bit so it took a bit of time to get back to you.
To SP - I hope now you can see the relevance of my posts and that my intent was not to link the TPs to the incident. It was the pirnciple of inappropriate information beyond the limits of the RFM.
To TC - now I know how it feels to be you!
DB