Originally Posted by
The Sultan
212man wrote relative to 92 fire warnings:
Then you are saying that the Cougar crew acted with proper airmanship as they relied on Sikorsky propaganda about the 92's 30 minute loss of lube lie instead of following the RFM to the letter. This from you who parked a 92 1 km short of an airfield because of a (later determined) non-event oil pump failure. There you had a safe place to land once you mis-interpreted the criticality of the situation and decided to follow the RFM instead of using airmanship to stay in the air another 60 seconds.
After the second false fire warning the 92 should have been grounded like the 235 after the oil pump drive gear failures which in the end were as serious as the 92 pump failures (which did not result in grounding). The 235 crews showed they were pros by following the RFM to ditch after an erroneous second failure indication said they had backup lube failure, which was caused by gross incompetence by Airbus wiring the sensor backwards. They could have made it to a dry landing, but thought of their passengers instead of future bar roomy war stories.
You've written some bollocks in your time but this one takes some beating!
I did not have a pump failure and have never said that. What I did have was a cabin full of smoke and the smell of being in a welding workshop, plus 9 EICAS captions. We were not following any RFM procedure and were not 1km from the airfield (although quite close).
I have never supported the Cougar 491 crew actions and think the 30 minute issue was never in their thoughts and is a red herring.
The 225 Emergency Lube sensors were not 'wired backwards' (although there was a change in pin selection) and the primary issue was the pressure thresholds being too high.