SouthCare

[eagle 86]

Anyone have any info on SouthCare's recent engine shutdown and precautionary landing at Bankstown?
GAGS E86

[High Nr]

Something about to much air in the fuel tank I'm told.

Can't say anymore, in trepidation of the Red Parrot Brigade retaliation!!

:mad:

[Quickdraw]

I heard they lost the #1 Hyd sys? or was it a trim tab that fell off, or.....

How about something even more stupid... wait for it... 'an eng chip light'??????

That's what it was and they were serviceable again in 4 hrs (supported out of CBR).

Cheers.

[High Nr]

Vice Like, I think you have it confused?? Or are the rumors wrong?

South Care is an old clunka B412 from C?C in Canberra.

Brought to Sydney to do a task due to technical problems with our local machines.

Got their fuel wrong and lost an engine. [At least that’s the rumor].

Now the Gong’s Paramedics and the NSW Health are going to refocus.
!!!

Well done!!

[w_ocker]

I would normally not grace this rubbish with a reply, but ok, this time you got me.

I will not give any info other than to urge readers to look back at High NR's previous posts reference this company and use that as guidance in deciding whether his posts are truth or just libellous muck raking. This sort of thing does nothing for any of us as professionals (heaps for those with a barrow to push though).

Now, the fact is that this was nothing to do with fuel or anything to do with hydraulics, flight controls or anything nearly as news worthy or dramatic. It was an indication of a potential minor mechanical malfunction that lead the pilot to do as the checklist says, land and have the problem checked. After achieving this and the licensed engineer finding no actual problem, the mission was continued. If there was a problem, the aircraft would have been grounded. If this situation had taken longer than 24 hours, a similar aircraft would have hove into sight to carry on tasking for the client.

So, lets analyse. A piece of safety equipment on the aircraft did its job. The crew took note of it and made a precautionary landing - thus doing their job. The company arranged for a qualified engineer to do his job and check the aircraft. A spare was - as always - ready to take over if required thus allowing this service provider to do its job as per the contract in place. The aircraft was cerified serviceable and returned to its job within four hours.

Can anyone see anything glaringly wrong with this chain of events? Was the client or crew placed in danger, or was the client let down due to non-complience with the contract? Or is this all being written here because the aircraft had an emblem on the tail that some posters feel threatened by and think is a license for slander?

By the way, why exactly was the Canberra based aircraft tasked to work in Sydney's area in the first place? Or is it only ok for the northern blokes to have totaly normal "technical problems"?

I will not reply to any further posts as I know full well that this is now going to further degenerate into slander and untruth. Gymble. Nice try, but anyone who reads your other posts knows you dont represent the organisation in question in any way.

[helo1]

W_ocker well put.

[PO dust devil]

High NR , Jat


Both Trolls doing what they do best.

Clients appreciate reporting culture and professional decisions. Precautionary landings......Cheapest insurance, money and time well spent.

DD

p.s. KNOCK KNOCK


EDITED TO INCLUDE THE KNOCK KNOCK

[Nigel Osborn]

You guys really get your knickers in a twist over CHC. Think about it, Lloyds had a pretty good track record before being taken over by Bond, then the Norwegians & finally CHC. Have they made mistakes? Of course, all humans do. Have they had mechanical problems? Of course, all man made objects fail at times.
Comments like running out of fuel so that one engine stopped seems a bit strange since I believe one tank feeds both engines, so why didn't they both stop?
If Craig had an engine chip light come on, why would he want to carry on winching or whatever when he had a much safer alternate available?
Craig was on the spot, his decision, it's that simple.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Good on yer Dargan.

I love the sounds of embarrassed silence from the two gits who tried to start a malicious rumour.

Priceless!

[Screwed™]

Dargan,
Don’t rise to the bait. You don’t have to justify yourself or your actions to any one on this forum, least of all a disgruntled ex-employee looser like High NR.

Silence is the best answer to the stupid.
The fool has his answer on the tip of his tongue.

[200psi]

Craig

Its hard not to bite but there are some prize winning gits on this forum. I had not heard of the chip light until I read this forum and we are on the same team so if it was such a big deal the internal rumour mill would have struck first.

High Nr has had many a swipe at CHC he is so bitter and twisted about something that any chance to have a crack at CHC he takes. Best to just ignore him and watch him embarass himself in front of the entire industry.

[tripletach]

Dargan

You can't reason with the unreasonable.

If this is an example of their ethics, it doesn't matter what crap they print about CHC, High Nr and Co can now never be beaten for unethical and unprofessional behaviour. Not ever.

CHC can breath easy. If this is the competition, CHC should double their rates. I wouldn't award a contract to such unprofessional morons for all the tea in China.

Tripletach

[High Nr]

Sorry you Guy’s, just been up the coast and back so a little weary now.. !!!

Get your heads out of the sand, you have lost market share, and there is good reason for that.

Move to Global and enjoy it Boys. [and some despised Gals…just ask the Willy Folk]…

Now the silent fence sitters are out and active…….come on in folk, but don’t ever protest the moral high ground…..

The client has a view that is a little different..!!!! …. Right or wrong, its their view.

When is the contract due????

Now how many posters can be in Canberra..???

[epic]

i feel as frustrated as w ocker. i dont mind a bit of joke and a good story to be told, but some people here take it to the next level.
this forum is crap. it is completely useless. stuff this.
i feel a little ashamed to be an aussie after reading this.
people flying around trying to do the right thing. and all some people can do is laugh at them if anyhthing happens to them in flight. and dont try to tell me otherwise because you some of you are terrible people. i go completely cold when i see the attitude a couple of individuals take towards their fellow flying friends. things happen when you fly....
a fellow colleague of mine said that if he could, he would ban anyone viewing posts during work hours because of the lies and malicious intent that goes on in here sometimes.
well after seeing this one he's got me. i'm outta here.
goodbye

[GAGS]

As someone who would like to fly multi engine machinery at some time i have a question for all you you multi engine people out there.

I am not sledging dargan for shutting down an engine due to a chip light as he has done what the company procedures have required him to do,but......is this the appropriate course of action?I can understand that you want to get the engine shut down to avoid any further damage but i would guess that if the chip light has already been illiuminated then the bearing/housing or whatever is already on the way out and the damage is already been done.

The risk versus the gain scenario...do you you really want to go OEI for a chip light?

The gain you may save the already chipped out engine which when it goes for repair is gonna cost a bundle anyway.

The risk you are now OEI and of course there are the associated risks that come with twins that are heavy and OEI.

So if it all goes ugly u not only have a chipped out engine but also an overtemped overtorqued engine as well.

I would asssume that in the cockpit the multi engine guys are not thinking about saving the boss $ when you are IFR/heavy etc.

Dargan please do not take this as an attack on you personally,i am interested on the responses i get.

A very wise man said to me once...u only shut down an engine when its on fire!

Whats the consensus?

[ConwayB]

W_ocker,

Nice post. It's great to get (what I assume) is an insider's view on a situation the rest of us can only entertain with conjecture.
As I always say: 'Unless you were in the cockpit, you can't really make an informed judgement.'

As for shutting down engines, I have been fortunate enough to fly very powerful multi-engined helos with wheels, so shutting down an engine and doing a run on landing was not a real problem in an OEI emergency. (Being able to hover OGE with one engine off line is a real luxury).

I am not in a position to make comment on the OEI performance of 212s/412s and the like... but I would like to respond to the comment of "a wise man once told me that the only time you shut down an engine is when it's on fire."

I recently had a situation that required a 'land as soon as possible' response. An indicator that works similar to a chip detector indicated that there were chips in the hydraulic system. It was a land ASAP checklist action... so we did.

When the hydraulic filter was detached to inspect for chips, there were chunks of metal, some over 1cm long. And, without a word of a lie, it had a serial number/batch number on it. (We used to joke about that situation... so imagine our surprise when it actually happened!) What was it? A bearing race that had disintegrated and had spat huge chunks of metal in the hydraulic system. So if it was a choice of ignoring the indication and assume it's a false indication, or risking losing an hydraulic system in a 30,000lb helo, then I'd take the option offered by the checklist.

So IMHO, if the emergency procedure says that a CHIP light requires an engine to be shut down or a LAND ASAP response, then that's what I'd do. 212/412 drivers can elaborate on the EPs in their aircraft of which I am ignorant.

As the saying goes: "I hope that my superior piloting judgement will keep me out of situations that would require my superior (at least I hope they are) piloting skills."

Safe flying

[w_ocker]

Hey guys, great to see this turning into a discussion that we can all gain from.

Nice to hear from you Conway - that sounds like a good d (not that landing in acordance with the check list is a "d" - its compulsory). Glad it turned out fine!

Conway's experience illustrates exactly why we shut down and land ASAP for a chip light. Yes, it is annoyingly often that it is just some fuzz, however, on the rare occasion that it isnt, what could it be? The 412 checklist states "engine chip could be result of failure of the following items: starter gen, N1 tacho, N1 gov/ fuel pump, engine oil pump, N2 tacho, blower shaft or torquemeter." So, its an indication that something may be about to disintegrate, or cause an unplanned engine failure. Many of these parts are spinning bl@@dy fast and if they fly apart could damage the other engine, transmissions, drive shafts, fuel tanks or squishy armour (pax). To avoid escalation of a minor situation (OEI in a twin in safe flight) into a catastrophe, we remove the potential danger by shutting down that engine in a planned manor in safe flight. The main thing is, as always with twin ops, we consider the implications of shutting down the engine prior to doing it. Unlike in singles where response often must be immediate to engine probs, the beauty of having two donks is that much of the time you have a choice. So, if on short final, or departure, or winch or any one of many high-power situations, we would leave the suss engine running to provide power to get us to a safe OEI flight regime, and then shut it down.
I am surprised that someone would not remove the danger once in safe flight because the aircraft isnt Cat A. If we couldnt land OEI, then we shouldnt be flying a twin (of course, as with all things, there might be mitigating circumstances like operating beyond PNR to a rig, but that is planned and trained for I immagine - I havent done rigs thus far in my carreer.)
Like a fire indication, a chip light may well be spurious, but, what the hell, I know I can land OEI, not so sure about burning or disintegrating in flight.
As the checklist says "Prior to shutting Down an Engine with a system malfunction, consider implications to Safe Flight".

Keep the discussion going lads and lasses.

oh, and Gags, in answer to your Q, you're right, saving the boss some $$ at the cost of flight safety sould be the furthest thing from a professionals mind, and a professional organisation's culture.

[GAGS]

Thank you for all the responses.

Cat A.412. (at an operational weight) these two statements are almost mutually exclusive.Would it be correct to assume that It would have to be a farly light 412 and an almost heaven like combination of temp and altitude to allow a 412 to land anywhere but a big field or airport.So i guess rigs and elevated helidecks(hospitals)are not OEI friendly.The 76 this struggles OEI as well?
Wocker you bring up a good point about PNR.This wasn't something i thought of...

Would it be prudent to wind the engine back to idle and then when you you need it again for landing or whatever it is only a twist of the throttle or a push of the power lever away.

So what do the rig pilots do?If you are on your way to an off shore rig and 2/3 rds of the way out you get an engine chip light ,do you go and land on the rig and get an engineer(forget the logistics at this stage) of do you go OEI and return to base?

Conwayb....dude you may have used a whole stack of luck with your Hyd problem.From your post i figured you sre flying either Blackhawk or Chinook neither of which will fly without hydraulics.Congrats

[ConwayB]

Gags and W_ocker

Thanks for your comments. I am glad that these forums can lead to aviators gleaning good information from each other's experiences instead of spiralling into vitriole and catty jealousy. In the words of Kamahl; 'why are people so unkind?'

Gags, yep it was a Chinook... but we have the luxury of duplicated hydraulics and a back up hydraulic system, to boot... so the emergency only raised a yawn and not the heart rate, thank goodness.

I don't envy operators in smaller, less well equipped aircraft being placed in the same situation. Hopefully that sort of emergency will only be experienced in a simulator or on a forum like this from which we can all learn.

Safe flying.

[Chinook]

A yawn ... ? Conway, you need to take some leave man!

Can only reiterate comments concerning shut down for a chip light ... the aircraft will fly on one (albeit with some limitations on landing or task possible) and that's why we do interminable check rides.

Safer to be OEI looking for a paddock than catastrophically wondering where that loud grinding noise and smell of smoke is coming from.

I have personal experience of having to press past a 'land as soon as possible' checklist action, that ended well (really well in fact - booze and round eye ladies while we effected the 250k repair to the cab) but I have to say in hindsight I would probably have done what Mr Chinook designer wrote to do and land the mother!@ - but then at the time we thought we were in some peril landing in the sad at night in 'no mans land'.

Whatever your actions options may be, here is the acceptability test:

1. Am I still alive?
2. Are my crew / pax still alive?
3. Do we have a reasonable chance of surviving until someone comes to get us?
4. Does someone KNOW to come and get us?


....

999. Is the cab still alive?
.....

[Screwed™]

From the relevent Flight Manuals:
(classic)
CHIP (Engine 1 or 2)
Reduce power and shut down engine as
soon as practical to minimize engine
damage. Land as soon as practical.


(412EP)
ENGINE CHIP (ENG 1 Metal particles in engine
or 2) oil.
Reduce power and shut down
engine as soon as practical to
minimize engine damage. Land as
soon as practical.

You would need a very compelling argument to contravene the RFM.

The S76 RFM (from memory)
Eng Chip, back to flight idle and IF necessary, bring it back up on short final. (Obviously if any other substantiating evidence exists, shut it down)
A much more practical approach I think.