Nick Lappos: back to Sikorsky?

[Senior Pilot]

I hear that Nick has returned to Hartford, home of Sikorsky Helicopters. No doubt he will continue to make a significant contribution to our industry, and thoroughly enjoy himself at the same time.

Good luck, Nick :ok:

[SansAnhedral]

Sikorsky is located about 60 miles southeast of Hartford in Stratford, perhaps its UTRC?

[Gomer Pylot]

Hartford is the home of the insurance industry. Many of the big insurance companies are based there. No aircraft companies that I know of, though.

[SASless]

He would be a breath of fresh air in the FAA....not that they need some!:=

He best hurry.....after 2012 he will be out of step with the new President!:E

Hartford??? Grounds for divorce in my view!

[Dave_Jackson]

United Technologies Research Center.

East Hartford, Connecticut
411 Silver Lane
East Hartford, CT 06108
Telephone: (860) 610-7000


If Nick is back, perhaps this will revive technologically related rotorcraft threads, for the interested.

Dave

[Dan Reno]

Allthough Sikorsky has a full plate and a couple great birds in the oven, it needs an individual like Nick who talks the customer's lingo to bring everything together to fruition.

[Lonewolf_50]

Dave, perhaps Nick will be, for the early going, immersed in his new job/position and likewise in a position where he can't comment on those matters of interest to many of us ... NDA's and all that.

[Dave_Jackson]

Lonewolf_50, yes.

Does this mean that we'll have to provoke him, http://www.unicopter.com/StickPoke.gif
or get him drunk? http://www.unicopter.com/5shots.gif


Dave

[Freewheel]

Dave,

According to SASless, that's going to require an intervention.....:uhoh:

[NickLappos]

Yes, I am starting soon at Sikorsky, re-joining a great team, working to help develop new products and new innovations. I interviewed last month, and saw so many old friends, shook so many hands and smiled so much my face hurt! The meeting Friday was at United Technologies Research Center, part of the new assignment.

Nick

[birrddog]

Congrats Nick. Welcome back to the North East!

[Dan Reno]

That's FANTASTIC news !

[meloni]

GREAT NEWS!!! good luck:ok::ok::ok::ok:

[delta3]

Nick

Looking forward to see really new technology being tested and used.

Good luck.

[Graviman]

Congrats, Nick!

I just can't wait to see how far the helicopter concept can be pushed while remaining a practical flying machine. :cool:

Mart

[I Build 92's]

It will be great to see your smiling face back here!

[I Build 92's]

Nicholas Lappos Named Senior Technical Fellow, Advanced Technology

I am pleased to announce that Nicholas Lappos has joined Sikorsky Aircraft as Senior Technical Fellow, Advanced Technology, effective June 1. Nick will report directly to me and will be based in Stratford, Conn.

In this newly created executive role, Nick will be responsible for identifying and successfully closing solutions to some of our most challenging technical issues. Partnering with our P&Ls and Sikorsky Innovations, he will also be responsible for developing customer communication strategies that outline the value propositions for strategic advanced technical programs leading to their production incorporation and enabling new program “wins”. Nick will Chair our Technical Fellows group, and leverage those resources to perform independent technical assessments and analyses, quickly resolve technical issues, provide technical leadership and mentoring, and attract and retain the best technical talent in our industry.

Nick brings more than 37 years of rotorcraft engineering and programs experience to this role. He spent 31 years at Sikorsky, with several roles in engineering, programs, and as a test pilot. Nick spent nearly 5 years as a UTC executive, most recently as Program Manager, S/H-92, before joining Gulfstream Aerospace Corp as Vice President, Government Programs in 2005. He held this position until January of 2008, when he joined Textron as Senior Vice President, XworX and then as Chief Technology Officer for Bell Helicopter. Nick is an AHS Technical Fellow, a member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, and holds 17 patents.

Nick holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology.

Please join me in congratulating Nick on his assignment and welcoming him back to Sikorsky.

[SASless]

Nick is happiest when he is involved in any project that furthers the Helicopter Industry by means of technology and improved processes. The change in his demeanor and the enthusiasm he holds for that kind of effort is amazing to see. If you ever get an opportunity to sit in on a presentation or even corner him by the coffee pot....don't miss it! He has some great ideas and vision for the future.

[topendtorque]

He is certainly a role model for any person wanting to get ahead. It is a great industry where mentors are free and willing. I suggest to all youngsters who wish to think outside the square, have a go ask the questions, the world is your oyster. We still seem to be in the beginnings of helicopter design.

[[email protected]]

So did Nick leave Sikorsky after disagreements regarding the S92? Seems strange he left just before things started going pear-shaped there and has returned just when they really need to rebuild their reputation.

[Hilife]

I see the S-92 as one of NL’s baby’s and a great advocate, so off the mark in my opinion.

If I remember correctly, NL departed SAC shortly after the VXX selection back in early 2005, so go figure. But, as the next winner will be the VH-92 (Incumbent teams up with LM - VXX winning Systems Integrator) and with added opportunities of getting involved with next generation platforms like the S-97 (and others), I would have thought now would be an exciting time to return.

[[email protected]]

Certainly Nick was gushing about the safety aspects of the S-92 in his sales pitch but some of those claims have now proved to be erroneous:

The 'heritage' of the blackhawk (running gear all based on proven blackhawk sytems) that was claimed to show how reliable the S-92 would be turns out to be false and the only compatability is that a blackhawk could have a 92 gearbox fitted to it (as if you would want to).

The FAR 29 compliance, heralded as a new level of airworthiness and safety, made no mention of the workaround used to certify a MRGB that failed after 11 mins on a run dry test.

I would be interested to know if Nick was forced to give the party line or if he really did believe the S-92 was as good as he said - someone with his knowledge and experience would surely have spotted differences between marketing hype and reality.

[Flying Lawyer]

Crab So did Nick leave Sikorsky after disagreements regarding the S92?

No. You're on the wrong track completely.
Nick was tempted by the new challenge offered by Gulfstream - heading their Government Programmes division - but was very reluctant to leave Sikorsky. Gulfstream was determined to recruit him and eventually offered a package that no-one in their right mind would have turned down.
(He was subsequently head-hunted by Bell who were also extremely keen to recruit him, and eventually succeeded.)

has returned just when they really need to rebuild their reputation.
If that's the case, then there's no better man to do it.


FL

[Hedge36]

Certainly Nick was gushing about the safety aspects of the S-92 in his sales pitch but some of those claims have now proved to be erroneous:

The 'heritage' of the blackhawk (running gear all based on proven blackhawk sytems) that was claimed to show how reliable the S-92 would be turns out to be false and the only compatability is that a blackhawk could have a 92 gearbox fitted to it (as if you would want to).

The FAR 29 compliance, heralded as a new level of airworthiness and safety, made no mention of the workaround used to certify a MRGB that failed after 11 mins on a run dry test.

I would be interested to know if Nick was forced to give the party line or if he really did believe the S-92 was as good as he said - someone with his knowledge and experience would surely have spotted differences between marketing hype and reality.


If I was Sikorksy, I'd certainly want Nick testifying on behalf of the company rather than as a witness for the plaintiffs in the pending suits. Recruiting him back into the fold was a pretty sound business decision, I'd say.

[Matthew Parsons]

Does everyone really think the S92 is incredibly unsafe? Yes, the gearbox failed in the worst way. But that's fixed now, isn't it? Would you rather fly a sixty year old proven airframe over large distances of unwelcome ocean, or the S92? I'd pick the latter (provided the transmission is fixed).

With absolutely every airframe that's out there, the level of safety increasese with: how new the design is and how mature the airframe is. Level of safety decreases with: how old the design is and how old the airframe is. Truth is that there are growing pains to every design. Stuff that doesn't jump out of the blueprints or the flight test, but becomes obvious once the design gets used.

I know this has little to do with Nick getting a new job, but the 'spin' of the thread was that there was somehow something inherently wrong with the S92. Absolutely sucks that people lost lives to learn this (including a friend of mine) but lets try to be true to the facts and not label the aircraft nor the people involved inappropriately.

Matthew.

[squib66]

If I was Sikorksy, I'd certainly want Nick testifying on behalf of the company rather than as a witness for the plaintiffs in the pending suits. Recruiting him back into the fold was a pretty sound business decision, I'd say.

I'm sure the plantiffs would like to see the Programme Director give evidence, particularly about the time from the MGB failure in August 2002 to the FAA certification in December 2002.

However, I doubt any Sikorsky executive, past or present, would willingly volunteer to be examined by them in open court.

[Thomas coupling]

Just because the S92 crash is history, isn't a reason to forget the lessons it taught everyone.
I go along with Crab on this, he raises an interesting point.
From the TSBC findings:

The S-92A rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) MGB oil system failure procedure was ambiguous and lacked clearly defined symptoms of either a massive loss of MGB oil or a single MGB oil pump failure. This ambiguity contributed to the flight crew's misdiagnosis that a faulty oil pump or sensor was the source of the problem.

and

The decision not to automate an emergency system activation, such as the MGB oil bypass system in the S-92A, increases the risk that critical actions will be omitted or delayed unnecessarily.

and

If manufacturers do not clearly identify critical aircraft performance capabilities in flight manuals, such as run dry time, there is increased risk that pilots will make decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate information during abnormal and emergency situations.



Sikorsky are implicated and allegedly contributed to the crash. The pending law suits will decide by how much. In the meantime perhaps I can get the question in early:eek::

Nick, how much of the above were you aware of during your 30+ yrs at Sikorsky?

hedge 36: Interesting perspective:oh:

[outhouse]

Hi chaps, just drifted back to the thread, got rather board with the god like approach, however as it is now featuring the S92 maybe a trail through some of the comments relating to the helicopter in other threads and the duff information posted if still available and not deleted, may be of help in the ongoing litigation.:ok:

[SansAnhedral]

Nice to see mods are selectively deleting posts in these threads.

If you dont want any S92 discussion in here, be consistent and delete all of the other posts referencing the 92 and not Nick specifically. :rolleyes:




Posts have not been deleted, they have been moved to the S-92 thread where they are more relevant. Some posts were copied across to maintain continuity of discussion, otherwise this thread should be about Nick/Sikorsky, not a duplication of the S-92 thread

SP

[outhouse]

Sorry mods, seems I have been out of order, *E mail notification of reply seemingly deleted.*
Well never mind least my mail is still available and though I guess a tad controversial we shall see.
As it's relevant to thread look forward to any comments.
:ok: