PDA

View Full Version : Bristow S-92 Emergency landing at Yme oil platform


M609
4th Oct 2013, 18:35
Poor google translate from aftenbladet.no (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftenbladet.no%2Fenergi%2FHelikopter-pa-vei-til-Sola-matte-nodlande-3266668.html%23.Uk8JjRY_9Rp&act=url)

S-92 on the way from Valhall to Stavanger.

Crew and pax, 14 total, hoisted off the rig by 330 Sqn Sea King

QTG
4th Oct 2013, 19:00
Anything to say HC?

M609
4th Oct 2013, 19:15
There is a audio interview with the rescue coordinator in Norwegian on this site: NRK (http://www.nrk.no/rogaland/helikopter-matte-nodlande-1.11280317)

Points of interest from the audio:

1. Crew called other helos on the R/T and stated they had problems
2. Position was 17nm from the unmanned and closed Yme rig when the indicent occurred.
3. Weather was very poor, VV300 and 200 meters vis.

Rescue coordinator did not mention cause/nature of problem with the aircraft.

YME rig:
http://gfx.nrk.no//5Npcl963gTcqZAPdpkhBMgu93Qvip9eUeNNupbHHNJ5A

charlieDontSurf
4th Oct 2013, 20:50
MGB issues. Again...

Lonewolf_50
4th Oct 2013, 21:02
Looks like the crew got the bird to a safe landing sight safely.

Good. :ok:

HeliComparator
4th Oct 2013, 22:06
Anything to say HC?

Not sure why I should have anything to say, but if you want something, here it is : "Its an S92, what do you expect?"

There, all better now?

Roadhouse
5th Oct 2013, 03:39
Any more news on what the malfunction was?

SASless
5th Oct 2013, 04:02
It might have been a 92....but it did not ditch!:E

Special 25
5th Oct 2013, 04:48
It does seem that ditching a helicopter is the ultimate sin .....

2 controlled ditchings in an EC225 and the entire fleet is grounded

6 (at least) 'Land Immediately's' in an S92 and the fact that 5 out of the six made it to a ship / jungle clearing / airfield / deserted oil platform, and there is no problem at all???

It seems the HD Colour footage of EC225's floating quite successfully on the water makes for better press coverage that a helicopter sitting on an oil platform it wasn't intending to be on.

I wonder how the oil workers would feel if we demanded what Safety Valves they should be using offshore?

victor papa
5th Oct 2013, 07:47
Ok, so my flightplan should be to only include areas where a alternate is closely available then a forced landing won't count vs if my flight plan include areas without closeby alternates a forced landing is a issue cause I have to ditch? Are we now back to the logic of rather try and make the alternate and save myselve the front page and my aircraft type grounding? N the light of current safety reviews this is a great sentiment that already cost lifes in a 92 so lets revert back to it as long as I do not ditch?

Offshorebear
5th Oct 2013, 08:38
Special 25
I wonder how the oil workers would feel if we demanded what Safety Valves they should be using offshore?

Why the sudden spat at the Oilies ?

In the previous North Sea Ditching thread we seemed to manage and build a mutual respect between Pilots / Passengers.

Can you not see that there are bound to be reservations from some quarters about a mode of transport that has killed 20 people in the North Sea over past 4 years ?

Hummingfrog
5th Oct 2013, 08:53
Offshorebear

Can you not see that there are bound to be reservations from some quarters about a mode of transport that has killed 20 people in the North Sea over past 4 years ?

Is that the car or motorbike??;)

I know of of at least 3 NS pilots injured or killed, in the last decade, on motorbikes while travelling into work:(


HF

DOUBLE BOGEY
5th Oct 2013, 09:07
I honestly believe some of us are really missing the point here. The offshore workers are not bothered whether it is a Eurocopter, Sikorsky or indeed AW involved. We seem to be. They are upset because these events happen at all.

This appears to be an industry problem not limited to a sole type or manufacturer.

Well done to the crew in this case. A good outcome.

DB

212man
5th Oct 2013, 09:17
This appears to be an industry problem not limited to a sole type or manufacturer.

Or, indeed, which side of the N. Sea you operate! Maybe some of the smuggness might wear off now, and statistical reality be appreciated.

heliski22
5th Oct 2013, 09:19
I honestly believe some of us are really missing the point here. The offshore workers are not bothered whether it is a Eurocopter, Sikorsky or indeed AW involved. We seem to be. They are upset because these events happen at all.

This appears to be an industry problem not limited to a sole type or manufacturer.

Well done to the crew in this case. A good outcome.

DB

There is a light in the darkness...

26500lbs
5th Oct 2013, 09:42
Lets all calm down a bit. The only public "info" right now is that from the press. The Norwegian newspapers are notoriously sensationalist. The reality will be somewhat different from what has been reported.
This incident was NOT a "land immediately" situation. The weather was considerably better than was reported. There was no perceived drama from pax. It was a controlled landing. Redundant systems in the aircraft did their job. A well executed recovery operation brought all back to land as soon as possible.

HeliHenri
5th Oct 2013, 10:11
.
The only public "info" right now is that from the press

Really ?

From yesterday :

"Bristow Helicopters Ltd can confirm that one of its Sikorsky S-92 helicopters operating out of Stavanger, Norway, made a safe precautionary landing on an offshore installation after a cockpit warning light illuminated at approximately 1700 hrs today, Friday 4 October"

Bristow issue statement on S92 North Sea emergency landing | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/10/04/bristow-issue-statement-on-s92-north-sea-emergency-landing/)

.

26500lbs
5th Oct 2013, 10:28
Really ?

Yes - I received that as well. I did not count that statement as very informative! purely a confirmation that there was an event.
The press have created somewhat more info all on their own with a usual total disregard to fact. The Norwegian headlines of "emergency landing at the last second" were in my view less than helpful, innaccurate, and irresponsible.

HeliComparator
5th Oct 2013, 11:42
The Norwegian newspapers are notoriously sensationalist. The reality will be somewhat different from what has been reported.


Don't worry, you are not alone in that respect!

rotordude
5th Oct 2013, 12:16
One of the MGB pumps failed and pressure dropped to 49 psi with temperature working it's way up to 150 degrees. Later followed by Input #1 hot. Situation classified as "Land as Soon as Possible".

Sea State 5 yesterday with 40-45 knots of wind and apx. 35 minutes to go before reaching the shoreline. The unmanned/closed oilrig was nearby and crew decided to land there. Sound like a good decision to me!

Aircraft landed, everyone safe, happy ending. All you could ask for!

Well done to the crew!

satsuma
5th Oct 2013, 12:34
150 is pretty hot and with multiple indications, is that really just Land ASAP? Evidently, from the outcome and well done to the crew but what temperature would be needed for Land Immediately and shouldn't the second oil pump be able to cope and keep the temperature down if the first fails? :confused:

26500lbs
5th Oct 2013, 13:37
No 150 is not that hot for the gearbox. It will tolerate a lot more. It is entirely normal and expected for the temperature to rise and to get an input hot caution with a single pump failure and the throttle in the fly position, so the other indications are all linked. Normal actions require retarding the throttle on the side of the failed pump to offload the input. It can then be set again to fly for landing. It is, as quite correctly stated a "land asap" situation, not immediately as there is no immediate danger to the aircraft. The redundancy of double pumps has done its job and maintaining normal pressure, which is the most important thing. Pressure still at 49 psi is still in the green range. It is not a land immediately unless less than 5 psi and this will not happen if one pump is still working.
The crew did entirely the correct thing and did not prolong flight for longer than necessary and landed at the nearest suitable safe landing site.

satsuma
5th Oct 2013, 14:30
What temp is Land Immediately? Won't the metal start changing shape much above 150?

26500lbs
5th Oct 2013, 14:45
There is no temp limit on its own in isolation that would require a land immediately. High MGB oil temp (above 130) will have clear cause and the temperature is a symptom of the main problem. This will be lack of pressure. High oil temp with pressure below 5 psi is a land immediately. This would be caused by a double pump failure. Single pump will not cause a large change in pressure, but is acceptable to be a low as 5 psi. Additionally the AC generators are cooled by MGB oil, so high temperatures theoretically could cause a loss of AC, so it is required to start the APU.
Complete loss of pressure cause by loss of oil would unlikely indicate a very high temp as it is measured by a wet bulb system, ie there must be oil in the gearbox for it to measure its temp.

fourthlight
5th Oct 2013, 21:02
Loss of one MGB oil pump means that input module does not have a scavenge function. As such oil is pumped there by the other pump but it cannot go anywhere so it heats up causing the caption mentioned. After shut down the oil can return to the main module by the cross tubes and it all looks normal.

2manyffmiles
6th Oct 2013, 00:23
I'm compelled to respond to Double Bogey's comment. I'm not a pilot or aircrew, just SLF. I've done it for almost 40 years though, all over the world, and he seems to understand that most of the pax just want to have a safe trip to and from work.

I'm sympathetic to the conflicts inherent in a competitive industry, especially one with safety-critical components.

The challenge, as I see it, is for the professionals here to rise above their daily delivery pressure and to see the hazards, risks and opportunities for what they are.

I don't know the answers, but I do visit this site to learn from those who might.

I'll be on Bristow out of Aberdeen Monday, and out of Stavanger the following week.

I'm placing my life, and the faith of my family, in your hands.

212man
6th Oct 2013, 07:56
26,500,
I'm surprised the pressure remained at 49 psi, as the feeling was that with the -4 pumps it is much more likely to settle around 7 psi, so that in itself is interesting news. Do you know if the throttle was retarded to IDLE then re-instated for landing, or left in FLY?

Won't the metal start changing shape much above 150?

I can vouch that it doesn't, but it gets pretty smelly!

26500lbs
6th Oct 2013, 09:56
Yes - I was very surprised as well to hear that the pressure remained in the green range. Certainly in the FSI sims it stabilises at 7 psi and that is in accordance with sikorsky information (and probably your experience!). I don't know if the throttle was retarded to idle or not, but I think it was a fairly short distance to Yme so probably not such an issue.

26500lbs
6th Oct 2013, 10:04
There may well be another explantion as to why the pressure remained normal with an indication of MGB PUMP FAIL, especially if the aircraft was AMS 7.1. with auto bypass. Is it possible that the auto bypass activated erroneously thereby losing cooling of the oil?

industry insider
7th Oct 2013, 01:01
Not MGB oil system but an electrical problem apparently. Same happened in August in the GOM. MGB warning system CB tripped on both occasions.

Malfunction causes auto bypass to trip, rise in temp, gradual small px lower indication due hotter oil.

JimL
7th Oct 2013, 07:00
'Industry insider'

It is interesting that this fault had been seen in another operating area yet appeared to remain a mystery to some S92 pilots on this forum.

Following the first occurrence, were the details made known to other operators and, more importantly, pilots? Surely two months is adequate time for dissemination of information that could be critical to operations.

Have we learnt nothing from our experiences with the S92 filter stud failures?

Jim

DOUBLE BOGEY
7th Oct 2013, 07:22
Jim,

It's just part of a wider problem. For over 10 years now Safety Reports disappear into the SMS to only be revealed after the Senior Management have reviewed them almost a year later. Even an MOR takes ages to resurface.

A few years back I was tasked to the Nelson. As I was leaving the Ops guy says, "Be careful there was an accident there yesterday" of course I immediately held my flight and asked for information to be told it was confidential. I then threatened to cancel my flight. Finally a Senior manager arrogantly asks "why do you want to know at your level. This is being dealt with at a much higher level"

I then explain that without knowing what happened I may well unwittingly IMMEDIATLEY repeat the incident just a day later. Only then am I told that a S61 had landed with the tail wheel in the net.

On another occasion my gear was indicating 3 greens with the selector up. We selected down and flew past the tower to be told that our gear was still firmly nesting up in the wheel bays. Followed the drill and eventually pumped it down to kneeling. No problem. However on enquiring to the ASO almost 3 months later what had caused it I was told the XMT had decided the crew had misinterpreted the indications as it was "not technically possible to have 3 greens and no gear" naturally I pursued this like a dog with a bone until finally the checklist was amended to include a visual check in such circumstances almost 1 year later.

Commercial fear and management that are either technically incompetent, dishonest or simply gutless are parts of this wider problem. This is definitely an area due for a serious review.

DB

Variable Load
7th Oct 2013, 08:37
It is interesting that this fault had been seen in another operating area yet appeared to remain a mystery to some S92 pilots on this forum.

Following the first occurrence, were the details made known to other operators and, more importantly, pilots? Surely two months is adequate time for dissemination of information that could be critical to operations.

Not "some", but all S92 pilots (and operator management) outside of PHI I suspect.

industry insider
7th Oct 2013, 08:42
Jim L

I have no idea but I agree with your sentiments. An Flight Safety Bulletin with the original occurrence information on the planning room notice board would probably have saved some **** pants.

I was informed by the operator that this was the second such occurrence. I don't know to which operator the first occurrence happened, but I believe it was on 28th August.

Hompy
7th Oct 2013, 08:56
Double Bogey - Very good point well made. If the authorities are serious about a safety review this is a key area they should focus on.

Systems exist for all operators that track safety reports and correcting action but as you say, reports are being 'lost', ignored or result in a friendly discussion but no action, usually due to cost implications of said action.

This has to change.

SASless
7th Oct 2013, 13:42
This is the latest informtion I have read on the situation.


On October 4th, 2013, an S-92A Helicopter operated in the North Sea experienced an electrical issue that resulted in cockpit indications of a Main Gearbox (MGB) lubrication issue. In accordance with the appropriate emergency procedures, the crew landed at the next available landing site safely with twelve passengers on board. There was no additional damage to the aircraft nor injuries to the passengers or crew.

On August 28th, 2013, an S-92A Helicopter operated in the Gulf of Mexico experienced a similar event. In that event the crew also landed safely on a platform with no damage to the aircraft nor injuries to the passengers or crew.

Both aircraft were reported to be compliant with the latest Alert Service Bulletins relating to the electrical system, MGB, and associated sensors and software.


Sikorsky is working closely with the customers to determine the cause for the indications which resulted in the precautionary landings. Information has been received from the pilots, from the on-board HUMS (Health and Usage Monitoring System) diagnostics systems, Flight Data Recorders, and from direct inspection of both aircraft.

Based on this information, it appears that in each event, a malfunction in an electrical circuit led to false advisory information to the crew, and engaged the automatic safety feature that bypasses the MGB oil cooling system. For the given conditions, the appropriate action for the crew is “land as soon as possible” in accordance with the Rotorcraft Flight Manual Emergency Procedures.

It also appears that the automatic system itself worked correctly as designed in both cases and that both MGB’s continued to operate without evidence of any damage or oil system leakage.

In both events, the main transmission warning system circuit breaker was found to be tripped. When this circuit is not functioning, the following would be expected:

· Both Left and Right MGB lubrication pump failure indications will be displayed.
MGB PUMP 1 FAIL and MGB PUMP 2 FAIL
· MGB oil pressure caution will be displayed. MGB OIL PRESS
· MGB hot caution will be displayed. MGB HOT
· Automatic feature of MGB oil system will actuate the MGB Bypass Valve, putting the system into oil cooler bypass –
· Manual Cool MAN COOL caution will be displayed but Bypass Indication MGB BYPASS will not illuminate, as it is on the same inactive circuit.
· Oil pressure may decrease immediately by 5 to 10 psi.
· Oil temperature will begin to rise.
· Oil pressure will continue to decrease slowly as temperature rises.
· No effect on the chip indication system.

Sikorsky is currently reviewing the emergency procedures to determine if any changes should be made. If any such changes are recommended, they will be transmitted immediately to all customers via Alert Service Bulletin.

Following maintenance and replacement of affected components, the first aircraft has been returned to service without further issues. The second aircraft has been recovered by replacement of affected components after which it was flown back to base without incident. This aircraft is expected to re-enter service following recommended maintenance.

Following procedure for short circuit in the M XMSN WARN system:
If the following warning lights appear:
MGB PUMP 1 FAIL and MGB PUMP 2 FAIL along with MBG OIL HOT, MGB MAN COOL, and MGB OIL and the MGB P is still positive and the MGB T is rising/ increasing – check the M XMSN circuit breaker.
Reset if popped (only one attempt allowed).
If the CB cannot be reset – Select MGB AUTO BYPASS switch to MAN COOL (Note: you will not receive a confirmation that the Valve moves to the MAN COOL position since the warning light already is illuminated)
Monitor MGB PRESS and MGB TEMP on the P and T tape on the EICAS.
Check Emergency checklist if additional warning lights appear.

212man
8th Oct 2013, 08:57
I find this a bizarre failure mode, and I'm particularly disturbed to see that the MAN COOL caption is displayed despite the reverse being true!

Shawn Coyle
8th Oct 2013, 12:22
It makes one question the completeness of the failure effects analysis - the safety feature acts to generate a non-existent failure...

Lonewolf_50
8th Oct 2013, 14:15
Based on this information, it appears that in each event, a malfunction in an electrical circuit led to false advisory information to the crew, and engaged the automatic safety feature that bypasses the MGB oil cooling system.
Shawn, your point mirrors my "how is this supposed to work?" and "why did they design it to do that?" set of questions. Not knowing enough about the S-92 makes me scratch my head over that.
Won't the metal start changing shape much above 150?
satsuma: how far above 150° C are you asking about?
Which metal, by the way?
There are multiple materials in a helicopter gearbox.

SASless
8th Oct 2013, 14:37
Shawn,

In the 225 events we saw the Emergency Cooling system operate correctly but give a bogus "Fail" indication.

When one compares the 92 and 225 events it makes one wonder if the aircraft have gotten too complex and perhaps a step back in automation might be considered.

A similar example is the S-76 Rotor Brake system as compared to the simple old fashioned Hand Lever operated Rotor Brake.

Are we making trouble for ourselves in trying to automate what should be better left in older more dependable levels of sophistication?

industry insider
8th Oct 2013, 21:45
SAS

I don't think that the S-76 rotor brake could be described as "automatic". S-76 rotor brakes have been a manual lever type since the B model, nealy 30 years.

victor papa
9th Oct 2013, 05:24
Even on the A's industry insider, you have the option to fit the electrical rotorbrake-all A++ and C+ I worked with had the electrical rotor brake. As Sas says, its a rather complicated kit especially these days after the SB with flashing lights and steady lights etc. Till have to remember to make sure its off too otherwise tom the battery is a gonner.

M609
19th Oct 2013, 12:05
From the AIBN yesterday, via google translate

New Survey of incident 120 NM southwest of Stavanger

Description
A Sikorsky S- 92A helicopter was 4 October 2013 on the way from the Sun to Valhalla with 12 passengers on board when several warning light in the cockpit came on. At the same time the main gearbox reduced cooling of the oil. The crew wanted to land as quickly as possible, but poor visibility led to their having to land on the unmanned platform Yme . The passengers and crew were later retrieved from the platform by helicopter .

This incident has been classified as an incident , but AIBN has chosen to investigate , cf Aviation Act § 12 to 12 , second paragraph.

Last updated: 18/10/2013

Location 120 NM southwest of Stavanger
Event Date 10/04/2013
Aircraft Sikorsky
Operator Bristow Norway AS
Reg: LN-ONW
Flight conditions: VMC
County Rogaland
Type of event
Aviation Event
Type of flight: continental Shelf
Category aviation: Heavy, Helicopter ( > 2 250kg )
Aircraft category: Helicopter , Multi -engine , turboprop / turboshaft
FIR / AOR
ENSV (Stavanger ATCC )

zalt
6th Dec 2015, 15:27
The AIB report is out (https://twitter.com/bosman_patrick/status/672267233960157184).

Tight landing area.
http://aerossurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/s92-yme-300x191.jpg

AnFI
8th Dec 2015, 04:59
Terrifying reading

A catalogue of many things wrong with the regulatory induced, redundancy, 'zero risk', accountability, approach.

These guys were nearly elf-n-safetied to death ... (which is a very real possibility, like Glasgow, the thread for which is a standing demonstration that even after a year of masterclasses into to subtleties of the EC135 fuel system 86.7% of people still don't understand it)

Only a bit of (very stressful) classically cool analatical thinking averted a disasster. One has to presume the pilots were Norweigan (with Norweigan training, less tick box bull**** there)


Classic from SASless:
"When one compares the 92 and 225 events it makes one wonder if the aircraft have gotten too complex and perhaps a step back in automation might be considered." - really:confused:

Never Fretter
12th Dec 2015, 12:57
Classic from SASless:
"When one compares the 92 and 225 events it makes one wonder if the aircraft have gotten too complex and perhaps a step back in automation might be considered." - really:confused:

Yeah, bring back the 212 to the North Sea.:ugh:

zalt
15th Dec 2015, 21:42
These guys were nearly elf-n-safetied to death ...

One has to presume the pilots were Norweigan (with Norweigan training, less tick box bull$%&t there)

I don't follow the first bit of jargon about safe ties(?) and what are you really claiming about Norwegians?

SK92A
16th Dec 2015, 11:09
[QUOTE]and what are you really claiming about Norwegians?/QUOTE]

I believe he was implying that Norwegians are trained to a higher standard then most. Having flown and trained with many of them I would agree. Their programs are very developed and thorough. A tick in a box is not accepted unlike some other countries that I have witnessed over the years. Economics plays a part in every operators flight operations department and that is understandable. Unfortunately, this can get muddy when times are tight, personal are short, contracts are awarded on short notice, new start up companies etc etc!

:ok:

zalt
24th Dec 2015, 13:12
How does offshore training in Norway (to EASA regs, in global operators, mostly flying for multi-national oil companies) actually differ?