S-61 SeaKing
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't turn both systems off at the same time. Or, can you?
Because of the pressure switch interlock, it is impossible to turn off one servo when the other system is below 1000 PSI.
The pressure switch on either system provided continuity when the pilot wanted to turn off the other system. When the pressure switch on the Auxiliary system was in the closed position the pilot could operate the shutoff valve on the primary system and the opposite was true if he wanted to turn off the off the auxiliary system.
On the S-58 the pressure switch and the shutoff switch on each system were very close to each other. The pin connectors for both the pressure switch and the shutoff valve were color coded to prevent a cross connection however the color-coding would wear off. Good design dictated that the connectors and the connection should be keyed to prevent the cross connection but they weren’t. This was either an oversight or, a means of cutting costs.
On an H-34 the pin connectors were cross connected and during ground check the pilot tested the integrity of the system by shutting off one system and turning it back on and then shutting down the second system. When he shut down the second system both systems shut down. The cyclic stick immediately started moving in a counter clockwise circle causing severe damage to the pilots reproductive system. Even though in great pain he hit the switch turning both systems back on.
I don’t know if this condition can be repeated on the S-61 or other later model Sikorsky helicopters but it is worth investigating.
polehog:
"Assembled as designed" aapears not to be the case for the S58 pilot after the event
I'd perhaps also be more worried about the failure of the bearing supporting the output shaft off the power turbine - if it fails the resulting flailing shaft and hot oil turn the other engine into a source for a fire which takes the gearbox out in less than 2 minutes. The accident report for that one should be out in a month or two, with some interesting reading (BTW, yet another nugget from the AAIB visit last Tuesday).
"Assembled as designed" aapears not to be the case for the S58 pilot after the event
I'd perhaps also be more worried about the failure of the bearing supporting the output shaft off the power turbine - if it fails the resulting flailing shaft and hot oil turn the other engine into a source for a fire which takes the gearbox out in less than 2 minutes. The accident report for that one should be out in a month or two, with some interesting reading (BTW, yet another nugget from the AAIB visit last Tuesday).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello "Tinkerbell"
The failure that keeps me on my toe's is the input freewheel failure!!!!!
I've done the output shaft failure in the sim! Quite a ride. The guy's did a "fair dinkum' job to get down. Well done.
Polehog
The failure that keeps me on my toe's is the input freewheel failure!!!!!I've done the output shaft failure in the sim! Quite a ride. The guy's did a "fair dinkum' job to get down. Well done.
Polehog
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was logging Boeing 234? (Chinook) crash on Vancouver Island that was the result of a hardover. An electrical problem caused the parallel actuators to go right to max travel so hard that it broke flight controls and resulted in an uncontrollable helicopter.
This is based on my memory of the incident, please correct me if I'm wrong. (Like I have to ask on this forum :o )
This is based on my memory of the incident, please correct me if I'm wrong. (Like I have to ask on this forum :o )
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A freewheel unit is not free.
To: polehog
This happened on an Italian HH-53. From the time the pilot heard the noise it took twenty-two seconds for him to autorotate to the water.
When they opened the gearbox at Agusta they found that the left-hand FW unit had suffered a catastrophic failure that prevented the FW unit from Free Wheeling. The rotor system kept the transmission rotating and the energy back driving the frozen free wheel unit caused the metal parts to abrade, melt, and generally deform. The engine was also effected causing it to suffer severe damage. All of this in 22 seconds. It was however survivable.
Hello "Tinkerbell" The failure that keeps me on my toe's is the input freewheel failure!!!!!
When they opened the gearbox at Agusta they found that the left-hand FW unit had suffered a catastrophic failure that prevented the FW unit from Free Wheeling. The rotor system kept the transmission rotating and the energy back driving the frozen free wheel unit caused the metal parts to abrade, melt, and generally deform. The engine was also effected causing it to suffer severe damage. All of this in 22 seconds. It was however survivable.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu,
Not likely it was an Intalian HH-53, they don't have any.
To the group,
Please take Lu's assertions about design mistakes with a spoonful of salt. Lots of professionals in lots of helicopter companies make lots of helicopters with a mass of expertise and knowledge that Lu will never understand, nor appreciate.
Lest the group get shaky about the mechanical safety of our machines, remember that the chief causes of accidents, by a factor of 10, is in our hands as the pilots and maintainers. A flaw in our training system is the way we open the emergency procedures section of the flight manual and read all about what we need to practice, as though that stuff will get us. The reality is that we need to practice the judgements and skills needed to fly normal healthy helos in adverse conditions (or learn when not to fly in those conditions!)
If we were to eliminate the accidents caused by pilot mistakes, maintainer mistakes and training errors, there would be almost no accidents at all.
Not likely it was an Intalian HH-53, they don't have any.
To the group,
Please take Lu's assertions about design mistakes with a spoonful of salt. Lots of professionals in lots of helicopter companies make lots of helicopters with a mass of expertise and knowledge that Lu will never understand, nor appreciate.
Lest the group get shaky about the mechanical safety of our machines, remember that the chief causes of accidents, by a factor of 10, is in our hands as the pilots and maintainers. A flaw in our training system is the way we open the emergency procedures section of the flight manual and read all about what we need to practice, as though that stuff will get us. The reality is that we need to practice the judgements and skills needed to fly normal healthy helos in adverse conditions (or learn when not to fly in those conditions!)
If we were to eliminate the accidents caused by pilot mistakes, maintainer mistakes and training errors, there would be almost no accidents at all.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry if I misspoke
To: Nick lappos
I may have been wrong about the type of helicopter S-61 Vs HH-53 but I was referencing my statements about the internal damage from photographs and I assumed it was an HH-53. Now, about the Italians’ not having any HH-53s you are totally wrong. The Aeronautica Militare flew them in SAR operations. I have a factory model of one of their HH-53s and the tail number is MM80976. A division of Agusta located in Sesto Calende (spelling) not too far from Cascina Costa built these helicopters. There is a possibility that the USCG HH-53s were built at that same location.
Now as far as the rest of your post you are being far too accusatory and way too defensive about the quality of not only Sikorsky products but other helicopters as well. While I worked at Sikorsky the following happened.
1) In the assembly of an S-55 being delivered to the Armed forces of Israel the main transmission was installed out of sequence and deformed the transmission deck. The fishplate that joined the transmission mount to the side of the airframe could not be installed due to misalignment of the boltholes. Someone tried to align the holes and in the process made deep scratches in the Magnesium structure. The helicopter went through flight test and was flown to New Jersey for delivery. This S-55 although destined for military use was sold as a civilian aircraft. Making delivery in New Jersey Sikorsky avoided paying state sales tax. The helicopter was put aboard a freighter in an unprotected hold and the salt spray attacked the magnesium structure. In the flight-testing and the delivery to New Jersey the pilots did not notice anything wrong. Upon delivery to the Israel the test pilots noted a severe beat. Detailed inspection found that the right forward transmission mount was not tied into the structure and the adjacent structure was severely corroded. The helicopter was returned to Sikorsky for remanufacture.
2) During the build up of the fuel tanks in the tub section of an S-58 the technicians did not remove a paper lock on the fuel high level shut off valve. When fuel was put into the tank the paper lock came loose and was floating around in the tank. The helicopter was sent to the French in North Africa. On one flight in mountainous territory the paper lock floated over the intake strainer and shut off the fuel supply to the engine. The helicopter autorotated and in the process stove in the tub section. In the ensuing investigation the fuel tank was opened and they found the following: The paper lock which, had printed white on red stated that the lock must be removed prior to installing the valve. They also found bobby pins and chewing gum wrappers in the tank as well as long hairs from the woman technicians.
3) Sikorsky technicians forgot to install a snap ring in a tail rotor gearbox for an S-58. This particular gearbox had a bad leak in the area of the input housing and was repaired three times before the leak was stopped. Each time the leak was corrected the technicians checked the gear mesh. In doing this they would have a direct view of the snap ring installation. Once the leak was stopped the gearbox was run in and again inspected for the proper gear mesh. The paper work had been signed off and stamped four times without inspection having viewed the work. The gearbox was placed in open stock and installed on a Navy HSS-1. It went through flight test and was ferried out to San Diego. On the first flight checking out the SONAR system the tail rotor came off the gearbox and the helicopter crashed killing the three-man crew. The helicopter and the tail rotor were recovered and upon disassembly of the gearbox it was found that the snap ring was missing from its’ place and there was no evidence that it had been installed. The Navy presented its’ case to Sikorsky and they were told that the snap ring had been installed and to prove it, they showed them the paperwork. The Navy could not question the build-up technicians because they had been given the day off with pay and the inspector was transferred to another department. The sad thing is that being in open stock the gearbox could have been installed on an H-34, which carried twelve men or even worse on a Sabena S-58.
Now if you want me to address Bell products I can relate stories that would make even a hardened warrior such as yourself cringe.
Not likely it was an Intalian HH-53, they don't have any.
Now as far as the rest of your post you are being far too accusatory and way too defensive about the quality of not only Sikorsky products but other helicopters as well. While I worked at Sikorsky the following happened.
1) In the assembly of an S-55 being delivered to the Armed forces of Israel the main transmission was installed out of sequence and deformed the transmission deck. The fishplate that joined the transmission mount to the side of the airframe could not be installed due to misalignment of the boltholes. Someone tried to align the holes and in the process made deep scratches in the Magnesium structure. The helicopter went through flight test and was flown to New Jersey for delivery. This S-55 although destined for military use was sold as a civilian aircraft. Making delivery in New Jersey Sikorsky avoided paying state sales tax. The helicopter was put aboard a freighter in an unprotected hold and the salt spray attacked the magnesium structure. In the flight-testing and the delivery to New Jersey the pilots did not notice anything wrong. Upon delivery to the Israel the test pilots noted a severe beat. Detailed inspection found that the right forward transmission mount was not tied into the structure and the adjacent structure was severely corroded. The helicopter was returned to Sikorsky for remanufacture.
2) During the build up of the fuel tanks in the tub section of an S-58 the technicians did not remove a paper lock on the fuel high level shut off valve. When fuel was put into the tank the paper lock came loose and was floating around in the tank. The helicopter was sent to the French in North Africa. On one flight in mountainous territory the paper lock floated over the intake strainer and shut off the fuel supply to the engine. The helicopter autorotated and in the process stove in the tub section. In the ensuing investigation the fuel tank was opened and they found the following: The paper lock which, had printed white on red stated that the lock must be removed prior to installing the valve. They also found bobby pins and chewing gum wrappers in the tank as well as long hairs from the woman technicians.
3) Sikorsky technicians forgot to install a snap ring in a tail rotor gearbox for an S-58. This particular gearbox had a bad leak in the area of the input housing and was repaired three times before the leak was stopped. Each time the leak was corrected the technicians checked the gear mesh. In doing this they would have a direct view of the snap ring installation. Once the leak was stopped the gearbox was run in and again inspected for the proper gear mesh. The paper work had been signed off and stamped four times without inspection having viewed the work. The gearbox was placed in open stock and installed on a Navy HSS-1. It went through flight test and was ferried out to San Diego. On the first flight checking out the SONAR system the tail rotor came off the gearbox and the helicopter crashed killing the three-man crew. The helicopter and the tail rotor were recovered and upon disassembly of the gearbox it was found that the snap ring was missing from its’ place and there was no evidence that it had been installed. The Navy presented its’ case to Sikorsky and they were told that the snap ring had been installed and to prove it, they showed them the paperwork. The Navy could not question the build-up technicians because they had been given the day off with pay and the inspector was transferred to another department. The sad thing is that being in open stock the gearbox could have been installed on an H-34, which carried twelve men or even worse on a Sabena S-58.
Now if you want me to address Bell products I can relate stories that would make even a hardened warrior such as yourself cringe.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick says:
"If we were to eliminate the accidents caused by pilot mistakes, maintainer mistakes and training errors, there would be almost no accidents at all."
So Sikorsky will be supporting the introduction of Human Centred Design techniques?
"If we were to eliminate the accidents caused by pilot mistakes, maintainer mistakes and training errors, there would be almost no accidents at all."
So Sikorsky will be supporting the introduction of Human Centred Design techniques?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor Lu,
The Italians don't have, never had and probably never will have HH-53 helicopters of any model designation. You seem to be referring to an HH-3, which is a totally different type, at about half the size, and 15 years older. Please check your facts.
zalt asks "So Sikorsky will be supporting the introduction of Human Centred Design techniques?"
I think you ask that question as if you know of a new way to design, and that you also think others don't have it. Fair enough, but Sikorsky maintains a large and capable human factors engineering group. That group has been part of Sikorsky design for several decades.
I just love it when somebody invents a new acronym or phrase, and then thinks they invented something new! Takes more than that.
BTW, the US Army uses the phrase Manprint to define the entire design process of governing effective and safe behavior from the basic task thru the hardware and then the training and pubs. Its a shame they didn't think of "human centered design", they could have been first. Of course, Manprint has been around for about 20 years. I'll tell the Army and Sikorsky Human Factors to stop being so old fashioned!
The Italians don't have, never had and probably never will have HH-53 helicopters of any model designation. You seem to be referring to an HH-3, which is a totally different type, at about half the size, and 15 years older. Please check your facts.
zalt asks "So Sikorsky will be supporting the introduction of Human Centred Design techniques?"
I think you ask that question as if you know of a new way to design, and that you also think others don't have it. Fair enough, but Sikorsky maintains a large and capable human factors engineering group. That group has been part of Sikorsky design for several decades.
I just love it when somebody invents a new acronym or phrase, and then thinks they invented something new! Takes more than that.
BTW, the US Army uses the phrase Manprint to define the entire design process of governing effective and safe behavior from the basic task thru the hardware and then the training and pubs. Its a shame they didn't think of "human centered design", they could have been first. Of course, Manprint has been around for about 20 years. I'll tell the Army and Sikorsky Human Factors to stop being so old fashioned!
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My god he got me again.
To: NickLappos
Nick when you are right you are right. I hit too many keys when I typed in HH-53. It should have been HH-3. That being said everything else stays as previously stated.
One point to remember. No matter how much care is taken in the design of the aircraft, the design of the training system and the design of the maintenance program things fail. The failure could result from a design miscalculation, a faulty machining process or any number of things relating to QC. Or a fault in the maintenance program or the POH operating procedures.
When the first Commanche or S-92 crashes what can you blame it on since Sikorsky has taken every precaution to minimize if not totally eliminate failure.
Remember the failure of the S-76 blade that failed when the secondary loadpath failed and then, when the primary loadpath failed the blade separated.
The V-22 was designed using the Integrated Design Team concept and look at the safety record for that aircraft.
Nick when you are right you are right. I hit too many keys when I typed in HH-53. It should have been HH-3. That being said everything else stays as previously stated.
One point to remember. No matter how much care is taken in the design of the aircraft, the design of the training system and the design of the maintenance program things fail. The failure could result from a design miscalculation, a faulty machining process or any number of things relating to QC. Or a fault in the maintenance program or the POH operating procedures.
When the first Commanche or S-92 crashes what can you blame it on since Sikorsky has taken every precaution to minimize if not totally eliminate failure.
Remember the failure of the S-76 blade that failed when the secondary loadpath failed and then, when the primary loadpath failed the blade separated.
The V-22 was designed using the Integrated Design Team concept and look at the safety record for that aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Australia
Age: 47
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coulson S61 IN OZ
Hi all,
Today i noticed(hard not to!!) an S-61 i beleive its coulsons from the US, yellow and white arrive at Cessnock airport in the Hunter Valley wine region.
I was talking to some Rural fire services brass the other day and belive it will be based At cessnock for the season.
There are also a plethora of overseas craft here as well, Kmax's, Air cranes, 205,204'S and i beleive there is a Mil-8 floating around.
So far to date we have not seen major action up this way in fires. i was out in our 206 in late september for a week doing air attack but that has been about the extent of it. we have had quite a bit of rain in the last week.
Anyway just a bit of trivia for you all.
Today i noticed(hard not to!!) an S-61 i beleive its coulsons from the US, yellow and white arrive at Cessnock airport in the Hunter Valley wine region.
I was talking to some Rural fire services brass the other day and belive it will be based At cessnock for the season.
There are also a plethora of overseas craft here as well, Kmax's, Air cranes, 205,204'S and i beleive there is a Mil-8 floating around.
So far to date we have not seen major action up this way in fires. i was out in our 206 in late september for a week doing air attack but that has been about the extent of it. we have had quite a bit of rain in the last week.
Anyway just a bit of trivia for you all.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 48 Deg South
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a Carson machine, one of two they have down there. It is also hoped to have their new belly tank fitted to it within the next month or so.
Yes there is a Mil 8 being based in Victoria as part of the AFAC contract, its Heli Harvest's Mi-8 from New Zealand.
Good operators these guys and very professional.
Autorotate.
Yes there is a Mil 8 being based in Victoria as part of the AFAC contract, its Heli Harvest's Mi-8 from New Zealand.
Good operators these guys and very professional.
Autorotate.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S-61 back in the north sea!!
Apparently Chevron-Texaco not impressed with the Super Puma/Tiger. Have re-opted to use the S-61 on their flights to Captain field. May well see the 61 around for a while then.....