S-61 SeaKing
Guest
Posts: n/a
You can start the Seaking in acc drive, infact it is normal practice cos you need one donk going to pressurize the hydraulics to spread the blades. Can't remember about the 61 but if it is real important I can dig out my notes.Suspect it is flight drive only.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sea-King gas saving technique:- NOT!
Sunday March 12 2:32 PM ET
Pilot caused ditching of chopper in East Timor
(CP) - A Canadian Sea King helicopter ditched in the ocean off East Timor last December because the pilot made an error, not because of any mechanical trouble, says a new report.
The pilot mistakenly shut off the fuel pumps to save gas, choking one of the two engines and causing it to shut down while the Sea King was hovering, a military investigation concludes.
Sea Kings cannot hover on one engine so the crew was forced to ditch in the sea. The amphibious aircraft floated for about a minute before the pilot was able to restart the engine and get airborne again.
The five people aboard were not hurt and the aircraft landed safely at nearby Dili airport.
"Shutting off boost pumps to conserve fuel is neither a valid nor auth(orized) procedure and its use with low fuel states has serious repercussions as experienced the hard way in this incident," says a report obtained under the Access to Information Act.
The geriatric Sea King fleet, dating from 1963, has been plagued with mechanical problems as Ottawa mulls over potential replacements. But the Dec. 2 accident in East Timor, widely assumed at the time to be caused by mechanical breakdown, was in fact the result of human error.
The aircraft was one of two Canadian Sea Kings based aboard HMCS Protecteur as part of an international peacekeeping force in the troubled nation.
Investigators determined that the aircraft was running low on fuel as it waited for clearance to land on Protecteur's deck.
The pilot had once heard from another Sea King pilot that shutting down the fuel pumps can reduce consumption, even though the procedure is forbidden in the official air force manual.
Highly corrosive salt water seeped into the belly of the aircraft after it ditched. The Sea King had to undergo more than three weeks of meticulous cleaning and repairs before it was ready for operations again.
And while on a test flight Dec. 20, the aircraft's other engine lost power in flight, forcing the crew to make another emergency landing at Dili airport. No one was hurt and the aircraft was not damaged.
A second investigation determined that a technician likely failed to tighten an air hose, though the hose may have worked itself lose in the hot, humid weather of East Timor.
"There was a mistake made," Maj. Mike Muzzerall, who commanded the 35-member Sea King detachment in East Timor, said in an interview from Victoria.
"There was a series of errors. It just wasn't our day."
The Sea King finally became operational Dec. 24, he said.
Canada's Sea Kings currently require about 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. They're available for operations only about 40 per cent of the time.
An order for high-tech replacement choppers was cancelled by the incoming Liberal government in 1993, forcing the military to fly the Sea Kings until at least 2005, five years past their scheduled retirement date.
Upgrades worth $80 million have kept the aircraft operational though the Sea Kings are still plagued by frequent mechanical breakdowns.
Defence Minister Art Eggleton has said he intends to buy replacement aircraft, but industry has not yet been asked for bids.
© The Canadian Press, 2000
Pilot caused ditching of chopper in East Timor
(CP) - A Canadian Sea King helicopter ditched in the ocean off East Timor last December because the pilot made an error, not because of any mechanical trouble, says a new report.
The pilot mistakenly shut off the fuel pumps to save gas, choking one of the two engines and causing it to shut down while the Sea King was hovering, a military investigation concludes.
Sea Kings cannot hover on one engine so the crew was forced to ditch in the sea. The amphibious aircraft floated for about a minute before the pilot was able to restart the engine and get airborne again.
The five people aboard were not hurt and the aircraft landed safely at nearby Dili airport.
"Shutting off boost pumps to conserve fuel is neither a valid nor auth(orized) procedure and its use with low fuel states has serious repercussions as experienced the hard way in this incident," says a report obtained under the Access to Information Act.
The geriatric Sea King fleet, dating from 1963, has been plagued with mechanical problems as Ottawa mulls over potential replacements. But the Dec. 2 accident in East Timor, widely assumed at the time to be caused by mechanical breakdown, was in fact the result of human error.
The aircraft was one of two Canadian Sea Kings based aboard HMCS Protecteur as part of an international peacekeeping force in the troubled nation.
Investigators determined that the aircraft was running low on fuel as it waited for clearance to land on Protecteur's deck.
The pilot had once heard from another Sea King pilot that shutting down the fuel pumps can reduce consumption, even though the procedure is forbidden in the official air force manual.
Highly corrosive salt water seeped into the belly of the aircraft after it ditched. The Sea King had to undergo more than three weeks of meticulous cleaning and repairs before it was ready for operations again.
And while on a test flight Dec. 20, the aircraft's other engine lost power in flight, forcing the crew to make another emergency landing at Dili airport. No one was hurt and the aircraft was not damaged.
A second investigation determined that a technician likely failed to tighten an air hose, though the hose may have worked itself lose in the hot, humid weather of East Timor.
"There was a mistake made," Maj. Mike Muzzerall, who commanded the 35-member Sea King detachment in East Timor, said in an interview from Victoria.
"There was a series of errors. It just wasn't our day."
The Sea King finally became operational Dec. 24, he said.
Canada's Sea Kings currently require about 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. They're available for operations only about 40 per cent of the time.
An order for high-tech replacement choppers was cancelled by the incoming Liberal government in 1993, forcing the military to fly the Sea Kings until at least 2005, five years past their scheduled retirement date.
Upgrades worth $80 million have kept the aircraft operational though the Sea Kings are still plagued by frequent mechanical breakdowns.
Defence Minister Art Eggleton has said he intends to buy replacement aircraft, but industry has not yet been asked for bids.
© The Canadian Press, 2000
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tall Ships race- Coastguard S-61
At said event yesterday (Sat) if that flyby/ transition through the masts of the tall ships alongside had gone even marginally wrong not only would you have killed dozens of the public but you would have put the whole industry back 20 years in the eyes of the public.
As the saying goes-'start at the Board of enquiry and work backwards'
Go and sit in a corner and stare at yourself in the mirror, now run through a few what if scenarios.
If the spelling is ars* its because I still have rage clouding my vision!
As the saying goes-'start at the Board of enquiry and work backwards'
Go and sit in a corner and stare at yourself in the mirror, now run through a few what if scenarios.
If the spelling is ars* its because I still have rage clouding my vision!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sikorsky S61 Fleet-no blades!
The Sikorsky S61 fleet is slowly starting to gring to a halt, as the total non-production of Main Rotor Blades for the last year starts to take effect.
Apparently they have been unable to produce a satisfactory spar at the vendor, so there is nothing to build upon. Of course, no operator in their right mind is going to release any of their own spares, so the guys with no spares are starting to park them!
Life Limit extensions, look like the only viable means of maintaining an operational fleet!
Anyone got any other info on this?
Apparently they have been unable to produce a satisfactory spar at the vendor, so there is nothing to build upon. Of course, no operator in their right mind is going to release any of their own spares, so the guys with no spares are starting to park them!
Life Limit extensions, look like the only viable means of maintaining an operational fleet!
Anyone got any other info on this?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, Sikorsky finally came back with a 1200 hour extension to the life limit to the S61 blades.
This cures the short term shortage of zero supply, so at least the Operator's who were already grounded got going again. Still looks like well into 2001 before deliveries get under way.
Now we here that some Operators in the US are succefully getting a life limit extension of an additional 3000 hours, following the conclusion of their own engineering efforts. There is a distinct likelihood of this becoming available (for the right price) to other operators.
The Main Rotor Blades are the single part for the S61 manufactured at the Sikorsky factory for which there is no alternate supplier; no competition, nothing, and they can't keep the supply running. Makes me want to increase my options for S92's, just as soon as I can find someone to talk to at the factory!
This cures the short term shortage of zero supply, so at least the Operator's who were already grounded got going again. Still looks like well into 2001 before deliveries get under way.
Now we here that some Operators in the US are succefully getting a life limit extension of an additional 3000 hours, following the conclusion of their own engineering efforts. There is a distinct likelihood of this becoming available (for the right price) to other operators.
The Main Rotor Blades are the single part for the S61 manufactured at the Sikorsky factory for which there is no alternate supplier; no competition, nothing, and they can't keep the supply running. Makes me want to increase my options for S92's, just as soon as I can find someone to talk to at the factory!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Has anyone checked Agusta? They made S-61 helicopters and the blades and I understand that the US Navy procured a lot of spares from Agusta to support the SH3s in the US Navy fleet.
Just a thought.
Regarding the life extension I personally believe that although a lot of S-61s will keep flying it is not a very good idea. When the blades were first designed, the engineers calculated the basic life of the blades based on percieved dynamic loading and accumulated vibratory forces and they built in a safety factor. Now they are countering their original calculations
by adding a thousand or several thousands of hours to the life of the blades.
Sikorsky did not have a very good reputation in the support of civilian S-61s.
I don't know if any of you are familiar with Los Angeles Airways. They lost two passenger S-61s for the same reason. Throwing a blade killing all of the passengers and crew on both helicopters. The grandson of the owner was on one of the S-61s that was lost. It put the company out of business. The failures of both rotor heads was traced to the overhaul procedure used by Sikorsky on the respective rotor heads. They left off a crucial process
If the blade life extension goes through, it should require an extensive periodic inspection of the spars and pockets, which will run up the maintenance costs and most likely increase the IOP* for the flight crew and passengers. But, that's my opinion.
* IOP= Intensity Of Pucker
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]
Just a thought.
Regarding the life extension I personally believe that although a lot of S-61s will keep flying it is not a very good idea. When the blades were first designed, the engineers calculated the basic life of the blades based on percieved dynamic loading and accumulated vibratory forces and they built in a safety factor. Now they are countering their original calculations
by adding a thousand or several thousands of hours to the life of the blades.
Sikorsky did not have a very good reputation in the support of civilian S-61s.
I don't know if any of you are familiar with Los Angeles Airways. They lost two passenger S-61s for the same reason. Throwing a blade killing all of the passengers and crew on both helicopters. The grandson of the owner was on one of the S-61s that was lost. It put the company out of business. The failures of both rotor heads was traced to the overhaul procedure used by Sikorsky on the respective rotor heads. They left off a crucial process
If the blade life extension goes through, it should require an extensive periodic inspection of the spars and pockets, which will run up the maintenance costs and most likely increase the IOP* for the flight crew and passengers. But, that's my opinion.
* IOP= Intensity Of Pucker
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 24 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was going to mention the BIM monitors on the spar and for whatever reason, left it out. Reading the BIM indicator prior to flight provides a snapshot of what the blade indication is at the time of the reading. It does not provide any warning regarding a catastrophic failure caused by fatigue.
Sikorsky developed a BIM system that monitors spar leakage in flight. It involved radioactive material and a sensor/pickup. Like in the regular BIM indicator one part shifted in relation to the other. In the normal BIM system you could see the color change from the ground.
On the other BIM indicator when the moving part shifted position the sensor/pickup would detect the shift and provide the warning to the pilot but even this system can't provide a warning about catastrophic failure. Extended blade life equals extended exposure to operating loads
------------------
The Cat
Sikorsky developed a BIM system that monitors spar leakage in flight. It involved radioactive material and a sensor/pickup. Like in the regular BIM indicator one part shifted in relation to the other. In the normal BIM system you could see the color change from the ground.
On the other BIM indicator when the moving part shifted position the sensor/pickup would detect the shift and provide the warning to the pilot but even this system can't provide a warning about catastrophic failure. Extended blade life equals extended exposure to operating loads
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Cyclic,
You question prompts the asking of several more questions:
1) Are the root fittings compatible?
2) Do the blades have the same dynamic and aerodynamic characteristics?
3) Do the blades have the same mass balance characteristics?
4) Do the blades require any type of damping system (Like the Bifilar system)?
5) Most importantly, are they certified for use on a civil aricraft?
There are probably other questions that would have to be resolved. These are just a few.
------------------
The Cat
You question prompts the asking of several more questions:
1) Are the root fittings compatible?
2) Do the blades have the same dynamic and aerodynamic characteristics?
3) Do the blades have the same mass balance characteristics?
4) Do the blades require any type of damping system (Like the Bifilar system)?
5) Most importantly, are they certified for use on a civil aricraft?
There are probably other questions that would have to be resolved. These are just a few.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
A few years back I believe a Cloggie S61 was shutdown on deck offshore because the crew felt "a strange vibration" during the approach. The blade basically fell off during the shutdown due to a root failure, and that blade had a very few hours to go to scrap! Are we serious about extending the life of this rather important piece of kit?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu Z
Cyclic's question was also on my lips.
Westland designed them as a straight replacement for the metal blades, and as I was on a Sea King squadron when they were introduced, I seem to remember it being a very quick and effective fix. Better fuel efficiency (16% profile Tq against 20% with metal)and much much less vibration.
So answers:
1, 2, & 3 almost certainly yes
4 no
5 that's gonna be the real problem (along with cost) remember the first five words of the UK Air Navigation Order - 'An aircraft shall not fly.....'
Cyclic's question was also on my lips.
Westland designed them as a straight replacement for the metal blades, and as I was on a Sea King squadron when they were introduced, I seem to remember it being a very quick and effective fix. Better fuel efficiency (16% profile Tq against 20% with metal)and much much less vibration.
So answers:
1, 2, & 3 almost certainly yes
4 no
5 that's gonna be the real problem (along with cost) remember the first five words of the UK Air Navigation Order - 'An aircraft shall not fly.....'
Guest
Posts: n/a
The dutch S61 blade loss was a spindle failure, not a blade failure.
Westlands were approached many years ago about fitting the Sea King blades to the S61 fleet, their response if I remembe right was that regardless of the civil certification cost we the operators would have to absorb (which were going to be many big bucks said the CAA), they wanted a minimum order of 1000, yes one thousand, blades to make it worth them bothering. Needless to say it all went quiet.....
Westlands were approached many years ago about fitting the Sea King blades to the S61 fleet, their response if I remembe right was that regardless of the civil certification cost we the operators would have to absorb (which were going to be many big bucks said the CAA), they wanted a minimum order of 1000, yes one thousand, blades to make it worth them bothering. Needless to say it all went quiet.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Grenadetosser:
Several postings above I mentioned Los Angeles Airways and how their two S-61s suffered blade loss. Actually it was spindle failure. I don't know what the time frame was for the loss of the Dutch Sea King helicopter and I can't remember the time frame for the LA Airways two losses but I believe it wes somewhere around 1967 or 1968 as I flew on one of them two days prior to the loss. On that flight I had to keep my teeth clenched to keep from chipping them. One blade was out of track by almost ten inches. When I got off at LAX I told a ramp mechanic and he said that they would get to it on the next check. Perhaps, that was the blade that failed.
The problem was at that time Sikorsky did not have an overhaul manual for the S-61. So, when a major assembly such as a rotor head was returned for overhaul it was disassembled, inspected and brought up to the original design standard as dictated by the design drawings. In the case of the spindle they ground off the chrome plate down to the parent metal of the spindle. They then replated the spindle and reground it to nominal manufacturing dimension. That sounds as if they did it the right way however they left off a critical step. They did not shot peen the spindle prior to plating to relieve the residual stresses.
So, when the rotor head was installed on the helicopter the spindles had a high degree of residual stress and after accumulating some hours the spindles let go. This would also apply to extending the life on the blades.
------------------
The Cat
Several postings above I mentioned Los Angeles Airways and how their two S-61s suffered blade loss. Actually it was spindle failure. I don't know what the time frame was for the loss of the Dutch Sea King helicopter and I can't remember the time frame for the LA Airways two losses but I believe it wes somewhere around 1967 or 1968 as I flew on one of them two days prior to the loss. On that flight I had to keep my teeth clenched to keep from chipping them. One blade was out of track by almost ten inches. When I got off at LAX I told a ramp mechanic and he said that they would get to it on the next check. Perhaps, that was the blade that failed.
The problem was at that time Sikorsky did not have an overhaul manual for the S-61. So, when a major assembly such as a rotor head was returned for overhaul it was disassembled, inspected and brought up to the original design standard as dictated by the design drawings. In the case of the spindle they ground off the chrome plate down to the parent metal of the spindle. They then replated the spindle and reground it to nominal manufacturing dimension. That sounds as if they did it the right way however they left off a critical step. They did not shot peen the spindle prior to plating to relieve the residual stresses.
So, when the rotor head was installed on the helicopter the spindles had a high degree of residual stress and after accumulating some hours the spindles let go. This would also apply to extending the life on the blades.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
to The Cat
After the Cloggie spindle failure there was a general re-look at maintenance of them. A fleet check showed up lots of corrosion. Some form of NDT checking was intoduced, it may still be in force (I havn't been near an S61 for some years now).
If one was going to worry about blade restraint I would take a hard look at the Super Puma, but then only if I didn't want to sleep nights.....
After the Cloggie spindle failure there was a general re-look at maintenance of them. A fleet check showed up lots of corrosion. Some form of NDT checking was intoduced, it may still be in force (I havn't been near an S61 for some years now).
If one was going to worry about blade restraint I would take a hard look at the Super Puma, but then only if I didn't want to sleep nights.....