North Sea Jigsaw
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mars
According to the brochures for the S92 and EC 225 they have dry running gearboxes. In fact I believe it is now required for certification.
Also if you look at the Sikorsky website they claim that they have a run dry capability. The EC 225 claims the same thing.
According to the brochures for the S92 and EC 225 they have dry running gearboxes. In fact I believe it is now required for certification.
Also if you look at the Sikorsky website they claim that they have a run dry capability. The EC 225 claims the same thing.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ask the voices!
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running In:
What you must bear in mind is that the L2 has already been through all th Jigsaw trials. To bring either of the types that you mention into this kind of role is not an overnight task, the chances are that neither of them would be ready to even start trialing until late 2005.
What you must bear in mind is that the L2 has already been through all th Jigsaw trials. To bring either of the types that you mention into this kind of role is not an overnight task, the chances are that neither of them would be ready to even start trialing until late 2005.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heli Eng
Unless Bond buy all the Bristow mods which ensured the success of the trial, along with the MCA crews, then they might as well start from scratch with a new type as it will take just as long.
Bristows took several months to modify the L2 up to MCA standards for the trial, using knowledge gleaned from decades of Coastguard Operations.
Unless Bond buy all the Bristow mods which ensured the success of the trial, along with the MCA crews, then they might as well start from scratch with a new type as it will take just as long.
Bristows took several months to modify the L2 up to MCA standards for the trial, using knowledge gleaned from decades of Coastguard Operations.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Ask the voices!
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate your point, but none of the fits to G-JSAR are a secret, and besides with people working with Bond who are very familiar with JSAR, I can't see it being that much of a problem.
Who knows, all speculation at this point, only time will tell!!!
Who knows, all speculation at this point, only time will tell!!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Running in:
Whilst it is correct that a requirement is present in FAR/JAR 29.927(c)(1), it could be interpreted that is it conditional upon the assessment that some (loss of gearbox lubrication) failure modes are extremely remote; this might trigger request for an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) assessment - which would propose mitigation only of those elements which fall short of the extremely remote categorisation.
Which led to my questioning of your simplistic assumption. (It could be suggested that it is difficult/impossible to satisfy the requirement for a 30 minute run-dry gearbox for helicopters above a certain size - hence the use of alternative emergency lubrication systems, or failure assessment.)
No regulation can foresee all future uses/interpretations; that's why we see the introduction of hedging statements - to avoid the law of unintended consequences.
Whilst it is correct that a requirement is present in FAR/JAR 29.927(c)(1), it could be interpreted that is it conditional upon the assessment that some (loss of gearbox lubrication) failure modes are extremely remote; this might trigger request for an Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) assessment - which would propose mitigation only of those elements which fall short of the extremely remote categorisation.
(1) Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote, it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued safe operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flight crew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant.
No regulation can foresee all future uses/interpretations; that's why we see the introduction of hedging statements - to avoid the law of unintended consequences.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mars
Thank you for your comprehensive reply...you could almost be Nick Lappos. If you are Nick, could you confirm if the S92 has a run dry gearbox because rumours coming out from Norway are that it hasn't.
Seriously, as a line pilot I would be happy with an emergency lube or cooling system if the gear box will not run dry. However, I would not be happy with an equivalent level of safety (if it is what I think it is) as current gearboxes have been know to throw out their oil. Knowing my luck it would be in the ESB in the middle of the night in a gale!
Mars, what equivalent level of safety would you be happy with..equivalent to the S61, or the S Puma or what?
I was hoping (in my simplistic way) that the new aircraft would be safer and comply with the latest FARs and JARs, not use a get out clause because it is "difficult/impossible".
running in
Thank you for your comprehensive reply...you could almost be Nick Lappos. If you are Nick, could you confirm if the S92 has a run dry gearbox because rumours coming out from Norway are that it hasn't.
Seriously, as a line pilot I would be happy with an emergency lube or cooling system if the gear box will not run dry. However, I would not be happy with an equivalent level of safety (if it is what I think it is) as current gearboxes have been know to throw out their oil. Knowing my luck it would be in the ESB in the middle of the night in a gale!
Mars, what equivalent level of safety would you be happy with..equivalent to the S61, or the S Puma or what?
I was hoping (in my simplistic way) that the new aircraft would be safer and comply with the latest FARs and JARs, not use a get out clause because it is "difficult/impossible".
running in
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mars
Do you have a view on the "Equivalent Level of Safety" that you would be happy with?
Or were you expressing company policy?
You clearly know a lot about this subject and I am interested (in my simplistic way) about how you see future certification going. Do you think we should adopt the Boeing solution and claim grandfather rights (like the 737) going back decades or should we try and improve future helicopters in accordance with the latest FARs and JARs? Gearboxes in particular seem a particular weak point in helicopters - do you agree.
Getting back to the thread of this discussion. SAR helicopters need to be reliable, if a crewchange helicopter has a snag it diverts, if a SAR helicopter has to divert due to a snag then the survivors could die. Hence my initial comment that in my view Jigsaw should not use an obsolescent type, ie the Mk2. I know economics come into this, but so might saving lives.
running in
Do you have a view on the "Equivalent Level of Safety" that you would be happy with?
Or were you expressing company policy?
You clearly know a lot about this subject and I am interested (in my simplistic way) about how you see future certification going. Do you think we should adopt the Boeing solution and claim grandfather rights (like the 737) going back decades or should we try and improve future helicopters in accordance with the latest FARs and JARs? Gearboxes in particular seem a particular weak point in helicopters - do you agree.
Getting back to the thread of this discussion. SAR helicopters need to be reliable, if a crewchange helicopter has a snag it diverts, if a SAR helicopter has to divert due to a snag then the survivors could die. Hence my initial comment that in my view Jigsaw should not use an obsolescent type, ie the Mk2. I know economics come into this, but so might saving lives.
running in
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOND Jigsaw
BOND started SAR in Ireland and some of the crews involved are now back with BOND. Aircraft Nos 6 & 7 will be the SAR Aircraft and fully equipped by Eurocopter. Times have moved on and certainly BOND have, a pity that some of the otehr operators cannot move on and be part of the present instead of always looking back.
They have the equipment and will have the crew - mark my words.
They have the equipment and will have the crew - mark my words.
Hambling Chaos & Running In:
Do you really think it would be a wise move to kick start your brand new fleet with a brand new aircraft type?
I can't think of a single 'new' type that has ever been introduced without 'teething problems'. That might be a pain in the backside when you are introducing one new type amongst a couple of other fleets, but when it is your only type, that could spell the end!
Cheers
TeeS
Do you really think it would be a wise move to kick start your brand new fleet with a brand new aircraft type?
I can't think of a single 'new' type that has ever been introduced without 'teething problems'. That might be a pain in the backside when you are introducing one new type amongst a couple of other fleets, but when it is your only type, that could spell the end!
Cheers
TeeS
I must agree with TeeS, starting your operation with a brand new type is risky. That aside there was no way that Bond would have been able to aquire the aircraft and get them delivered by July this year anyway. In the end it is not the operators decision which type of helicopter is purchased but the clients. If you can't find a customer willing to pay higher rates for a more advanced helicopter then there is no point getting them. The other two operators in Aberdeen are only looking at the S92 and the EC225 because the upcoming Shell contract will require a helicopter able to carry good payloads a long way (East Shetland Basin) in any wind conditions. The L2 is not a bad option for the Northern North Sea and probably a good compromise between payload, range and cost for most destinations. Yes it is a 15 year old design but I don't think that this is "old" in helicopter terms - I would say it has just matured and got rid of it's teething problems......
The two SAR helicopters are a different story. I don't know much about SAR so can't really comment on the L2's capability. Payload and range won't be much of a problem looking at the localities involved so it all depends on it's SAR suitability. I thought that was the reason BP paid Bristows to conduct the trial and find out. It would be very interesting to get comments from the pilots involved but it obviously must be suitable for SAR as it is now used for this purpose in the Netherlands. I am just speculating here but what if Bristows had won the Jigsaw contract? Would they not have used the L2?
A quick note on the gearbox issue. Even though the L2 has no dry run cabability in it's civil version I have heard it roumored that the Dutch military version is certified for 30min? Can anyone confirm this?
Woolf
The two SAR helicopters are a different story. I don't know much about SAR so can't really comment on the L2's capability. Payload and range won't be much of a problem looking at the localities involved so it all depends on it's SAR suitability. I thought that was the reason BP paid Bristows to conduct the trial and find out. It would be very interesting to get comments from the pilots involved but it obviously must be suitable for SAR as it is now used for this purpose in the Netherlands. I am just speculating here but what if Bristows had won the Jigsaw contract? Would they not have used the L2?
A quick note on the gearbox issue. Even though the L2 has no dry run cabability in it's civil version I have heard it roumored that the Dutch military version is certified for 30min? Can anyone confirm this?
Woolf
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ScotiaQ,
I think you should perhaps check out exactly who started SAR in Ireland, you might find it wasn't Bond.
I saw one of thier Irish SAR 61s a few years ago, and I can honestly say I have never seen a more tired looking SAR aircraft. It appeared to have been equiped to the minimum standard required to meet the terms of the contract, and that was it!
At least (when you look back) Bristows have continued to develop the SAR aircraft they operate.
The Jigsaw trial aircraft was fitted with a lot of Bristow mod's, which directly contributed to the success of the trial
The aircraft that Bond will get from Eurocopter will not be fitted with the BHL Mod's, unless Bristows agree to sell them.
So Bond might have equipment, but will it be the right equipment, and where will they get crews who are up to speed on operating it?
I think you should perhaps check out exactly who started SAR in Ireland, you might find it wasn't Bond.
I saw one of thier Irish SAR 61s a few years ago, and I can honestly say I have never seen a more tired looking SAR aircraft. It appeared to have been equiped to the minimum standard required to meet the terms of the contract, and that was it!
At least (when you look back) Bristows have continued to develop the SAR aircraft they operate.
The Jigsaw trial aircraft was fitted with a lot of Bristow mod's, which directly contributed to the success of the trial
The aircraft that Bond will get from Eurocopter will not be fitted with the BHL Mod's, unless Bristows agree to sell them.
So Bond might have equipment, but will it be the right equipment, and where will they get crews who are up to speed on operating it?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Hibernia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They will get the crews if they pay the money. Not many people want to spend half their life on an oil rig or in the back of beyond, but if the money is good £80,000+ for a Capt then a few people may dust off their yellow helmets and apply!!
AP
AP
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ally Pally
On a less serious note, whilst counting their money the crews could look at the following website!
www.uktvstyle.co.uk/WhatsOn/WatchingPaintDry.cfm
running in
On a less serious note, whilst counting their money the crews could look at the following website!
www.uktvstyle.co.uk/WhatsOn/WatchingPaintDry.cfm
running in
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Hibernia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not quite as bad as that!! You've the breakfast/lunch/dinner menu to look at. Then there is the sea, the inside of your eyelids, the inside of your cell (I mean cabin) and Sky TV!!
But if the dosh is right
AP
But if the dosh is right
AP
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jigsaw
Having spoken to freinds in the RAF Sarworld who are looking for jobs (albeit 6 months ago), things are still looking good but i believe the original timeline is slipping considerably..
Fraid I don't have anything concrete!
Ralph
Fraid I don't have anything concrete!
Ralph
North Sea Jigsaw