Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting Case Study of Public Relations!!
What you are seeing above is a good public relations double-team by Helicomparitor and Red Cougar. Note the snide inference about sub-standard by HC and the slippery inference about grounding by RC, both precise methods that PR types use when they need to do an attack.
Since the Cougar is grandfathered to 1965 standards, HC needs to smear the competition, and he uses this forum to do so. Read the number of times he uses key words and phrases to attach to the competition, like a cheap political ad. Note that RC asked the old standard "When did you stop beating your wife?" when he asked "Is it verified..." in his slippery post. Since nobody said anything about grounding, and S92mech has several times posted good facts never indicating anything like that, you KNOW Red Cougar is also an EC salesman, like helicomparitor.
Read back, and see how the facts as posted by me and others are now being buried under the weight of the slurs of helicomparitor and Red Cougar. Count the lines of verbage to see how they exploit this forum. Nice job, guys, I trust there will be a few more Francs in your paycheck this week (be sure and take August off, too!)
Those who want to discuss the facts about this are welcomed to pm me and I will share the facts that I know. Red Cougar and helicomparitor, don't bother, I don't read french.
Since the Cougar is grandfathered to 1965 standards, HC needs to smear the competition, and he uses this forum to do so. Read the number of times he uses key words and phrases to attach to the competition, like a cheap political ad. Note that RC asked the old standard "When did you stop beating your wife?" when he asked "Is it verified..." in his slippery post. Since nobody said anything about grounding, and S92mech has several times posted good facts never indicating anything like that, you KNOW Red Cougar is also an EC salesman, like helicomparitor.
Read back, and see how the facts as posted by me and others are now being buried under the weight of the slurs of helicomparitor and Red Cougar. Count the lines of verbage to see how they exploit this forum. Nice job, guys, I trust there will be a few more Francs in your paycheck this week (be sure and take August off, too!)
Those who want to discuss the facts about this are welcomed to pm me and I will share the facts that I know. Red Cougar and helicomparitor, don't bother, I don't read french.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who want to discuss the facts about this are welcomed to pm me and I will share the facts that I know. Red Cougar and helicomparitor, don't bother, I don't read french.
Did you guys put a Kawasaki xsmn in that thing?
HeliComp....
Perhaps there is a way to resolve this matter like Gentlemen...we know who Nick is...and who he works for. The issue at hand seems to be who you are and who you work for.
I will agree to ask you to disclose that on a forum such as this might cause you some embarrassment or as you suggest, some sort of reprisal by Sikorsky for defaming their product.
I find that last concern to be without merit. The other concerns do have some validity in my view.
I would suggest a PM to Flying Lawyer who is known to be a very august member of the UK legal profession explaining your bona fides would suffice to confirm to a credible source who you really are and who you work for....but allow you to remain merely HC to the readers. Flying Lawyer could upon being satisfied of your assertions as to your name and such....could confirm with a simple yes... or no to us, whether you are in fact associated with Eurocopter or not. That would put that matter to rest.
You claim to be mostly right in your statements......which part of them were not right and bear correcting?
Your question as to why we crash so many of our own "home grown" helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico....has many answers. I started a thread regarding the sometimes questionable safety standards being applied to flight operations in the Gulf of Mexico. As many of the accidents there seem to be caused by bad fuel or engine failures in single engine aircraft as any other cause....closely followed by pilot error. The related question should also be why the home grown aircraft seem to be the favored aircraft.....which unfortunately leads us back to the existing argument about your position regarding anything American.
A quick summary of your posts shows a lot of sniping....lawsuits by Sikorsky for talking bad about their aircraft....care to list a few of the many suits?
Your mistakes ...the ones where you were partly right....care to expound upon the mis-statements you made just to clear the air so we know which ones you mean?
We must not mistake the comment about patriotism causing some refusing of the truth.....can you point out just how that happened?
Nick is justly proud of his former employer's product.....just as EC folks are of theirs....but somewhere in here the truth lies....Nick presents a very credible case when he cites regs and such to justify his statements. It appears from my reading of the posts in this thread and others where the various certification standards were discussed, it appears the S-92 does seem to be the more advanced aircraft.
If that is not so....please set forth your argument by citing the certification standards that prove that. We will all be the better for such an explanation.
As to me being intelligent, articulate, and a truth seeker....there are plenty of folks that would quickly take issue with that statement. I like to think my pursuit of the truth sometimes evokes that reaction in that the folks that resent what I say do so because it is the truth and they don't like the sound of it being said in public. I know I absolutely peeve some folks to distraction.
I yield the floor to HeliComp.
Perhaps there is a way to resolve this matter like Gentlemen...we know who Nick is...and who he works for. The issue at hand seems to be who you are and who you work for.
I will agree to ask you to disclose that on a forum such as this might cause you some embarrassment or as you suggest, some sort of reprisal by Sikorsky for defaming their product.
I find that last concern to be without merit. The other concerns do have some validity in my view.
I would suggest a PM to Flying Lawyer who is known to be a very august member of the UK legal profession explaining your bona fides would suffice to confirm to a credible source who you really are and who you work for....but allow you to remain merely HC to the readers. Flying Lawyer could upon being satisfied of your assertions as to your name and such....could confirm with a simple yes... or no to us, whether you are in fact associated with Eurocopter or not. That would put that matter to rest.
You claim to be mostly right in your statements......which part of them were not right and bear correcting?
Your question as to why we crash so many of our own "home grown" helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico....has many answers. I started a thread regarding the sometimes questionable safety standards being applied to flight operations in the Gulf of Mexico. As many of the accidents there seem to be caused by bad fuel or engine failures in single engine aircraft as any other cause....closely followed by pilot error. The related question should also be why the home grown aircraft seem to be the favored aircraft.....which unfortunately leads us back to the existing argument about your position regarding anything American.
A quick summary of your posts shows a lot of sniping....lawsuits by Sikorsky for talking bad about their aircraft....care to list a few of the many suits?
Your mistakes ...the ones where you were partly right....care to expound upon the mis-statements you made just to clear the air so we know which ones you mean?
We must not mistake the comment about patriotism causing some refusing of the truth.....can you point out just how that happened?
Nick is justly proud of his former employer's product.....just as EC folks are of theirs....but somewhere in here the truth lies....Nick presents a very credible case when he cites regs and such to justify his statements. It appears from my reading of the posts in this thread and others where the various certification standards were discussed, it appears the S-92 does seem to be the more advanced aircraft.
If that is not so....please set forth your argument by citing the certification standards that prove that. We will all be the better for such an explanation.
As to me being intelligent, articulate, and a truth seeker....there are plenty of folks that would quickly take issue with that statement. I like to think my pursuit of the truth sometimes evokes that reaction in that the folks that resent what I say do so because it is the truth and they don't like the sound of it being said in public. I know I absolutely peeve some folks to distraction.
I yield the floor to HeliComp.
Sasless
An excellent pair of posts if you don't mind me saying so, and I technique I must remember for later, ie you make a fairly flippant post, I am sucked into replying in the same vain, then you switch into intelligent, articulate & logical mode and trash my post! You are cleverer than I thought!
Your proposal to use FL as an intermediary is a good idea and I will consider it, however from my point of view it ultimately doesn't matter to me whether I am thought of as being an EC employee or not, so I have nothing material to gain, but with the current politics in my company (which is not EC!) I might have something to lose if it got out. Nick has cleverly manoeuvred away from discussing facts and made the main issue of any thread discussing the S92's flaws into the credentials of those posting criticism of his product.
What I would prefer to do is to eliminate personal attacks and stick to discussing the facts. The problem seems to be that facts that I state are dismissed because I am perceived as working for EC, so lets say that I do work for EC (I don't, but never mind!), now I am on an equal footing to Nick. Surely now my posts supporting "my products" should have equal credibility to Nick's on his? I am quite happy to answer any questions on "my" product (bearing in mind my technical knowledge is limited, as is the case with most salesmen!) will Nick to the same for his?
However this thread is not about the 92 vs 225 - we did that one to death. I am only interested in finding out more about the 92 (which I know very little about) and this incident - one day I may well end up flying it!
If I promise to drop the S92's MGB oil system certification snipes, will Nick give us a briefing on this system - ie where the gauge and warning light sensors are located in the system, how the two pumps operate together, what the analysed failure modes are etc. Is it possible to post a diagram of the system (I can do the same for the 225 if requested, though this thread is not about the 225)?
How about it Nick?
An excellent pair of posts if you don't mind me saying so, and I technique I must remember for later, ie you make a fairly flippant post, I am sucked into replying in the same vain, then you switch into intelligent, articulate & logical mode and trash my post! You are cleverer than I thought!
Your proposal to use FL as an intermediary is a good idea and I will consider it, however from my point of view it ultimately doesn't matter to me whether I am thought of as being an EC employee or not, so I have nothing material to gain, but with the current politics in my company (which is not EC!) I might have something to lose if it got out. Nick has cleverly manoeuvred away from discussing facts and made the main issue of any thread discussing the S92's flaws into the credentials of those posting criticism of his product.
What I would prefer to do is to eliminate personal attacks and stick to discussing the facts. The problem seems to be that facts that I state are dismissed because I am perceived as working for EC, so lets say that I do work for EC (I don't, but never mind!), now I am on an equal footing to Nick. Surely now my posts supporting "my products" should have equal credibility to Nick's on his? I am quite happy to answer any questions on "my" product (bearing in mind my technical knowledge is limited, as is the case with most salesmen!) will Nick to the same for his?
However this thread is not about the 92 vs 225 - we did that one to death. I am only interested in finding out more about the 92 (which I know very little about) and this incident - one day I may well end up flying it!
If I promise to drop the S92's MGB oil system certification snipes, will Nick give us a briefing on this system - ie where the gauge and warning light sensors are located in the system, how the two pumps operate together, what the analysed failure modes are etc. Is it possible to post a diagram of the system (I can do the same for the 225 if requested, though this thread is not about the 225)?
How about it Nick?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helicopmaritor and Red Cougar,
The problem with your posts is not the oil system. Your posts carry the irrational passion of a person bent on giving all to a campaign and not to reason. Your points from the previous long thread about the certification basis of the EC 225/725 brought that out. Example, you became almost apoplectic that window size was more important than the fundamental crashworthiness of the aircraft, the strength of the seats, and that they stroke to protect the passenger's backs!! You declared that airworthiness authorities were not able to judge these things. You said that modern standards for safety were not treally important. You began that same campaign here, as well, in a precise double-team with Red Cougar. The signs are unmistakable, and are not condusive to information exchange.
You even start it with your new request. The oil system of the S-92 is virtually identical to the Black Hawk, and probably the 225. It is dual in every way, as are the indications. The pilots in this emergency landed with an aircraft that could have been flown for hunderds of hours, yet you have purposely posted inuendo that ditching was imminent, that fleets are grounded, and that the sky is falling, and now you need to see the oil system so you can pronounce the S-92 still born.
Give it a break, helicomparitor, why don't you and Red Cougar just take a vacation in southern France and be done with it?
My offer still stands, anyone else who wants the facts, as I know them, has merely to PM me.
JimL, your mailbox is full, pls fix and I will reply! N
The problem with your posts is not the oil system. Your posts carry the irrational passion of a person bent on giving all to a campaign and not to reason. Your points from the previous long thread about the certification basis of the EC 225/725 brought that out. Example, you became almost apoplectic that window size was more important than the fundamental crashworthiness of the aircraft, the strength of the seats, and that they stroke to protect the passenger's backs!! You declared that airworthiness authorities were not able to judge these things. You said that modern standards for safety were not treally important. You began that same campaign here, as well, in a precise double-team with Red Cougar. The signs are unmistakable, and are not condusive to information exchange.
You even start it with your new request. The oil system of the S-92 is virtually identical to the Black Hawk, and probably the 225. It is dual in every way, as are the indications. The pilots in this emergency landed with an aircraft that could have been flown for hunderds of hours, yet you have purposely posted inuendo that ditching was imminent, that fleets are grounded, and that the sky is falling, and now you need to see the oil system so you can pronounce the S-92 still born.
Give it a break, helicomparitor, why don't you and Red Cougar just take a vacation in southern France and be done with it?
My offer still stands, anyone else who wants the facts, as I know them, has merely to PM me.
JimL, your mailbox is full, pls fix and I will reply! N
Last edited by NickLappos; 9th Apr 2005 at 11:56.
Nick - are you by any chance related to General Mcarthy (or however its spelt)? There is a remarkable similarity between the two of you. For him, anyone who disagreed was a Communist and should be shot on principle, for you anyone who disagrees clearly works for EC (so by definition should also be shot).
By the way, I have no idea what a Black Hawk's transmission oil system is like, so that comment is not much help to me Nick
Since you are not going to oblige us with any actual information, I had a look in the S92 flight manual (early version dated 2003 I admit) and it seems that there are only two things that measure gearbox oil pressure, one called "MGB PRES" which I think is a warning light, and one called "MGB PRESS" which I think is the gauge (which of course is on the screens). Sorry, I am already a bit confused by the similarity in the names, but I am sure its much clearer if you have done the groundschool course! (EC also have from time to time chosen some confusing caption names so this is not unique to Sky)
Anyway, with only two sensors its difficult to see how you would know that one of the two pumps has failed, though Nick won't tell us what the pressure would be in this case - perhaps low enough to attract attention? Clearly Nick's statement that it "is dual in every way" is rubbish - there may be two pumps but that's about all the dualling there is. Of course there are two sensors - that is a requirement to cope with the possibility of a sensor failure that might otherwise lure you into a ditching, but it seems they are a light and a gauge that measure the same thing (could be wrong but the Oracle won't come up with the diagram).
The following is copied from the S92 Flight Manual (probably get sued for breach of copyright now!)
Make of it what you will but its interesting to note that if the pressure continues to fall after you have activated the magic switch, its a "Land immediately" item. (this is because there is no true dry running time in an S92). As I understand it the Magic Switch (aka MGB Oil Bypass Switch) cuts off the external pipework to the oil cooler etc to contain leaks. Of course its no good having lots of oil left in the sump if both pumps are duff. I am pretty sure that this was the case in the Norsk incident (there were certainly no leaks, so pressure falling to 5 psi is surely double pump failure - double pump partial failure to be exact as there was some residual pressure.)
According to his last post, Nick's idea of Land Immediately is that its OK to fly for 100s of hours.
start quote:
MAIN GEAR BOX OIL SYSTEM FAILURE
Symptom:
MGB OIL PRES or MGB OIL HOT or MGB CHIP or ACC 1 CHIP or ACC 2 CHIP
CAUTION
The main AC generators are cooled by main gearbox oil. Loss of cooling oil may result in mechanical failure of the generators and loss of main electrical power.
Confirming:
Main gearbox oil pressure is less than 35 psi, or
Main gearbox oil temperature is greater than 130 degrees.
Action:
1. Descend to minimum safe altitude.
2. APU - ON
3. APU GEN - ON
4. Land as soon as possible.
If the MGB OIL PRESS warning indicator also illuminates:
1. MGB OIL BYPASS switch - BYPASS
WARNING
BYPASS must be selected within 5 seconds after the warning indicator has illuminated to ensure an adequate quantity of oil remains in the gearbox. DO NOT activate BYPASS if the warning indicator is not illuminated.
2. Land as soon as possible.
If MGB oil pressure continues to decrease or there are loud/unusual noises, unusual vibrations or progressively increasing power required to maintain flight:
3. Land immediately.
end quote
Its a bit difficult to understand exactly what is going on without the diagram that I asked for - never mind I'll try to see if I can get it another way.
In summary, I maintain that they would (should) have ditched had they not been so close to an installation.
So thats all for now folks - off to put on my ear defenders in preparation for Nicks personalised response!
Off to my baguettes and vin rouge: Oops - what a giveaway. Merdre - How do I edit this thing.....
HC
ps Sasless, this is one of the posts where I might be "mostly right" because I am trying to sort out the facts in the face of lack of information from Nick "all bluster and no facts" Lappos
By the way, I have no idea what a Black Hawk's transmission oil system is like, so that comment is not much help to me Nick
Since you are not going to oblige us with any actual information, I had a look in the S92 flight manual (early version dated 2003 I admit) and it seems that there are only two things that measure gearbox oil pressure, one called "MGB PRES" which I think is a warning light, and one called "MGB PRESS" which I think is the gauge (which of course is on the screens). Sorry, I am already a bit confused by the similarity in the names, but I am sure its much clearer if you have done the groundschool course! (EC also have from time to time chosen some confusing caption names so this is not unique to Sky)
Anyway, with only two sensors its difficult to see how you would know that one of the two pumps has failed, though Nick won't tell us what the pressure would be in this case - perhaps low enough to attract attention? Clearly Nick's statement that it "is dual in every way" is rubbish - there may be two pumps but that's about all the dualling there is. Of course there are two sensors - that is a requirement to cope with the possibility of a sensor failure that might otherwise lure you into a ditching, but it seems they are a light and a gauge that measure the same thing (could be wrong but the Oracle won't come up with the diagram).
The following is copied from the S92 Flight Manual (probably get sued for breach of copyright now!)
Make of it what you will but its interesting to note that if the pressure continues to fall after you have activated the magic switch, its a "Land immediately" item. (this is because there is no true dry running time in an S92). As I understand it the Magic Switch (aka MGB Oil Bypass Switch) cuts off the external pipework to the oil cooler etc to contain leaks. Of course its no good having lots of oil left in the sump if both pumps are duff. I am pretty sure that this was the case in the Norsk incident (there were certainly no leaks, so pressure falling to 5 psi is surely double pump failure - double pump partial failure to be exact as there was some residual pressure.)
According to his last post, Nick's idea of Land Immediately is that its OK to fly for 100s of hours.
start quote:
MAIN GEAR BOX OIL SYSTEM FAILURE
Symptom:
MGB OIL PRES or MGB OIL HOT or MGB CHIP or ACC 1 CHIP or ACC 2 CHIP
CAUTION
The main AC generators are cooled by main gearbox oil. Loss of cooling oil may result in mechanical failure of the generators and loss of main electrical power.
Confirming:
Main gearbox oil pressure is less than 35 psi, or
Main gearbox oil temperature is greater than 130 degrees.
Action:
1. Descend to minimum safe altitude.
2. APU - ON
3. APU GEN - ON
4. Land as soon as possible.
If the MGB OIL PRESS warning indicator also illuminates:
1. MGB OIL BYPASS switch - BYPASS
WARNING
BYPASS must be selected within 5 seconds after the warning indicator has illuminated to ensure an adequate quantity of oil remains in the gearbox. DO NOT activate BYPASS if the warning indicator is not illuminated.
2. Land as soon as possible.
If MGB oil pressure continues to decrease or there are loud/unusual noises, unusual vibrations or progressively increasing power required to maintain flight:
3. Land immediately.
end quote
Its a bit difficult to understand exactly what is going on without the diagram that I asked for - never mind I'll try to see if I can get it another way.
In summary, I maintain that they would (should) have ditched had they not been so close to an installation.
So thats all for now folks - off to put on my ear defenders in preparation for Nicks personalised response!
Off to my baguettes and vin rouge: Oops - what a giveaway. Merdre - How do I edit this thing.....
HC
ps Sasless, this is one of the posts where I might be "mostly right" because I am trying to sort out the facts in the face of lack of information from Nick "all bluster and no facts" Lappos
Last edited by HeliComparator; 9th Apr 2005 at 21:03.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC:
Bad news, if Sikorsky wanted to commence litigation, they could simply discover your identity in a flash from PPRune or through several other sources. You are probably lower on their priority list than you think. Unless of course you do work for the competition...............
Quit being such a pussy, cough up your identity.
Bad news, if Sikorsky wanted to commence litigation, they could simply discover your identity in a flash from PPRune or through several other sources. You are probably lower on their priority list than you think. Unless of course you do work for the competition...............
Quit being such a pussy, cough up your identity.
Last edited by diethelm; 9th Apr 2005 at 19:26.
Diethelm, you are probably right about my traceability, however its far more fun to remain anonymous as 99% of contributors to this forum do. I suppose I could try having a german-sounding name whilst actually living in the States (and therefore being pro-SKy by birthright) just to confuse people.
HC
ps what's wrong with pussies - did I mention that I was a woman?
HC
ps what's wrong with pussies - did I mention that I was a woman?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all.
This is about my 4th time ever speaking on a Web forum ... very interesting for sure.
Some info for all . We have about 100 hours on our S-92 , no wear on the Input spline adapters and fortunatly no other snags as such.
I do beleive this specific incident has raised some questions about the need for a "single pump failure indication or inticator".
The S-76 as I recall has some wording about a single pump failure i.e you will see a drop in pressure, not into red but in the yellow. Nonetheless you have to pick up the loss on the guage, there is no switch.
I also tend to agree with Nick Sikorsky will have their best on it ASAP I'm sure.
We fly 3 Super Pumas and 2 SK-61ns at our base along with the S-92. It will provide for some interesting times and comparision for sure.
I was fortunate enought to be involved in the AS332L launch in North America and it to had some very serious theething pains .... don't they all.
Bottom line I'm sure none of us want any product to fail in the business cause its "bad for business" so I try and keep a somewhat open mind about it all.
I did do our first offsore trip and will do our first revenue offshore trip tomorrow on the S-92 ... looking forward to it.
RB
This is about my 4th time ever speaking on a Web forum ... very interesting for sure.
Some info for all . We have about 100 hours on our S-92 , no wear on the Input spline adapters and fortunatly no other snags as such.
I do beleive this specific incident has raised some questions about the need for a "single pump failure indication or inticator".
The S-76 as I recall has some wording about a single pump failure i.e you will see a drop in pressure, not into red but in the yellow. Nonetheless you have to pick up the loss on the guage, there is no switch.
I also tend to agree with Nick Sikorsky will have their best on it ASAP I'm sure.
We fly 3 Super Pumas and 2 SK-61ns at our base along with the S-92. It will provide for some interesting times and comparision for sure.
I was fortunate enought to be involved in the AS332L launch in North America and it to had some very serious theething pains .... don't they all.
Bottom line I'm sure none of us want any product to fail in the business cause its "bad for business" so I try and keep a somewhat open mind about it all.
I did do our first offsore trip and will do our first revenue offshore trip tomorrow on the S-92 ... looking forward to it.
RB
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General Douglas Mcarthur was the one who said he would return ( to the phillipines) Senator Joe McCarthy was the commie hater ( are you or have you ever been etc etc ) Easy to confuse the two.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, similar names, similar ideologies, similar egos.........
The hearings on MacArthur's relief from command were the proximate cause of McCarthy's downfall, by showing the world his true nature.
The hearings on MacArthur's relief from command were the proximate cause of McCarthy's downfall, by showing the world his true nature.
Rick
Thanks for that update. I wish you a good inaugural flight. Of course all new aircraft have teething problems, but I would prefer they were not kept secret.
The EC225 will be entering offshore sevice in a few months, and I am sure it will have its fair share of problems too.
If Nick had just said "Whoops, that was a close one but never mind, we are fixing the problem" that would be the end of the story, rather than trying to bluff it out as being an insignificant issue, and writing off anyone with a different opinion as being some anti -SK conspiracy.
HC
Thanks for that update. I wish you a good inaugural flight. Of course all new aircraft have teething problems, but I would prefer they were not kept secret.
The EC225 will be entering offshore sevice in a few months, and I am sure it will have its fair share of problems too.
If Nick had just said "Whoops, that was a close one but never mind, we are fixing the problem" that would be the end of the story, rather than trying to bluff it out as being an insignificant issue, and writing off anyone with a different opinion as being some anti -SK conspiracy.
HC
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Grants Pass, Oregon USA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC,
Thanks for your work in trying to get to the truth about the gear box.
I wish others would just give us straight answers instead of smoke and mirrors.
How about it guys, does the S92 transmission have 30min run time with the pumps inop.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Joe
Thanks for your work in trying to get to the truth about the gear box.
I wish others would just give us straight answers instead of smoke and mirrors.
How about it guys, does the S92 transmission have 30min run time with the pumps inop.
A simple yes or no will suffice.
Joe
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rick Burt,
What are saying, you have 100 hrs on the Aircraft, but tomorrow you will do the first offhore trip on the aircraft.
Teething problems on the 332L, if you worked in the North Sea you would have seen teething problems, and most of them were solved there, not out of St Johns, Nflnd.
What are saying, you have 100 hrs on the Aircraft, but tomorrow you will do the first offhore trip on the aircraft.
Teething problems on the 332L, if you worked in the North Sea you would have seen teething problems, and most of them were solved there, not out of St Johns, Nflnd.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helicomparitor,
Your characterizations, like your verboseness, leave me less than thrilled. If you can count, then count the lines you posted to this thread, and see how you dominate it with attempts to slur the aircraft that has completely subsumed the EC 225, (you do recall the EC 225 grandfathered as it has been to 1964 regulations?)
As I posted above, anyone who wants the details on this incident, as I know them, need merely pm me. Several ppruners have done so, and I am sure they now understand the issues. That is so that helicomparitor, Eurocopter salesman and apologist, cannot run free with his twisted public relations campaign.
Nick
Your characterizations, like your verboseness, leave me less than thrilled. If you can count, then count the lines you posted to this thread, and see how you dominate it with attempts to slur the aircraft that has completely subsumed the EC 225, (you do recall the EC 225 grandfathered as it has been to 1964 regulations?)
As I posted above, anyone who wants the details on this incident, as I know them, need merely pm me. Several ppruners have done so, and I am sure they now understand the issues. That is so that helicomparitor, Eurocopter salesman and apologist, cannot run free with his twisted public relations campaign.
Nick
Nick
Yawn - round in circles again. Why not ignore me but answer Joe Dodds question instead?
Oh - silly me, that's because the 92 doesn't have any specified dry run time with no pumps - the flight manual makes that quite clear.
Actually your comments about certification does raise an interesting point, namely that mere compliance with the latest certification requirements isn't the recipe for the perfect helicopter. Putting aside the dry running issue for a moment, I don't think there is a certification requirement to have 2 MGB oil pumps, nor consequently a requirement for means of identifying when one has failed (Nick please don't hold back to correct me if I'm wrong here even though this isn't an anti-Sky point!).
There is a requirement for 30 mins dry running time at Vy, but that only gives a still-air range of about 35 miles. There are plenty of places in the N Sea, which is not the biggest open water in the world, where you would be out of range of a landing site (ships excepted perhaps) and could end up ditching following a single-point failure such as a crack in the gearbox casing causing all the oil to run out.
Thus what will make the helicopter that people want to fly in is not necessarily the one that meets the latest version the certification requirements, but the one that has the proven reliability not to have the flight-terminating single point failure. Whether that is the 92 or the EC products remains to be seen.
HC
ps, great deals going on 225s at EC......well I've got to get my bonus to pay for all the frogs legs and fois gras somehow!
Yawn - round in circles again. Why not ignore me but answer Joe Dodds question instead?
Oh - silly me, that's because the 92 doesn't have any specified dry run time with no pumps - the flight manual makes that quite clear.
Actually your comments about certification does raise an interesting point, namely that mere compliance with the latest certification requirements isn't the recipe for the perfect helicopter. Putting aside the dry running issue for a moment, I don't think there is a certification requirement to have 2 MGB oil pumps, nor consequently a requirement for means of identifying when one has failed (Nick please don't hold back to correct me if I'm wrong here even though this isn't an anti-Sky point!).
There is a requirement for 30 mins dry running time at Vy, but that only gives a still-air range of about 35 miles. There are plenty of places in the N Sea, which is not the biggest open water in the world, where you would be out of range of a landing site (ships excepted perhaps) and could end up ditching following a single-point failure such as a crack in the gearbox casing causing all the oil to run out.
Thus what will make the helicopter that people want to fly in is not necessarily the one that meets the latest version the certification requirements, but the one that has the proven reliability not to have the flight-terminating single point failure. Whether that is the 92 or the EC products remains to be seen.
HC
ps, great deals going on 225s at EC......well I've got to get my bonus to pay for all the frogs legs and fois gras somehow!
Last edited by HeliComparator; 10th Apr 2005 at 17:52.
HC,
Talk about circles...lordy man...you talk circles within your own post. You moan about the 92 maybe getting a cracked Gearbox or not being within a 30 minute flight of a landing spot....etc....then try to ignore the fact that any helicopter that has that failure will be in the exact same pickle. Or....did I not read all of that correctly?
I own no Flying S stock, draw no compensation from them, Nick and I worked at the same location but for different employers....but did wear the same funny looking officer rank one time thus are bonded as brothers....but for the life of me....your logic is lost on me.
Pardon me...I am just a dumbass old, operative word is old, helicopter pilot, but where is the destination you wish to take us here?
Bell 212's have a main drive shaft that if failed for some reason...ditches with no run-dry time. A Tiger with a tail rotor driveshaft failure will do the same thing. Single point failures exist for every helicopter....sling a blade for crying out loud.
What is your beef about the 92 and what transpired with Norsk? The aircraft suffered a "loss of pressure", an existing emergency drill was carried out, no one got hurt, no damage done. Post incident inspections determined a potential problem in that system that needs to be addressed. I am sure Igor's Foundry and Iron mongering will sort it out pronto. What is the problem?
Might I carry you back to the engineering mindset that pods engines right next to one another? That seems to be a particularly common European and British practice which American manufacturers have gotten away from on the whole. As you well know....one turbine engine pukes its innerds out the front.....and the other one sucks it in and becomes ill itself.
It is common enough that one North Sea operator following a dual engine failure from ice ingestion.....required two or three inflight restart drills in the Sim as part of their recurrent training. That practice led to yet another problem a crew had a simple engine failure but incorrectly diagnosed the problem...reverted to a dual engine failure drill....and tried to re-start the really failed engine which gave them a huge electrical emergency to cope with. They subsequently got an engine running and landed the aircraft safely failing to cancel their Mayday Call.
That was on a Super Puma....your favorite aircraft.
How does that square with your argument?
Talk about circles...lordy man...you talk circles within your own post. You moan about the 92 maybe getting a cracked Gearbox or not being within a 30 minute flight of a landing spot....etc....then try to ignore the fact that any helicopter that has that failure will be in the exact same pickle. Or....did I not read all of that correctly?
I own no Flying S stock, draw no compensation from them, Nick and I worked at the same location but for different employers....but did wear the same funny looking officer rank one time thus are bonded as brothers....but for the life of me....your logic is lost on me.
Pardon me...I am just a dumbass old, operative word is old, helicopter pilot, but where is the destination you wish to take us here?
Bell 212's have a main drive shaft that if failed for some reason...ditches with no run-dry time. A Tiger with a tail rotor driveshaft failure will do the same thing. Single point failures exist for every helicopter....sling a blade for crying out loud.
What is your beef about the 92 and what transpired with Norsk? The aircraft suffered a "loss of pressure", an existing emergency drill was carried out, no one got hurt, no damage done. Post incident inspections determined a potential problem in that system that needs to be addressed. I am sure Igor's Foundry and Iron mongering will sort it out pronto. What is the problem?
Might I carry you back to the engineering mindset that pods engines right next to one another? That seems to be a particularly common European and British practice which American manufacturers have gotten away from on the whole. As you well know....one turbine engine pukes its innerds out the front.....and the other one sucks it in and becomes ill itself.
It is common enough that one North Sea operator following a dual engine failure from ice ingestion.....required two or three inflight restart drills in the Sim as part of their recurrent training. That practice led to yet another problem a crew had a simple engine failure but incorrectly diagnosed the problem...reverted to a dual engine failure drill....and tried to re-start the really failed engine which gave them a huge electrical emergency to cope with. They subsequently got an engine running and landed the aircraft safely failing to cancel their Mayday Call.
That was on a Super Puma....your favorite aircraft.
How does that square with your argument?
SASless
No, you didn't read it the way it was intended. Sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough.
I can sum it up by saying that I want to be flying in the aircraft that doesn't have the cracked gearbox and fall out of the sky (after 30 mins or 3 mins), rather than the one that does. That aircraft may or may not be the one that is certified to the later standard, as there are plenty of critical things (including gearbox cracking) not covered by even the latest certification standards. In fact most of the recent changes to FAR29 revolve around crashworthiness. I'd rather not crash in the first place - I want to be in the reliable helicopter and there ain't no certification standards for that.
It was a sort of "lets try to be a bit more balanced rather than just slagging off Nick" type of post. You think I am anti-sikorsky - not so, I just object to Nick's blatant pro-sales propaganda at the expense of facts.
HC
No, you didn't read it the way it was intended. Sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough.
I can sum it up by saying that I want to be flying in the aircraft that doesn't have the cracked gearbox and fall out of the sky (after 30 mins or 3 mins), rather than the one that does. That aircraft may or may not be the one that is certified to the later standard, as there are plenty of critical things (including gearbox cracking) not covered by even the latest certification standards. In fact most of the recent changes to FAR29 revolve around crashworthiness. I'd rather not crash in the first place - I want to be in the reliable helicopter and there ain't no certification standards for that.
It was a sort of "lets try to be a bit more balanced rather than just slagging off Nick" type of post. You think I am anti-sikorsky - not so, I just object to Nick's blatant pro-sales propaganda at the expense of facts.
HC
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lagos
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tynecastle,
Why are you slagging off Rick Burt? He didn't say he had 100 hours on the S92, he said that 'we' i.e., his company has about 100 hours on its S92 and that did the first offshore trip and would be doing the first revenue trip. He mentioned nothing about the North Sea, just that the AS332L had some serious teething problems on its introduction in North America.
Nick, I have the greatest respect for your pronouncements on PPRuNe, but this endless mud-slinging between you and HC does nothing to enlighten the readers of this thread. HC obviously works, or worked, in a fairly senior position for one of the large North Sea operators (as I guess that's how he flew in the S92) and he obviously likes the AS332L. I'd say, just let him get on with it if he's not willing to reveal his identity, and those of us who really want to know will do as you suggest and send you a PM. This thread will then go the way of most threads and quietly fade away, until we get some definitive news of what Sikorsky found and what remedial action they're taking
Why are you slagging off Rick Burt? He didn't say he had 100 hours on the S92, he said that 'we' i.e., his company has about 100 hours on its S92 and that did the first offshore trip and would be doing the first revenue trip. He mentioned nothing about the North Sea, just that the AS332L had some serious teething problems on its introduction in North America.
Nick, I have the greatest respect for your pronouncements on PPRuNe, but this endless mud-slinging between you and HC does nothing to enlighten the readers of this thread. HC obviously works, or worked, in a fairly senior position for one of the large North Sea operators (as I guess that's how he flew in the S92) and he obviously likes the AS332L. I'd say, just let him get on with it if he's not willing to reveal his identity, and those of us who really want to know will do as you suggest and send you a PM. This thread will then go the way of most threads and quietly fade away, until we get some definitive news of what Sikorsky found and what remedial action they're taking