Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Great Post JimL. I agree that some of these threads get a bit confusing because we are all so eager to throw our ideas out that we often ignore those already on the table and end up in the cyberversion of "talking over the top" of each other without using the ears at all!
I assume then, that all those passionate about this EGPWS v AVAD v Mk1 etc are all busily contacting SC 212 to provide a reasoned case for their preferences for CFIT protection?
Or will we have the 1994 SC 196 (NVG) outcomes where experts and regulators from around the world can disregard the considered SC 196 solutions and continue to rely upon personal opinion as to the way forward?
I think the trick is to get the message out there on forums such as these as to what the RTCA committees can do for us all, how we can have input, and where to source outputs. The RTCA outputs generally contain definitive information from subject matter experts. usually published as a concensus for world wide standardisation, available, properly thought out, and usually heavily debated. But who actually listens? Or perhaps this is just the pprune world that has quaint little arguements and pokes fun at people, but forms no lasting impression on the regulations or safety cultures.
JimL, i know you have been one one or two committees (
) and have seen some success from the outcomes making regulation. What do you think? How will the SC 212 outcomes see the light of day?
I assume then, that all those passionate about this EGPWS v AVAD v Mk1 etc are all busily contacting SC 212 to provide a reasoned case for their preferences for CFIT protection?
Or will we have the 1994 SC 196 (NVG) outcomes where experts and regulators from around the world can disregard the considered SC 196 solutions and continue to rely upon personal opinion as to the way forward?
I think the trick is to get the message out there on forums such as these as to what the RTCA committees can do for us all, how we can have input, and where to source outputs. The RTCA outputs generally contain definitive information from subject matter experts. usually published as a concensus for world wide standardisation, available, properly thought out, and usually heavily debated. But who actually listens? Or perhaps this is just the pprune world that has quaint little arguements and pokes fun at people, but forms no lasting impression on the regulations or safety cultures.
JimL, i know you have been one one or two committees (
) and have seen some success from the outcomes making regulation. What do you think? How will the SC 212 outcomes see the light of day?
I don't imagine BHL are too bothered about DECCA in their 212s anymore
Posted these on rotorheads around the world, but thought I'd put them here too for those interested.
Keystone Hangar, completion centre
Ready to leave for ferry to Bradley International (where Antonov will load a/c)
Turning left up the Hudson River
Looking for Discovery Channel!
Radar Vectors for ILS 03 WBSB (Bandar) using FMS command heading
Beacon outbound for VOR DME 03 WBSB, managed approach (P-ILS)
Established inbound, waiting for VNAV (P-G/S) capture. (Note raw data monitoring)
Keystone Hangar, completion centre
Ready to leave for ferry to Bradley International (where Antonov will load a/c)
Turning left up the Hudson River
Looking for Discovery Channel!
Radar Vectors for ILS 03 WBSB (Bandar) using FMS command heading
Beacon outbound for VOR DME 03 WBSB, managed approach (P-ILS)
Established inbound, waiting for VNAV (P-G/S) capture. (Note raw data monitoring)
Incidentally........those are some of the best pics I have seen to demonstrate lead/lag and flap. Some interesting bends and angles in the blades!! 
HC, thanks, I was quite pleased with them.
Yes P stands for Pseudo: P-ILS is the Silorsky version of what the FW world would call a 'managed' approach (LNAV/VNAV), i.e. a NPA flown coupled to the FMS, rather than a 'Selected' approach, which would be flown using ALTP and HDG etc. It works very well and it is a shame they haven't extended the use of VNAV coupling for enroute and terminal procedures too. Hopefully it will come!
Yes P stands for Pseudo: P-ILS is the Silorsky version of what the FW world would call a 'managed' approach (LNAV/VNAV), i.e. a NPA flown coupled to the FMS, rather than a 'Selected' approach, which would be flown using ALTP and HDG etc. It works very well and it is a shame they haven't extended the use of VNAV coupling for enroute and terminal procedures too. Hopefully it will come!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A shower - whatever next... watch out for turbulence or its off to the gulag. At least this demonstrates the value of a walk in cabin (unless there is a VVIP 225 has a bath & bidet). At least the drag is no factor in Turkmenistan when the security detail have to follow in a Mil8.
Just a quick word of thanks to the guys who brought out a -92 for a rig famil visit, yesterday (Fri 13th). The comments from those who will be travelling down the back were favourable, one or two pointing out the similarity between the S-92 and Shorts 'Shed'.
With one notable exception;
Offshore employees tend to be a bit on the chunky side. I wonder how long the lower door support cable will last?
With one notable exception;
.........those twisty cable supporting the door!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Nowhere Special
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been here a couple of weeks now... training a plenty!
Not what I heard.... I heard it was supporting the line S92 by kindly donating its parts!
And who's doing the training??? The Stornoway crews can't be back from Florida yet unless their course has been compressed into 10 days!
How are the stretcher entries going with that small door next to the big sponson?
Still...the MCA is pressing ahead with media demos at Stornoway and Sumburgh this week....but nothing for the media at Aberdeen ....wonder if someone will ask where the second machine is ??
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab asked:
Good question, especially as the aircraft evidently has a high nose up hover attitude in the region of 10-12 degs (or so I'm told), which does seem excessive. So, wouldn't the cables come ever so close to that big sponson during any lift, let alone one with stretcher?
How are the stretcher entries going with that small door next to the big sponson?
10-12 degrees? Try 5-7
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 Tail rotor pitch change shaft Failure Norway
LN ONO Pitch change shaft failure with loss of Tail rotor control had to make a run on Ldg Bergen yesterday.
LN ONO Pitch change shaft failure with loss of Tail rotor control had to make a run on Ldg Bergen yesterday.
Hats off to the crew that saved the day, this could easily have been an ugly one, total loss of tail rotor control on departure..