Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: where-ever my head hits a pillow
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][How are the stretcher entries going with that small door next to the big sponson?]
No problem what so ever. Have done a bunch of hoists with strechers/pump etc. ( guide line on or off) and haven't had any problems. 212man is correct in his statement, regarding 5-7 dergrees rather than the 10-12 mentioned here. It does however have a big down draft. Have seen some of the smaller rescue specialists hanging on for dear life
during operations with a guide line
No problem what so ever. Have done a bunch of hoists with strechers/pump etc. ( guide line on or off) and haven't had any problems. 212man is correct in his statement, regarding 5-7 dergrees rather than the 10-12 mentioned here. It does however have a big down draft. Have seen some of the smaller rescue specialists hanging on for dear life
during operations with a guide line
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 tail rotor pitch change shaft failure (?)!
Has this been confirmed somewhere and / or is there more info?
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.
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.
Yes it's confirmed. ASB out to check TGB Chip detectors at 20 hours or 30 days. Good job by crew I gather.
STRATFORD, Conn. - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. has delivered the first S-92® helicopter to China. Eastern General Aviation Corporation (EGAC), a subsidiary of China Eastern Airlines Group, recently accepted the aircraft along with two S-76 C++™ helicopters. Sikorsky Aircraft is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX).
The delivery distinguishes EGAC as the first customer to operate the S-92 in China. The helicopters will be used for offshore oil operations as part of EGAC's plans to expand its business with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and ConocoPhillips China, Inc., a Joint Venture with CNOOC. The aircraft are upgrades for EGAC's current fleet of three S-76A++™ aircraft.
Located in Tianjin in northern China, EGAC is the second-largest commercial customer of Sikorsky Aircraft in China. It provides helicopter service to offshore oil companies operating in the Bohai Bay area, a region in China that is experiencing oil industry market growth.
"China is important to us as both a market and supplier base, including for S-92 tail pylons. The aircraft's entry into the domestic market is particularly gratifying and appropriate," said Sikorsky President Jeffrey Pino. "We expect the S-92 will become an important part of China's growing oil industry."
The three aircraft were ferried to Tianjin by an Antonov 124 cargo plane, which arrived in Tianjin on June 2. In-country flight training with a Sikorsky instructor has been successfully completed and the S-92 is scheduled to begin contract service with CNOOC and ConocoPhilips China, Inc. on August 1. Avion Pacific Ltd., China sales representative for Sikorsky Aircraft, is conducting flight training for the S-76C++ in country, estimating completion by August 15.
"The introduction of the S-92 marks the milestone of EGAC entering into heavy machines operations and we are very happy with our selection," said EGAC President Li Jianmin. Adding to Jianmin's comments, Captain Ma Qin, EGAC's Chief Pilot of EGAC, said: "The S-92 is a superb machine, the best I have ever flown in my career. We are excited to be flying it."
Good Luck!
The delivery distinguishes EGAC as the first customer to operate the S-92 in China. The helicopters will be used for offshore oil operations as part of EGAC's plans to expand its business with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and ConocoPhillips China, Inc., a Joint Venture with CNOOC. The aircraft are upgrades for EGAC's current fleet of three S-76A++™ aircraft.
Located in Tianjin in northern China, EGAC is the second-largest commercial customer of Sikorsky Aircraft in China. It provides helicopter service to offshore oil companies operating in the Bohai Bay area, a region in China that is experiencing oil industry market growth.
"China is important to us as both a market and supplier base, including for S-92 tail pylons. The aircraft's entry into the domestic market is particularly gratifying and appropriate," said Sikorsky President Jeffrey Pino. "We expect the S-92 will become an important part of China's growing oil industry."
The three aircraft were ferried to Tianjin by an Antonov 124 cargo plane, which arrived in Tianjin on June 2. In-country flight training with a Sikorsky instructor has been successfully completed and the S-92 is scheduled to begin contract service with CNOOC and ConocoPhilips China, Inc. on August 1. Avion Pacific Ltd., China sales representative for Sikorsky Aircraft, is conducting flight training for the S-76C++ in country, estimating completion by August 15.
"The introduction of the S-92 marks the milestone of EGAC entering into heavy machines operations and we are very happy with our selection," said EGAC President Li Jianmin. Adding to Jianmin's comments, Captain Ma Qin, EGAC's Chief Pilot of EGAC, said: "The S-92 is a superb machine, the best I have ever flown in my career. We are excited to be flying it."
Good Luck!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even before the S92 commenced operations in Norway, numerous pilots were sceptical with regards to vibration levels and rumours of one or more cracks found on aircraft. The scepticism has been proven correct.
Passenger and pilots seats are perceived as being quite uncomfortable by many. Noise and vibration levels are not perceived as any better than the S61N, perhaps even worse.
Corrective and protective measures was taken by Helikopter Service AS from the onset. Operationally this included torque reduction based on weight, leading to somewhat lower cruise speed.
Since introduction the problems with the S92 has led to a less than favorable reputation with some passengers, to a point where influential labour organisations have raised the question of looking into the need to replace the S92 with a different aircraft based on issues relating to Health, Safety and Work Environment (HSE).
Also, local community groups along the flight track have protested in various ways, based on the high external noise levels of the aircraft. This led to noise abatement procedures being introduced, i.e. speed reduction in certain areas when overflying populated areas heading to and from offshore installations.
Hopefully the manufacturer will introduce sensible improvements in a timely manner.
Perhaps its about time Eurocopter continue the work from some years back on the so called L3, with similar cabin size to the S92?
Regards,
Olav
Passenger and pilots seats are perceived as being quite uncomfortable by many. Noise and vibration levels are not perceived as any better than the S61N, perhaps even worse.
Corrective and protective measures was taken by Helikopter Service AS from the onset. Operationally this included torque reduction based on weight, leading to somewhat lower cruise speed.
Since introduction the problems with the S92 has led to a less than favorable reputation with some passengers, to a point where influential labour organisations have raised the question of looking into the need to replace the S92 with a different aircraft based on issues relating to Health, Safety and Work Environment (HSE).
Also, local community groups along the flight track have protested in various ways, based on the high external noise levels of the aircraft. This led to noise abatement procedures being introduced, i.e. speed reduction in certain areas when overflying populated areas heading to and from offshore installations.
Hopefully the manufacturer will introduce sensible improvements in a timely manner.
Perhaps its about time Eurocopter continue the work from some years back on the so called L3, with similar cabin size to the S92?
Regards,
Olav
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 tail rotor pitch change shaft failure (?)!
Has this been confirmed somewhere and / or is there more info?
Has this been confirmed somewhere and / or is there more info?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: GOM
Age: 66
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess because HUMS is looking for vibrations and the reports (previous entry) indicate that no excessive vibrations were present.
Chuckolamofola
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chuck
"Guess again? Just because the pilots didn't complain of a high vibration doesn't mean there wasn't any. I've seen excessive vibes on a UH60 T/R and the pilots couldn't tell a thing was wrong."
Yes, but that does not mean that there was any either!!
I'm not an engineer but I could imagine that a failed drive shaft would give vibes whereas a failed pitch change shaft may not.
G
Yes, but that does not mean that there was any either!!
I'm not an engineer but I could imagine that a failed drive shaft would give vibes whereas a failed pitch change shaft may not.
G
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt that the failure of the duplex bearing made much vibration, the TR servo end (non-rotating) would then be pushing on the TR spider shaft end (rotating) and that would be the only source of vibration. The duplex bearing is greased, but if oil leaked somehow into the shaft area (split O ring?) the oil would soften the grease and heat could destroy the bearing.
The TR would then be able to be pushed to higher pitch by the stupm end of the shaft to get more left pedal, but could not be pulled to lower pitch (right pedal). This is possibly what happened.
HUMS is great, but it can't see everything.
The TR would then be able to be pushed to higher pitch by the stupm end of the shaft to get more left pedal, but could not be pulled to lower pitch (right pedal). This is possibly what happened.
HUMS is great, but it can't see everything.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: GOM
Age: 66
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJ said:
It depends on the dynamic range of the system used to measure the vibration, accelerometer location and mounting as to whether or not the system measured the fault. Actually failed bearing don't usually make much vibration amplitude when failing but they do give a definative signal that can be identified. Can't say whether the HUMS on this aircraft can do that or not due to the unkonwns listed above. But HUMS systems can find these type of faults.
Geoff said:
Yes, a failed pitch shaft would give off vibrations, especially after it sheared inside the tail rotor shaft. In addition the bearing would have given off a distinct signal up to failure. All rotating parts give off some vibration. As mentioned above, it takes a system with a high dynamic range and a sensor installed where it can pick up the vibration. Not all HUMS are created equal...
Chuck
I doubt that the failure of the duplex bearing made much vibration, the TR servo end (non-rotating) would then be pushing on the TR spider shaft end (rotating) and that would be the only source of vibration. The duplex bearing is greased, but if oil leaked somehow into the shaft area (split O ring?) the oil would soften the grease and heat could destroy the bearing.
Geoff said:
Yes, but that does not mean that there was any either!!
I'm not an engineer but I could imagine that a failed drive shaft would give vibes whereas a failed pitch change shaft may not.
I'm not an engineer but I could imagine that a failed drive shaft would give vibes whereas a failed pitch change shaft may not.
Chuck
Good crew job! 
I'd like to hear details about the phase of flight , speed etc.
FAA AD http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/D...e-e1c6fbf025df
Regards
Aser
I'd like to hear details about the phase of flight , speed etc.
FAA AD http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/D...e-e1c6fbf025df
FAA issues AD for tail rotor pitch change shaft and bearing assembly on Sikorsky S-92
FAA crestAGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S92-A helicopters. This action requires, within a specified time, borescope inspecting a certain part-numbered tail rotor pitch change shaft and bearing assembly (shaft and bearing assembly) and also inspecting after any installation. This amendment is prompted by an incident involving failure of a shaft and bearing assembly and servo clevis shaft resulting in loss of tail rotor control. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of a shaft and bearing assembly, loss of tail rotor pitch and yaw control, and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter.
DATES: Effective August 21, 2007.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 21, 2007.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before October 22, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this AD:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically;
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically;
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
Hand Delivery: Deliver to the "Mail'' address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
Fax: 202-493-2251.
You may get the service information identified in this AD from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut, phone (203) 383-4866, e-mail address [email protected].
Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Gaulzetti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781) 238-7156, fax (781) 238-7170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment adopts a new AD for Sikorsky Model S92-A helicopters. This action requires, within a specified time, borescope inspecting a certain part-numbered shaft and bearing assembly and also inspecting after any installation. This amendment is prompted by an incident involving failure of a shaft and bearing assembly and servo clevis shaft resulting in loss of tail rotor control. This condition, if not detected, could result in loss of tail rotor pitch and yaw control and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter.
We have reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-64-002, dated August 3, 2007 (ASB), which describes procedures for doing a one- time borescope inspection of the shaft and bearing assembly.
The ASB requires inspecting the shaft and bearing assembly within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS). This AD requires the inspection within 20 hours TIS based on the ease of the inspection, the availability of borescopes, the flight hours per day for the high time helicopters (about 8 hours), and the potential for a helicopter to ditch while servicing the oil rig industry. Also, this AD requires this inspection between 10 and 15 hours TIS following any installation of a shaft and bearing assembly.
The inspections required by this AD are interim actions; the manufacturer continues to investigate failure of the shaft and bearing assembly and we may either develop follow-on actions or a terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of a shaft and bearing assembly, loss of tail rotor pitch and yaw control, and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter. This AD requires, within 20 hours TIS, inspecting each affected shaft and bearing assembly at the tail rotor side and on the servo side through the oil filler cap. This AD also requires borescope inspecting each shaft and bearing assembly that is installed as a replacement. This inspection must be done between 10 and 15 hours TIS after installation. Replacing any unairworthy shaft and bearing assembly is required before further flight.
The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability or structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, borescope inspecting the affected shaft and bearing assembly within 20 hours TIS and before further flight following any installation of an affected shaft and bearing assembly are required, and this AD must be issued immediately.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
We estimate that this AD will affect 34 helicopters, and the borescope inspection of the shaft and bearing assembly will take about 2 work hours to do at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $30,864 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $1,054,816.
Comments Invited
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include "Docket No. FAA-2007-28971; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-32-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of our docket web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:
1. Is not a "significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a "significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the DMS to examine the economic evaluation.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, "General requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows:
Hide details for Regulatory InformationRegulatory Information
2007-17-05 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-15163. Docket No. FAA-2007-28971; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-32-AD.
Applicability
Model S-92A helicopter, with a tail rotor pitch change shaft and bearing assembly (shaft and bearing assembly) part number 92358- 06303-041, installed, certificated in any category.
Compliance
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.
To prevent failure of a shaft and bearing assembly, loss of tail rotor pitch and yaw control, and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter, do the following:
(a) Within 20 hours time-in-service (TIS), borescope inspect as follows:
(1) Inspect each affected shaft and bearing assembly at tail rotor side by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A.(1) through (7) and Figure 4 of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-64-002, dated August 3, 2007 (ASB). If the shaft bearing fails the inspection, replace the shaft and bearing assembly before further flight.
(2) Inspect each shaft and bearing assembly on the servo side through the oil filler cap by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs B.(1) through (9) and Figures 2 and 3, of the ASB. If the shaft bearing fails the inspection, replace the shaft and bearing assembly before further flight.
Note: Maintenance Manual SA S92A-ANM-000 pertains to the subject of this AD.
(b) Between 10 and 15 hours TIS after installing a shaft and bearing assembly, borescope inspect it by following paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Wayne Gaulzetti, Aviation Safety Engineer, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781) 238-7156, fax (781) 238-7170, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
(d) The inspections of the shaft and bearing assembly shall be done by following Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-64-002, dated August 3, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut, phone (203) 383- 4866, e-mail address [email protected]. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...locations.html .
(e) This amendment becomes effective on August 21, 2007.
Hide details for Footer InformationFooter Information
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 9, 2007.
Mark R. Schilling,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-15980 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
FAA crestAGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S92-A helicopters. This action requires, within a specified time, borescope inspecting a certain part-numbered tail rotor pitch change shaft and bearing assembly (shaft and bearing assembly) and also inspecting after any installation. This amendment is prompted by an incident involving failure of a shaft and bearing assembly and servo clevis shaft resulting in loss of tail rotor control. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of a shaft and bearing assembly, loss of tail rotor pitch and yaw control, and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter.
DATES: Effective August 21, 2007.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 21, 2007.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before October 22, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this AD:
DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically;
Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically;
Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;
Hand Delivery: Deliver to the "Mail'' address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or
Fax: 202-493-2251.
You may get the service information identified in this AD from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut, phone (203) 383-4866, e-mail address [email protected].
Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains the AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov , or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Gaulzetti, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781) 238-7156, fax (781) 238-7170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment adopts a new AD for Sikorsky Model S92-A helicopters. This action requires, within a specified time, borescope inspecting a certain part-numbered shaft and bearing assembly and also inspecting after any installation. This amendment is prompted by an incident involving failure of a shaft and bearing assembly and servo clevis shaft resulting in loss of tail rotor control. This condition, if not detected, could result in loss of tail rotor pitch and yaw control and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter.
We have reviewed Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-64-002, dated August 3, 2007 (ASB), which describes procedures for doing a one- time borescope inspection of the shaft and bearing assembly.
The ASB requires inspecting the shaft and bearing assembly within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS). This AD requires the inspection within 20 hours TIS based on the ease of the inspection, the availability of borescopes, the flight hours per day for the high time helicopters (about 8 hours), and the potential for a helicopter to ditch while servicing the oil rig industry. Also, this AD requires this inspection between 10 and 15 hours TIS following any installation of a shaft and bearing assembly.
The inspections required by this AD are interim actions; the manufacturer continues to investigate failure of the shaft and bearing assembly and we may either develop follow-on actions or a terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of a shaft and bearing assembly, loss of tail rotor pitch and yaw control, and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter. This AD requires, within 20 hours TIS, inspecting each affected shaft and bearing assembly at the tail rotor side and on the servo side through the oil filler cap. This AD also requires borescope inspecting each shaft and bearing assembly that is installed as a replacement. This inspection must be done between 10 and 15 hours TIS after installation. Replacing any unairworthy shaft and bearing assembly is required before further flight.
The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability or structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, borescope inspecting the affected shaft and bearing assembly within 20 hours TIS and before further flight following any installation of an affected shaft and bearing assembly are required, and this AD must be issued immediately.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
We estimate that this AD will affect 34 helicopters, and the borescope inspection of the shaft and bearing assembly will take about 2 work hours to do at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Required parts will cost about $30,864 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $1,054,816.
Comments Invited
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include "Docket No. FAA-2007-28971; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-32-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of those comments.
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of our docket web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov .
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the regulation:
1. Is not a "significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a "significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD. See the DMS to examine the economic evaluation.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, "General requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows:
Hide details for Regulatory InformationRegulatory Information
2007-17-05 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-15163. Docket No. FAA-2007-28971; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-32-AD.
Applicability
Model S-92A helicopter, with a tail rotor pitch change shaft and bearing assembly (shaft and bearing assembly) part number 92358- 06303-041, installed, certificated in any category.
Compliance
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.
To prevent failure of a shaft and bearing assembly, loss of tail rotor pitch and yaw control, and subsequent loss of control of a helicopter, do the following:
(a) Within 20 hours time-in-service (TIS), borescope inspect as follows:
(1) Inspect each affected shaft and bearing assembly at tail rotor side by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A.(1) through (7) and Figure 4 of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-64-002, dated August 3, 2007 (ASB). If the shaft bearing fails the inspection, replace the shaft and bearing assembly before further flight.
(2) Inspect each shaft and bearing assembly on the servo side through the oil filler cap by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs B.(1) through (9) and Figures 2 and 3, of the ASB. If the shaft bearing fails the inspection, replace the shaft and bearing assembly before further flight.
Note: Maintenance Manual SA S92A-ANM-000 pertains to the subject of this AD.
(b) Between 10 and 15 hours TIS after installing a shaft and bearing assembly, borescope inspect it by following paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Contact the Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, ATTN: Wayne Gaulzetti, Aviation Safety Engineer, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803, telephone (781) 238-7156, fax (781) 238-7170, for information about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
(d) The inspections of the shaft and bearing assembly shall be done by following Sikorsky Alert Service Bulletin No. 92-64-002, dated August 3, 2007. The Director of the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, Connecticut, phone (203) 383- 4866, e-mail address [email protected]. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_regi...locations.html .
(e) This amendment becomes effective on August 21, 2007.
Hide details for Footer InformationFooter Information
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 9, 2007.
Mark R. Schilling,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-15980 Filed 8-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Aser
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chuckolamofola
Very true that HUMS technology can find this type of failure. Sadly the Sikorsky system does not look at bearing energy levels so could never have alerted the maintainers.
The really scary thing here is the defect gumed up the chip detector with enough seal debris that did not work even with a casing full of metallic bearing chips.
Very true that HUMS technology can find this type of failure. Sadly the Sikorsky system does not look at bearing energy levels so could never have alerted the maintainers.
The really scary thing here is the defect gumed up the chip detector with enough seal debris that did not work even with a casing full of metallic bearing chips.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the news today: S92s cannot fly in nice weather. Several flights cancelled due to high QNH (1044) at Stavanger.
Due to very high air pressure a computer onboard the S92 malfunction leading to instrument failure. Sikorsky are working on a fix.
http://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/article566248.ece (In Norwegian)
Due to very high air pressure a computer onboard the S92 malfunction leading to instrument failure. Sikorsky are working on a fix.
http://www.aftenbladet.no/lokalt/article566248.ece (In Norwegian)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sven,
The zones are phased with electric power for two very important reasons:
1) The power is used to disbond, not melt. If the ice is actually melted, it could run back and actually freeze on a rearward position past the heated mats, and be stuck there for a long time. The flash of energy sent to the mats must be right to disbond, and not to melt. Since the ice accretes at the nose and then deposits aftaard, if the nose is kept clean, no ice grows very far aftward.
2) the shed ice must not hit the tail rotor or any place on the aircraft, so it is shed to the side, which requires precise phasing of that flash of energy. A movie of the aircraft flying in icing conditions behind the tanker shows it sequentially tossing ice off to the sides as the aircraft moves forward, a very impressive sight!
The deice is sized for flight into extreme icing conditions, far worse than military requirements.
The zones are phased with electric power for two very important reasons:
1) The power is used to disbond, not melt. If the ice is actually melted, it could run back and actually freeze on a rearward position past the heated mats, and be stuck there for a long time. The flash of energy sent to the mats must be right to disbond, and not to melt. Since the ice accretes at the nose and then deposits aftaard, if the nose is kept clean, no ice grows very far aftward.
2) the shed ice must not hit the tail rotor or any place on the aircraft, so it is shed to the side, which requires precise phasing of that flash of energy. A movie of the aircraft flying in icing conditions behind the tanker shows it sequentially tossing ice off to the sides as the aircraft moves forward, a very impressive sight!
The deice is sized for flight into extreme icing conditions, far worse than military requirements.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: mobile
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
De-icing etc.
Ref blade deicing, what a crock of crap. The object of the exercise is to prevent ice forming in the first place. If it has formed your vibration level is up.
Regards HUMS and the duplex bearing saga- if the hums system fitted could not detect a bearing running dry forget it, Bristow IHUMS detected a crack in a high speed shaft adaptor that was ignored and subsequently caused a fatal accident. It certainly would pick up a bearing running without grease.
On the subject of being called "engineers". Where I come from we are called " Technician Engineers" and I have the documents to prove it, not "How to be a helicopter engineer in two easy lessons witha degree in bicycle repairs.
Regards HUMS and the duplex bearing saga- if the hums system fitted could not detect a bearing running dry forget it, Bristow IHUMS detected a crack in a high speed shaft adaptor that was ignored and subsequently caused a fatal accident. It certainly would pick up a bearing running without grease.
On the subject of being called "engineers". Where I come from we are called " Technician Engineers" and I have the documents to prove it, not "How to be a helicopter engineer in two easy lessons witha degree in bicycle repairs.