Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this translated from Norwegian.
92-Sikorsky helicopter, owned by Norsk Helikopter, which now has changed its name to Bristow, was on its way to land with the 19 passengers who had finished his shift at Ekofisk.
92-Sikorsky helicopters on the Norwegian continental shelf was put on the ground after the crash in Newfoundland that claimed 17 lives, but 22. March was the helicopters back in the air.
See also:
Now, helicopters fly again (22.03.09)
Therefore, the helicopter crashed with 17 people killed (19.03.09)
A helicopter with 19 passengers from Conoco-Phillips had to make a controlled landing on the platform Tor south of the North Sea shortly after at 14 today, Wednesday.
The drama takes place just 16 days after the 15 Norwegian helicopter types of Sirkorsky S-92 was put on the ground after the fatal accident outside of Canada.
The 12. March this year, crashed a helicopter of the type of Sikorsky S-92 off Newfoundland and 17 people died.
Need to change the machine
The investigation revealed findings that made the Canadian authorities Friday afterwards sent out instructions that all Sikorsky S-92 had to replace a machine immediately.
This had 15 helicopters from Norsk Helikopter / Bristow and CHC Helicopter Services to the park was changed.
The helicopters were in the air again 23. March.
But 16 days later - today - it almost went wrong again:
A helicopter with 19 passengers from Conoco-Phillips had to make a controlled landing on the platform Tor south of the North Sea shortly after at 14 today, Wednesday.
Oil leak
The helicopter of typet Sikorsky 92 had an undefined oil leak under the flight and had to instead land on the platform Tor where passengers will now be seated.
- We hope everyone can be flown in to land tonight, but we are not sure, "says Torgeir Throndsen, operations coordinator in Bristow.
It is unclear what caused the oil leak and it is not clear where it comes from, according Throndsen.
Currently, passengers seated firmly out in the ocean and must wait for the technical people come out to find the error by helicopter.
- We must first remove the helicopter from the helipad before we can send out a new, "says Throndsen.
He can not guarantee that it will be tonight.
Main Redningssentralen the sun was notified and was in readiness when they came to innflygingen platform. HRS describes the incident as "a controlled landing," and Nødsignaler were not sent out.
The helicopter kept a low altitude over the last 15 minutes in to the platform and controlled the country, the HRS.
92-Sikorsky helicopter, owned by Norsk Helikopter, which now has changed its name to Bristow, was on its way to land with the 19 passengers who had finished his shift at Ekofisk.
92-Sikorsky helicopters on the Norwegian continental shelf was put on the ground after the crash in Newfoundland that claimed 17 lives, but 22. March was the helicopters back in the air.
See also:
Now, helicopters fly again (22.03.09)
Therefore, the helicopter crashed with 17 people killed (19.03.09)
A helicopter with 19 passengers from Conoco-Phillips had to make a controlled landing on the platform Tor south of the North Sea shortly after at 14 today, Wednesday.
The drama takes place just 16 days after the 15 Norwegian helicopter types of Sirkorsky S-92 was put on the ground after the fatal accident outside of Canada.
The 12. March this year, crashed a helicopter of the type of Sikorsky S-92 off Newfoundland and 17 people died.
Need to change the machine
The investigation revealed findings that made the Canadian authorities Friday afterwards sent out instructions that all Sikorsky S-92 had to replace a machine immediately.
This had 15 helicopters from Norsk Helikopter / Bristow and CHC Helicopter Services to the park was changed.
The helicopters were in the air again 23. March.
But 16 days later - today - it almost went wrong again:
A helicopter with 19 passengers from Conoco-Phillips had to make a controlled landing on the platform Tor south of the North Sea shortly after at 14 today, Wednesday.
Oil leak
The helicopter of typet Sikorsky 92 had an undefined oil leak under the flight and had to instead land on the platform Tor where passengers will now be seated.
- We hope everyone can be flown in to land tonight, but we are not sure, "says Torgeir Throndsen, operations coordinator in Bristow.
It is unclear what caused the oil leak and it is not clear where it comes from, according Throndsen.
Currently, passengers seated firmly out in the ocean and must wait for the technical people come out to find the error by helicopter.
- We must first remove the helicopter from the helipad before we can send out a new, "says Throndsen.
He can not guarantee that it will be tonight.
Main Redningssentralen the sun was notified and was in readiness when they came to innflygingen platform. HRS describes the incident as "a controlled landing," and Nødsignaler were not sent out.
The helicopter kept a low altitude over the last 15 minutes in to the platform and controlled the country, the HRS.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Here and there!
Age: 56
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sarcastic prat arent you bleepup.
Well i was pointing out that the when thousands of hours are flown offshore every year, then there are minor faults everyday and the occasional unscheduled precautionary landing made.
It is tragic when an accident happens and fellow pilots and passengers are injured or worse.
But to continue with picking up on every mishap with the S92, is scare mungering. And because you are a journalist/magazine owner then you should know that sometimes s**t sticks. And it already makes the offshore workers nervious about any helicopter they fly in.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bleepup - had the oil leak been from a Puma or 76 or Bell 47 then I whole heartedly agree, would have been a waste of time. BUT this was an oil leak on an S92, same type that had oil pressure related problems merely a few weeks ago that led to a major loss of life.
The infomation I posted on here was already made public on a couple of other forums and as far as I am concerned this thread is the one stop shop for all those users and drivers who want to keep abreast of the 92 and its current "issues", including associated oil leaks.
It also ensures that those who are in the far flung corners of the globe, and I had been in touch with them earlier this evening, are aware of these instances and can do the relative fact gathering.
Yes I may be in the media, but we are in the pro helicopter arena, not the negative brigade commonly found in the main stream media. Just my two cents worth.
Ned
The infomation I posted on here was already made public on a couple of other forums and as far as I am concerned this thread is the one stop shop for all those users and drivers who want to keep abreast of the 92 and its current "issues", including associated oil leaks.
It also ensures that those who are in the far flung corners of the globe, and I had been in touch with them earlier this evening, are aware of these instances and can do the relative fact gathering.
Yes I may be in the media, but we are in the pro helicopter arena, not the negative brigade commonly found in the main stream media. Just my two cents worth.
Ned
Ned usually has a problem of sugar coating what he has to say when more direct versions would be more effective. His point of spreading the "word" is quite valid and perhaps if done so in the past following the Broome Incident perhaps more attention would have been focused upon the 92 Oil filter situation.
Hangar flying has the wonderful ability of passing on experience to those listening in a vicarious manner which sometimes beats heck out learning the same lesson first hand.
I view forums such as these as being virtual hangar flying venues and thus the more said the better.
Ned is as "pro" helicopter as I have known and does excellent work. All we need to do is rough up his smooth edges a bit to make him a real character!
Hangar flying has the wonderful ability of passing on experience to those listening in a vicarious manner which sometimes beats heck out learning the same lesson first hand.
I view forums such as these as being virtual hangar flying venues and thus the more said the better.
Ned is as "pro" helicopter as I have known and does excellent work. All we need to do is rough up his smooth edges a bit to make him a real character!
Ned - I'm sorry but I think you are wrong on this one - until you know that the Norwegian precautionary landing was for a MRGB oil leak and not engine or other system, posting the information (and yes I know it is on another thread by someone else) is a typical 'media stirring a hornet's nest' action.
There is enough sh8t heading (quite rightly) in Sikorsky's direction since they appear to have been caught manipulating and evading the spirit of the regulation whilst complying (theoretically) with the letter - that's lawyers for you
Jumping on every minor incident just because it has oil and S-92 in the same sentence is counter-productive and hardly helpful to those who have to get into the aircraft on a daily basis.
There is enough sh8t heading (quite rightly) in Sikorsky's direction since they appear to have been caught manipulating and evading the spirit of the regulation whilst complying (theoretically) with the letter - that's lawyers for you
Jumping on every minor incident just because it has oil and S-92 in the same sentence is counter-productive and hardly helpful to those who have to get into the aircraft on a daily basis.
I think the Norsk/Bristow case belong to this tread. We dont need to discuss it until we know where it leaked and what caused it. Its good it came up, then perhaps some guy knowing more can sypply the answers...
IF it was a MGB oil leak, then it sure belong here, and it it was another leak we just forget about it.
IF it was a MGB oil leak, then it sure belong here, and it it was another leak we just forget about it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAKEE:
Heh.
Umm, when did this thread morph into "S-92 MGB Problems Exclusively?" It is entitled, "S-92: From Design to Operations" and as such, *any* discussion of *any* issue is valid and relevant to this thread.
It has been shoved down our throats about what a "safer" helicopter the S-92 is, especially when compared specifically to other helicopters. Now, as issues crop up - some of them serious or potentially so, we are getting an attitude that these are just minor, inconsequential, dismissable "teething problems" that should be expected of all A-models.
An oil leak that results in a forced landing on an oil rig in the North Sea. T'is nothing! Let's not discuss it here. Fuggeddaboudit!
Yeah. Right.
I think the Norsk/Bristow case belong to this thread. We dont need to discuss it until we know where it leaked and what caused it. Its good it came up, then perhaps some guy knowing more can sypply the answers...
IF it was a MGB oil leak, then it sure belong here, and it it was another leak we just forget about it.
IF it was a MGB oil leak, then it sure belong here, and it it was another leak we just forget about it.
Umm, when did this thread morph into "S-92 MGB Problems Exclusively?" It is entitled, "S-92: From Design to Operations" and as such, *any* discussion of *any* issue is valid and relevant to this thread.
It has been shoved down our throats about what a "safer" helicopter the S-92 is, especially when compared specifically to other helicopters. Now, as issues crop up - some of them serious or potentially so, we are getting an attitude that these are just minor, inconsequential, dismissable "teething problems" that should be expected of all A-models.
An oil leak that results in a forced landing on an oil rig in the North Sea. T'is nothing! Let's not discuss it here. Fuggeddaboudit!
Yeah. Right.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I gather it was a main rotor servo - a known weakness with the particular dash number fitted to that aircraft (and cured with a later version, -112 versus -114.) Lost number 1 Hydraulic system and would have had the following cautions on the EICAS:
HYD 1 RSVR LOW
MR SVO 1 PRES
TR SVO 1 PRES
HYD 1 PUMP FAIL
SAS 1 PRES
RFM states Land as Soon as Possible, which is what they did. It's not an unusual type of failure for a helicopter pilot - I've had several. It's not type or manufacturer specific.
HYD 1 RSVR LOW
MR SVO 1 PRES
TR SVO 1 PRES
HYD 1 PUMP FAIL
SAS 1 PRES
RFM states Land as Soon as Possible, which is what they did. It's not an unusual type of failure for a helicopter pilot - I've had several. It's not type or manufacturer specific.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's different. To my understanding it was mainly redesigned to cope with higher loads, lower its weight, and components arrangement was changed to more convenient locations.
Murph,
It's different. It's like asking "does the EC-225 have the same MGB as the Royal Air Force 330J pumas?"
Similar, but different.
It's different. It's like asking "does the EC-225 have the same MGB as the Royal Air Force 330J pumas?"
Similar, but different.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: North East
Age: 56
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 Floatation System in Sponson?
I was just wondering, doesnt the S92 have an emergency floatation system inside the sponsons? Why wouldnt the pilots in this helicopter that crashed in canada not have made a slow decent and landed using these? I have no idea if this is a stupid question (must be a valid reason), but this has been bugging me since I heard about these poor folks crashing in the water. What a horrendous way to go.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would assume the sea state was less than ideal. On the 92 with the current floats is it possible to take off again once you have ditched ?. I worked with Apical on the bo105 floats and one of the selling features was that it was possible to take off after you had ditched ( the pilot could take a look at the transmission and engines for any signs of obvious trauma I guess) , there was a video on their site of the 105 spooling up on the water and as I recall it made a couple of complete rotations before the Tail Rotor became effective.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if it the same in Canada as Europe - but it may be because the floats in the sponson are not actually connected. Installed - yes - but wires connected - No. They cannot be deployed/used as they are awaiting EASA certification, and have been for some time. As far as I am aware, all 92's in Europe are flying around like this, with just the sea state 5 operational. That is equal to about 23 knots and 3 metres swell (approx). Not very much and the average day in N.Sea sees bigger swells than this. This may have influenced the decision in the Cougar machine. Do you want to put down, knowing you are going to roll and sink, with a very high probability of losing lives, when people dont get out? Hindsight shows maybe it was worth it, we will never know, but unfortunately they didnt have this gift.
If and when another 92 ditches, we better hope it is a calm day, because the present float system is woefully inadequate IMO.
If and when another 92 ditches, we better hope it is a calm day, because the present float system is woefully inadequate IMO.
Horror box:
Umm, maybe it was worth it? Maybe?!
Instead of leveling off at 800 feet, if the Cougar crew had kept the descent going right to the water and ditched, we can safely presume that some of them would have lived. At least more than one. And the survivor(s) wouldn't have had to go through a horrendous, violent helicopter crash.
So yeah, it would've been worth it, no doubt about it. But like you say about hindsight...
This may have influenced the decision in the Cougar machine. Do you want to put down, knowing you are going to roll and sink, with a very high probability of losing lives, when people dont get out? Hindsight shows maybe it was worth it, we will never know, but unfortunately they didnt have this gift.
Instead of leveling off at 800 feet, if the Cougar crew had kept the descent going right to the water and ditched, we can safely presume that some of them would have lived. At least more than one. And the survivor(s) wouldn't have had to go through a horrendous, violent helicopter crash.
So yeah, it would've been worth it, no doubt about it. But like you say about hindsight...
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't misconstrue my post as a question on decision making - that was not my point - my point is that the inadequate floats may not have helped much, and was possibly a factor in the decision to try and limp home.