Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Abroad
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 Vno
Would be interesting to know what different S92 operators use for cruise setting. (Vno)
IAS, power setting or FF.
Fly in 2 que or 3 que?
Has any company made calculations for most economical (meaning money not fuel) speed (power) setting? Taking cost of flight hours, maintenance costs per hour/calendar and FF costs into account?
Txs
IAS, power setting or FF.
Fly in 2 que or 3 que?
Has any company made calculations for most economical (meaning money not fuel) speed (power) setting? Taking cost of flight hours, maintenance costs per hour/calendar and FF costs into account?
Txs
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has any company made calculations for most economical (meaning money not fuel) speed (power) setting? Taking cost of flight hours, maintenance costs per hour/calendar and FF costs into account?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: @home
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah... 212man deck times are between 3-6 mins(or less) each deck. With those times and with the fact that most of the helidecks are aluminum could be a contributing factor for AHRS not being affected much. 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest EASA AD?
What's the news on this one, and how did it come about to be discovered?
The S-92 threads have been very quiet for some time now, this EASA seems to suggest that an issue with the MGB double bypass can negatively affect the mounting studs. Root cause failure analysis?
Sikorsky S-92 helicopters to undergo emergency inspections - The Globe and Mail
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_a..._2009-0217-E_1
Max
The S-92 threads have been very quiet for some time now, this EASA seems to suggest that an issue with the MGB double bypass can negatively affect the mounting studs. Root cause failure analysis?
Sikorsky S-92 helicopters to undergo emergency inspections - The Globe and Mail
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_a..._2009-0217-E_1
Max
S-92 XMSN Oil Pressure Sensor Calibration
Since it has been stated on this forum that as long as Xmsn oil pressure remains above 5 psi the aircraft can operate with a failed pump or other fault for longer than a land immediately/ditch situation, is there any requirement to periodically re-calibrate this sensor to insure accuracy? If so what is the interval, and was this an original entry into service requirement or was it added later?
The Sultan
The Sultan
The S92 is no longer considered by many to meet the industry's safety aspirations.
What does this tell us? The S-92 and the AB/W-139 are the newest, bestest designs out there. Their manufacturers tell us they they were designed to meet the most stringent safety standards...to "raise the bar" when it came to safety, blah blah blah.
And at the end of the day they still have the same ol' issues. Transmissions fail at inopportune times, tailbooms fold when they shouldn't.
How far have we come...I mean, really...since the S-61?
The S92 is no longer considered by many to meet the industry's safety aspirations.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why stop at the S61? How about the Comet? Lockheed Electra? Chronic B29 engine fires. One of my favorites was the Nieuport 28 shedding wing fabric until it was discovered that moving the stiching back 6" solved the problem. Today we have 737's that have rudder hardovers and Airbuses that have tails fall off from a little turbulence. Heck the Boeing 787 has design problems and there hasn't been one test flight yet. Point being - as long as man is building stuff, things are going to go wrong - all you can do is the best job possible, don't be affraid to point out problems, and for those of us that fly, use common sense along with the checklist.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
""Safety is always our first priority and inspection of the feet is required every 10 flying hours, which means daily inspection for Bristow's Scatsta fleet of S-92s.""
From: BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Helicopter gearbox checks ordered
From: BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Helicopter gearbox checks ordered
Yeah Dan, maybe he's right!
My admittedly crabby post this morning was just in reaction to these manufacturers who proudly proclaim to us how "safe" their new designs are, blah blah blah. But they're not, really. Because they are just machines, designed by men. And they sometimes fail.
Remember when *someone* (I won't mention his name) was bragging about how much "safer" the S-92 was than the AW/US-101 because the Sikorsky benefitted from the latest crashworthiness technology blah blah blah...
Then an S-92 goes and crashes and kills everyone onboard but one.
So sure, the S-92 is somewhat "safer" than the US-101 *if* you crash it in just this particular way, where the new fuselage design and stroking seats can help lessen the impact. But if you happen to crash it in any *other* way, well, you're on your own.
Our new Airbus design is really, really safe! Much safer than those old Boeings and whatnot. Whaddya kidding me? Holy cow, our planes are EONS safer! They're made from COMPOSITES, baybee! Not that old-fashioned metal crap that corrodes and cracks and stuff. But...umm...yeah...if you happen to press on the rudder pedal a bit too hard you can...umm...you know...snap the vertical fin clean off, true. And that appears to have happened, ahhh, twice. But they're safer!
New technology is great. But there is no guarantee that it'll be any "better" than the old technology in every respect. I mean, who are we trying to kid? The whole idea of "safety" in a crash is ludicrous. At least, in any crash from an altitude higher than 10 feet or so.
My admittedly crabby post this morning was just in reaction to these manufacturers who proudly proclaim to us how "safe" their new designs are, blah blah blah. But they're not, really. Because they are just machines, designed by men. And they sometimes fail.
Remember when *someone* (I won't mention his name) was bragging about how much "safer" the S-92 was than the AW/US-101 because the Sikorsky benefitted from the latest crashworthiness technology blah blah blah...
Then an S-92 goes and crashes and kills everyone onboard but one.
So sure, the S-92 is somewhat "safer" than the US-101 *if* you crash it in just this particular way, where the new fuselage design and stroking seats can help lessen the impact. But if you happen to crash it in any *other* way, well, you're on your own.
Our new Airbus design is really, really safe! Much safer than those old Boeings and whatnot. Whaddya kidding me? Holy cow, our planes are EONS safer! They're made from COMPOSITES, baybee! Not that old-fashioned metal crap that corrodes and cracks and stuff. But...umm...yeah...if you happen to press on the rudder pedal a bit too hard you can...umm...you know...snap the vertical fin clean off, true. And that appears to have happened, ahhh, twice. But they're safer!
New technology is great. But there is no guarantee that it'll be any "better" than the old technology in every respect. I mean, who are we trying to kid? The whole idea of "safety" in a crash is ludicrous. At least, in any crash from an altitude higher than 10 feet or so.
The EASA AD and the Globe and Mail link refer to a one-off inspection of filter elements.
The BBC link (and various other websites) refer to a 10-hourly inspection for possible cracks in gearbox feet - is this to comply with a separate AD ??
The BBC link (and various other websites) refer to a 10-hourly inspection for possible cracks in gearbox feet - is this to comply with a separate AD ??
The BBC link (and various other websites) refer to a 10-hourly inspection for possible cracks in gearbox feet - is this to comply with a separate AD ??
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The S92 is no longer considered by many to meet the industry's safety aspirations.
The S92 is probably averagely safe. The thing that irked me and I think some others, was Sikorsky's (and in particular one empolyee's) crowing about how their aircraft was an order of magnitude safer than the competition just because it met some new paper standards, and therefore the competition's aircraft were dangerous and outdated. As I have said before, compliance (or alledged compliance) with JAR/CS/FAR 29 latest edition does not in itself make for a safe helicopter. A helicopter is only as safe as the weakest link in a long chain.
HC
HC
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At JS0987 & FH1100, I suggest you take out which ever helicopter you are qualified on out on a flight, make sure you own it and there are no passengers and you are over an suitably uninhabited area and in the cruise slam the tail rotor pedals first to one extreme than the other then back and see what happens to the tailboom. That's for the AA/Queens accident, that's according to the NTSB and I am certain that they are not in the pockets of any airline manufacturer.
If you guys have some deep insight into the AF crash in the Atlantic, I am sure you can send your comments to the BEA, I'm sure they will give you the time of day. Maybe you have the psychic ability to read the CVR/DFDR from 3000 metres of water.
If you guys have some deep insight into the AF crash in the Atlantic, I am sure you can send your comments to the BEA, I'm sure they will give you the time of day. Maybe you have the psychic ability to read the CVR/DFDR from 3000 metres of water.