Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Point being - as long as man is building stuff, things are going to go wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Dan, and OT
element percentage
oxygen 65.0 (combined with H2 ie water, comprises 65-90% of body mass)
carbon 18.5
hydrogen 9.5
nitrogen 3.3
calcium 1.5
phosphorus 1.0
potassium 0.4
sulfur 0.3
sodium 0.2
chlorine 0.2
magnesium 0.1
iron trace
copper trace
molybdenum trace
zinc trace
iodine trace
So to say were full of p*55 (and wind) is off the mark as well.
element percentage
oxygen 65.0 (combined with H2 ie water, comprises 65-90% of body mass)
carbon 18.5
hydrogen 9.5
nitrogen 3.3
calcium 1.5
phosphorus 1.0
potassium 0.4
sulfur 0.3
sodium 0.2
chlorine 0.2
magnesium 0.1
iron trace
copper trace
molybdenum trace
zinc trace
iodine trace
So to say were full of p*55 (and wind) is off the mark as well.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thridle Op Des - Not sure what your point was. Psychic ability? I wish. The point was to demonstrate that aircraft have had and always will have design problems. Manufacturers making claims about how safe their aircraft are should keep Murphy's Law and the Titanic in mind at all times.
As far as demonstrating that pilots can overstress their aircraft; sure we can. Hopefully wings and tails and such will stay attached. You should have seen the rotor blades on a 76 that had its RPM drop to around 46% when a pilot - to be charitable - screwed up an autorotation. Dampers ripped from blade roots and bent blades, and after recovery to 100% she still flew. Probably not a situation the engineers and test pilots envisioned.
Like I said above, checklist, common sense, and I might add a little prayer that everything works like its suppose to.
As far as demonstrating that pilots can overstress their aircraft; sure we can. Hopefully wings and tails and such will stay attached. You should have seen the rotor blades on a 76 that had its RPM drop to around 46% when a pilot - to be charitable - screwed up an autorotation. Dampers ripped from blade roots and bent blades, and after recovery to 100% she still flew. Probably not a situation the engineers and test pilots envisioned.
Like I said above, checklist, common sense, and I might add a little prayer that everything works like its suppose to.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and I might add a little prayer that everything works like its suppose to.
Thridle Op Des:
Yeah...except that my helicopter is not designed to have that done. ...And except that the SIC of AA587 didn't "slam" the rudder pedals from one extreme to the other - no more so than he "slammed" the yoke from full-left deflection to full-right. He merely made aggressive, coordinated control inputs in all axes.
And besides, airplanes are different. See, airplanes have what they call "maneuvering speed," below which pilots are allowed to make full-deflection control inputs without damage to the airframe.
Before AA587, I'd bet that 99.9% of us believed that this "protection" extended and applied to the rudders as well. Sadly for the crew and pax of AA587, we have learned that it in fact does not. The SIC pushed a pedal a bit too hard, the vertical fin snapped off and down she came.
No deep insight here, and none required. In the AA587 accident, a nearly-pristine vertical fin was pulled from the water of Jamaica Bay. In the case of AF447, a nearly pristine vertical fin was discovered on the surface of the Atlantic Ocean. Reports were published that the airspeed sensing units may have malfunctioned, and that the ship may have encountered a severe thunderstorm. Therefore it is no giant leap to think that with the control-limiting software compromised, a pilot might be able to push too hard on a rudder pedal, the fin snapped off and down she came. Heck, it's happened before.
Is any of this analogous to helicopters? Nope!
My complaint, which others here seem to "get," is what HeliComparator so eloquently said: Compliance with new rules does not make a product "safer." The manufacturers would like us to think so, but it is simply not true. Right now, my "lowly" 206B is a much safer helicopter than the S-92A could ever *think* of being. Perhaps some day in the future the S-92 will achieve the 206's level of safety.
We can only hope and pray that it happens before too many more people die in it.
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.
And besides, airplanes are different. See, airplanes have what they call "maneuvering speed," below which pilots are allowed to make full-deflection control inputs without damage to the airframe.
Before AA587, I'd bet that 99.9% of us believed that this "protection" extended and applied to the rudders as well. Sadly for the crew and pax of AA587, we have learned that it in fact does not. The SIC pushed a pedal a bit too hard, the vertical fin snapped off and down she came.
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.
Is any of this analogous to helicopters? Nope!
My complaint, which others here seem to "get," is what HeliComparator so eloquently said: Compliance with new rules does not make a product "safer." The manufacturers would like us to think so, but it is simply not true. Right now, my "lowly" 206B is a much safer helicopter than the S-92A could ever *think* of being. Perhaps some day in the future the S-92 will achieve the 206's level of safety.
We can only hope and pray that it happens before too many more people die in it.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: pointy end
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH1100
I don't agree that your 206 is safer than an S-92. Although you maybe able to make a statistical argument fit, if you performed similar operations with your Bell 206 in the same conditions as an S-92, the argument may not hold true. I don't know whether or not you fly or have flown the S-92, I suspect not by your somewhat disparate comparisons. Certainly my S-92 does not stay awake at night wishing it were a Bell 206 and neither, like you, do I pray that it becomes one.
I am sure that Thridle Op Des will be more able to answer your points regarding Airbus tail fins and PIO as well as being able to make a valid comparison with helicopters since he has thousands of hours on both big helicopters and big planes.
I don't agree that your 206 is safer than an S-92. Although you maybe able to make a statistical argument fit, if you performed similar operations with your Bell 206 in the same conditions as an S-92, the argument may not hold true. I don't know whether or not you fly or have flown the S-92, I suspect not by your somewhat disparate comparisons. Certainly my S-92 does not stay awake at night wishing it were a Bell 206 and neither, like you, do I pray that it becomes one.
I am sure that Thridle Op Des will be more able to answer your points regarding Airbus tail fins and PIO as well as being able to make a valid comparison with helicopters since he has thousands of hours on both big helicopters and big planes.
FHP - Having just viewed Sikorsky’s website, I think I’m correct in saying that the S-92 comes with the following safety features and improved equipment options as standard.
EFIS, EGPWS, TCAS, HUMS, CVR/FDR, Two Engines, 4-Axis Fully Coupled Auto-pilot, Self-sealing Breakaway Fuel Tanks, Heated Windshields, DDAFCS, FADEC, Crashworthy Seats, Airframe and Undercarriage, Flaw Tolerant Design MR & TR Hubs, HIRF, Lightning & Bird Strike Protection and even an option for RIPS if you so desire.
Iconic as it is, it’s likely that your trusty steed has none of the above safety features and only limited compliance with some of the design criteria. But as you note, she’s a much safer bird, especially when the elements are against you in the dark of night - although I’m not so sure those in the rear cabin would agree.
In spite of the best intent and actions of those in design, engineering, operations and regulation, sometimes things can go wrong, which is why we have an emergency procedures chapter in the RFM and fingers to cross.
Safe flying
EFIS, EGPWS, TCAS, HUMS, CVR/FDR, Two Engines, 4-Axis Fully Coupled Auto-pilot, Self-sealing Breakaway Fuel Tanks, Heated Windshields, DDAFCS, FADEC, Crashworthy Seats, Airframe and Undercarriage, Flaw Tolerant Design MR & TR Hubs, HIRF, Lightning & Bird Strike Protection and even an option for RIPS if you so desire.
Iconic as it is, it’s likely that your trusty steed has none of the above safety features and only limited compliance with some of the design criteria. But as you note, she’s a much safer bird, especially when the elements are against you in the dark of night - although I’m not so sure those in the rear cabin would agree.
In spite of the best intent and actions of those in design, engineering, operations and regulation, sometimes things can go wrong, which is why we have an emergency procedures chapter in the RFM and fingers to cross.
Safe flying
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ??
Union expresses ?grave concern? over S-92 helicopters - Press & Journal=
So looks like both sides of the Atlantic are still having "teething" issues with S-92s. Surely that's what design and bitter experience is meant to breed out of these A/C? So what's going wrong?
Oh, and not de-briefing PAX about a "what-we-suspect-to-be-but-is-still-under-investigation-gyro problem" in September over here in the Grand Banks was yet another case of an operator not communicating a very serious incident to their PAX. Nothing on CADORs as yet...I wait with baited breath...
I don't see things improving guys, where do we go from here? Trust the pilots who trust the engineers who trust the designers...doesn't work with PAX these days, we're too tuned in now to the issues to feel confident in this helo model until we get some clear and factual answers to our questions and concerns.
Max
Last edited by maxwelg2; 17th Oct 2009 at 21:57.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH 100 pilot,
I don't think it is a question of not "getting it" re various peoples' opinions of
the safety of new designs.
To say that newer aircraft have safety advantages and improvements over
older models is not strictly a case of manufacturers' marketing B.S.
The 206's much talked about (rightly so) safety record is based on 40 years
of refinement and improvement. It seems less and less people remember it's
first five or six years of operation which were marred by engine failures,
input shaft failures,TR servo runaways and flinging blades to name a few.
It goes without saying that many of the people involved are sadly not here
to remind us.
I have not worked with the S-61 but recall several discussions with those that have, as well as threads on here recanting tales of MGB woes and
cracking MR blades.
I think the test of any manufacturer is what is done,and how expediently, when these safety issues/flaws/shortfalls etc. show themselves once the
aircraft is no longer on the drawing board or CAD screen and out in the world.
Regards,
Rigidhead
I don't think it is a question of not "getting it" re various peoples' opinions of
the safety of new designs.
To say that newer aircraft have safety advantages and improvements over
older models is not strictly a case of manufacturers' marketing B.S.
The 206's much talked about (rightly so) safety record is based on 40 years
of refinement and improvement. It seems less and less people remember it's
first five or six years of operation which were marred by engine failures,
input shaft failures,TR servo runaways and flinging blades to name a few.
It goes without saying that many of the people involved are sadly not here
to remind us.
I have not worked with the S-61 but recall several discussions with those that have, as well as threads on here recanting tales of MGB woes and
cracking MR blades.
I think the test of any manufacturer is what is done,and how expediently, when these safety issues/flaws/shortfalls etc. show themselves once the
aircraft is no longer on the drawing board or CAD screen and out in the world.
Regards,
Rigidhead
Last edited by Rigidhead; 14th Oct 2009 at 01:36.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: pointy end
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max
We have all heard your theories on nodal vibration. If you are serious, why not write to Sikorsky (the abbreviation for which is SAC not SKY) instead of hoping that they might just pick up your theories from an anonymous internet rumour network?
If you don't want to fly offshore, then don't. The 10 hour inspection cycle is designed to detect any cracking for a limited time until the exact route cause can be found.
You seem to be under the mis apprehension that Sikorsky is prepared to allow an aircraft to operate which according to your pejorative is barely airworthy. Like they need another accident...right!
I don't know how long you have been around helicopters and the offshore industry or your exposure to different aircraft types but almost every helicopter type in the industry has had a fatal accident related to material or mechanical failure. It doesn't make it right but its a fact. I have flown and been involved with both EC and Sikorsky. Maybe you would be happier working where you can fly on a different helicopter type.
I bet that EC wishes it could have prevented the 332L2 fatal accident in April with a simple 10 hour inspection.
Please post the results of your discussions with Sikorsky.
We have all heard your theories on nodal vibration. If you are serious, why not write to Sikorsky (the abbreviation for which is SAC not SKY) instead of hoping that they might just pick up your theories from an anonymous internet rumour network?
If you don't want to fly offshore, then don't. The 10 hour inspection cycle is designed to detect any cracking for a limited time until the exact route cause can be found.
You seem to be under the mis apprehension that Sikorsky is prepared to allow an aircraft to operate which according to your pejorative is barely airworthy. Like they need another accident...right!
I don't know how long you have been around helicopters and the offshore industry or your exposure to different aircraft types but almost every helicopter type in the industry has had a fatal accident related to material or mechanical failure. It doesn't make it right but its a fact. I have flown and been involved with both EC and Sikorsky. Maybe you would be happier working where you can fly on a different helicopter type.
I bet that EC wishes it could have prevented the 332L2 fatal accident in April with a simple 10 hour inspection.
Please post the results of your discussions with Sikorsky.
Oh, and not de-briefing PAX about a "what-we-suspect-to-be-but-is-still-under-investigation-gyro problem" in September over here in the Grand Banks was yet another case of an operator not communicating a very serious incident to their PAX. Nothing on CADORs as yet...I wait with baited breath...
How about excessive nodal vibration causing fatigue cracks coupled with multiple torque loadings due to heavy payload and rapid temperature variations as a few areas of concern for starters,
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ifsknt
Thanks for correcting me on the SAC abbreviation error, I don't lurk on this site much these days hence tend to drift away from the TLAs...
As I'm only a mere PAX (or LC in some eyes) my opinions are limited to this rumour forum. I was hoping for some positive feedback on what you pilots and engineers are thinking about the latest developments with the S-92 but that would appear in your case to be non-forthcoming. I'll leave the technical feedback to the experts, but would like to at least get the proper feedback as a concerned PAX. I'll focus on achieving that via the operator and HSEQ teams within the oil companies who they have as their clients.
To answer your question I've been flying offshore since '91 and have had good and bad experiences like most people in the offshore industry, although thankfully mostly good. No personal preference to a helo but never liked the S-92 from a vibration stance, would much rather fly in a 212, 76, 61 or Puma with a proven better long-term track record than the 92. I do not have any alternative to the S-92 as that is what the operator over here uses, so apart from vessel transfers myself and about 3599 others in the East Coast of Canada are reliant on this helo. Getting 8 metre seas tonight, so vessel transfer option is gone above 3 metres. S-92 SS6 not much use in that either...which doesn't apply as I believe that we only have SS5 over here anyway.
212man, can't say too much as this incident is still under investigation, but suffice to say the the PAX thought they were definitely going into the drink after rapid loss of altitude post-takeoff from helideck, had hoods up already for take-off as per SOP, helo apparently banked sharply from one side to the other before pilot regained control. The disappointing issue IMO was the apparent lack of sufficient feedback and debrief on arrival onshore at heliport, left the PAX with concerns until they came back offshore and spoke to offshore management. Cause for altitude loss mentioned by pilots over intercom as "...gyro..." message lost in helo background noise.
Any positive feedback welcome, I'm sure I'll get the reverse option anyway...it's good to talk...
Fly safe
Max
Thanks for correcting me on the SAC abbreviation error, I don't lurk on this site much these days hence tend to drift away from the TLAs...
As I'm only a mere PAX (or LC in some eyes) my opinions are limited to this rumour forum. I was hoping for some positive feedback on what you pilots and engineers are thinking about the latest developments with the S-92 but that would appear in your case to be non-forthcoming. I'll leave the technical feedback to the experts, but would like to at least get the proper feedback as a concerned PAX. I'll focus on achieving that via the operator and HSEQ teams within the oil companies who they have as their clients.
To answer your question I've been flying offshore since '91 and have had good and bad experiences like most people in the offshore industry, although thankfully mostly good. No personal preference to a helo but never liked the S-92 from a vibration stance, would much rather fly in a 212, 76, 61 or Puma with a proven better long-term track record than the 92. I do not have any alternative to the S-92 as that is what the operator over here uses, so apart from vessel transfers myself and about 3599 others in the East Coast of Canada are reliant on this helo. Getting 8 metre seas tonight, so vessel transfer option is gone above 3 metres. S-92 SS6 not much use in that either...which doesn't apply as I believe that we only have SS5 over here anyway.
212man, can't say too much as this incident is still under investigation, but suffice to say the the PAX thought they were definitely going into the drink after rapid loss of altitude post-takeoff from helideck, had hoods up already for take-off as per SOP, helo apparently banked sharply from one side to the other before pilot regained control. The disappointing issue IMO was the apparent lack of sufficient feedback and debrief on arrival onshore at heliport, left the PAX with concerns until they came back offshore and spoke to offshore management. Cause for altitude loss mentioned by pilots over intercom as "...gyro..." message lost in helo background noise.
Any positive feedback welcome, I'm sure I'll get the reverse option anyway...it's good to talk...
Fly safe
Max
Last edited by maxwelg2; 15th Oct 2009 at 11:05.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH1100 I wonder what ever happened to Sikorsky fan from Rec Aviaition Rotorcraft ( Or was that Nick in disguise ), I am sure he could bring some balance to this debate.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Abroad
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
1360lbs/hr fuel flow, about approx. 140kias with ALT and NAV coupled.
2 que, ALT and NAV. Torque either 70% or 75%, depends on weight. Max 145 IAS.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the S-92 go the way of the BV234 Chinook?
With no real fix on the MRGB pump problems BSP and Norsk suffered over the last 4 years, the S-92 lurches from one problem to another:
New problem found with Sikorsky S-92 copter - The Globe and Mail
With almost 30% of the North sea fleet reportedly having had cracked mounts since January, is it wise that Sikorsky is pushing the MAUW up at this time especially for North Sea operators?:
Sikorsky unveils S-92 improvements
Returning to the fatal accident off Canada the fifth page of this S-92A document, dating from 2003 (after FAA certification and early orders had been placed) and posted elsewhere by GroundSAR in a thread on Chinooks, is very interesting and could well feature in TSB's investigation: "30-minute drive system after oil leak".
New problem found with Sikorsky S-92 copter - The Globe and Mail
With almost 30% of the North sea fleet reportedly having had cracked mounts since January, is it wise that Sikorsky is pushing the MAUW up at this time especially for North Sea operators?:
Sikorsky unveils S-92 improvements
Returning to the fatal accident off Canada the fifth page of this S-92A document, dating from 2003 (after FAA certification and early orders had been placed) and posted elsewhere by GroundSAR in a thread on Chinooks, is very interesting and could well feature in TSB's investigation: "30-minute drive system after oil leak".
As I said on that other post "Shell Management":
"I saw that also but I believe they are refering to an oil leak which is stopped by use of the Oilcooler bypass - no mention of run dry.
I am sure the lawyers will all earn enough for new very expensive cars as they argue the point."
Hysterical news reporting aside I still gladly fly my 92.
" 25 per cent of the S-92s operated in Europe's North Sea have suffered cracked transmission mounts."
then I gotta love the next line.
"Transmission failure has emerged as the leading theory in the crash of a Cougar Helicopters S-92 last March"
Easy for the public to make the leap that the accident was caused by cracked transmission mounts with more to soon follow.
Further down in the article "Offshore oil workers have been sharply critical about the cracks discovered in the North Sea S-92s after they learned that the problem was identified 10 months ago. One told a British paper he was "disgusted" by the lack of communication about the fault."
No mention that the problem was addressed by an ASB some time ago - and we all know that an ASB is not nearly as "SEXY" as an AD to the press.
Now don't we communicate to the customers who are the Oil Companies via their aviation and safety depts.
Now does anyone advocate that all airlines, helicopter operators, fixed wing charter operators ect post all SBs, ADs, tech logs and maint. manuals, pilot's licences, OPCs, LPCs, training records of both aircrew and groud crew, weather ect in the passenger lounge so that the passengers can read them and decide when and if the aircraft departs.
Perhaps the oil companies should post siesmic survey info ect in their gas stations so the customers can decide where to drill for oil!
OK I'm being sarcastic and I apologise in advance but sometimes it gets a bit much.
"I saw that also but I believe they are refering to an oil leak which is stopped by use of the Oilcooler bypass - no mention of run dry.
I am sure the lawyers will all earn enough for new very expensive cars as they argue the point."
Hysterical news reporting aside I still gladly fly my 92.
" 25 per cent of the S-92s operated in Europe's North Sea have suffered cracked transmission mounts."
then I gotta love the next line.
"Transmission failure has emerged as the leading theory in the crash of a Cougar Helicopters S-92 last March"
Easy for the public to make the leap that the accident was caused by cracked transmission mounts with more to soon follow.
Further down in the article "Offshore oil workers have been sharply critical about the cracks discovered in the North Sea S-92s after they learned that the problem was identified 10 months ago. One told a British paper he was "disgusted" by the lack of communication about the fault."
No mention that the problem was addressed by an ASB some time ago - and we all know that an ASB is not nearly as "SEXY" as an AD to the press.
Now don't we communicate to the customers who are the Oil Companies via their aviation and safety depts.
Now does anyone advocate that all airlines, helicopter operators, fixed wing charter operators ect post all SBs, ADs, tech logs and maint. manuals, pilot's licences, OPCs, LPCs, training records of both aircrew and groud crew, weather ect in the passenger lounge so that the passengers can read them and decide when and if the aircraft departs.
Perhaps the oil companies should post siesmic survey info ect in their gas stations so the customers can decide where to drill for oil!
OK I'm being sarcastic and I apologise in advance but sometimes it gets a bit much.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albatross
You need to realise that advances in helicopter safety have not been due to the OEM or operators but the dedicated work of certain oil companies (and one in particular) in taking industry leadership.
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: 7/7=1
You need to realise that advances in helicopter safety have not been due to the OEM or operators but the dedicated work of certain oil companies (and one in particular) in taking industry leadership.
Rotor & Wing Magazine :: 7/7=1
I fully realise that the customers have been very much involved in safety advances and have driven new airframes entering the field and am very thankfull for it.
Please note on the other hand that operators can only provide what the customer is willing to pay for.
I didn't mean to imply anything else but am very tired of the media rumour mill and sensationalist reporting.
Please note on the other hand that operators can only provide what the customer is willing to pay for.
I didn't mean to imply anything else but am very tired of the media rumour mill and sensationalist reporting.