Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL - so much I nearly wet myself...
"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"
Now we know he's joking right!
Now we know he's joking right!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why in the brave new world of Shell (7/7 above) is the EC155B in Package C with the 412EP & S-76C, and so different the 'all new' EC155B1 in Package D (an AW139/S-92/EC225 equivalent) even though it has grandfather rights? Even ECF's marketing men must shrug at that logic. 
Sox6, good question and one I've pondered over! I suspect it has more to do with factors unrelated to the certification standard 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man said:
Yes, internal politics and procurement issues do play a part. The EC155B is only used by Shell in one location - Nigeria. These are owned by Shell and their partners (the majority stake is actually owned by the national oil company NNPC, not an oil company that invests heavily in safety). If the EC155B were in category D it would be far more difficult to get the funding to replace them. However, if the EC155B1 is not in category D, then there would just be one medium option, the AW139, and thus no competition, which would be unacceptable commercially. If this makes you think Joseph Heller deserves a writing credit for 7/7=1 then you are beginning to realise the tightrope being walked.
To answer a couple of PM's I've got, it is for this very reason the mooted down-categorisation of the S-92 due to its MRGB is unlikely to formally happen as that would leave just the EC225 in category D. Instead certain new euphemisms have been invented to convey displeasure in the OEM and their aircraft.
On the horizon is how the EC175 is categorised (is it another D or the first E?). If the former, expect to see the 'EC155' only appearing in category D in future (leaving the AW139 and EC175). However if an all new "post-7/7=1" aircraft like EC175 doesn't reach the level desired for category E, then a major part of 7/7=1 will have failed. Catch 22 again!
I wonder if the category will ever be made public anyway. After the accident in January, Shell Oil, one of the reluctant twin half-sisters in the Shell family, have been exposed to some flack because of this paper's claims about the big risk reduction of going from category C to D versus the modest cost increment of just 15%.
Scotsheli - I am totally serious, it is a major part of the Shell aviation safety strategy to be seen as the industry leader in safety and the continual advice that Shell Aircraft gives is what makes our selected contractors safe.
Sox6, good question and one I've pondered over! I suspect it has more to do with factors unrelated to the certification standard
To answer a couple of PM's I've got, it is for this very reason the mooted down-categorisation of the S-92 due to its MRGB is unlikely to formally happen as that would leave just the EC225 in category D. Instead certain new euphemisms have been invented to convey displeasure in the OEM and their aircraft.
On the horizon is how the EC175 is categorised (is it another D or the first E?). If the former, expect to see the 'EC155' only appearing in category D in future (leaving the AW139 and EC175). However if an all new "post-7/7=1" aircraft like EC175 doesn't reach the level desired for category E, then a major part of 7/7=1 will have failed. Catch 22 again!
I wonder if the category will ever be made public anyway. After the accident in January, Shell Oil, one of the reluctant twin half-sisters in the Shell family, have been exposed to some flack because of this paper's claims about the big risk reduction of going from category C to D versus the modest cost increment of just 15%.
Scotsheli - I am totally serious, it is a major part of the Shell aviation safety strategy to be seen as the industry leader in safety and the continual advice that Shell Aircraft gives is what makes our selected contractors safe.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry it Shell Aircraft, not the helicopter industry, that invented HUMS and every other major helicopter safety improvement. As Shell Aircraft says:
Also:
Analysis shows that the helicopter industry has not fully embraced the improvements in design, equipment, operating procedures, training and maintenance practices that enabled the airlines to achieve their safety improvements.
it is very unlikely that the International Helicopter Safety Symposium's goal can be achieved without the mitigation offered by all the projected further improvements, including introduction of new types. "Business as usual" is therefore not an acceptable option. The only option that will enable the long-term goal to be met would be to acquire new helicopters built to the latest design standard.
Shell Management.....
Tell us how the Shell decision to buy the 155's for Nigeria came about will ya?
How did the fly off go between the Bell 412 at Redhill and that of the 155 work out?
I am sure it will all be down to "safety" reasons.....right?
Tell us how the Shell decision to buy the 155's for Nigeria came about will ya?
How did the fly off go between the Bell 412 at Redhill and that of the 155 work out?
I am sure it will all be down to "safety" reasons.....right?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm
"Sorry it Shell Aircraft, not the helicopter industry, that invented HUMS and every other major helicopter safety improvement"
My previous comment was perhaps a little provocative I grant you! However, I'm close enough to this to know which organization did what in the development of HUMS in the late 80's and throughout the 90's and equally I know who's doing what today in terms of systems like TCAS2. Indeed, Shell does get behind these developments and funds a lot of the work. Noting however that Shell has no Design approval for these types, the use of the word "invented" is perhaps a little strong and any suggestion that you did this all on your own is pure fiction isn't it now?
My previous comment was perhaps a little provocative I grant you! However, I'm close enough to this to know which organization did what in the development of HUMS in the late 80's and throughout the 90's and equally I know who's doing what today in terms of systems like TCAS2. Indeed, Shell does get behind these developments and funds a lot of the work. Noting however that Shell has no Design approval for these types, the use of the word "invented" is perhaps a little strong and any suggestion that you did this all on your own is pure fiction isn't it now?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scotsheli
I believe in credit where it is due and that is clearly with Shell Aircraft for ultimately inventing, inspiring, directing, funding and introducing HUMS, TCAS, Safety Cases, HFDM, QA etc etc. Yes, a few contractors may have done some detail work but that hardly counts and technically any innovations made during the term of Shell contracts belong to Shell. You are also incorrect on this issue of design approval as the aircraft equipment you mention has all been approved by Shell Aircraft.
SASless
The Nigerian competition was rigorously run, including a unique fly-off as you mention, and the best option, based on a complex series of evaluation criteria was selected. That aircraft, the EC155B was smoothly introduced to service by Shell as a clear demonstration of Shell's focus on safety as you say. This was the first use of a modern helicopter in the offshore business and was a great success as evidenced by Shell's excellent safety record in Nigeria since.
I believe in credit where it is due and that is clearly with Shell Aircraft for ultimately inventing, inspiring, directing, funding and introducing HUMS, TCAS, Safety Cases, HFDM, QA etc etc. Yes, a few contractors may have done some detail work but that hardly counts and technically any innovations made during the term of Shell contracts belong to Shell. You are also incorrect on this issue of design approval as the aircraft equipment you mention has all been approved by Shell Aircraft.
SASless
The Nigerian competition was rigorously run, including a unique fly-off as you mention, and the best option, based on a complex series of evaluation criteria was selected. That aircraft, the EC155B was smoothly introduced to service by Shell as a clear demonstration of Shell's focus on safety as you say. This was the first use of a modern helicopter in the offshore business and was a great success as evidenced by Shell's excellent safety record in Nigeria since.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
FH1100:
Sorry for not spotting your earlier post on the AA accident-
Full rudder was in fact applied - the problem was the mechanical characteristics of the pedals. 25lb to start the rudder moving, and then 35 lb would give you maximum deflection. This was a PIO waiting to happen, and it did.
Here's how to envision it - you start applying some force to the left rudder pedal - it doesn't begin to move till you've applied 25 lbs of force, which is a bit high, and then it only takes another 10 lb of force to get to maximum travel (and maximum rudder deflection).
Sorry for not spotting your earlier post on the AA accident-
Full rudder was in fact applied - the problem was the mechanical characteristics of the pedals. 25lb to start the rudder moving, and then 35 lb would give you maximum deflection. This was a PIO waiting to happen, and it did.
Here's how to envision it - you start applying some force to the left rudder pedal - it doesn't begin to move till you've applied 25 lbs of force, which is a bit high, and then it only takes another 10 lb of force to get to maximum travel (and maximum rudder deflection).
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but...
Mr. "Shell Management".
"...innovations made during the term of Shell contracts belong to Shell" - I am aware that contractually this is correct; but it doesn't mean Shell originated the design and it does assume that there are no other stakeholders in the process.
"You are also incorrect on this issue of design approval as the aircraft equipment you mention has all been approved by Shell Aircraft." Sorry, I meant real approvals. Where are you on the EASA Part 21 list of approved design organisations? I don't seem to be able to find you. The helicopter operators seem to be there though....how strange. Anyone would think they were in the business of designing aircraft systems!
Anyway. We're well off topic, so back to the S92!
"...innovations made during the term of Shell contracts belong to Shell" - I am aware that contractually this is correct; but it doesn't mean Shell originated the design and it does assume that there are no other stakeholders in the process.
"You are also incorrect on this issue of design approval as the aircraft equipment you mention has all been approved by Shell Aircraft." Sorry, I meant real approvals. Where are you on the EASA Part 21 list of approved design organisations? I don't seem to be able to find you. The helicopter operators seem to be there though....how strange. Anyone would think they were in the business of designing aircraft systems!
Anyway. We're well off topic, so back to the S92!
Shell Engineering
Shell Management:
"inventing, inspiring, directing"
In 39 years of working within the SA Engr. Dept. I never did see those people from Shell doing all that work. Look, Shell has always been a very positive safety influence on the industry, but some of the recent postings seem reminiscent of the internet invention claim by Al Gore, don't you think?
Thanks,
John Dixson
"inventing, inspiring, directing"
In 39 years of working within the SA Engr. Dept. I never did see those people from Shell doing all that work. Look, Shell has always been a very positive safety influence on the industry, but some of the recent postings seem reminiscent of the internet invention claim by Al Gore, don't you think?
Thanks,
John Dixson
Rigourous flyoff? BS!
As I recall it.....Shell did not show up at Redhill to fly in the 412 ever. 212Man can square me away on that point for sure.
Smoothly? BS!
How many engines got done in?
Any problem with runway lengths and rejected takeoff distances?
Reckon the doors/rotor interface wasn't an issue or the pax and baggage loading confusion not a problem either.
We won't talk about the hangar rash or handheld radio dropping in on the Bishop as that was not a Shell issue.
The AirCon was a smashing success now wasn't it!
As I recall it.....Shell did not show up at Redhill to fly in the 412 ever. 212Man can square me away on that point for sure.
Smoothly? BS!
How many engines got done in?
Any problem with runway lengths and rejected takeoff distances?
Reckon the doors/rotor interface wasn't an issue or the pax and baggage loading confusion not a problem either.
We won't talk about the hangar rash or handheld radio dropping in on the Bishop as that was not a Shell issue.
The AirCon was a smashing success now wasn't it!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
You are simply being uncharitable and picking on some minor difficulties (hangar rash, baggage bay confusion & aircon - what piffiling nonsense). No doubt an unadventurous and short sighted keeness to simply / lazily move from a B212 to B412 is colouring your judgement.
Scotsheli
Correct - lets return to the S-92 (with its FAA certified MRGB and its slightly more serious issues).
JohnDixon
Pehaps if Shell Aircraft were more active and based advisors full time at Sikorksy advising and supervising during the S-92 design process then perhaps the S-92 would have been a much better design without the repeated drama and fatalities. With workers on both sides of the Atlantic asking serious questions about the safety of the S-92 it is clear the S-92 has been a major disappointment and could go the way of the BV234 unless there is soon a miracle of product improvement.
Perhaps maxNG would like to comment but no doubt the chances of the tragic accident off Canada would have been less if Shell was one of the operators there and Shell's industry leading standards were applied rather than the rather weak minima of Canadian laws which I'm sure JimL will confirm have none of the rigour of JAR-OPS 3 when it comes to offshore operations.
You are simply being uncharitable and picking on some minor difficulties (hangar rash, baggage bay confusion & aircon - what piffiling nonsense). No doubt an unadventurous and short sighted keeness to simply / lazily move from a B212 to B412 is colouring your judgement.
Scotsheli
Correct - lets return to the S-92 (with its FAA certified MRGB and its slightly more serious issues).
JohnDixon
Pehaps if Shell Aircraft were more active and based advisors full time at Sikorksy advising and supervising during the S-92 design process then perhaps the S-92 would have been a much better design without the repeated drama and fatalities. With workers on both sides of the Atlantic asking serious questions about the safety of the S-92 it is clear the S-92 has been a major disappointment and could go the way of the BV234 unless there is soon a miracle of product improvement.
Perhaps maxNG would like to comment but no doubt the chances of the tragic accident off Canada would have been less if Shell was one of the operators there and Shell's industry leading standards were applied rather than the rather weak minima of Canadian laws which I'm sure JimL will confirm have none of the rigour of JAR-OPS 3 when it comes to offshore operations.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps maxNG would like to comment but no doubt the chances of the tragic accident off Canada would have been less if Shell was one of the operators there and Shell's industry leading standards were applied rather than the rather weak minima of Canadian laws which I'm sure JimL will confirm have none of the rigour of JAR-OPS 3 when it comes to offshore operations.
How many other helo MGB designs are out there with titanium studs and only 3 mounting bolts on the filter housing bolts? Were there other mitigating factors that caused the failure of the S-92 stud(s) such as excessive vibration etc. that made it impossible to predict the moment of failure, or even pick up via visual inspections during filter change outs? These questions are for the experts to answer, how this gets relayed to PAX is critical if you want to win our confidence in this helo. Based on the current track record of the S-92 the information relaying leads a lot to be desired and certainly has much room for improvement.
Now we have MGB feet cracks from apparently an as-yet unknown cause and my fellow UK citizens along with my Canadian co-workers are up in arms with the whole thing. So, in hindsight it is good to be honest and transparent, but only if all operators follow the same approach. That means that EASA and the FAA must work together better to ensure a global standard is developed and maintained.
I knew when I was in a Puma that the MGB liked eating metal (one of the many reasons why Cougar opted for the S-92), but I also knew that the operators were doing the required preventative maintenance to ensure that the helo was fit for use. That view sadly changed when the Miller flight's MGB failed and from what I've read on the incident IMHO the HUMS data was not used to ground the helo until the MGB was changed out. So who's to blame?
I believe that someone said a while back on this thread "never fly the 'A' model of anything over hostile terrain" or words to that effect. When will the S-92b come out then, and how will we know that it is a proven design?
Safe flying
Max
Shawn:
I never said it wasn't. We've all seen the NTSB recreation. You can "see" the SIC wrestling with the controls. He was doing was what he *thought* was safe. Nobody told him that the "protection" provided by being below maneuvering speed did not apply to the rudder. Frankly, it was a shock to me, and I've been flying fixed-wing since 1973.
Sorry for not spotting your earlier post on the AA accident-
Full rudder was in fact applied.
Full rudder was in fact applied.
Shellie,
The question posed was re whether Shell ever flew the 412 offered up by Bell at Redhill......equipped to the Shell Spec that was put out for the competition.
You ignored that.....and took issue with something I said we would not consider a Shell problem. The Bishop probably felt otherwise but that is for another day.
So....tell us....did or did not Shell take a professional look at the 412 offered by Bristow and Bell?
The question posed was re whether Shell ever flew the 412 offered up by Bell at Redhill......equipped to the Shell Spec that was put out for the competition.
You ignored that.....and took issue with something I said we would not consider a Shell problem. The Bishop probably felt otherwise but that is for another day.
So....tell us....did or did not Shell take a professional look at the 412 offered by Bristow and Bell?
SM,
your recent posts are extremely crass, overtly and childishly provocative, and come as a disappointment when viewed against your other contributions.
To somehow imply the Cougar accident was due to inferior national safety standards, and to then try and imply JimL shares your standpoint, simply beggars belief.
your recent posts are extremely crass, overtly and childishly provocative, and come as a disappointment when viewed against your other contributions.
To somehow imply the Cougar accident was due to inferior national safety standards, and to then try and imply JimL shares your standpoint, simply beggars belief.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mumbai India
Age: 76
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I come late to this item, but feel I must comment on some of the comments on HUMS and EC155.
As somebody who was directly involved in both issues, I must say I felt some annoyance at the comments made.
Although now some time ago, it would be criminal not to mention the enormous contribution made by Alastair Gordon of Bristow to the start, definition and implementation of HUMS. Whilst all due credit must go to Shell Aircraft for their financial support, encouragement and research, the ACTUAL practical implementation and installation of the very new and unproven concepts and techniques was driven by Bristow and Capt. Gordon's enthusiasm. It was he for instance who came up with the idea of combining the CVR,FDR and HUMS which enabled this to be a practical proposition on weight alone. To forget this is to devalue the enormous effort put in by a team of over twenty people at that operator's Design office. This topic may be worth a thread of it's own!
On the 155 issue and Nigeria, I can only say that there was no 'fly off' or proper evaluation with the 412. Many other factors were present at the time, and I have heard even people at ECF admit that the 155 was the "wrong aircraft in the wrong place at the wrong time". I'll say no more.
As somebody who was directly involved in both issues, I must say I felt some annoyance at the comments made.
Although now some time ago, it would be criminal not to mention the enormous contribution made by Alastair Gordon of Bristow to the start, definition and implementation of HUMS. Whilst all due credit must go to Shell Aircraft for their financial support, encouragement and research, the ACTUAL practical implementation and installation of the very new and unproven concepts and techniques was driven by Bristow and Capt. Gordon's enthusiasm. It was he for instance who came up with the idea of combining the CVR,FDR and HUMS which enabled this to be a practical proposition on weight alone. To forget this is to devalue the enormous effort put in by a team of over twenty people at that operator's Design office. This topic may be worth a thread of it's own!
On the 155 issue and Nigeria, I can only say that there was no 'fly off' or proper evaluation with the 412. Many other factors were present at the time, and I have heard even people at ECF admit that the 155 was the "wrong aircraft in the wrong place at the wrong time". I'll say no more.
S-92, Shell
Shel Mgt posted:
"Pehaps if Shell Aircraft were more active and based advisors full time at Sikorksy advising and supervising during the S-92 design process then perhaps the S-92 would have been a much better design..."
Its a global economy, and with Shell having clearly superior talent in the design and qualification of new helicopters, SA clearly wouldn't have a chance competing, so have a go.
Thanks,
John Dixson
"Pehaps if Shell Aircraft were more active and based advisors full time at Sikorksy advising and supervising during the S-92 design process then perhaps the S-92 would have been a much better design..."
Its a global economy, and with Shell having clearly superior talent in the design and qualification of new helicopters, SA clearly wouldn't have a chance competing, so have a go.
Thanks,
John Dixson