Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
The very same Shell Oil that over stated its Nigerian Oil Reserves.....and bought the 155!
HC,
Rather a self defeating effort would you agree? But then....you have been known to launch off on a few of those yerself!
Rather a self defeating effort would you agree? But then....you have been known to launch off on a few of those yerself!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: pointy end
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allan Brown
Spot on, Alistair Gordon was the true father of HUMS.
Shell bought the EC155 for purely commercial reasons, there was no real fly off. I have copies of most of the documents pertaining to the decision and NNPC at the time just agreed with Shell's decision.
Spot on, Alistair Gordon was the true father of HUMS.
Shell bought the EC155 for purely commercial reasons, there was no real fly off. I have copies of most of the documents pertaining to the decision and NNPC at the time just agreed with Shell's decision.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shell Management
Haven't you guys figured out by now that "Shell Management" is NOT part of Shell's management organization? Someone in a management role in any company would not expound in such an arrogant manner on any subject in a public forum as this idiot is doing. Now, where were we? S-92 issues, I think it was.
Now, where were we? S-92 issues, I think it was.
Sadly though, I fear your other assertion may be incorrect.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Ct Upon Housatonic
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxwelg nailed it, though only through Shell Management's prodding.
The product is badly flawed, and needs to be revised. SAC needs to address the product safety issues through a follow-on B' model, or exit the business. A very simple choice, either alternative of which also addresses the lingering issues of marginal profitability due to low volume as an 'also ran' in the commercial helo space.
My fear is that SAC is going to muddle along, selling a marginal product into a market for which it is unsuited, further risking PAX and crew lives - in the hopes the US government bails it out from its mistakes from 'doing it on the cheap' by paying for the necessary, significant upgrades to the machine in the form of a VH or CSRX derivative contract.
A regrettable situation.
The product is badly flawed, and needs to be revised. SAC needs to address the product safety issues through a follow-on B' model, or exit the business. A very simple choice, either alternative of which also addresses the lingering issues of marginal profitability due to low volume as an 'also ran' in the commercial helo space.
My fear is that SAC is going to muddle along, selling a marginal product into a market for which it is unsuited, further risking PAX and crew lives - in the hopes the US government bails it out from its mistakes from 'doing it on the cheap' by paying for the necessary, significant upgrades to the machine in the form of a VH or CSRX derivative contract.
A regrettable situation.
Haven't you guys figured out by now that "Shell Management" is NOT part of Shell's management organization? Someone in a management role in any company would not expound in such an arrogant manner on any subject in a public forum as this idiot is doing.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or the new breed of management, period.
NonSAC, most, if not all, new aircraft go through a maturing process and it's often an unfortunate fact that in the course of that process people may be maimed or lose their lives. The Huey went through it, the 206 went through it, the Puma went through it, the Boeing 727 went through it, the DC-10 went through it, the DC-4 went through it, the Boeing 377 went through it, and now the 92 is going through it, as is the 139. The lessons were learnt and the necessary fixes made. Sometimes those fixes meant a redesign of components, sometimes a change of procedure, sometimes a change of certification requirements. Whatever it takes, the 92 will come through its rough patch and be seen on the flight line for decades to come.
Ever heard of cars being recalled for design or production faults? Helos are just a tad more complex.
NonSAC, most, if not all, new aircraft go through a maturing process and it's often an unfortunate fact that in the course of that process people may be maimed or lose their lives. The Huey went through it, the 206 went through it, the Puma went through it, the Boeing 727 went through it, the DC-10 went through it, the DC-4 went through it, the Boeing 377 went through it, and now the 92 is going through it, as is the 139. The lessons were learnt and the necessary fixes made. Sometimes those fixes meant a redesign of components, sometimes a change of procedure, sometimes a change of certification requirements. Whatever it takes, the 92 will come through its rough patch and be seen on the flight line for decades to come.
Ever heard of cars being recalled for design or production faults? Helos are just a tad more complex.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Huey went through it, the 206 went through it, the Puma went through it, the Boeing 727 went through it, the DC-10 went through it, the DC-4 went through it, the Boeing 377 went through it, and now the 92 is going through it, as is the 139
Get design right first time round and there will be no need for "B" variants to address serious safety issues.
Roll on the teleporter "A" model, send the real guinea pigs first before PAX...beam me up Scotty.
Max
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An ancient engineering class question asked what was the 'perfect' design. The answer was a single ball bearing. Two or more put together would require some type inspection sooner or later. The point that followed was that aircraft inspections are simply engineering's inability to perfect something and it therefore needs to be looked after forever (via timed inspections).
It can then be assumed that once engineers redesign out the 'inperfection' and it is made 'perfect', then the inspection can go away and without any aircraft inspections, you would theoretically have the 'perfect aircraft'.
A lawn dart might just qualify.
It can then be assumed that once engineers redesign out the 'inperfection' and it is made 'perfect', then the inspection can go away and without any aircraft inspections, you would theoretically have the 'perfect aircraft'.
A lawn dart might just qualify.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another factor is the time interval between identifying a problem and fixing it.
If you recieve a notice from the manufacturer of your car that a possible mechanical malfunction had been identified that, although the chance of it occurring was remote (or extremely remote), it could result in loss of control of your vehicle, how long would it be before you got it fixed ?
If you recieve a notice from the manufacturer of your car that a possible mechanical malfunction had been identified that, although the chance of it occurring was remote (or extremely remote), it could result in loss of control of your vehicle, how long would it be before you got it fixed ?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest AD.
Can anyone comment on how the completely severed mounting foot referenced in the EASA Airworthiness Directive of October 23 was detected? Was it found by chance from of a simple visual inspection, a check of the HUMS data, or was the helicopter exhibiting some unusual vibes or noises and checked out at the request of the pilots? The main thing is that it was found before it caused an accident.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: close to the edge
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only talk for our incident, the foot was NOT severed!, the crack ran from one bolt hole to the nearest outboard edge.
Problem found on a normal end of day check. with a "mark I" eyeball and torch.
Problem found on a normal end of day check. with a "mark I" eyeball and torch.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: canada
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question
On the east coast off Newfoundland, we have a new procedure here wich calls for loading all passengers from front to back filling all forward seats due to weight distribution issues. Anyone else loading this way? Can someone explain why after all these years of flying in the S92 all of a sudden we have to crowd all passengers up in front of the Chopper? This leaves the primary evacuation exits (windows) unavaible to a lot of passengers.
On the east coast off Newfoundland, we have a new procedure here wich calls for loading all passengers from front to back filling all forward seats due to weight distribution issues. Anyone else loading this way? Can someone explain why after all these years of flying in the S92 all of a sudden we have to crowd all passengers up in front of the Chopper? This leaves the primary evacuation exits (windows) unavaible to a lot of passengers.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denmark
Age: 45
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have done it like that, here in Danish sector of the North Sea, since we began flying the S92. They started flying in the summer of '07.
Evey time I am HLO, and tell some poor chap to move forward, I think: "If this flight crashes. I have just doomed him to die..." Mind-boggling actually.
As far as I understand, the sole survivor of the Cougar crash had a window seat.
Evey time I am HLO, and tell some poor chap to move forward, I think: "If this flight crashes. I have just doomed him to die..." Mind-boggling actually.
As far as I understand, the sole survivor of the Cougar crash had a window seat.
"If this flight crashes. I have just doomed him to die..." Mind-boggling actually.
2 emergency exits at the from, two at the back - pretty simple really? And each window is push out.
I am the only one that thinks this thread has become a joke?
and tell some poor chap to move forward
The aircraft has windows at the front and back, in fact on every row! So why is moving people "forward" less safe.
OK, I'll take this forward on a more technical basis:
I cannot comment on the Cougar loading assumptions for CofG, mainly because I do not know how the Aux tank affects things.
A normal load plan for a standard offshore S92 can be constructed that has the window seats being filled from front to back, with the 'centre' seats then being filled front to back.
If Denmark are not doing this then someone should ask why IMHO.