Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so after 5 seconds the by pass switch was shut and the run continued with remaining oil but no pump. Does this assume that the leak will always be on the cooler side of the bypass switch , which side of the bypass switch is the oil filter ? . I guess the FAR says loss of lubricant , I would have read it to mean loss of all lubricant
Oh God - every time I look at this thread it's like 'Groundhog day' (the movie)!
Questions constantly being asked that have already been answered, sometimes several times.
Clearly, the oil passing through the filter circuit is within the volume contained by shutting off the bypass -that's why when two separate filter bowls have detached themselves the loss of all lubricant has occurred, despite activation of the bypass switch.
The use of the bypass is to isloate the oil cooler from the circuit. That is because leaks from that portion of the circuit are not considered 'extremely remote'. All other leaks - that could result in total oil loss - are considered extremely remote. That much was explained fully by SAC in a recent AOL, and has been pretty well explained on this thread previously. Whether that logic was sound at the point of certification is an issue for the regulator and SAC to revisit, but it is the fact.
Questions constantly being asked that have already been answered, sometimes several times.
Clearly, the oil passing through the filter circuit is within the volume contained by shutting off the bypass -that's why when two separate filter bowls have detached themselves the loss of all lubricant has occurred, despite activation of the bypass switch.
The use of the bypass is to isloate the oil cooler from the circuit. That is because leaks from that portion of the circuit are not considered 'extremely remote'. All other leaks - that could result in total oil loss - are considered extremely remote. That much was explained fully by SAC in a recent AOL, and has been pretty well explained on this thread previously. Whether that logic was sound at the point of certification is an issue for the regulator and SAC to revisit, but it is the fact.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether that logic was sound at the point of certification is an issue for the regulator and SAC to revisit, but it is the fact.
If not, what is being done to address (now) meeting FAR29 testing requirements ? Nothing ? Something ? Anything ? Stall and wait for CH148 ELS ?
If not, as far as explaining the logic they used at time of Certification, ok , but what about customers who bought and paid for FAR29 Certification ?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I read it, FAR 29.927 is still being assumed as applicable on the basis that there officially has only been one MGB failure due to extremely remote causes i.e the titanium stud suspect galling causes premature failure. If you also included the Broome stud failure on the basis that it was the same component that failed albeit as yet not officially confirmed due to different circumstances, then is the FAR29 certification deemed revoked based on more than one event in 10^7, or do you now say that with the steel studs that failure mode has been removed, or at least reverted back to extremely remote?
No dry run/ELS capability and probably not until the CH148 MGB re-design is complete will there even be the remote possibility that this new feature will be even applied to the S-92, so only the revised RFM to make sure you perform a controlled ditching. But with no SS6 active on the Cougar helos I'm glad we've now got the HUEBAs, all we need now is a proper flight suit to keep us dry and we've got a fighting chance of survivability, but SS6 IMO should be mandatory for our use of the helo.
No dry run/ELS capability and probably not until the CH148 MGB re-design is complete will there even be the remote possibility that this new feature will be even applied to the S-92, so only the revised RFM to make sure you perform a controlled ditching. But with no SS6 active on the Cougar helos I'm glad we've now got the HUEBAs, all we need now is a proper flight suit to keep us dry and we've got a fighting chance of survivability, but SS6 IMO should be mandatory for our use of the helo.
Last edited by maxwelg2; 18th Jun 2009 at 20:11.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SW Asia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
max,
since such mathematics seems to interest you, shouldn't the Part 29 certificate of the Super Puma series be revoked, considering the several main rotor blade failures have occurred, even though they were erroneously certified to the same "extremely remote" standard. And now the newest main transmission complete structural failure has appeared, where they also failed the original promise of "extremely remote" failure by the manufacturer.
It seems logical that what is good for one is good for another. Not to me of course, but perhaps to you. Frankly, I believe both aircraft are fine.
since such mathematics seems to interest you, shouldn't the Part 29 certificate of the Super Puma series be revoked, considering the several main rotor blade failures have occurred, even though they were erroneously certified to the same "extremely remote" standard. And now the newest main transmission complete structural failure has appeared, where they also failed the original promise of "extremely remote" failure by the manufacturer.
It seems logical that what is good for one is good for another. Not to me of course, but perhaps to you. Frankly, I believe both aircraft are fine.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ramen
To me if a piece of equipment is certified under certain criteria, and that said criteria is exceeded, then the certification should be revoked and not re-enstated until said equipment has been proven to yet again meet all the certification criteria.
It's not the mathematics that count, it's what rules are set as part of design acceptance and ultimately the issuance of applicable certification.
I'm sure all will be clarified during the US law suit now in place...
To me if a piece of equipment is certified under certain criteria, and that said criteria is exceeded, then the certification should be revoked and not re-enstated until said equipment has been proven to yet again meet all the certification criteria.
It's not the mathematics that count, it's what rules are set as part of design acceptance and ultimately the issuance of applicable certification.
I'm sure all will be clarified during the US law suit now in place...
Let's not go where this is headed....another EC/SK Oh Yeah....Oh Yeah.... bunch of bickering!
Let's discuss the certification process....the definition and implementation of "extremely remote"...and perhaps the wisdom of a allowing a waiver from the 30 minute run dry concept.
It seems simple to me....either you meet the 30 minute run dry test as required by Part 29 or you do not get the certification. The use of a waiver in itself connotes being unable to meet the requirement.
Let's discuss the certification process....the definition and implementation of "extremely remote"...and perhaps the wisdom of a allowing a waiver from the 30 minute run dry concept.
It seems simple to me....either you meet the 30 minute run dry test as required by Part 29 or you do not get the certification. The use of a waiver in itself connotes being unable to meet the requirement.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers SASless, this should not be about EC/SK, as the thread title implies.
So what criteria do we go with, if helo is predominately used over water and > 30 minutes between landing options, 30-minute run-dry time is mandatory?
If sea state warrants SS6 flotation design, then this is also a mandatory requirement for these operations?
No usage of extremely remote and statistical data to justify a dispensation from the above?
So for the Grand Banks operations the S-92a fails on the dry-run requirement, and the SS5 flotation implementation means tighter weather/sea state restrictions.
Assuming that the revised RFM takes into account no dry-run capability with tightened land immediately requirements, we still have the issue of no SS6, and inadequate flight suits IMO. We've still go some way to go before PAX will be more comfortable with this helo's application.
FYI at least one of the oil operators over here has gave PAX the option to return by vessel until further flight suit evaluation is complete, as we've all noted how poor the sealing properties are with the current versions during our HUEBA training.
On a side-note, it is true that SK didn't retain the removed titanium studs for further analysis as stated in the US lawsuit? The TSB are still investigating the root cause of the failed studs on Cougar 491, having the removed studs from the rest from the fleet would surely have allowed a more detailed analysis to have been performed...
So what criteria do we go with, if helo is predominately used over water and > 30 minutes between landing options, 30-minute run-dry time is mandatory?
If sea state warrants SS6 flotation design, then this is also a mandatory requirement for these operations?
No usage of extremely remote and statistical data to justify a dispensation from the above?
So for the Grand Banks operations the S-92a fails on the dry-run requirement, and the SS5 flotation implementation means tighter weather/sea state restrictions.
Assuming that the revised RFM takes into account no dry-run capability with tightened land immediately requirements, we still have the issue of no SS6, and inadequate flight suits IMO. We've still go some way to go before PAX will be more comfortable with this helo's application.
FYI at least one of the oil operators over here has gave PAX the option to return by vessel until further flight suit evaluation is complete, as we've all noted how poor the sealing properties are with the current versions during our HUEBA training.
On a side-note, it is true that SK didn't retain the removed titanium studs for further analysis as stated in the US lawsuit? The TSB are still investigating the root cause of the failed studs on Cougar 491, having the removed studs from the rest from the fleet would surely have allowed a more detailed analysis to have been performed...
Max,
You can test the fitness of the 92 however you wish.....but if you do....apply the same criteria to the other aircraft that are out there today...but do it in a logical, reasonable, even handed manner.
I personally think the review should be focused upon the FAA, their application of Part 29 and the results of that.
As the 92 and the 139 are the only two aircraft certified under part 29 that excludes the EC line of aircraft as they have been approved under a less strict set of rules than the 92/139.
That being said....either we have to accept the EC line are inferior aircraft due to that lack of certification under Part 29 and the 92/139 are therefore superior unless we can prove the FAA implementation of the Part 29 standards compromised the intent and purpose of the certification standards they set out to require.
This logical argument is not to be viewed as suggesting the EC line compared to the 92/139 is better or worse in reality but rather do the certification standards on each side of the Great Saltwater Divide meet the need of the industry and live up to their published goals. Somewhere in the discussion it should be determined neither standard as they exist now and are implemented are the final answer. The followup argument will be to define just what the standard should be.
I have stated my views.....but it they are those of a long time helicopter pilot and not a lawyer, aeronautical engineer, statitican, or an actuary.
I want to see an aircraft design that is safe to fly, dependable, and properly designed, tested, and certified to a fixed set of easy to understand set of standards. I do not believe in waivers....either you meet the required standard or you do not get the certification.
You can test the fitness of the 92 however you wish.....but if you do....apply the same criteria to the other aircraft that are out there today...but do it in a logical, reasonable, even handed manner.
I personally think the review should be focused upon the FAA, their application of Part 29 and the results of that.
As the 92 and the 139 are the only two aircraft certified under part 29 that excludes the EC line of aircraft as they have been approved under a less strict set of rules than the 92/139.
That being said....either we have to accept the EC line are inferior aircraft due to that lack of certification under Part 29 and the 92/139 are therefore superior unless we can prove the FAA implementation of the Part 29 standards compromised the intent and purpose of the certification standards they set out to require.
This logical argument is not to be viewed as suggesting the EC line compared to the 92/139 is better or worse in reality but rather do the certification standards on each side of the Great Saltwater Divide meet the need of the industry and live up to their published goals. Somewhere in the discussion it should be determined neither standard as they exist now and are implemented are the final answer. The followup argument will be to define just what the standard should be.
I have stated my views.....but it they are those of a long time helicopter pilot and not a lawyer, aeronautical engineer, statitican, or an actuary.
I want to see an aircraft design that is safe to fly, dependable, and properly designed, tested, and certified to a fixed set of easy to understand set of standards. I do not believe in waivers....either you meet the required standard or you do not get the certification.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like we've had an APU failure and a MGB chip detect in the same week over here in NL, as expected the newspapers are spinning faster than a UK politician, certainly not good for PAX confidence in the S-92a albeit sounds like Cougar did everything by the book as expected.
I know that these things happen from time to time in helo operations, but here's my questions, how often are they expected to happen with the S-92a from a design perspective, what's the track record been on these alarm modes i.e do the S-92 MGBs make metal as much as the Super Pumas. From CADORS the last NL chip light appears to be from April 2008, so that's pretty good IMO. I don't recall hearing about an APU failure before.
I recall one of the reasons stated for going for the S-92a for NL was to reduce the MGB maintenance costs that were notably high with the Super Pumas that they had. Only a rumour, but I did hear it from a good source a few years ago...
I know that these things happen from time to time in helo operations, but here's my questions, how often are they expected to happen with the S-92a from a design perspective, what's the track record been on these alarm modes i.e do the S-92 MGBs make metal as much as the Super Pumas. From CADORS the last NL chip light appears to be from April 2008, so that's pretty good IMO. I don't recall hearing about an APU failure before.
I recall one of the reasons stated for going for the S-92a for NL was to reduce the MGB maintenance costs that were notably high with the Super Pumas that they had. Only a rumour, but I did hear it from a good source a few years ago...
Ask the Bristow folks about MGB problems with the Super Puma's.....and how they had to reduce the power settings they were using that seemed to cause the gearboxes to require changing way too frequently. Perhaps it was the same situation with Cougar.
What's the big deal about an APU failure?
Gear boxes make chips.....all of them do....nothing new about that.
Sounds like some folks are looking for things to be worried about.
What's the big deal about an APU failure?
Gear boxes make chips.....all of them do....nothing new about that.
Sounds like some folks are looking for things to be worried about.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like we've had an APU failure and a MGB chip detect in the same week over here in NL, as expected the newspapers are spinning faster than a UK politician, certainly not good for PAX confidence in the S-92a albeit sounds like Cougar did everything by the book as expected.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max,
1. If you think a 30 min run dry will save you from going in the drink in offshore aviation, think again.
2. Flight suits, I assume you are talking about immersion suits?
What do they have to do with the S92? Maybe start a new thread.
3. One day you might be a passenger on an A330 so you might want to get on the AF447 thread and try to get to the bottom of what happened there!
4. If the press starts reporting on all the chip lights, APU failures etc on the A330 fleet (over 600 I believe) you will probably never want to fly again!
5. Chill out and try and enjoy your flight!
TalkSpike.
1. If you think a 30 min run dry will save you from going in the drink in offshore aviation, think again.
2. Flight suits, I assume you are talking about immersion suits?
What do they have to do with the S92? Maybe start a new thread.
3. One day you might be a passenger on an A330 so you might want to get on the AF447 thread and try to get to the bottom of what happened there!
4. If the press starts reporting on all the chip lights, APU failures etc on the A330 fleet (over 600 I believe) you will probably never want to fly again!
5. Chill out and try and enjoy your flight!
TalkSpike.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talkspike
Nice to see there's still some debate and fire running in the participants of this thread. IMO all debate is good, even at the price of sarcasm.
The immersion suit is irrevocably linked to the S-92 thread as the helo design and its over-water use is what requires us to wear such PPE. That's why we need good immersion suits, because a dry-run capability does not mean we're not going to ditch, albeit hopefully if the situation arises it can be executed in a safe and controlled manner and we can do so knowing our cold-water survivability is reasonable.
A separate thread sounds like a good idea though as it will hopefully instill constructive discussion on other people's experiences.
Going on a A330 or any other fixed wing aircraft has its own risks, as does anything in life, but it hasn't stopped me doing either. I just flew recently in France in a A320, big deal. There are certainly more qualified people than myself to find the root cause of that disaster, thank you very much, but I'm just not that good!
Where I wholeheardedly agree with you fellow posters is that the media is doing this industry no favours and only scare-mongering us mere mortals. Why not ask them to give the standard family-type SUV the same treatment, I'm sure lots of soccer mums will really appreciate that...
As I said a while ago, let's just get on with it, improve what we can and move on with life, it's too short to worry about every single thing that can go wrong.
BTW, I still want to see SS6, better immersion suits, less vibration, more transparency and discussion between pilots and PAX. Then I will have a more chilled-out flight, but only because my nose-hairs won't be constantly waking me up, the suit won't be trying to cook me, and I can catch some shut-eye while you drivers do your thing.
Hot off the press, Remington is teaming up with SK to provide in-flight nasal hair clippers to improve PAX comfort on the S-92a!
Nice to see there's still some debate and fire running in the participants of this thread. IMO all debate is good, even at the price of sarcasm.
The immersion suit is irrevocably linked to the S-92 thread as the helo design and its over-water use is what requires us to wear such PPE. That's why we need good immersion suits, because a dry-run capability does not mean we're not going to ditch, albeit hopefully if the situation arises it can be executed in a safe and controlled manner and we can do so knowing our cold-water survivability is reasonable.
A separate thread sounds like a good idea though as it will hopefully instill constructive discussion on other people's experiences.
Going on a A330 or any other fixed wing aircraft has its own risks, as does anything in life, but it hasn't stopped me doing either. I just flew recently in France in a A320, big deal. There are certainly more qualified people than myself to find the root cause of that disaster, thank you very much, but I'm just not that good!
Where I wholeheardedly agree with you fellow posters is that the media is doing this industry no favours and only scare-mongering us mere mortals. Why not ask them to give the standard family-type SUV the same treatment, I'm sure lots of soccer mums will really appreciate that...
As I said a while ago, let's just get on with it, improve what we can and move on with life, it's too short to worry about every single thing that can go wrong.
BTW, I still want to see SS6, better immersion suits, less vibration, more transparency and discussion between pilots and PAX. Then I will have a more chilled-out flight, but only because my nose-hairs won't be constantly waking me up, the suit won't be trying to cook me, and I can catch some shut-eye while you drivers do your thing.
Hot off the press, Remington is teaming up with SK to provide in-flight nasal hair clippers to improve PAX comfort on the S-92a!
Last edited by maxwelg2; 20th Jun 2009 at 23:17.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: US
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be curious as to input concerning the level of acceptance it has at present amongst pilots, operators and customers, and what may have to be done to the aircraft to sort problems noted.
WIII
WIII
Last edited by WhirlwindIII; 23rd Jun 2009 at 15:08.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helipad Ops - S92
Just a general question not related to the incidents/accidents but can anyone advise me on a couple of points re. the S92:-
1. Does the S92 have a Cat A Helipad profile approved for take off and landing from ground level AND elevated helipads?
2. If so what is the minimum size helipad required?
Thanks
G.
PS. What was the 'Oops' video about? Seems Sikorsky have pulled it.
1. Does the S92 have a Cat A Helipad profile approved for take off and landing from ground level AND elevated helipads?
2. If so what is the minimum size helipad required?
Thanks
G.
PS. What was the 'Oops' video about? Seems Sikorsky have pulled it.
Surprised they have not pulled this one. Pretty well shows why the Cougar bird ended up the way it did when they had to do an auto into rough seas.
The Sultan
The Sultan
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cow Town
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the S92 have a Cat A Helipad profile approved for take off and landing from ground level AND elevated helipads?