SAR: Search & Rescue Ops [Archive Copy]
S-92 at Cougar Helicopters in Canada
Check yer latest issue (Dec 05-Jan 06) of Vertical Magazine. They have a very good article about the 92 written by Rick Burt, the Cougar General Manager, who is in charge of the S-92 program at Cougar. He flys on the line about 200 hours per year and thus stays in tune with what is really going on in that regard.
www.verticalmag.com is their web site.
www.verticalmag.com is their web site.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick sez,
"I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that".
I re-read Nick's post and infer that he used the weight from a sales brochure produced before the first production aircraft hit the offshore market (dodgy) and then added a bit based on mech's post from the GOM. Hardly a definitive post, especially when the silence from actual European S92 operators is defeaning. Has Nick's information become time expired and since when has Nick remained silent for so long?
Thanks for an honest post Helicomparitor.
Come on S92 operators, in the interest of a qualitative comparison please post the real weight of a JAR OPS 3 spec S92.....................the longer you wait the more the doubts will grow!
RI
"I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that".
I re-read Nick's post and infer that he used the weight from a sales brochure produced before the first production aircraft hit the offshore market (dodgy) and then added a bit based on mech's post from the GOM. Hardly a definitive post, especially when the silence from actual European S92 operators is defeaning. Has Nick's information become time expired and since when has Nick remained silent for so long?
Thanks for an honest post Helicomparitor.
Come on S92 operators, in the interest of a qualitative comparison please post the real weight of a JAR OPS 3 spec S92.....................the longer you wait the more the doubts will grow!
RI
Sorry guys, can't resist pointing something out....
Nick said that his best guess at the weight of a 92 prepared for N sea service is 16750lbs, gross is 26150lbs so disposable is 9400 (I think Nick's figure includes 2 pilots). I already said, using exact and known figures, that the disposable on Bristow's N Sea 225s is 9744lbs (slightly more on the lighter one). So doesn't that mean the 225 has 344lbs more than the 92?
So much for the Rotorheads guru's statement that the 92 has a 1300lbs more payload than the 225. Hot air is light, but not that light! What else should we not believe?
How about his statement on range?
At 3000' ISA at fast cruise, max gross weight the 225 is doing about 143kts TAS and fuel burn is about 1420 lbs/hr. Looking at the 92 brochure graphs, at the same speed and conditions the 92 is using about 1530 lbs/hr (no temperature on the graphs - I am assuming ISA). If you slow to fuel burn of 1420 lbs/hr (good idea if you don't want too many airframe cracks) you are doing about 137 TAS.
So in the 92 you can either burn 100 lbs/hr more fuel or fly 6 kts slower. They both have the same max fuel within 50 lbs, so I am not sure how he can justify the statement that you get 130nm more range on the 92.
In fact the ranges of the two aircraft are quite similar, with the 225 just nudging ahead by that 100lbs/hr or 6 kts.
Of course it is quite normal for a parent to be irrationally defensive about his baby and blind to its faults, so we shouldn't hold it against him.
HC
Nick said that his best guess at the weight of a 92 prepared for N sea service is 16750lbs, gross is 26150lbs so disposable is 9400 (I think Nick's figure includes 2 pilots). I already said, using exact and known figures, that the disposable on Bristow's N Sea 225s is 9744lbs (slightly more on the lighter one). So doesn't that mean the 225 has 344lbs more than the 92?
So much for the Rotorheads guru's statement that the 92 has a 1300lbs more payload than the 225. Hot air is light, but not that light! What else should we not believe?
How about his statement on range?
At 3000' ISA at fast cruise, max gross weight the 225 is doing about 143kts TAS and fuel burn is about 1420 lbs/hr. Looking at the 92 brochure graphs, at the same speed and conditions the 92 is using about 1530 lbs/hr (no temperature on the graphs - I am assuming ISA). If you slow to fuel burn of 1420 lbs/hr (good idea if you don't want too many airframe cracks) you are doing about 137 TAS.
So in the 92 you can either burn 100 lbs/hr more fuel or fly 6 kts slower. They both have the same max fuel within 50 lbs, so I am not sure how he can justify the statement that you get 130nm more range on the 92.
In fact the ranges of the two aircraft are quite similar, with the 225 just nudging ahead by that 100lbs/hr or 6 kts.
Of course it is quite normal for a parent to be irrationally defensive about his baby and blind to its faults, so we shouldn't hold it against him.
HC
The Cougar Helicopters article has a SAR paragraph where the author, GM Rick Burt, says the S-92 has received shining reviews for the BF Goodrich Electric Hoist, the ergonomics for handling hoist loads into the cabin and the abundance of room to bring the load into the cabin and deal with the casualty.
He mentions a gross weight increase to 26,500 pounds (Oct 2005), an 11,000 foot takeoff and landing certification (coming in 2006), Flight into known icing with de-icing capability (Oct 2005),
and improved performance for above spec engines (coming in 2006).
Burt confirms problems but states he still believes in the aircraft and in Sikorsky being committed to improving the product and its support.
He mentions a gross weight increase to 26,500 pounds (Oct 2005), an 11,000 foot takeoff and landing certification (coming in 2006), Flight into known icing with de-icing capability (Oct 2005),
and improved performance for above spec engines (coming in 2006).
Burt confirms problems but states he still believes in the aircraft and in Sikorsky being committed to improving the product and its support.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Blue nowhere
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd fly the 225 but I think I'll wait for the B model of the 92....
Aside from that when talking SAR the cabin door size and the height of the cabin are a huge advantage to the 92 and the flight deck is built for something more than a munchkin.
I think some of you are looking at load a little too much, surely the important thing for SAR is OEI performance, what is the max weight you can lift in a hover in the 92 and 225 without going swimming if you lose an engine?
Lunar.
Aside from that when talking SAR the cabin door size and the height of the cabin are a huge advantage to the 92 and the flight deck is built for something more than a munchkin.
I think some of you are looking at load a little too much, surely the important thing for SAR is OEI performance, what is the max weight you can lift in a hover in the 92 and 225 without going swimming if you lose an engine?
Lunar.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me understand this thread again - exactly how many EC-225's will enter UK SAR service in2007? Oh that's right, none!
You lost Helicomparitor, why not just admit it?
Also, why not now explain how the crashworthy changes in your pet pig were forced on you and your company by the competitive pressure of the safer S-92? I remember how you wrote that the window size was more important than the safety in a crash! It was lame then and its lame now.
The passengers of the Bristow 225's have Sikorsky to thank for the safer design, because the French having have been forced to redesign their helicopter, and add an untested and incertified crashworthy floor and seat system, as well as hundreds of pounds to the aircraft to gain back parity with the S-92. If it were not for competition, helicomparitor's passengers would be forced to have a less safe ride, and only the kind assurances from HC that everything will be all right.
At least, by redesigning your pet pig to close the gap, you admitted how poor it was, and now the game begins anew.
You lost Helicomparitor, why not just admit it?
Also, why not now explain how the crashworthy changes in your pet pig were forced on you and your company by the competitive pressure of the safer S-92? I remember how you wrote that the window size was more important than the safety in a crash! It was lame then and its lame now.
The passengers of the Bristow 225's have Sikorsky to thank for the safer design, because the French having have been forced to redesign their helicopter, and add an untested and incertified crashworthy floor and seat system, as well as hundreds of pounds to the aircraft to gain back parity with the S-92. If it were not for competition, helicomparitor's passengers would be forced to have a less safe ride, and only the kind assurances from HC that everything will be all right.
At least, by redesigning your pet pig to close the gap, you admitted how poor it was, and now the game begins anew.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Blue nowhere
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Sorry to stick my nose into your discussion but I think the 92 as a new build aircraft should be much better than its competitor.
When you consider that the Puma is such an old design that has just been stretched and modified for the past 30 years I would have expected Sikorsky to have built a machine that was streets ahead.
In the end of the day the fact that there is a credible competitor to the Eurocopter product is only good for the pilots.
Maybe Eurocopter will get off their arses and design a new machine instead of tweaking the old one. For now the fact that they got the 225 on the same type rating as the 332 is a huge advantage.
Lunar
Sorry to stick my nose into your discussion but I think the 92 as a new build aircraft should be much better than its competitor.
When you consider that the Puma is such an old design that has just been stretched and modified for the past 30 years I would have expected Sikorsky to have built a machine that was streets ahead.
In the end of the day the fact that there is a credible competitor to the Eurocopter product is only good for the pilots.
Maybe Eurocopter will get off their arses and design a new machine instead of tweaking the old one. For now the fact that they got the 225 on the same type rating as the 332 is a huge advantage.
Lunar
Now that brings up a good question....in my mind anyway.
The 225 is on the same type certificate as the 332 but HC says there are few parts that are identical.
Does that mean I check out in both if I fly just one of them for pilot license issues?
The 225 is on the same type certificate as the 332 but HC says there are few parts that are identical.
Does that mean I check out in both if I fly just one of them for pilot license issues?
Ah...but two different type ratings? Not one type rating with a differences course....odd for an aircraft that is the same "type".
Nick
Great post - completely ignoring mine of course! Anyway, I have to agree with you that Sk can take some credit for raising the safety bar and encouraging EC to do some extra work on their aircraft. I'm sure that will give you a warm feeling!
They did forget to copy some safety features of the 92 - the duplex transmission oil system where one failure takes out both systems because SK forgot the check valves that even the 76 has, the exploding hydraulic system, the self-jettisoning anti-vibration generators, the anti-DVT system (ie the automatic massage given to the pilots when they go above 120kts), the fuel system that flames out the engines on takeoff, something about self-destruct swash plates and probably a few others that are secret!
SAS / F43
The 225 will be on the same type rating group as the 332L and L2, once the beurocratic process is complete. In the mean time the UK CAA have agreed to anticipate that. Anyone with 332L or L2 on their licence can get a new page with 332L / L2 / 225. So its just a differences course to go from L or L2 to 225. The fact that all the spares are different doesn't really affect type rating groups - the piloting philosophy is the same and anyone who has flown the L2 especially, will not feel too confused. I did 5 hrs factory differences course from L2 to 225, after which I was reasonably happy with the beast. Once you get over the gadget factor its easier to fly than the L2 or L
HC
Great post - completely ignoring mine of course! Anyway, I have to agree with you that Sk can take some credit for raising the safety bar and encouraging EC to do some extra work on their aircraft. I'm sure that will give you a warm feeling!
They did forget to copy some safety features of the 92 - the duplex transmission oil system where one failure takes out both systems because SK forgot the check valves that even the 76 has, the exploding hydraulic system, the self-jettisoning anti-vibration generators, the anti-DVT system (ie the automatic massage given to the pilots when they go above 120kts), the fuel system that flames out the engines on takeoff, something about self-destruct swash plates and probably a few others that are secret!
SAS / F43
The 225 will be on the same type rating group as the 332L and L2, once the beurocratic process is complete. In the mean time the UK CAA have agreed to anticipate that. Anyone with 332L or L2 on their licence can get a new page with 332L / L2 / 225. So its just a differences course to go from L or L2 to 225. The fact that all the spares are different doesn't really affect type rating groups - the piloting philosophy is the same and anyone who has flown the L2 especially, will not feel too confused. I did 5 hrs factory differences course from L2 to 225, after which I was reasonably happy with the beast. Once you get over the gadget factor its easier to fly than the L2 or L
HC
Would that identical piloting philosophy apply to other similar situations?
One 206....all 206's/407's/204/205's....all basically the same method of operation...single engine, VFR, single pilot, single hydraulics (except 205A which has two)....same manufacturer?
212 and 412...same types for licencing as well?
Had one input from some folks near the beehive suggest the D model Huey was a different type than the H model Huey.
When they found out the pitot tube location and a bit more horsepower from the engine was the only difference they did mitigate that stance a bit however... but it was not without some resistance.
One 206....all 206's/407's/204/205's....all basically the same method of operation...single engine, VFR, single pilot, single hydraulics (except 205A which has two)....same manufacturer?
212 and 412...same types for licencing as well?
Had one input from some folks near the beehive suggest the D model Huey was a different type than the H model Huey.
When they found out the pitot tube location and a bit more horsepower from the engine was the only difference they did mitigate that stance a bit however... but it was not without some resistance.
Well for the 369....as in the 206....is that not a valid proposition?
In the case I mentioned....the 206, 204, 205, 212, 412, 222, 230, 430, 214, 214ST....they are all the same family and all have the same piloting philosophy do they not? You might make a distinction between wheels and skids I guess or even single and twin engine....but they all have collective throttles and very similar systems. They are as much derivatives of the 204 as the 225 is from the 332 it would appear.
Are not all helicopters the same "piloting philosophy" and only require differences training for the specific "model" of aircraft?
In the case I mentioned....the 206, 204, 205, 212, 412, 222, 230, 430, 214, 214ST....they are all the same family and all have the same piloting philosophy do they not? You might make a distinction between wheels and skids I guess or even single and twin engine....but they all have collective throttles and very similar systems. They are as much derivatives of the 204 as the 225 is from the 332 it would appear.
Are not all helicopters the same "piloting philosophy" and only require differences training for the specific "model" of aircraft?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Blue nowhere
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
True enough but if you extend that logic you lead to type ratings for weight catagories, which there are in some countries but the 332L/L2 and 225 have more in common than the 206 does to the 412.
The L2 is just a halfway house between the L and the 225.
Anyone with a (H) license can fly most helicopters but it is getting to know the differences in that type that will stop you making an idiot of your self, or worse. Would you be happy for someone to fly a 212 if they only had experience on the 206?
Lunar
True enough but if you extend that logic you lead to type ratings for weight catagories, which there are in some countries but the 332L/L2 and 225 have more in common than the 206 does to the 412.
The L2 is just a halfway house between the L and the 225.
Anyone with a (H) license can fly most helicopters but it is getting to know the differences in that type that will stop you making an idiot of your self, or worse. Would you be happy for someone to fly a 212 if they only had experience on the 206?
Lunar
Lunar,
Do you suggest by your question that one must work your way up the totem pole increment by increment?
How many BHL HP pilots did the Bell 47/R22/206 training scheme to step into the cockpit of 61's , Puma's, and other large aircraft? They seemed to fare well. The military does this as a routine.
I would quite happily train an ab-initio student on the 212 disregarding costs as an issue.
I maintain a helicopter is a helicopter...some are bigger...some faster...some carry more...some have fancier avionics...but they are all helicopters. You pull up on the lever in your left hand....and the same thing happens....you push forward on that stick in your right hand and the same thing happens...push the pedals and the same thing happens.
Each machine is different but they are all helicopters. We can make the system complex and costly...or we can go the other way and still achieve the same safety levels.
Look at the difference in the way we handle type ratings between the UK and the USA....that alone should indict the concept of "typing" helicopters. We use weight as the thresh hold for determing "type" ratings. I would suggest to you that a SPIFR EC-135 is far more sophisticated than a VFR only BV-107 used only for underslung work but the 135 does not require a type rating and the 107 does. In the UK...everything has a type rating and related "type technical" exams and checkrides done by the licensing authority. We on the other hand rely upon the operator to give differences training and checkrides except when we require the "type" rating based upon weight.
The conversion to larger more complex machines should not be based upon previous types flown but be based upon ability and other qualifying experience.
I can assure you, a pilot with a broad reach of experience in 206's will be the better risk for 212 flying than a pilot that has thousands of hours doing the same bus run out across the North Sea in a 332/225. The one will have skills the other does not. Each will be better suited for the kind of flying he has been doing as a result of that experience.
The transition to multi-engine flying is not all that complex when compared to learning the skill sets required for your average utility helicopter pilot flying 206's in moutains, deserts, offshore, ag work, and doing underslung work in all those places.
I would think nothing of hiring a well experienced 206 pilot for an offshore flying job...but not the reverse. There is a mystique (more like an Urban Myth) that suggests working for a large North Sea operator qualifies one as a helicopter pilot. I would suggest it well qualifies one for one sector of the industry.
Lord knows we proved flying 212's in hot and humid conditions in Nigeria was more difficult than flying on the North Sea. Ask your mates who did that routine and get them to describe how many aircraft got over torqued or bent while they got the grasp of 212 flying after being on the North Sea for years.
Do you suggest by your question that one must work your way up the totem pole increment by increment?
How many BHL HP pilots did the Bell 47/R22/206 training scheme to step into the cockpit of 61's , Puma's, and other large aircraft? They seemed to fare well. The military does this as a routine.
I would quite happily train an ab-initio student on the 212 disregarding costs as an issue.
I maintain a helicopter is a helicopter...some are bigger...some faster...some carry more...some have fancier avionics...but they are all helicopters. You pull up on the lever in your left hand....and the same thing happens....you push forward on that stick in your right hand and the same thing happens...push the pedals and the same thing happens.
Each machine is different but they are all helicopters. We can make the system complex and costly...or we can go the other way and still achieve the same safety levels.
Look at the difference in the way we handle type ratings between the UK and the USA....that alone should indict the concept of "typing" helicopters. We use weight as the thresh hold for determing "type" ratings. I would suggest to you that a SPIFR EC-135 is far more sophisticated than a VFR only BV-107 used only for underslung work but the 135 does not require a type rating and the 107 does. In the UK...everything has a type rating and related "type technical" exams and checkrides done by the licensing authority. We on the other hand rely upon the operator to give differences training and checkrides except when we require the "type" rating based upon weight.
The conversion to larger more complex machines should not be based upon previous types flown but be based upon ability and other qualifying experience.
I can assure you, a pilot with a broad reach of experience in 206's will be the better risk for 212 flying than a pilot that has thousands of hours doing the same bus run out across the North Sea in a 332/225. The one will have skills the other does not. Each will be better suited for the kind of flying he has been doing as a result of that experience.
The transition to multi-engine flying is not all that complex when compared to learning the skill sets required for your average utility helicopter pilot flying 206's in moutains, deserts, offshore, ag work, and doing underslung work in all those places.
I would think nothing of hiring a well experienced 206 pilot for an offshore flying job...but not the reverse. There is a mystique (more like an Urban Myth) that suggests working for a large North Sea operator qualifies one as a helicopter pilot. I would suggest it well qualifies one for one sector of the industry.
Lord knows we proved flying 212's in hot and humid conditions in Nigeria was more difficult than flying on the North Sea. Ask your mates who did that routine and get them to describe how many aircraft got over torqued or bent while they got the grasp of 212 flying after being on the North Sea for years.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick Lappos stated:-
"The "battle" between the 225 and the S92 has already been waged. Literally across the board, the 92 has won. Only at Bristow (see a pattern?) has there been any concept that there is a horserace, elsewhere, compliance with newest FAR/JAR has been required by the poor sods who must sit in the things, and the 225 was eliminated at the outset, due to its safety shortfalls."
The S92 didn't initially win. 5 years ago a Coastguard study ruled out the S92 as being unsuitable. Why the change of heart? Can anyone smell something fishy?
"The "battle" between the 225 and the S92 has already been waged. Literally across the board, the 92 has won. Only at Bristow (see a pattern?) has there been any concept that there is a horserace, elsewhere, compliance with newest FAR/JAR has been required by the poor sods who must sit in the things, and the 225 was eliminated at the outset, due to its safety shortfalls."
The S92 didn't initially win. 5 years ago a Coastguard study ruled out the S92 as being unsuitable. Why the change of heart? Can anyone smell something fishy?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS et al
We're getting a bit off the thread here but the subject is an interesting one. I must say that it is slightly worrying to hear that pilots that perform OK in the North Sea end up overtorquing etc in Nigeria. Does that say something about the N Sea training or does it (more likely?) say something about the operating standards in Nigeria. Maybe those with Nigerian overtorquing experience can comment.
On the question of type ratings I can say that, having been a freelancer for 20 years or more that I have experienced many different "qualities" of type qualifying processes. In one company I was subjected to 10 days in the simulator on joining - and that was a type I was already qualified on! (Ok - my original TR was in another country) The worst was just a good read of the Flight Manual and off you go.
Whilst all of my TRs were 'legal' if you ask me which one left me feeling 'good to go' I would have to say that the more comprehensive it was the better I felt.
Now, when I became a QHI it was a three month nightmare course and that will quite rightly be seen as being at one extreme of the quals required to impart skills to the newcomers. But - can it be acceptable for those carrying out TRs to be just 'appointed' with no 'competency-based training beforehand? This is what is happening in some jurisdictions I believe.
Would those who live under such regimes please let us have your opinion about such apparent 'laxness' or just tell me I have it all wrong.
G
On the question of type ratings I can say that, having been a freelancer for 20 years or more that I have experienced many different "qualities" of type qualifying processes. In one company I was subjected to 10 days in the simulator on joining - and that was a type I was already qualified on! (Ok - my original TR was in another country) The worst was just a good read of the Flight Manual and off you go.
Whilst all of my TRs were 'legal' if you ask me which one left me feeling 'good to go' I would have to say that the more comprehensive it was the better I felt.
Now, when I became a QHI it was a three month nightmare course and that will quite rightly be seen as being at one extreme of the quals required to impart skills to the newcomers. But - can it be acceptable for those carrying out TRs to be just 'appointed' with no 'competency-based training beforehand? This is what is happening in some jurisdictions I believe.
Would those who live under such regimes please let us have your opinion about such apparent 'laxness' or just tell me I have it all wrong.
G
