New CHC S-92
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
Thats the generic definition but it is not specifically defined in CS29 or FAR29.
It is however defined in AC29, but "the objective of § 29.1309 is to ensure an acceptable safety level for equipment and systems as installed on the rotorcraft" and so does not apply to the MGB in most manufacturers points of view.
Extract below for completeness.
Thats the generic definition but it is not specifically defined in CS29 or FAR29.
It is however defined in AC29, but "the objective of § 29.1309 is to ensure an acceptable safety level for equipment and systems as installed on the rotorcraft" and so does not apply to the MGB in most manufacturers points of view.
Extract below for completeness.
From AC 29.1309. § 29.1309 (Amendment 29-40) EQUIPMENT, SYSTEMS, AND INSTALLATIONS.
(iv) EXTREMELY REMOTE. (The term “REMOTE” is not related to the structural use of the term.) (This is the upper part of the range 10-9 to 10-5 previously applied to the term “IMPROBABLE”.) Extremely remote events are not expected to occur during the total operational life of a random single rotorcraft of a particular type, but may occur a few times during the total operational life of all rotorcraft of a particular type, that are based on a probability on the order of between 10-7 to 10-9.
PS:
Juest recalled that aircraft certified to the OLD BCAR standard did have to meet a numeric standard for the gear boxes:
http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Certificat...%20Seminar.pdf
PS:
Juest recalled that aircraft certified to the OLD BCAR standard did have to meet a numeric standard for the gear boxes:
http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Certificat...%20Seminar.pdf
Last edited by Shell Management; 14th Nov 2007 at 17:31. Reason: Extra BCAR information
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, that's just a sign of someone who has had their bluff called and doesn't have the intellectual hand to back the claims they have made.
And what about the S76 and the entire Gulfstream product line?
This is a case of a desperate clinging to one marketing claim through ego.
And what about the S76 and the entire Gulfstream product line?
This is a case of a desperate clinging to one marketing claim through ego.
Nick said
But that is not the case. The chances of finding an EC225 that meets current safety standards in their entirity is nil as anyone glancing at the TCDS can tell. What is not so obvious is that the S92 does not meet them either - it just pretends to meet 29.927. At least the 225 is honest about it.
The dry running is a pretty clear cut case (RFM says land immediately) but the interesting question is "which of the other more esoteric requirements of JAR 29 does the S92 in fact not meet" when you examine more closely?
HC
Extremely remote is the chance of finding an EC225 that meets current safety standards.
The dry running is a pretty clear cut case (RFM says land immediately) but the interesting question is "which of the other more esoteric requirements of JAR 29 does the S92 in fact not meet" when you examine more closely?
HC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shell:
I'm not sure there is any logic in the contention that the quantitative value of 'Extremely Remote' can be 'established' by a manufacturer independently of AC 29.1309. There just cannot be 'n' values of the term - each relevant in its own context. Thus the implication that the value is somehow qualitative is, frankly, laughable.
It would be quite surprising if the failure modes of the lubrication system could be limited to some subset which would leave the oil intact in the gearbox. Reading of the text in FAR 29.927(c) "Unless such failures are extremely remote,.." would appear to indicate that the test is only required if the FMEA indicates that the failure could occur to a lesser probability than 'Extremely Remote'. The fact that the test was carried out at all appears to indicate that there was a serious situation which had to be managed. Surely testing - if it is called up following an assessment of failure other than Extremely Remote - had to call up the procedure for testing in AC 29.927A!
An extract from the text of the AC appears to be unambiguous and it is not clear how any testing other than with a dry gearbox would suffice:
Mars
I'm not sure there is any logic in the contention that the quantitative value of 'Extremely Remote' can be 'established' by a manufacturer independently of AC 29.1309. There just cannot be 'n' values of the term - each relevant in its own context. Thus the implication that the value is somehow qualitative is, frankly, laughable.
It would be quite surprising if the failure modes of the lubrication system could be limited to some subset which would leave the oil intact in the gearbox. Reading of the text in FAR 29.927(c) "Unless such failures are extremely remote,.." would appear to indicate that the test is only required if the FMEA indicates that the failure could occur to a lesser probability than 'Extremely Remote'. The fact that the test was carried out at all appears to indicate that there was a serious situation which had to be managed. Surely testing - if it is called up following an assessment of failure other than Extremely Remote - had to call up the procedure for testing in AC 29.927A!
An extract from the text of the AC appears to be unambiguous and it is not clear how any testing other than with a dry gearbox would suffice:
"The transmission lubricating oil should be drained while the transmission is operating at maximum normal speed and nominal cruise torque (reacted as appropriate at the main mast and tail rotor output quills). A vertical load should be applied at the mast, equal to the gross weight of the rotorcraft at 1g, and the lubricant should be at the maximum temperature limit. Upon illumination of the low oil pressure warning required by § 29.1305, reduce the input torque for Category A rotorcraft to the minimum torque necessary to sustain flight at the maximum gross weight and the most efficient flight conditions. To complete the test, apply an input torque to the transmission for approximately 25 seconds to simulate an autorotation. The last 10 seconds (of the 25 seconds) should be at the torque required for a minimum power landing. A successful demonstration may involve limited damage to the transmission, provided it is determined that the autorotative capabilities of the rotorcraft were not significantly impaired."
Mars
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The value contained in the clear fact that EASA and FAA have measured an entire helicopter against a new standard cannot be "exploded" by one pedant who sticks to one detail and pounds it repeatedly while ignoring all the misrepresentations he has been caught making.
He has never explained any of the shortfalls that he misstated and that the 225's documentation exposed.
Yes, it appears that the S92 has been reported to have had one maintenance or otherwise fault exposed, this is not the Holy Grail to Super Puma lovers. To those of you who like to be fooled by a bit of new chrome and a new name on an old, less safe design, have at it.
The sales record shows that of the 38 S-92's delivered so far, and three year's worth on order, a number that is perhaps 3 times that of the 225 (those with numbers please tell us!) It is comforting to know that those with the technical savvy and buying decision power have a better, safer future in mind, even if anonymous usernames on pprune do not!
And for the record, these safety regulations are not the sole property of the S92. The various new products of Agusta and Bell firmly embrace them, as well, and are the better for it. HC, run quickly to explain how the ancient creaky design of the 155 is better than the 139, and how the Huey is better than the 429. There is a little time left before the sales of the newer machines swamp the older ones, as the S92 has swamped the EC225.
He has never explained any of the shortfalls that he misstated and that the 225's documentation exposed.
Yes, it appears that the S92 has been reported to have had one maintenance or otherwise fault exposed, this is not the Holy Grail to Super Puma lovers. To those of you who like to be fooled by a bit of new chrome and a new name on an old, less safe design, have at it.
The sales record shows that of the 38 S-92's delivered so far, and three year's worth on order, a number that is perhaps 3 times that of the 225 (those with numbers please tell us!) It is comforting to know that those with the technical savvy and buying decision power have a better, safer future in mind, even if anonymous usernames on pprune do not!
And for the record, these safety regulations are not the sole property of the S92. The various new products of Agusta and Bell firmly embrace them, as well, and are the better for it. HC, run quickly to explain how the ancient creaky design of the 155 is better than the 139, and how the Huey is better than the 429. There is a little time left before the sales of the newer machines swamp the older ones, as the S92 has swamped the EC225.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I am a simpleton in these matters.
If you are flying along in a S92 and for whatever reason you lose all the oil in the MRGB can you continue to fly safely to somewhere or do you have to land immediately/ ditch.
No theorys or things I dont understand - just a straight forward yes or no.
I am a simpleton in these matters.
If you are flying along in a S92 and for whatever reason you lose all the oil in the MRGB can you continue to fly safely to somewhere or do you have to land immediately/ ditch.
No theorys or things I dont understand - just a straight forward yes or no.
Last edited by nbl; 15th Nov 2007 at 14:56. Reason: spelling
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know why the CHC S92 (CHCK) has so many IFE's? For a new airframe it seems to be a little bit unreliable compared to the EC225's also based at ABZ. Not wanting a slagging match but both Nick and HC are quite rightly fighting their corners and I am just curious about the reliability regarding the S92 and the EC225 at ABZ.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, the most profound statement in this thread is;
The alternative congers up a ridiculously perverse thought. The thought that the loss of a life makes a manufacture look bad, where as the loss of a craft means more business.
Given the choice between crashing in a crashworthy helicopter or not crashing in a non-crashworthy helicopter I choose the latter thanks.
Last edited by Dave_Jackson; 16th Nov 2007 at 04:13.
CHCK does seem to be particularly unreliable but to be fair to the breed, our 92 in Scatsta seems to be fairing better. In terms of serviceability rate, a big factor can be spares availability. A minor unserviceability requiring a new bit that could be fitted in minutes, can turn into a day or two of AOG (or three or four if over a holiday period) if the part is not in our stores. Both manufacturers suffer from this problem and the operators are in part to blame because they do not want to hold stock of unneeded parts. The trick is in identifying in advance those parts that you will need!
HC
HC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ****
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re SARCO's post I think the 92 has faired so badly against the 225 in ABZ because there is only 1 92 but 6 225's, if a 225 goes down simply roll out another, no one knows, the others take the slack, the 92 goes u/s everyone knows as it can't be replaced and it's noticed to be abscent. As HC rightly says it's a spares problem that's the bain of the 92.h
NST said
but all 6 of our 225s have full flying programmes (typically 4 flights a day) so whilst NST might be right from a public perspective point of view, its certainly not the case from an oil company point of view. We have to keep the aircraft serviceable to avoid financial penalties, there are no spare aircraft. If one goes U/S there is a big impact. Overall the 225s have been quite good and as I mentioned, mostly its a question of non-availability of spares, and not just big items. Sometimes its as ridiculous as plastic washers etc.
HC
if a 225 goes down simply roll out another
HC
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 58
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC Helicopter Corporation announced today it has secured a contract renewal and upgrade with StatoilHydro ASA for the provision of one Eurocopter EC225 all-weather search and rescue helicopter in support of StatoilHydro's offshore operations in the North Sea.
The helicopter will be based at StatoilHydro's Oseberg field and is an addition to the contract awarded in June 2007, in which CHC agreed to provide two EC225 all-weather search and rescue helicopters. The 7.5 year contract term will commence in October 2008, with additional options for up to four years.
CHC currently operates one all-weather search and rescue Eurocopter AS332L1 for StatoilHydro's Oseberg field. The AS332L1 currently operating will continue to operate as part of this new agreement, until the new EC225 arrives in late 2009. At that time, CHC will operate a total of three all-weather search and rescue EC225s for StatoilHydro in Norway.
This contract extension and upgrade is valued at approximately $115 million (all figures in Canadian dollars) over the contract term (excluding option periods).
The helicopter will be based at StatoilHydro's Oseberg field and is an addition to the contract awarded in June 2007, in which CHC agreed to provide two EC225 all-weather search and rescue helicopters. The 7.5 year contract term will commence in October 2008, with additional options for up to four years.
CHC currently operates one all-weather search and rescue Eurocopter AS332L1 for StatoilHydro's Oseberg field. The AS332L1 currently operating will continue to operate as part of this new agreement, until the new EC225 arrives in late 2009. At that time, CHC will operate a total of three all-weather search and rescue EC225s for StatoilHydro in Norway.
This contract extension and upgrade is valued at approximately $115 million (all figures in Canadian dollars) over the contract term (excluding option periods).
nbl
Mars is not my spokesman but he is correct. Following complete loss of MGB oil the EC225 can continue flight for 30 minutes at 80kts using the glycol injection system. In fact it lasts about 50 minutes but the certification is only for 30 minutes.
HC
Mars is not my spokesman but he is correct. Following complete loss of MGB oil the EC225 can continue flight for 30 minutes at 80kts using the glycol injection system. In fact it lasts about 50 minutes but the certification is only for 30 minutes.
HC