Coastguard S92's
Ah, the old "Bristow Knows Best" attitude rears its ugly head again! I listened to that bovine fecal matter for too many years. Having been at both the factory and in operations I know the factory tends to draw input from all operators and is able to consider those inputs from a much more impartial perspective than some of the contributors.
Shall we use one small example....that being the wonderful mod to the 212's by Bristow where they removed the torgue limiter (simultaneously removing the torque damping as well) so as to save one of the North Sea Juniors at Eket from taking a swim when he had a Super Puma Flashback on takeoff or landing in a machine that did not have the excess of power they had grown used to while plodding to and fro on the North Sea.
How many overtorques did we see as a result of monkeying about with the factory design of the aircraft on what would best be described as a very unthoughtout concept. It was the pilots....not the aircraft that had that problem.
A second example would be the walhalla over generator bearings on the 212.....despite the factory being able to identify the exact lot of bad bearings and thus institute a corrective action that cured the ill.....Bristow probably still has their modified procedure in place for the 212.....that is shutting down the engine iat the first indication of a generator problem.
Bristow does some things very right....but the attitude that "Mama knows best" doesn't fly. All one had to do was compare the fatal accident rates for ACN and Bristow Nigeria to see the patent disproof to that mindset.
As to my being here on Christmas....me dear Mum is having a kip....and when she awakes I will go fix her dinner for her. Until then, I am left to my own devices. Since I just love the sound of hissing hot air....I thought a Christmas visit to Rotorheads would be good fun.
Shall we use one small example....that being the wonderful mod to the 212's by Bristow where they removed the torgue limiter (simultaneously removing the torque damping as well) so as to save one of the North Sea Juniors at Eket from taking a swim when he had a Super Puma Flashback on takeoff or landing in a machine that did not have the excess of power they had grown used to while plodding to and fro on the North Sea.
How many overtorques did we see as a result of monkeying about with the factory design of the aircraft on what would best be described as a very unthoughtout concept. It was the pilots....not the aircraft that had that problem.
A second example would be the walhalla over generator bearings on the 212.....despite the factory being able to identify the exact lot of bad bearings and thus institute a corrective action that cured the ill.....Bristow probably still has their modified procedure in place for the 212.....that is shutting down the engine iat the first indication of a generator problem.
Bristow does some things very right....but the attitude that "Mama knows best" doesn't fly. All one had to do was compare the fatal accident rates for ACN and Bristow Nigeria to see the patent disproof to that mindset.
As to my being here on Christmas....me dear Mum is having a kip....and when she awakes I will go fix her dinner for her. Until then, I am left to my own devices. Since I just love the sound of hissing hot air....I thought a Christmas visit to Rotorheads would be good fun.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
I always thought you were a Man who enjoyed the Macallans, Glenmorangies, Glenlivets,of this World, now you're telling us you drank too many Eggnogs, you must have went off the rails when you left Bristow.
Think you should cut HC some slack here though, he just mentioned Bristows along with a lot of other operators, and I think its fair to say that they are the ones that developed each aircraft, if not we would still be flying A models.
Look at a Ferrari F1 car, designed by computers/ draughtsmen/engineers, but it's M Schum'r who developed it.
You know if it wasn't for the jousts between Nick and HC, Pprune would be pretty boring most of the time, so keep it up gents, but keep it above board, two gentlemen here who love what they do, and will defend it to the end.
Slainte,
TC.
I always thought you were a Man who enjoyed the Macallans, Glenmorangies, Glenlivets,of this World, now you're telling us you drank too many Eggnogs, you must have went off the rails when you left Bristow.
Think you should cut HC some slack here though, he just mentioned Bristows along with a lot of other operators, and I think its fair to say that they are the ones that developed each aircraft, if not we would still be flying A models.
Look at a Ferrari F1 car, designed by computers/ draughtsmen/engineers, but it's M Schum'r who developed it.
You know if it wasn't for the jousts between Nick and HC, Pprune would be pretty boring most of the time, so keep it up gents, but keep it above board, two gentlemen here who love what they do, and will defend it to the end.
Slainte,
TC.
Last edited by Tynecastle; 27th Dec 2007 at 08:34. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Sirs
I wish to formally apologise for having ever asked the question as to why the S92 hovers more nose up in higher wind speeds. It was a moment of reckless and irresponsible madness for which I have no excuse. Had I in any way realised the PoF nightmare that such a question would generate then I would never have lowered myself to ask it in the first place.
I have the honour to be
Max Contingency
Your Obedient Servant
Moving on........
I also asked our rearcrew brethren if 10 degrees nose up presents any winching/cabin entry issues? I take it that you are operating with twin hoists that have no bell crank/fleet angle issues?
IIRC 10 degrees is a winch limit on hoists on certain well known yellow helicopters. Therefore 10 degrees nose up, theoretically, would allow no trailing of the cable?
Moving on again...
Was that IR turret not originally on the sponson during production?
I wish to formally apologise for having ever asked the question as to why the S92 hovers more nose up in higher wind speeds. It was a moment of reckless and irresponsible madness for which I have no excuse. Had I in any way realised the PoF nightmare that such a question would generate then I would never have lowered myself to ask it in the first place.
I have the honour to be
Max Contingency
Your Obedient Servant
Moving on........
I also asked our rearcrew brethren if 10 degrees nose up presents any winching/cabin entry issues? I take it that you are operating with twin hoists that have no bell crank/fleet angle issues?
IIRC 10 degrees is a winch limit on hoists on certain well known yellow helicopters. Therefore 10 degrees nose up, theoretically, would allow no trailing of the cable?
Moving on again...
Was that IR turret not originally on the sponson during production?
HC, just for clarity: I have not personally experienced the greater nose up attitude in winds of 45 kts, it was reported by a Norwegian operator as a problem they encounter when lifting from decks in strong winds. It generates the "Tail too Low" EGPWS warning.
Roofus, glad to hear it!
Roofus, glad to hear it!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Abroad
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Contingency,
I would say that more speed gives less attitude....this is the same when hovering in strong winds with a clean airflow, more wind gives less attitude.
Over a helideck the aerodynamics are probably different and it will then behave different.
But the SAR people flying the 92 will have the correct answer.....
I would say that more speed gives less attitude....this is the same when hovering in strong winds with a clean airflow, more wind gives less attitude.
Over a helideck the aerodynamics are probably different and it will then behave different.
But the SAR people flying the 92 will have the correct answer.....
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faults with new £8m rescue helicopter 'putting lives at risk'
From today's Scottish Daily Mail:
Scots Coastguards have warned that lives are being put at risk by serious faults in their new £8million rescue helicopters.
The Sikorsky S92s have suffered a series of technical glitches since their introduction in July last year.
Last week Coastguards were even forced to ground the helicopter and use its 47-year-old predecessor to carry out a rescue.
The problems mainly lie with the S92's satellite communications system, which a senior source has described as 'unusable'.
Other technical issues, such as the helicopter's 'auto-hover' system used during winching, have raised concerns about its suitability for search-and-rescue duties. The new S92s were introduced after helicopter firm CHC Scotia was awarded a £100 million, five-year contract by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for search and rescue operations.
The U.S. built helicopters replace the old Sikorsky S61s used by the previous contractor, Bristow. The S61 was introduced in 1961. Two S92s are now based at Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides and two more are set to be deployed at Sumburgh in the Shetlands soon.
The helicopters from these two Coastguard stations are used in rescue missions all over Scotland.
However, crews were concerned that the S92s did not have short-wave radio sets, which are often used to co-ordinate rescues involving the RAF and Royal Navy.
Instead, the Coastguards have to rely on a satellite phone, which sometimes provides a poor signal.
Crews have complained that emergency messages are often delayed by problems dialling up the air rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Kinloss in Moray.
Matters reached a head on Hogmanay, when the Stornoway team were informed that a crewman aboard an Inverness-registered trawler The Adventurer was suffering severe chest pains.
But the S92 had problems contacting RAF Kinloss and controllers scrambled an ageing S61 from Sumburgh - a machine which had been replaced by the S92s - to carry out the rescue mission 95 miles out to sea.
A senior Coastguard source said last night: 'It was an embarrassing fiasco. They had to get out the old workhorse which has been flying since the 1960s to do the job properly.
'Yet they (the MCA) refuse to listen when told the satellite system is often unuseable.'
Western Isles councillor Donald Macsween said: 'I know that many of the crews are concerned and there has been talk of some quitting because no one is listening to them. It's not good enough in a vital public serivce.'
An MCA spokesman admitted there had been glitches during the Hogmanay operation but claimed problems with the S92's communications system were being 'urgently addressed'.
He added: 'Crews are still getting to grips with the aircraft and this was a scenario that had not previously been encountered or practised.'
The Sikorsky S92s have suffered a series of technical glitches since their introduction in July last year.
Last week Coastguards were even forced to ground the helicopter and use its 47-year-old predecessor to carry out a rescue.
The problems mainly lie with the S92's satellite communications system, which a senior source has described as 'unusable'.
Other technical issues, such as the helicopter's 'auto-hover' system used during winching, have raised concerns about its suitability for search-and-rescue duties. The new S92s were introduced after helicopter firm CHC Scotia was awarded a £100 million, five-year contract by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) for search and rescue operations.
The U.S. built helicopters replace the old Sikorsky S61s used by the previous contractor, Bristow. The S61 was introduced in 1961. Two S92s are now based at Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides and two more are set to be deployed at Sumburgh in the Shetlands soon.
The helicopters from these two Coastguard stations are used in rescue missions all over Scotland.
However, crews were concerned that the S92s did not have short-wave radio sets, which are often used to co-ordinate rescues involving the RAF and Royal Navy.
Instead, the Coastguards have to rely on a satellite phone, which sometimes provides a poor signal.
Crews have complained that emergency messages are often delayed by problems dialling up the air rescue co-ordination centre at RAF Kinloss in Moray.
Matters reached a head on Hogmanay, when the Stornoway team were informed that a crewman aboard an Inverness-registered trawler The Adventurer was suffering severe chest pains.
But the S92 had problems contacting RAF Kinloss and controllers scrambled an ageing S61 from Sumburgh - a machine which had been replaced by the S92s - to carry out the rescue mission 95 miles out to sea.
A senior Coastguard source said last night: 'It was an embarrassing fiasco. They had to get out the old workhorse which has been flying since the 1960s to do the job properly.
'Yet they (the MCA) refuse to listen when told the satellite system is often unuseable.'
Western Isles councillor Donald Macsween said: 'I know that many of the crews are concerned and there has been talk of some quitting because no one is listening to them. It's not good enough in a vital public serivce.'
An MCA spokesman admitted there had been glitches during the Hogmanay operation but claimed problems with the S92's communications system were being 'urgently addressed'.
He added: 'Crews are still getting to grips with the aircraft and this was a scenario that had not previously been encountered or practised.'
Just Dropped In
Join Date: May 2001
Location: um....er.....
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Grief!!
Here we go again!!
The S-92 is going to be a good, if not great, SAR machine!! But.....it's new! So yep.....there's some software problems.....they'll have to adapt a few procedures.....etc etc!
& there's my point! Most of the guys are working to adapt, correct & overcome any of the teething problems! They'll tell you the Pro's far outweigh the cons!!
& then there are those who just want to be obstructive & highlight only problems. Not only highlight......exaggerate!!!
So......the 92 launched out of Stornoway (LAUNCHED!! Not Grounded!!!). They had comm problems, not unheard of in any aircraft!! They requested top cover, the Nimrod was only available on 120mins notice......so they launched the S-61 out of Sumburgh. The S-92 couldn't get a hi-line to the deck......they asked the S-61 to try.....the S-61 managed. No big deal, no reflection on either crew, good cooperation!
My input.....let them walk!! Will save us having to read this tripe in the papers!
Here we go again!!
The S-92 is going to be a good, if not great, SAR machine!! But.....it's new! So yep.....there's some software problems.....they'll have to adapt a few procedures.....etc etc!
& there's my point! Most of the guys are working to adapt, correct & overcome any of the teething problems! They'll tell you the Pro's far outweigh the cons!!
& then there are those who just want to be obstructive & highlight only problems. Not only highlight......exaggerate!!!
So......the 92 launched out of Stornoway (LAUNCHED!! Not Grounded!!!). They had comm problems, not unheard of in any aircraft!! They requested top cover, the Nimrod was only available on 120mins notice......so they launched the S-61 out of Sumburgh. The S-92 couldn't get a hi-line to the deck......they asked the S-61 to try.....the S-61 managed. No big deal, no reflection on either crew, good cooperation!
My input.....let them walk!! Will save us having to read this tripe in the papers!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No reflection on either crew but at the end of the day the crewman was only rescued because the S61 could do it and the S92 could not. Is that not a fact. Communication is vital in these jobs and I find it incredible the systems on the new aircraft were not checked before going live.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roofus
Think you missed the point of the article, it was about the poor communications currently fitted to the S92 to talk to various units when a long way offshore, not the helicopter itself (other than some minor comments). I wouldn't want to be a long way offshore out of VHF contact unless I had a reliable radio or system talk to my controlling authority. The current sat phone also sounds totally unreliable such that if the aircraft has a problem and needs to put out an emergency call, the crew cannot do so as it keeps falling over.
If either the MCA or some other authority is not listening, then perhaps an article like this in a daily newspaper is a last resort to get thngs moving at a quicker pace! Who's to say that a bit of politics isn't being played here? After all CHC themselves criticised both Sikorsky and Agusta Westland for their poor backup support on their website last year. I suspect that was after a lot of trying to sort something out without any positive response.
Think you missed the point of the article, it was about the poor communications currently fitted to the S92 to talk to various units when a long way offshore, not the helicopter itself (other than some minor comments). I wouldn't want to be a long way offshore out of VHF contact unless I had a reliable radio or system talk to my controlling authority. The current sat phone also sounds totally unreliable such that if the aircraft has a problem and needs to put out an emergency call, the crew cannot do so as it keeps falling over.
If either the MCA or some other authority is not listening, then perhaps an article like this in a daily newspaper is a last resort to get thngs moving at a quicker pace! Who's to say that a bit of politics isn't being played here? After all CHC themselves criticised both Sikorsky and Agusta Westland for their poor backup support on their website last year. I suspect that was after a lot of trying to sort something out without any positive response.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On Dry Land Now
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S92 - Fit for purpose - YES!
Guys
As any of you who have operated this patch of sea will know:
Channel 0 and Aberdeen Information are available most of the way from Sumburgh to Stornoway in addition to Scottish Information as an alternative. Trust me - speak to Aberdeen Info if you do not beleive!!!
And indeed on this very mission the S61 was in comms with Aberdeen Info until the final 40 miles to vessel and in contact witht the Coastguard on Channel 0 throughout the whole mission!!!!!
Depending on your view of what you want HF for - I would much prefer the SKYTRACK real time display of location (GPS & sat link) together with the sat phone link. ie if the worst should happen then the RCC, Coastguard and indeed anyone with access to the internet and the appropriate password can see the precise location of the aircraft etc etc.
Indeedd although no-one (including the S61) could talk to the S92 the Coastguard passed an accurate Lat and Long of the S92 from their Skytrack display which allowed the S61 to track direct to the vessel.
The S92 was eventually raised by the S61 on channel 67 with 15 miles to run and it subsequently transpired that the S92 wasn't listening on any other channel despite many incoming calls on the sat link phone (HF replacement) from the coastguard!! so where is the failure of the kit!!! Imagine the worst - S61 140 miles out - major emergency - whats the chance that someone would get out a Lat and Long on HF prior to ditching???
The previous few posts hit the nail on the head - the S92 were not able to get a highline on the boat (for whatever reason - certainly not radios!!)and were big enough to give the S61 crew a go before the S61 needed to depart for fuel - the S61 captain happened to be an extremely experienced Ex RN SAR Captain who was familiar and comfortable with his machine and a bloody nice bloke as well!
Lets not knock the S92, the kit or indeed CHC! chances are the S92 may have also got the hi-line down on the next go but they WERE professional enough to pull away, have a rest and let another crew have a go!!!
Thats the point of SAR and experienced SAR operators at that - get the job done - egos later!
To the Luddites amongst you - ask what you want HF for and ask what can't be done by the currently fitted Skytrack system!!!!
Oh and for the dis-believers amongst you - Aberdeen information stayed open to oversee the return of the S61 back to Sumburgh in the early hours and were spoken to all th eway home!!!
Long Live the S61!!!!!!
And for Crab - be very careful if you are even thinking of slagging off civvy SAR - the particular details of the personnel in this episode may just bite you in the arse mate!
Regards
As any of you who have operated this patch of sea will know:
Channel 0 and Aberdeen Information are available most of the way from Sumburgh to Stornoway in addition to Scottish Information as an alternative. Trust me - speak to Aberdeen Info if you do not beleive!!!
And indeed on this very mission the S61 was in comms with Aberdeen Info until the final 40 miles to vessel and in contact witht the Coastguard on Channel 0 throughout the whole mission!!!!!
Depending on your view of what you want HF for - I would much prefer the SKYTRACK real time display of location (GPS & sat link) together with the sat phone link. ie if the worst should happen then the RCC, Coastguard and indeed anyone with access to the internet and the appropriate password can see the precise location of the aircraft etc etc.
Indeedd although no-one (including the S61) could talk to the S92 the Coastguard passed an accurate Lat and Long of the S92 from their Skytrack display which allowed the S61 to track direct to the vessel.
The S92 was eventually raised by the S61 on channel 67 with 15 miles to run and it subsequently transpired that the S92 wasn't listening on any other channel despite many incoming calls on the sat link phone (HF replacement) from the coastguard!! so where is the failure of the kit!!! Imagine the worst - S61 140 miles out - major emergency - whats the chance that someone would get out a Lat and Long on HF prior to ditching???
The previous few posts hit the nail on the head - the S92 were not able to get a highline on the boat (for whatever reason - certainly not radios!!)and were big enough to give the S61 crew a go before the S61 needed to depart for fuel - the S61 captain happened to be an extremely experienced Ex RN SAR Captain who was familiar and comfortable with his machine and a bloody nice bloke as well!
Lets not knock the S92, the kit or indeed CHC! chances are the S92 may have also got the hi-line down on the next go but they WERE professional enough to pull away, have a rest and let another crew have a go!!!
Thats the point of SAR and experienced SAR operators at that - get the job done - egos later!
To the Luddites amongst you - ask what you want HF for and ask what can't be done by the currently fitted Skytrack system!!!!
Oh and for the dis-believers amongst you - Aberdeen information stayed open to oversee the return of the S61 back to Sumburgh in the early hours and were spoken to all th eway home!!!
Long Live the S61!!!!!!
And for Crab - be very careful if you are even thinking of slagging off civvy SAR - the particular details of the personnel in this episode may just bite you in the arse mate!
Regards
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Media
Why do we so much listen to what the media have to write they only write half a story and even then 9 times out 10 it is not correct what they write.
They only thing they do do brilliantly and that is F... people in the Arse.
The S92 is a great helicopter with some teething problems and which new helicopter has not got teething problems
It takes time and then I'm sure it will be fantastic machine
Bloody hell guy's give the people involved a chance to make it work and stop listening to what media people have write at the end of the day what do they know?????? .
Media shut the hell up!!!!!!
They only thing they do do brilliantly and that is F... people in the Arse.
The S92 is a great helicopter with some teething problems and which new helicopter has not got teething problems
It takes time and then I'm sure it will be fantastic machine
Bloody hell guy's give the people involved a chance to make it work and stop listening to what media people have write at the end of the day what do they know?????? .
Media shut the hell up!!!!!!
Last edited by pumaboy; 10th Jan 2008 at 20:58.
Why do we so much listen to what the media have to write they only write half a story and even then 9 times out 10 it is NOT correct what they write.
skadi
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if anyone knows the MMSI and IMO numbers of the various new Coastguard helicopters as used on AIS?
The two at Stornoway seem to be
MMSI IMO
111232500 9255139
111232501 7310868
And one of the Sumburgh ones (headed North earlier in the week as COASTGUARD 102)
111232502
It would be good to be able to link these to the aircraft registration rather than callsigns which presumably can change.
MB
The two at Stornoway seem to be
MMSI IMO
111232500 9255139
111232501 7310868
And one of the Sumburgh ones (headed North earlier in the week as COASTGUARD 102)
111232502
It would be good to be able to link these to the aircraft registration rather than callsigns which presumably can change.
MB
Some overly sensitive souls on here
What's the problem, the job got done didn't it? Comms faffs are not exactly exclusive to aircraft type or role.
What's the problem, the job got done didn't it? Comms faffs are not exactly exclusive to aircraft type or role.
