Helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland - 18 aboard, March 2009
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBC News - Nfld. & Labrador - Sikorsky chopper grounded over gearbox crack
A Cougar Helicopters Sikorsky chopper has been grounded in St. John's because of a crack near the gearbox, CBC News has learned.
U.S.-based manufacturer Sikorsky said the crack is in a footing that attaches the main rotor's gearbox to the body of the aircraft.
The crack was discovered in the same S-92 helicopter that had been grounded in January with the same problem.
Cougar uses the helicopters to transport crews to fields working in the offshore oilfields east of Newfoundland.
In a separate incident, another Cougar helicopter was grounded in Halifax in November, after a hairline crack was found.
Public scrutiny of Cougar's aircraft has been high since March 2009, when a Sikorsky S-92 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, killing 17 of the 18 people who were aboard. The Transportation Safety Board has not yet completed its investigation into the crash.
In a statement issued Thursday evening, Cougar Helicopters said it is complying with all directives and that the aircraft will go back into operation as soon as the "maintenance action" is completed.
"As this does not impact the safe operation of the aircraft, this is considered a standard maintenance action and completed as prescribed by the manufacturer (Sikorsky)," the Cougar statement said.
Sikorsky insists that the current issue is not a "flight safety issue," but the European Aviation Safety Agency has said that this problem could lead to loss of control of the helicopter.
Sikorsky said it will replace the gearbox as a precaution. That work was scheduled to start on Thursday. Sikorsky did the same thing after the January and November incidents.
Sikorsky said it is making better gearbox housings to resolve the issue.
U.S.-based manufacturer Sikorsky said the crack is in a footing that attaches the main rotor's gearbox to the body of the aircraft.
The crack was discovered in the same S-92 helicopter that had been grounded in January with the same problem.
Cougar uses the helicopters to transport crews to fields working in the offshore oilfields east of Newfoundland.
In a separate incident, another Cougar helicopter was grounded in Halifax in November, after a hairline crack was found.
Public scrutiny of Cougar's aircraft has been high since March 2009, when a Sikorsky S-92 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, killing 17 of the 18 people who were aboard. The Transportation Safety Board has not yet completed its investigation into the crash.
In a statement issued Thursday evening, Cougar Helicopters said it is complying with all directives and that the aircraft will go back into operation as soon as the "maintenance action" is completed.
"As this does not impact the safe operation of the aircraft, this is considered a standard maintenance action and completed as prescribed by the manufacturer (Sikorsky)," the Cougar statement said.
Sikorsky insists that the current issue is not a "flight safety issue," but the European Aviation Safety Agency has said that this problem could lead to loss of control of the helicopter.
Sikorsky said it will replace the gearbox as a precaution. That work was scheduled to start on Thursday. Sikorsky did the same thing after the January and November incidents.
Sikorsky said it is making better gearbox housings to resolve the issue.
A singurlarly useless and meaningless link 
I'm sure the boys and girls in Cougar will thankyou for that. 
I'm sure the boys and girls in Cougar will thankyou for that.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man While your are entitled to your opinion, your comment on of "useless and meaningless" could also apply to your own post.
What would you prefer? Total secrecy and suppression of information from passengers? Or are S92 gearbox changes so common as to be unremarkable?
HI do wonder how well briefed are BSP passengers are on the service experience of the S92. Cougar passengers certainly have a desire to be well informed and had a tragic lesson on the fallibility of the S92 on March 2009.
What would you prefer? Total secrecy and suppression of information from passengers? Or are S92 gearbox changes so common as to be unremarkable?
HI do wonder how well briefed are BSP passengers are on the service experience of the S92. Cougar passengers certainly have a desire to be well informed and had a tragic lesson on the fallibility of the S92 on March 2009.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point is that this is really not newsworthy, and is senseless journalistic sensationalism. The problem is that dramatizing these events has a very negative effect on the industry, both in terms of confidence for the passengers and also with respect to a balanced view for the customers and general public. The fact remains, that this was detected in routine maintenance, exactly as it should be. A crack in the mounting foot is, in itself, not a great problem, especially when you consider that this crack was probably barely visible to the human eye (only to a technicians eye
), and that it certainly is not a catastrophic failure that the press would like to portray. It is a helicopter, and they are grounded all the time for all sorts of reasons, and this will always be the case - fact. That is why we have highly trained maintenance departments. To me this is a very good proof to all passengers and customers that Cougar are doing a professional and very good maintenance operation and detecting all the snags as early as possible, but that does not sound so exciting as a headline in a paper (by the way - I have no connection whatsoever to Cougar). It is not about secrecy and cover-ups, but I really wonder who feeds the press this rubbish, as they should really look at what they are doing and the effect it has. The S92 is and remains to be an extremely reliable and tough machine, despite what a few journos in Canada want to have us believe, but it is just that - a machine, therein lies the weakness. When are we going to stop with this pointless scaremongering.
), and that it certainly is not a catastrophic failure that the press would like to portray. It is a helicopter, and they are grounded all the time for all sorts of reasons, and this will always be the case - fact. That is why we have highly trained maintenance departments. To me this is a very good proof to all passengers and customers that Cougar are doing a professional and very good maintenance operation and detecting all the snags as early as possible, but that does not sound so exciting as a headline in a paper (by the way - I have no connection whatsoever to Cougar). It is not about secrecy and cover-ups, but I really wonder who feeds the press this rubbish, as they should really look at what they are doing and the effect it has. The S92 is and remains to be an extremely reliable and tough machine, despite what a few journos in Canada want to have us believe, but it is just that - a machine, therein lies the weakness. When are we going to stop with this pointless scaremongering.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A crack!!
I once showed my wife a picture of a crack in one of our helicopters and she went white and expressed her shock/horror. I then put her straight......
"Darling, its a helicopter it therefore has a crack somewhere - that's what helicopters do, they vibrate and they crack. Don't worry about it.
I'm not sure how reassured she was but it's close to reality for almost every type I know - look at the doublers on the rear fuselage of any machine more than a year old.
G.
"Darling, its a helicopter it therefore has a crack somewhere - that's what helicopters do, they vibrate and they crack. Don't worry about it.
I'm not sure how reassured she was but it's close to reality for almost every type I know - look at the doublers on the rear fuselage of any machine more than a year old.
G.
What would you prefer? Total secrecy and suppression of information from passengers? Or are S92 gearbox changes so common as to be unremarkable?
HI do wonder how well briefed are BSP passengers are on the service experience of the S92. Cougar passengers certainly have a desire to be well informed and had a tragic lesson on the fallibility of the S92 on March 2009.
zalt is offline Report Post Reply
HI do wonder how well briefed are BSP passengers are on the service experience of the S92. Cougar passengers certainly have a desire to be well informed and had a tragic lesson on the fallibility of the S92 on March 2009.
zalt is offline Report Post Reply
So don't give us that sensationalist crap that somehow links an internal catostrophic failure that results in a fatal drive failure, to an external design fault that results in a crack with no safety implications but plenty of embarrassing downtime issues. I think the preferred North American Expression is "give us a f***ing break." We are under no illusions as to your stature within industry - let's not let it distort your actual input and respect!
Horrobox - Fazarkely! Thank God for impartiality and common sense!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we even had Mr Pino come and visit, as well as taking a few of the SAC MGB designers offshore on briefings.
There is a reason this is big news in Canada and it shows the rather pathetic attitudes of some to simply dismiss these defects.
The revelation that the CBC Fifth Estate documentary that the TSB had actually examined the failed studs from the first S92 total gearbox oil loss (in Australia in 2008) but failed to make a public recommendation prior to the tragedy in St Johns may not have made much of an effect overseas but it did not go unnoticed in Canada. Perhaps the Cougar crew would have ditched in time if they had known the truth from Australia.
I would expect the TSB not to be as dismissive as a bunch of PPRuNe armchair airworthiness engineers. TSB's failure to act certainly dents our faith in their competence (perhaps to be regained when they finally report) and faith in the SMSs in the industry.
Zalt,
whatever the validity of your remarks - they bear no commonstance to the points raised in the news link given about the foot cracks.
CBC News - Nfld. & Labrador - Sikorsky chopper grounded over gearbox crack
That's the point!
whatever the validity of your remarks - they bear no commonstance to the points raised in the news link given about the foot cracks.
CBC News - Nfld. & Labrador - Sikorsky chopper grounded over gearbox crack
That's the point!
The revelation that the CBC Fifth Estate documentary that the TSB had actually examined the failed studs from the first S92 total gearbox oil loss (in Australia in 2008) but failed to make a public recommendation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that is as much a sign of the wavering confidence in the S92 due to an ongoing series of problems, as sign of proactive Sikorsky commitment.
There is a reason this is big news in Canada and it shows the rather pathetic attitudes of some to simply dismiss these defects.
The revelation that the CBC Fifth Estate documentary that the TSB had actually examined the failed studs from the first S92 total gearbox oil loss (in Australia in 2008) but failed to make a public recommendation prior to the tragedy in St Johns may not have made much of an effect overseas but it did not go unnoticed in Canada. Perhaps the Cougar crew would have ditched in time if they had known the truth from Australia.
I would expect the TSB not to be as dismissive as a bunch of PPRuNe armchair airworthiness engineers. TSB's failure to act certainly dents our faith in their competence (perhaps to be regained when they finally report) and faith in the SMSs in the industry.
There is a reason this is big news in Canada and it shows the rather pathetic attitudes of some to simply dismiss these defects.
The revelation that the CBC Fifth Estate documentary that the TSB had actually examined the failed studs from the first S92 total gearbox oil loss (in Australia in 2008) but failed to make a public recommendation prior to the tragedy in St Johns may not have made much of an effect overseas but it did not go unnoticed in Canada. Perhaps the Cougar crew would have ditched in time if they had known the truth from Australia.
I would expect the TSB not to be as dismissive as a bunch of PPRuNe armchair airworthiness engineers. TSB's failure to act certainly dents our faith in their competence (perhaps to be regained when they finally report) and faith in the SMSs in the industry.
The issue of the STUDS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ISSUE OF CRACKED MOUNTING FEET. It has been effectively dealt with following the cougar accident. This has already been covered to death in this thread.
The issue of mounting feet cracking definitely not unique to the S92, and is being dealt with effectively by SAC incorporating new procedures for inspection, precautionary flight procedures, reducing torque, and lengthy investigation and studies. Far more than other companies have been willing to do in the past.
I am all for good discussion about the S92, after all I fly it, so have a vested interest in its safety, but please, don't just regurgitate to us the crap that is being published in the Canadian press, by half informed journalists looking to sell a story. That is the reason it is big news in Canada, and if you speak to anyone actually involved in flying and maintaining this aircraft you will get a very different story, with a good deal more fact.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proactive discussion?
Strange how it only takes some recent media attention to awaken this thread. CBC did a reasonably good job with the "Fifth Estate" report, but this latest diatribe is reminiscent of their initial coverage of 491. Like vultures they descended upon the Cougar heliport and spewed out inconsistent stories, with the key word being stories, not facts.
I for one have been, and still am, patiently awaiting the pending new S92 MGB and the TSB report findings.
Commendation to the Cougar crew who are doing an excellent and vigilant job of keeping the S92s as safe as currently possible.
IMHO the high visibility in the S92 will not abate for quite some time in NL after 491. We would have had the same scenario with the Super Pumas if a MGB wasn't changed out in time, but the reason that never happened is again due to the excellent work of the Cougar team, who knew how to keep those babies flying. Hindsight is great, but not as good as total flying service/experience of any helo. That's why the Pumas gained an excellent track record, the maintenance regime was set by real-time experience. Hopefully the same will apply to the S92 as the flying hours increase.
Safe flying
Max
I for one have been, and still am, patiently awaiting the pending new S92 MGB and the TSB report findings.
Commendation to the Cougar crew who are doing an excellent and vigilant job of keeping the S92s as safe as currently possible.
IMHO the high visibility in the S92 will not abate for quite some time in NL after 491. We would have had the same scenario with the Super Pumas if a MGB wasn't changed out in time, but the reason that never happened is again due to the excellent work of the Cougar team, who knew how to keep those babies flying. Hindsight is great, but not as good as total flying service/experience of any helo. That's why the Pumas gained an excellent track record, the maintenance regime was set by real-time experience. Hopefully the same will apply to the S92 as the flying hours increase.
Safe flying
Max
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maxwell,
I would remind you that the Super Puma most certainly does not not have a perfect track record, and has also had a number of catastrophic gearbox and other failures. 1997 - Helikopter Service L1 (gearbox failure) and 2009 Bond L2 (geabox failure), MHS L2 in 2007 and 2006, Bristow G-JSAR 2006 so don't lose the perpective. Problems have been serious and numerous over the years, including catastrophic gearbox failure, engine overspeeds resulting in catastrophic failure, hydraulic fires and tail rotor failures. I do not intend to imply that the Puma has a poor safety record, as over the years it has flown many hundreds of thousands of hours, but they certainly do not have an "excellent track record".
Having flown both - I am much happier in an S92.
I would remind you that the Super Puma most certainly does not not have a perfect track record, and has also had a number of catastrophic gearbox and other failures. 1997 - Helikopter Service L1 (gearbox failure) and 2009 Bond L2 (geabox failure), MHS L2 in 2007 and 2006, Bristow G-JSAR 2006 so don't lose the perpective. Problems have been serious and numerous over the years, including catastrophic gearbox failure, engine overspeeds resulting in catastrophic failure, hydraulic fires and tail rotor failures. I do not intend to imply that the Puma has a poor safety record, as over the years it has flown many hundreds of thousands of hours, but they certainly do not have an "excellent track record".
Having flown both - I am much happier in an S92.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, lots of historical issues with the Super Puma fleet, some as yet not fully answered, but lots of incident-free flying hours to reduce risk via the law of averages.
From a statistical perspective the S92 doesn't even come near the Super Pumas. That's the key difference right now that only time and further design improvements will change that.
From a personal PAX perspective the S92 shakes badly, especially when icing occurs faster than the RIPS can handle, and has so much bad press that it will never be a preferred helo by PAX. Remember what happened to the Chinook back in the early North Sea days, they didn't last long in offshore use...
Just because we PAX fly in the S92 doesn't mean that we actually like them. Consider it a tolerated condition right now with heavy dependence on the pilots and maintenance teams.
Safe flying
Max
From a statistical perspective the S92 doesn't even come near the Super Pumas. That's the key difference right now that only time and further design improvements will change that.
From a personal PAX perspective the S92 shakes badly, especially when icing occurs faster than the RIPS can handle, and has so much bad press that it will never be a preferred helo by PAX. Remember what happened to the Chinook back in the early North Sea days, they didn't last long in offshore use...
Just because we PAX fly in the S92 doesn't mean that we actually like them. Consider it a tolerated condition right now with heavy dependence on the pilots and maintenance teams.
Safe flying
Max
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a personal PAX perspective the S92 shakes badly, especially when icing occurs faster than the RIPS can handle, and has so much bad press that it will never be a preferred helo by PAX. Remember what happened to the Chinook back in the early North Sea days, they didn't last long in offshore use..
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Horrorbox, vibration due to the anti-icing system operational characteristics makes complete sense. One more lesson learned for me.
I still think the S92 has to much quiescent vibration, but again that's just my personal opinion. Keeps waking me up with an itchy nose!
As always, I trust the pilots who trust the maintenance support team.
Safe Flying
Max
I still think the S92 has to much quiescent vibration, but again that's just my personal opinion. Keeps waking me up with an itchy nose!
As always, I trust the pilots who trust the maintenance support team.
Safe Flying
Max
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBC article
That CBC article from May 6th seemed fairly reasonable. The S-92 MRGB housing inspection directives put in place seem to be working, and this time a housing crack was detected before it caused a problem.
What caught my eye in that article however, was this sentence: "The crack was discovered in the same S-92 helicopter that had been grounded in January with the same problem." If true, it sounds like that particular airframe might have some other issues.
What caught my eye in that article however, was this sentence: "The crack was discovered in the same S-92 helicopter that had been grounded in January with the same problem." If true, it sounds like that particular airframe might have some other issues.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: not in the north sea
Age: 61
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
horror box: "The Puma has only a limited icing clearance, in some ops and no blade de-icing capability at all"
As a matter of fact, the AS332 was the first helicopter to be certified by FAA for flight in icing conditions, thanks to its deicing system.
The EC225 is certified by FAA and EASA for flight in icing conditions with the optional deicing system.
Spheritech
As a matter of fact, the AS332 was the first helicopter to be certified by FAA for flight in icing conditions, thanks to its deicing system.
The EC225 is certified by FAA and EASA for flight in icing conditions with the optional deicing system.
Spheritech
Yes, it's called being 'North-Sea-centric'! (no offence intended) combined with Sikorsky hype as if they invented the whole concept!
HB, if you ever get a chance, try and find some photos of the (fully icing cleared) Cougar 332s covered in Ice - eye watering! I think that's what Maxwell is alluding to - the difference in characteristics in ice shedding compared to what they were used to.
HB, if you ever get a chance, try and find some photos of the (fully icing cleared) Cougar 332s covered in Ice - eye watering! I think that's what Maxwell is alluding to - the difference in characteristics in ice shedding compared to what they were used to.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
horror box: "The Puma has only a limited icing clearance, in some ops and no blade de-icing capability at all"
As a matter of fact, the AS332 was the first helicopter to be certified by FAA for flight in icing conditions, thanks to its deicing system.
The EC225 is certified by FAA and EASA for flight in icing conditions with the optional deicing system.
Spheritech
As a matter of fact, the AS332 was the first helicopter to be certified by FAA for flight in icing conditions, thanks to its deicing system.
The EC225 is certified by FAA and EASA for flight in icing conditions with the optional deicing system.
Spheritech
Having flown the 332L without blade de-icing and a limited clearance, I always found icing "interesting", especially when you begin to ponder the performance implications if you ever were to ever find yourself trying to autorotate!
Last edited by Horror box; 8th May 2010 at 14:48.
Sometimes staying level at Vy and MCP is a more interesting situation.....