Helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland - 18 aboard, March 2009
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Helicopter crash probe review unfair: lawyer"
That's kind of what lawyers do. They want to be in on everything. They want to have their biased opinion in the report so the eventual jury sees it as the report in being presented to them. When a lawyer says "My client has a right to be included", he means "I want to be included, so I have a better chance of winning my case". Let the experts do what they do best, without outside interference.
FH and HC.....Why run the thing by the two categories of interests as is proposed by the legislation? Why not allow the Investigative Agency do its job....gather the facts....examine the evidence....apply such scientific and investigative processes as necessary....then issue the report of their (operative word.....their) findings.
The "interested" parties can provide their rebuttal or critiques after the report is issued can they not?
This sounds to me like a case of Justice where the killer gets to sit in the Jury Room.
The "interested" parties can provide their rebuttal or critiques after the report is issued can they not?
This sounds to me like a case of Justice where the killer gets to sit in the Jury Room.
Is the TSB implying that the crew may have been able to escape if they had been better protected?
In 1989, Tom House died in a Seahawk mishap off of Point Loma California (RIP, Tom). Tail Rotor loss of thrust led to an immediate ditch scenario. Henry Harris, Pilot Flying and the AW (Darnit, name not on tip of tongue) egressed successfully. Navy crew, all three were wearing helmets, etc, and usual flight/flotation gear.
Tom, PNF, was knocked out, as best as they could reconstruct afterwards, at water impact. Wearing helmet, when the seat stroked (they didn't hit the water gently, Henry's back was a mess for some time after the crash) his head snapped down and forehead met cyclic stick. Bad luck of geometry. Hard to egress when you are not conscious.
Even with a helmet, there is no guarantee that with a hard landing in a ditch/crash one will avoid injury ... but it's the way to bet.
Not sure how that would have helped in this mishap.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th Sep 2010 at 15:07.
Consider this.....the Cougar aircraft hit the water at a fairly high forward speed and the dynamic components "sheared off" from the top of the fuselage (as designed) leaving the fuselage fairly intact and without deformation. I would assume the pilots were not wearing helmets. With an impact that severe....they would have been propelled forward with a very high level of force. The autopsy results would describe the extent of the facial and head injuries they suffered. The extent of those injuries would determine their probability of survival.
I will submit they were incapcitated due to the crash forces and injuries....and probably would not have been much better off had they been wearing helmets. That is an issue that should be addressed in the report.
Salt water gets very hard when hit at high rates of speed and does not give much when hit.
I will submit they were incapcitated due to the crash forces and injuries....and probably would not have been much better off had they been wearing helmets. That is an issue that should be addressed in the report.
Salt water gets very hard when hit at high rates of speed and does not give much when hit.
SAS, I think we can all agree that's a pretty horrific image, and I still remember 'recoiling' when I first saw the set. However, I think we should wait for the report before drawing too many conclusions. The impression I get - from Decker's account amongst other things - is that much of that fuselage disruption may have been caused post impact. Hitting the sea bed and the subsequent salvage probably caused a lot of damage.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Near the beach
Age: 63
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another perspective
The fact that one person did survive a relatively high speed impact, escaped afterward and continued to stay alive in atrocious sea conditions until rescued; it will be interesting to see if any comments are made in the final report about the possibility of others surviving had a ditching been attempted earlier ?
it will be interesting to see if any comments are made in the final report about the possibility of others surviving had a ditching been attempted earlier
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things that go through my mind.....
I can't help but wondering how I might have handled the pending emergency with the hindsight that the captain did not have at the time, of course. Not being familiar with 2 meter seas or what it would be like to ditch there, I wonder if it would be feasible to hover as low as possible to allow the passengers time to prepare? Would it be feasible to touch down on the water to unload the MR gearbox with RPM at flight idle to stabilize the ship and keep the heat on until rescue arrives? I'm sure that we've all thought about it. If the same thing happened to you tomorrow, what would you do? What could you do?
As I see it....the Sixty-Four Dollar Question will always be...."From the time the crew observed the MGB Oil Pressure below 5PSI....why did they not make a timely descent and ditching?"
That is not going to be an easy question to answer as they are not here to tell us. The CVR will have most of the answer. I suspect the conversations between Dispatch/Ops and the crew will also bear directly upon that decision.
Hind sight being perfect....they should have ditched the aircraft much sooner than they did. We all know that because of what happened. They did not have the benefit of that knowledge in advance....and did what they thought best at the time.
Why they did what they did is the heart of this investigation. Let's hope the truth comes out...whatever it is.
That is not going to be an easy question to answer as they are not here to tell us. The CVR will have most of the answer. I suspect the conversations between Dispatch/Ops and the crew will also bear directly upon that decision.
Hind sight being perfect....they should have ditched the aircraft much sooner than they did. We all know that because of what happened. They did not have the benefit of that knowledge in advance....and did what they thought best at the time.
Why they did what they did is the heart of this investigation. Let's hope the truth comes out...whatever it is.
Fly 911 - the Sea King, which is designed to land on the water, is very twitchy especially in roll when afloat - even on a flat calm Canadian lake. The S-92 which isn't designed to land on water would probably be very difficult to keep upright, especially in a 2 metre swell, even with all the flot bags deployed.
Had they made a controlled ditching in those conditions they would probably still have inverted.
Had they made a controlled ditching in those conditions they would probably still have inverted.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the question of helmets - or lack of them - has been raised in this investigation, perhaps there is another element that needs to be addressed. Shoulder harnesses and life jackets. There is a tendency for the shoulder straps to slide off to the side of the life jackets. With reports that both pilots struck their heads on the instrument panel, it is a distinct possibility that the shoulder harnesses were not effective.
I find the 92's shoulder harnesses occasionally need adjusting and the C+'s harnesses almost useless unless you cross the straps when you buckle in.
I find the 92's shoulder harnesses occasionally need adjusting and the C+'s harnesses almost useless unless you cross the straps when you buckle in.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly 911 - the Sea King, which is designed to land on the water, is very twitchy especially in roll when afloat - even on a flat calm Canadian lake. The S-92 which isn't designed to land on water would probably be very difficult to keep upright, especially in a 2 metre swell, even with all the flot bags deployed.
Had they made a controlled ditching in those conditions they would probably still have inverted.
Had they made a controlled ditching in those conditions they would probably still have inverted.
The lack of a controlled ditching in a 92 makes this all conjecture, but looking purely at the dimensions of the S92 versus the Puma, we know that the 92 has a relatively lower CG, with a considerably wider base, and a longer base along the middle of the cabin. The S92 is 4.7m high from bottom to top of rotor head, and the Puma 4.6m. The fuselage width of the S92 is 3.18m versus the Puma's 2m. If you inclue the tail stab on the 92 it comes out to 5.26m. I acknowledge that is only theory, and that whilst the S92 was not of course designed to "land" on water, it was certainly designed to float. Certainly the Sea State six floats that are installed in many (if not most) machines now, will add a good degree more stability in the roll axis over the SS5 floats. The SS6 floats provide additional floats in the sponsons, to supplement the floats in the nose and under the tail, and should give a good bit of extra time if the landing is controlled. Of course we must train to and be prepared for the worst case, and there can be other factors. The floats may not deploy properly, or the landing may be unstable with lateral movement adding to the vector and a heavy swell will almost always cause the aircraft to roll. That all being said my expectation would be that the S92 would be considerably more stable that the Puma or Sea King (or S61). The difference between the S92 and Puma is felt the very first time you ground taxy, with the 92 very noticeably more stable, with far less tendancy for body-roll.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how well a 92 will float after the sponsons break off (as designed to seperate the fuel tanks from the fuselage).
SINTEFs 2000 helicopter safety report did suggest that the anticipated 92 would be inferior to the 332.
It is reported that commissioner Robert Wells of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry will have his report delivered by Oct. 25.
SINTEFs 2000 helicopter safety report did suggest that the anticipated 92 would be inferior to the 332.
It is reported that commissioner Robert Wells of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry will have his report delivered by Oct. 25.
Lonewolfe_50: "In 1989, Tom House died in a Seahawk mishap off of Point Loma California (RIP, Tom). Tail Rotor loss of thrust led to an immediate ditch scenario. Henry Harris, Pilot Flying and the AW (Darnit, name not on tip of tongue) egressed successfully. Navy crew, all three were wearing helmets, etc, and usual flight/flotation gear."
Dammit if I can't recall the AW's name on that one as well. I met the guy on a det in '91, I think it was. Man, how time flies.
Dammit if I can't recall the AW's name on that one as well. I met the guy on a det in '91, I think it was. Man, how time flies.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Phase 1 report of the Wells inquiry is to be delivered next week.
The court case is developing as Sikorsky try to move the case away from the location of the accident to home territory and object to HSI being dropped as a defendant(!).
Chopper lawsuit gets technical - Business - The Telegram
The court case is developing as Sikorsky try to move the case away from the location of the accident to home territory and object to HSI being dropped as a defendant(!).
Chopper lawsuit gets technical - Business - The Telegram
Lawyers for Cougar Helicopters and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. were in court Monday to debate a procedural issue in Cougar’s $27-million lawsuit against the U.S. helicopter manufacturer.
At issue is whether or not Cougar can drop a Sikorsky subsidiary, Helicopter Services Inc., from the lawsuit it launched in June.
That matter is also part of a larger argument about which court has jurisdiction to hear the civil action in the first place —Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court or a court in Connecticut.
A hearing is set for Nov. 22-23 in St. John’s to decide jurisdiction.
The lawsuit stems from the March 12, 2009, helicopter crash off Newfoundland that killed 17 of 18 of people on board. The S-92 helicopter was manufactured by Sikorsky.
Last month, Cougar served notice it was discontinuing its civil action against Helicopter Services Inc. (HSI), which provides parts and support services to customers of Sikorsky aircraft, including the S-92 helicopter.
Cougar lawyer Kevin Stamp told the court the St. John’s helicopter transportation company no longer intends to proceed against HSI.
Under the rules, he argued Cougar’s action against HSI can be discontinued any time prior to the November hearing that will determine jurisdiction.
Cougar argues the civil action should be heard in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court.
Sikorsky lawyer Ronald Noseworthy said Cougar should have asked for permission from the court to withdraw its civil action against HSI — rather than simply issue a notice.
He said discontinuing the civil action is a matter for a judge to decide.
Noseworthy also argued his client maintains that a Connecticut court is the only venue with jurisdiction over a contract between HSI and Cougar.
Toward the end of Monday morning’s proceedings, Justice David Orsborn asked, “Are we dancing on the head of a pin?”
He did not render a decision Monday — saying he would need some time to do so.
Last year, the pilots of Cougar Flight 491 reported a loss of oil pressure in the helicopter’s main gearbox as they were transporting offshore workers to the White Rose and Hibernia oilfields.
Minutes after heading back toward shore, the helicopter plunged into the Atlantic Ocean 55 kilometres east of St. John’s.
Cougar and eight insurance companies launched the lawsuit against Sikorsky and HSI in June.
Cougar claims Sikorsky misrepresented how long its S-92 helicopter could continue flying after losing oil from the main gearbox.
Statements of claim contain allegations that have not been proven in court.
Sikorsky has yet to file a statement of defence.
At issue is whether or not Cougar can drop a Sikorsky subsidiary, Helicopter Services Inc., from the lawsuit it launched in June.
That matter is also part of a larger argument about which court has jurisdiction to hear the civil action in the first place —Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court or a court in Connecticut.
A hearing is set for Nov. 22-23 in St. John’s to decide jurisdiction.
The lawsuit stems from the March 12, 2009, helicopter crash off Newfoundland that killed 17 of 18 of people on board. The S-92 helicopter was manufactured by Sikorsky.
Last month, Cougar served notice it was discontinuing its civil action against Helicopter Services Inc. (HSI), which provides parts and support services to customers of Sikorsky aircraft, including the S-92 helicopter.
Cougar lawyer Kevin Stamp told the court the St. John’s helicopter transportation company no longer intends to proceed against HSI.
Under the rules, he argued Cougar’s action against HSI can be discontinued any time prior to the November hearing that will determine jurisdiction.
Cougar argues the civil action should be heard in Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court.
Sikorsky lawyer Ronald Noseworthy said Cougar should have asked for permission from the court to withdraw its civil action against HSI — rather than simply issue a notice.
He said discontinuing the civil action is a matter for a judge to decide.
Noseworthy also argued his client maintains that a Connecticut court is the only venue with jurisdiction over a contract between HSI and Cougar.
Toward the end of Monday morning’s proceedings, Justice David Orsborn asked, “Are we dancing on the head of a pin?”
He did not render a decision Monday — saying he would need some time to do so.
Last year, the pilots of Cougar Flight 491 reported a loss of oil pressure in the helicopter’s main gearbox as they were transporting offshore workers to the White Rose and Hibernia oilfields.
Minutes after heading back toward shore, the helicopter plunged into the Atlantic Ocean 55 kilometres east of St. John’s.
Cougar and eight insurance companies launched the lawsuit against Sikorsky and HSI in June.
Cougar claims Sikorsky misrepresented how long its S-92 helicopter could continue flying after losing oil from the main gearbox.
Statements of claim contain allegations that have not been proven in court.
Sikorsky has yet to file a statement of defence.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a bizzare court appreance Sikorsky's attempt to stop Cougar from dropping there claim against HSI was denied, reinforcing the expectation that their other attempt to get the case of a Canadian operators, Canadian aircraft accident, with Canadian fatalities, off Canada held in the US will fail shortly.
Analysis:
HSI were only a defendant because their role was to supply spare parts to S-92 operators and so it had been claimed that their inability to deliver the steel studs prior to the accident was blameworthy. As it is now clear they did deliver them in a timely manner after they were produces the claim is now more intensly focusing on Sikorsky itself.
Obviously it up to the cout to determine what liability (if any) lies where.
Analysis:
HSI were only a defendant because their role was to supply spare parts to S-92 operators and so it had been claimed that their inability to deliver the steel studs prior to the accident was blameworthy. As it is now clear they did deliver them in a timely manner after they were produces the claim is now more intensly focusing on Sikorsky itself.
Obviously it up to the cout to determine what liability (if any) lies where.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wells Inquiry first report is almost out. The next report will examine the conclusions of the TSB's report, due in 'weeks'.
From the Canadian Press
From the Canadian Press
Recommendations from a probe into helicopter safety off Newfoundland are expected this week but they won't be made public right away.
Inquiry commissioner Robert Wells is expected to report by Friday to the federal-provincial board that regulates oil activity offshore.
But it's up to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board to make those findings public.
The board has 30 days after receiving the report to release it, spokesman Sean Kelly said in an e-mail Monday.
He said board members will take one week to review the recommendations before making them public.
The board established the inquiry after Cougar Flight 491 crashed into the sea off Newfoundland last year, killing 17 of 18 people onboard.
Mr. Wells, a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, was to assess whether helicopter travel to offshore oil sites more than 300 kilometres east of St. John's is as safe as possible.
He heard a wide range of evidence after the inquiry began a year ago. It included riveting testimony from Robert Decker, the sole survivor of the Cougar disaster, and heart-wrenching submissions by grieving loved ones of the other victims.
Lawyer Jamie Martin, who represented those families, told the inquiry last month during final presentations that the crash raises serious questions about the offshore oil regulator's independence.
Critics say the board is in a conflict of interest because it is mandated to develop oil resources to the maximum extent while also protecting workers and the environment.
Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom have created separate offshore-safety agencies.
Mr. Martin cited testimony from the families of workers who were killed in the crash. Concerns about helicopter malfunctions, training, ill-fitting immersion suits and a lack of safety information were long-standing and often went unanswered, the inquiry heard.
They underscored “the need for a regulatory board that is responsive, and one that is accountable for its decisions,” said Mr. Martin.
“Mr. Commissioner, the families have every confidence that you will conduct a thorough analysis and consider the need for reforms, and in particular, whether there needs to be a regulator independent of government and industry.”
Mr. Martin's remarks ran counter to the stance taken by the umbrella group for oil companies.
Lewis Manning, the lawyer for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, told the inquiry there's no need for a regulatory shakeup.
“Everything we've heard from this inquiry indicates that improvements to helicopter passenger safety can be accommodated within the existing regulatory structures,” he said last month.
The report expected by Friday will focus on the first phase of the inquiry.
The second phase will include Mr. Wells's examination of a Transportation Safety Board report on the cause of the crash. The TSB report is expected in the coming weeks.
The TSB has already cited a loss of oil pressure after two titanium studs securing the oil-filter assembly to the Sikorsky S-92's main gearbox snapped in flight. Oil flowing through the main gearbox helps power the chopper's rotor drive.
The pilots of Cougar Flight 491 were taking workers to the White Rose and Hibernia oil fields. They reported a loss of oil pressure about 11 minutes before plunging into the ocean 55 kilometres east of St. John's.
Inquiry commissioner Robert Wells is expected to report by Friday to the federal-provincial board that regulates oil activity offshore.
But it's up to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board to make those findings public.
The board has 30 days after receiving the report to release it, spokesman Sean Kelly said in an e-mail Monday.
He said board members will take one week to review the recommendations before making them public.
The board established the inquiry after Cougar Flight 491 crashed into the sea off Newfoundland last year, killing 17 of 18 people onboard.
Mr. Wells, a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, was to assess whether helicopter travel to offshore oil sites more than 300 kilometres east of St. John's is as safe as possible.
He heard a wide range of evidence after the inquiry began a year ago. It included riveting testimony from Robert Decker, the sole survivor of the Cougar disaster, and heart-wrenching submissions by grieving loved ones of the other victims.
Lawyer Jamie Martin, who represented those families, told the inquiry last month during final presentations that the crash raises serious questions about the offshore oil regulator's independence.
Critics say the board is in a conflict of interest because it is mandated to develop oil resources to the maximum extent while also protecting workers and the environment.
Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom have created separate offshore-safety agencies.
Mr. Martin cited testimony from the families of workers who were killed in the crash. Concerns about helicopter malfunctions, training, ill-fitting immersion suits and a lack of safety information were long-standing and often went unanswered, the inquiry heard.
They underscored “the need for a regulatory board that is responsive, and one that is accountable for its decisions,” said Mr. Martin.
“Mr. Commissioner, the families have every confidence that you will conduct a thorough analysis and consider the need for reforms, and in particular, whether there needs to be a regulator independent of government and industry.”
Mr. Martin's remarks ran counter to the stance taken by the umbrella group for oil companies.
Lewis Manning, the lawyer for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, told the inquiry there's no need for a regulatory shakeup.
“Everything we've heard from this inquiry indicates that improvements to helicopter passenger safety can be accommodated within the existing regulatory structures,” he said last month.
The report expected by Friday will focus on the first phase of the inquiry.
The second phase will include Mr. Wells's examination of a Transportation Safety Board report on the cause of the crash. The TSB report is expected in the coming weeks.
The TSB has already cited a loss of oil pressure after two titanium studs securing the oil-filter assembly to the Sikorsky S-92's main gearbox snapped in flight. Oil flowing through the main gearbox helps power the chopper's rotor drive.
The pilots of Cougar Flight 491 were taking workers to the White Rose and Hibernia oil fields. They reported a loss of oil pressure about 11 minutes before plunging into the ocean 55 kilometres east of St. John's.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board will release the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry Phase I Report on the day it is received from the Commissioner.
C-NLOPB || C-NLOPB to release Inquiry Report upon Receipt
But the terms of reference for Phase 2 have been reduced as noted here:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/163...ml#post6028293
C-NLOPB || C-NLOPB to release Inquiry Report upon Receipt
But the terms of reference for Phase 2 have been reduced as noted here:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/163...ml#post6028293