Helicopter crash off the coast of Newfoundland - 18 aboard, March 2009
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RIP
A very sad day, and thoughts go out to all the relatives. As a 92 driver, this is particularly relevant and I will be following the events.
The worst bit is that we all knew this would happen. MGB failures been my biggest fear flying the 92. We have had a number of failures in the last 12 months, all fortunately over land, and this has had us all waiting for the inevitable water ditching. The problems are known, and now Sikorsky must ground the fleet, and fix this problem before this happens again.
The worst bit is that we all knew this would happen. MGB failures been my biggest fear flying the 92. We have had a number of failures in the last 12 months, all fortunately over land, and this has had us all waiting for the inevitable water ditching. The problems are known, and now Sikorsky must ground the fleet, and fix this problem before this happens again.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never read a thread where drivers are asking so explicitly for a fleet to be grounded till the problem is resolved. I hope somebody of the investigating body is reading here....
My sincerely condoles to the families of those missing in the cold waters. This a sad day for the helicopter industry and offshore industry, and tragic day for Cougar, my thoughts with them right now.
Only few days ago we where screaming in happiness over 18 people rescued in the EC-225 ditching in North Sea, now things are totally the opposite.
Lets keep our prays there will be more survivors.
Only few days ago we where screaming in happiness over 18 people rescued in the EC-225 ditching in North Sea, now things are totally the opposite.
Lets keep our prays there will be more survivors.
My deep condolences to all involved parts, especially to fellow pilots and passengers family & friends.
Can someone write here about fact how long can go dry running for MGB on S92.
I know fact for AW101 (Cormoran) or 139 up to 30 min, most eastern models also 30 min, EC225 crew have chosen "safe" controlled ditching on time....with recent happy outcome. Just wondering what went wrong with S92 crew decision?!
Can someone write here about fact how long can go dry running for MGB on S92.
I know fact for AW101 (Cormoran) or 139 up to 30 min, most eastern models also 30 min, EC225 crew have chosen "safe" controlled ditching on time....with recent happy outcome. Just wondering what went wrong with S92 crew decision?!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC225 crew have chosen "safe" controlled ditching on time....with recent happy outcome.
If you're talking about the Bond accident, that was neither "safe", "controlled", or indeed a "ditching". It also had nothing to do with Gearboxes running dry, or any other technical fault as far as I know.
Thoughts with the Cougar people and the loved ones of those involved in yesterday's accident.
So dear fellows who can answer about dry MBG running?
For the rest my apologies for non intended "speculations".
@Camper Van Basten,
Bond was CFIT?! strange, if really yes, that was miracle.....
For the rest my apologies for non intended "speculations".
@Camper Van Basten,
Bond was CFIT?! strange, if really yes, that was miracle.....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAR 29.927 Additional tests.
(1) Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote, it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued safe operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flightcrew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant.
(2) Category B. The requirements of Category A apply except that the rotor drive system need only be capable of operating under autorotative conditions for at least 15 minutes.
(1) Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote, it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued safe operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flightcrew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant.
(2) Category B. The requirements of Category A apply except that the rotor drive system need only be capable of operating under autorotative conditions for at least 15 minutes.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract: Part 1, Section lll - S92 RFM
7.1 MAIN GEARBOX OIL SYSTEM FAILURE
Symptom:
MGB OIL PRES or MGB OIL HOT or MGB CHIP or ACC 1 CHIP or ACC 2 CHIP or MGB OIL PRES
GEARBOX OIL PRESSURE aural alert.
Confirming:The confirming steps only apply to low oil pressure or high oil
temperature. There are no confirming steps for chip indications.
Main gearbox oil pressure is less than 35 psi
or
Main gearbox oil temperature is greater than 130 degrees.
WARNING
BYP must be selected within 5 seconds after the MGB OIL
PRES warning has illuminated to ensure an adequate
quantity of oil remains in the gearbox.
7.1 MAIN GEARBOX OIL SYSTEM FAILURE
Symptom:
MGB OIL PRES or MGB OIL HOT or MGB CHIP or ACC 1 CHIP or ACC 2 CHIP or MGB OIL PRES
GEARBOX OIL PRESSURE aural alert.
Confirming:The confirming steps only apply to low oil pressure or high oil
temperature. There are no confirming steps for chip indications.
Main gearbox oil pressure is less than 35 psi
or
Main gearbox oil temperature is greater than 130 degrees.
WARNING
BYP must be selected within 5 seconds after the MGB OIL
PRES warning has illuminated to ensure an adequate
quantity of oil remains in the gearbox.
OMR
Sikorsky and the FAA chose to go with the first sentence "Unless such failures are extremely remote,..." rather than the 30 minutes bit, though it begs the question how such an event can be shown to be extremely remote before an aircraft has even entered service.
But its far too early to say that it was a complete loss of lubricant - IMHO its more likely to be some other transmission malfunction (if indeed it even was a transmission malfunction).
HC
Sikorsky and the FAA chose to go with the first sentence "Unless such failures are extremely remote,..." rather than the 30 minutes bit, though it begs the question how such an event can be shown to be extremely remote before an aircraft has even entered service.
But its far too early to say that it was a complete loss of lubricant - IMHO its more likely to be some other transmission malfunction (if indeed it even was a transmission malfunction).
HC
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m a reporter with the St. John’s Telegram newspaper in Newfoundland. I am covering the Cougar crash. I am focusing on the history of the Sikorsky S-92. I have conducted a preliminary CADORS search that identified a number of incidents with Sikorskys in this region, although most of them were not MGB-related, that I could tell. I’ve read this discussion with interest, and I’m hoping someone can direct me to more information about these previous incidents, or otherwise walk me through the technical aspects of this problem. I can be reached by e-mail at <[email protected]>. Appreciate any help that can be provided.
Sincerely,
Rob Antle
Sincerely,
Rob Antle
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ecosse
Age: 44
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is certainly not a good time for aviation just now. Certainly since the beginning of the year until now. 
I first found out of this accident around 45 minutes after it happened as a friend of mine who was due to be flown on the exact same aircraft on the next rotation phoned me to announce that an S92 had ditched.
He was actually in todays "press & journal" (aberdeen newspaper in the U.K) giving a statement.
Thoughts and prayers to all concerned...
I first found out of this accident around 45 minutes after it happened as a friend of mine who was due to be flown on the exact same aircraft on the next rotation phoned me to announce that an S92 had ditched.
He was actually in todays "press & journal" (aberdeen newspaper in the U.K) giving a statement.
Thoughts and prayers to all concerned...
It isn't soley up to the operator or manufacturer to ground an aircraft, certainly not until some cause has been identified, either through investigation or info passed by the crew before the crash.
As pilots, we must all resist any pressure to fly if we had doubts about the aircraft. If you aren't completely happy to fly it (and it seems that many of you have concerns) then I feel you could hardly been criticised for refusing to fly the S-92. Personally, I don't fly the S-92 and have little knowledge of the previous MGB problems that others are referring to, so as an aircraft I feel it has a safe enough track record to keep it flying. But if you have genuine doubts, I wouldn't get into an aircraft I wasn't happy with and neither should any of us.
If I remember correctly, Sikorski opted to go without the complicated Emergency Gear Box lubrication that newer aircraft were developing, and went for a Bypass System not unlike the L1 Super Puma ? Is that the case or am I behind the times ?
As pilots, we must all resist any pressure to fly if we had doubts about the aircraft. If you aren't completely happy to fly it (and it seems that many of you have concerns) then I feel you could hardly been criticised for refusing to fly the S-92. Personally, I don't fly the S-92 and have little knowledge of the previous MGB problems that others are referring to, so as an aircraft I feel it has a safe enough track record to keep it flying. But if you have genuine doubts, I wouldn't get into an aircraft I wasn't happy with and neither should any of us.
If I remember correctly, Sikorski opted to go without the complicated Emergency Gear Box lubrication that newer aircraft were developing, and went for a Bypass System not unlike the L1 Super Puma ? Is that the case or am I behind the times ?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a news conference scheduled for 14:00 Newfoundland Time (10 minutes from now) where the TSB are going to announce their intention to recover the wreakage. Perhaps there will be some detail regarding the condition of the aircraft, but if they plan to recover it it must be in at least a few big pieces giving a clear indication of how hard it hit the water?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nigeria
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suspected gearbox problem is related to the MAYDAY call made by the crew on RTB.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applica...asp?Position=1
Record #7 Cadors Number: 2009A0212
Reporting Region: Atlantic
Occurrence Information Occurrence Type: Accident
Occurrence Date: 2009/03/12 Occurrence Time: 1215 Z
Day Or Night: day-time Fatalities: 1 Injuries: Canadian Aerodrome ID: Aerodrome Name: Occurrence Location: 472605N515658W
Province: Country: CANADA World Area: North America
Reported By: NAV CANADA AOR Number: 105029-V1
TSB Class Of Investigation: 3
TSB Occurrence No.:
Event Information
Engine oil problem/Forced landing/Collision with terrain/Diversion
Aircraft InformationFlight #: CHI91 Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Country of Registration: CANADA Make: SIKORSKY Model: S92A
Year Built: 2006
Amateur Built: No Engine Make: GENERAL ELECTRIC Engine Model: CT7-8A Engine Type: Turbo shaft Gear Type: Land Phase of Flight: Cruise
Damage: Destroyed Owner: COUGAR HELICOPTERS INC. Operator: COUGAR HELICOPTERS INC. (4791)Operator Type: Commercial Detail InformationUser Name:MacQuarrie, JackDate:2009/03/12 Further Action Required:Yes O.P.I.:Maintenance & Manufacturing
Narrative:CHI91, S92, enroute from St. John's (CYYT) to the Hibernia Oil Platform at 12:15Z, declared MAYDAY due to a main gear box oil pressure problem and requested to return to St. John's. Air Traffic Control cleared the flight as requested. At 12:25Z aircraft ditched at position 472605N515658W.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applica...asp?Position=1
Record #7 Cadors Number: 2009A0212
Reporting Region: Atlantic
Occurrence Information Occurrence Type: Accident
Occurrence Date: 2009/03/12 Occurrence Time: 1215 Z
Day Or Night: day-time Fatalities: 1 Injuries: Canadian Aerodrome ID: Aerodrome Name: Occurrence Location: 472605N515658W
Province: Country: CANADA World Area: North America
Reported By: NAV CANADA AOR Number: 105029-V1
TSB Class Of Investigation: 3
TSB Occurrence No.:
Event Information
Engine oil problem/Forced landing/Collision with terrain/Diversion
Aircraft InformationFlight #: CHI91 Aircraft Category: Helicopter
Country of Registration: CANADA Make: SIKORSKY Model: S92A
Year Built: 2006
Amateur Built: No Engine Make: GENERAL ELECTRIC Engine Model: CT7-8A Engine Type: Turbo shaft Gear Type: Land Phase of Flight: Cruise
Damage: Destroyed Owner: COUGAR HELICOPTERS INC. Operator: COUGAR HELICOPTERS INC. (4791)Operator Type: Commercial Detail InformationUser Name:MacQuarrie, JackDate:2009/03/12 Further Action Required:Yes O.P.I.:Maintenance & Manufacturing
Narrative:CHI91, S92, enroute from St. John's (CYYT) to the Hibernia Oil Platform at 12:15Z, declared MAYDAY due to a main gear box oil pressure problem and requested to return to St. John's. Air Traffic Control cleared the flight as requested. At 12:25Z aircraft ditched at position 472605N515658W.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a scenario where a gearbox seizes, is it fair to assume this could slow the rotors during an auto?
Last edited by birrddog; 13th Mar 2009 at 16:44. Reason: changed would to could