Cougar & Bond - What Now ?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fix what we can and get on with it?
So, for the S-92 why not give us SS6 on top of enforced RFM to land immediately now that everybody knows there is no 30-minute MGB run dry capability.
One more failure in a MGB lube oil system component should then revoke the FAR29 compliance and ground the S-92 until a proper engineering solution is found. How long until a steel stud snaps due to vibration/some other as yet unknown factor? Will this be blamed on something else to ensure FAR29 compliance is retained and this helo still flys?
We now have HUEBAs, but still the same garbage Helly Hansen Nautilus E-452 "boil-in-the-bag" strait jackets, is this real progress? The shark suits are IMO a far superior suit than these aviation and marine standard compliant body bags that don't even self-right an unconscious casualty. I don't see any pilots wearing the passenger type, I wonder why...
I accept risk, but don't accept sub-standard design/equipment in an industry that should have nothing but the best in use. The human cost to me is too high.
Like most PAX I will just get on with it and accept the now all-too aware additional risk that comes with the job, and wait for improvements to work their way through the system via outside influences e.g. CH-148 MGB re-design.
One more failure in a MGB lube oil system component should then revoke the FAR29 compliance and ground the S-92 until a proper engineering solution is found. How long until a steel stud snaps due to vibration/some other as yet unknown factor? Will this be blamed on something else to ensure FAR29 compliance is retained and this helo still flys?
We now have HUEBAs, but still the same garbage Helly Hansen Nautilus E-452 "boil-in-the-bag" strait jackets, is this real progress? The shark suits are IMO a far superior suit than these aviation and marine standard compliant body bags that don't even self-right an unconscious casualty. I don't see any pilots wearing the passenger type, I wonder why...
I accept risk, but don't accept sub-standard design/equipment in an industry that should have nothing but the best in use. The human cost to me is too high.
Like most PAX I will just get on with it and accept the now all-too aware additional risk that comes with the job, and wait for improvements to work their way through the system via outside influences e.g. CH-148 MGB re-design.
One more failure in a MGB lube oil system component should then revoke the FAR29 compliance and ground the S-92 until a proper engineering solution is found. How long until a steel stud snaps due to vibration/some other as yet unknown factor? Will this be blamed on something else to ensure FAR29 compliance is retained and this helo still flys?
Compliance with the Revised SB (Installation of steel studs) should result in a more robust bowl retention and as there are no dynamic seals on the filter bowl, I would be surprised to see any similar issues arise again within the design criteria.
I’ve experienced levels of vibration in Chinook helicopters that frightened the hell out of me, but never once came across instances of missing studs on any of the numerous on-board components attributed to vibration alone. Your comment “some other as yet unknown factor” could be a multitude of reasons that the OEM has no control over and therefore they cannot simply be blamed for any and all loss of studs.
I suspect that a multitude of lessons will be learnt by all in the industry when the AAIB publish their report.
Sikorsky seem to be displaying the same disappointing lack of integrity as many of our MPs and the same level of arrogance. The FAA are clearly employing the same sort of people who inhabit the House of Commons fees Office and between them they have been deceiving the general public and, in the case of Sikorsky, the whole helicopter industry.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong) the requirements are 30mins dry run or show an extremely remote chance of failure. To be honest I would rather sit under a gearbox whose failure rate is negligable rather than one which might fail but get you down within 30 mins, (ok I would rather have both). So whose fault is it? Sikorsky or FAA? If the regulations are poorly written, they are open to misuse, deliberate or otherwise.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think 30 mins is appropriate for IFR aircraft flying over hostile terrain. There should be redundancy in the lubrication system that will mean a forced landing is never required.
Certainly the certification should ensure that catastrophic (non survivable) GB failure should never happen.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think 30 mins is appropriate for IFR aircraft flying over hostile terrain. There should be redundancy in the lubrication system that will mean a forced landing is never required.
Certainly the certification should ensure that catastrophic (non survivable) GB failure should never happen.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Concern above about the steel mounting studs on the filter bowl. This may be a little bit of apples and oranges, but those of us that flew Hueys all raised our eyebrows when we were first told that the entire tail boom was held on with only 4 steel bolts. Not withstanding all the vibrations they were exposed to, I once saw one that had a hard landing such that the tail stinger was about 6" off the ground and the entire belly was crumpled like an acordian (landed on a dirt mound and the skids never touched the ground). Maybe that's why the Bell 214ST (17500lbs) has 4 steel bolts holding its tail on as well.
So whose fault is it? Sikorsky or FAA?
As such the FAA/EASA know what they wanted (they wrote the regulation) and fully certified the S92 against those regulations.
The reality is that there is not (yet) a heavy helicopter that can loose all of it's MGB lubrication and run for 30 minutes at a cruise power setting without the help of additional backup systems. The only two heavy helicopters certified against the latest FAR29 requirements, the S92 and the EC225, both failed there "run dry" tests. Each manufacturer then took a different route to then obtain compliance and certification. The EC225 MGB was modified with a glycol injection system, giving it 30 minutes until a "Land Immediately". The S92 introduced an oil cooler bypass valve that Sikorsky and the regulators anticipated would stop the only likely cause of oil loss. This scenario does not come with a 30 minutes "Land Immediately" requirement. However we now know that another failure mode is possible with the S92.
So back to the manufacturer and the regulator! Time will tell if any of the parties (FAA/EASA/TC/Sikorsky) are looking to change their position with regard to the S92.
Bottom line is that the buck starts and stops with the regulator IMHO. But Sikorsky does have product image and duty of care/liability to worry about.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fix what we can and get on with it ?
Max –
I understand your frustration with the situation – the current official response regarding the MGB itself – nothing wrong with it, doesn’t need 30 minutes run dry, extremely remote etc..etc..etc...no change.
In the industry you’re in you should not have to accept any additional risk or wait for improvements from outside influences. If the initial intent of the “30 minute” wording was to ensure continued operation after complete loss of oil from the MGB, the only thing that will address the issue (outside of an escape clause) is to have an ELS system installed. If back during original Certification the “extremely remote” argument was presented, and accepted, therefore removing the obligation for an ELS system to be fitted, ok lesson learned, but what about the current situation, i.e. if you do the math again on Occurrence vs. Total fleet hours it would seem to be a substantial change from “extremely remote” based on actual operations , which could possibly be interpreted as additional risk ? Lesson learned ? Who is going to do anything about it – FAA ? SAC ? TC ? With a TSB report pending ?
I’d say the only mandated Authority who could force the issue to be addressed starting right now regarding NL offshore operations (given the silence from the other regulators, or unless FAA were to issue a new amendment to FAR29 enforcing a minimum run dry time with no escape clause), is CNLOPB, if there was enough industry and/or political pressure to do so.
.......there is an office way, way up top, not exactly in an ivory tower, but in that great tall building up on the hill in St. John’s, wherein may lie the answer – unconventional maybe but if you want some real action ?..........
p.s. while you’re at it, push for a lot more than 30 minutes – Flemish Pass is a long ways off !!
Best practices are only best until somebody decides to do it better !
I understand your frustration with the situation – the current official response regarding the MGB itself – nothing wrong with it, doesn’t need 30 minutes run dry, extremely remote etc..etc..etc...no change.
In the industry you’re in you should not have to accept any additional risk or wait for improvements from outside influences. If the initial intent of the “30 minute” wording was to ensure continued operation after complete loss of oil from the MGB, the only thing that will address the issue (outside of an escape clause) is to have an ELS system installed. If back during original Certification the “extremely remote” argument was presented, and accepted, therefore removing the obligation for an ELS system to be fitted, ok lesson learned, but what about the current situation, i.e. if you do the math again on Occurrence vs. Total fleet hours it would seem to be a substantial change from “extremely remote” based on actual operations , which could possibly be interpreted as additional risk ? Lesson learned ? Who is going to do anything about it – FAA ? SAC ? TC ? With a TSB report pending ?
I’d say the only mandated Authority who could force the issue to be addressed starting right now regarding NL offshore operations (given the silence from the other regulators, or unless FAA were to issue a new amendment to FAR29 enforcing a minimum run dry time with no escape clause), is CNLOPB, if there was enough industry and/or political pressure to do so.
.......there is an office way, way up top, not exactly in an ivory tower, but in that great tall building up on the hill in St. John’s, wherein may lie the answer – unconventional maybe but if you want some real action ?..........
p.s. while you’re at it, push for a lot more than 30 minutes – Flemish Pass is a long ways off !!
Best practices are only best until somebody decides to do it better !
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that a multitude of lessons will be learnt by all in the industry when the AAIB publish their report.
On the main S-92 thread there is more specific feedback on various other issues such as increased vibration levels noted by PAX on the two flights preceding 491. I wonder if any HUMS thresholds were exceeded, I'm hopeful that the TSB will release this type of data in their report if relevant.
Madrock, I'm on the flight path in my St. John's East End house, strange hearing the loud S-92 rotor noise yet again knowing that these are not test flights but "back to normal" flight operations.
As this thread is about Cougar and Bond -what now, my take is that for Cougar at least it's back to flying, but hopefully keeping a real close eye on the MGB lube oil instruments and being ready to land immediately if/when the situation arises. That's the only hard lesson learned right now over here. For Bond all seems to be quiet, I'm assuming that when more hard facts are available there will be more discussion, hopefully pro-active with positive impact on that helo's perceived safety ranking.
For both Grand Banks and Flemish Pass flights we should be pushing for better flight suits and SS6 capability, these are both possible with currently available equipment and would give us PAX an improved safety/survival margin. IMO the UK is still streets ahead of us with the Shark flight suit.
Until the S-92 MGB design is improved IMHO there will be no change in this helo's safety ranking. Hopefully additional diligence by the maintenance crew and pilots will prevent future stud failures until the design is over-engineered and an additional safety factor is incorporated. What will it take for this to happen, well unfortunately more than likely the unthinkable...
Max
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madrock, the HUEBA's are the removeable type that attach to the LH breast pocket on the E-452 Nautilus suits. To my knowledge you get issued them with your suit at Cougar and then hand them over with your PLB to heli-admin offshore at your final destination. They require a 3-hour in the pool training session at the princely fee of $475, and the refresher training on them is added to the BST-R. I've still to do mine, but you apparently get a quick briefing on them at Cougar. From the townhall safety briefing I attended offshore on these, you'll get between 10 and 30 breaths out of one depending on many variables (lung capacity, fitness level, etc) as they're basically a mini SCUBA set.
heil1, yep, I'm fully aware of Sikorsky's current stance wrt. the CH-148 MGB re-design for compliance with the current Canadian military contractual requirements only, but the common theme here is pilot & PAX survival, whether it be from a hot zone or an unforgiving marine environment, so IMO the re-design should be applicable to both models.
For our specific civilian use in the Grand Banks, an additional 30-minute dry-run time would improve safety options, e.g. fly back to base/nearest heli-deck, but we should still have SS6 to allow for a ditching scenario, plus better flight suits. The HUEBA is a step in the right direction for S-92a land immediately scenarios as they can improve cold-shock survivability if used properly, much better than the old Shark rebreathers we used to use in the North Sea.
heil1, yep, I'm fully aware of Sikorsky's current stance wrt. the CH-148 MGB re-design for compliance with the current Canadian military contractual requirements only, but the common theme here is pilot & PAX survival, whether it be from a hot zone or an unforgiving marine environment, so IMO the re-design should be applicable to both models.
For our specific civilian use in the Grand Banks, an additional 30-minute dry-run time would improve safety options, e.g. fly back to base/nearest heli-deck, but we should still have SS6 to allow for a ditching scenario, plus better flight suits. The HUEBA is a step in the right direction for S-92a land immediately scenarios as they can improve cold-shock survivability if used properly, much better than the old Shark rebreathers we used to use in the North Sea.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bath
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done the HUEBA course in Halifax and it's 30 mins in the pool, two dunks, once with the mouthpiece in and once with it stowed. They just dunk you in a chair contraption, not the simulator.
The E-492 suit is so tight around the mouth I found it it less than easy to get the mouthpiece in, not that it matters to me because like 50% of anyone who wears it, I've never been able to fully zip it up while sat down, not once.
I heard a rumour that a redesigned suit is in the works, with a lighter lining and a new hood/seal arrangement. I hope they fix the nose clips too, they seem to be for a 5 year old, and they are much more necessary when using the HUEBA.
At least we have Sable Island to put down on if it goes awry, I guess.
The E-492 suit is so tight around the mouth I found it it less than easy to get the mouthpiece in, not that it matters to me because like 50% of anyone who wears it, I've never been able to fully zip it up while sat down, not once.
I heard a rumour that a redesigned suit is in the works, with a lighter lining and a new hood/seal arrangement. I hope they fix the nose clips too, they seem to be for a 5 year old, and they are much more necessary when using the HUEBA.
At least we have Sable Island to put down on if it goes awry, I guess.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ss -
....great suit design, guess it's the old "now don't you worry it meets the standard" mentality? What's the drill re. zipper/hoods-up in N.S. - up for t/o & landing ?
Interesting they'd put you in the military "hotseat" for the HUEBA training not the sim. - they tell you the reason why ? depth ?
....great suit design, guess it's the old "now don't you worry it meets the standard" mentality? What's the drill re. zipper/hoods-up in N.S. - up for t/o & landing ?
Interesting they'd put you in the military "hotseat" for the HUEBA training not the sim. - they tell you the reason why ? depth ?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Bath
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
madrock - Yeah, zip up for t/o & landing. I'm guessing they use the chair for safety & ease - only takes 2 instructors and only your head and shoulders are underwater. I'm in NL next week, it'll be interesting to see the differences.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, for the S-92 why not give us SS6
Cougar do not have SS6 as far as I know. (Sponson Floats)
I hasten to add, they aren't the only ones not to have it. Interestingly the North Sea boys do have it for the most part.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CHC Going After Cougar?
From Flightglobal
Heavies are the future, says Barry Clouter, regional director for the Americas. As oil and gas reserves go dry, oil companies are looking to deeper waters that only the heavy helicopters can reach, although some contracts are not renewedand others are not bid for.
It has been six years since this strategy led CHC to sell off the contracts and flights that got it started. The forestry, mining and oil and gas contracts in Canada requiring medium and light helicopters are now under the separate company Canadian Helicopters.
That leaves only one base in Nova Scotia keeping Canadian flights aloft for CHC.
"We want to grow the Canadian side of this company," says Clouter. "There are opportunities off Newfoundland. There are opportunities off Greenland in the Labrador Sea." Those resources are mostly untouched and promising, he says.
It has been six years since this strategy led CHC to sell off the contracts and flights that got it started. The forestry, mining and oil and gas contracts in Canada requiring medium and light helicopters are now under the separate company Canadian Helicopters.
That leaves only one base in Nova Scotia keeping Canadian flights aloft for CHC.
"We want to grow the Canadian side of this company," says Clouter. "There are opportunities off Newfoundland. There are opportunities off Greenland in the Labrador Sea." Those resources are mostly untouched and promising, he says.
