Sikorsky S-92: Operations
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2beers, please request a transfer to Cougar helicopters in St. John's, I would love the opportunity to have a "discussion" with you in all things technical...
Max
P.S. Yes I am lowering myself to your level and attitude, and I'm not referring to the aviation term.
Max
P.S. Yes I am lowering myself to your level and attitude, and I'm not referring to the aviation term.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phase 3 Gearbox Corrosion?
Has anyone had any instances of corrosion of the Phase 3 gearbox? Curious to see if the new coatings and magnesium alloy that Sik is using are actually working.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron,
I just remember it was a Dutch aircraft. Did not realize being boated home would not narrow down the event.
Siki
It was that embarrassing/reputation damaging that you have to hide it? No wonder the Canadian military will not fly their S-92's over water, they can not afford the retrieval costs.
TC
I just remember it was a Dutch aircraft. Did not realize being boated home would not narrow down the event.
Siki
It was that embarrassing/reputation damaging that you have to hide it? No wonder the Canadian military will not fly their S-92's over water, they can not afford the retrieval costs.
TC
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civilian S-92s are flying over water every day without incident
Newfoundland? Something about oil lose being extremely remote. No 30 minute run dry time. Failure to take appropriate action after similar incident in Australia. Without incident?????????????????
Does it now have 30 run dry time or is the lose of oil now more extremely remote than before?
Newfoundland? Something about oil lose being extremely remote. No 30 minute run dry time. Failure to take appropriate action after similar incident in Australia. Without incident?????????????????
Does it now have 30 run dry time or is the lose of oil now more extremely remote than before?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I guess I read the sikileaks post not how it was intended. I guess it should have read "Civilian S-92s are now flying over water every day without further incident".
I will concede to this statement.
I will concede to this statement.
suggest you do a thorough research on the incident in Australia. Yes there was a failure but what caused it?
Or maybe I misinterpreted your suggestion?
An interesting oversight...the ship filter element was finer than the oil is filtered at out of the barrel when new. Oops!
The real question is: how is the [incredibly] late IDMGB coming? Do the CH148s have ALS yet? What about retrofitting the S92A fleet, which I read was the plan, with their continually cracking phase III feet. I wonder what the status is on those, unless of course it didn't correct the issue...
Perhaps S92X with straps around the fuselage station frames to get the load into the structure properly?
The real question is: how is the [incredibly] late IDMGB coming? Do the CH148s have ALS yet? What about retrofitting the S92A fleet, which I read was the plan, with their continually cracking phase III feet. I wonder what the status is on those, unless of course it didn't correct the issue...
Perhaps S92X with straps around the fuselage station frames to get the load into the structure properly?
continually cracking as in "Hey we think we fixed it, again" followed by a crack, again.
Has the phase III MGB shown elimination of the issues?
Seems more likely a fundamental issue with the structure and dynamics of the S92 and its mag gearbox.
Same reason its so awful with no lube, tapered roller bearings are prone to giving up the ghost when they lose their film. Sikorsky loves those things because they can take greater loads, but not without that serious flaw.
Has the phase III MGB shown elimination of the issues?
Seems more likely a fundamental issue with the structure and dynamics of the S92 and its mag gearbox.
Same reason its so awful with no lube, tapered roller bearings are prone to giving up the ghost when they lose their film. Sikorsky loves those things because they can take greater loads, but not without that serious flaw.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Eastern Canada
Age: 64
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted on AIN
One More AD for the Sikorsky S-92's Gearbox
In another safety issue affecting the Sikorsky S-92 helicopter’s main gearbox, on July 18 the FAA released an airworthiness directive (AD) that calls for inspection for cracks. The AD was prompted by the discovery of a crack in the gearbox housing of one S-92, “in the cored passage area adjacent to the scissor bracket mount,” allowing oil to leak. The result could be a loss of oil and subsequent failure of the gearbox, the FAA said. Operators can choose between repetitive visual inspections and a one-time eddy current inspection. Repetitive visual inspections should be made within 10 hours of time in service or 15 days, whichever occurs earlier, and subsequently before the first flight or each day. Time in service between two inspections should not exceed 10 hours. If a crack is found, the gearbox must be replaced. The FAA estimates the AD will affect 16 helicopters on the U.S. registry. Gearbox failure after a loss of oil was determined to be the cause of the 2009 fatal crash of a Cougar-operated S-92 off Newfoundland.
In another safety issue affecting the Sikorsky S-92 helicopter’s main gearbox, on July 18 the FAA released an airworthiness directive (AD) that calls for inspection for cracks. The AD was prompted by the discovery of a crack in the gearbox housing of one S-92, “in the cored passage area adjacent to the scissor bracket mount,” allowing oil to leak. The result could be a loss of oil and subsequent failure of the gearbox, the FAA said. Operators can choose between repetitive visual inspections and a one-time eddy current inspection. Repetitive visual inspections should be made within 10 hours of time in service or 15 days, whichever occurs earlier, and subsequently before the first flight or each day. Time in service between two inspections should not exceed 10 hours. If a crack is found, the gearbox must be replaced. The FAA estimates the AD will affect 16 helicopters on the U.S. registry. Gearbox failure after a loss of oil was determined to be the cause of the 2009 fatal crash of a Cougar-operated S-92 off Newfoundland.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to harp on but is this the same aircraft that was certified without 30 minute run dry time on the basis that oil loss was 'extremely remote'?
That was a really good idea to add that (get out) clause to the certification requirements.
That was a really good idea to add that (get out) clause to the certification requirements.
Last edited by espresso drinker; 25th Jul 2012 at 06:50. Reason: Typing error
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 61
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grand Banks Night Flights
Today's news has it the operators will be applying to the CNLOPB to resume night flights. Can we get some comments from S92a pilots. Have the risks been reduced to an acceptable level with the improvements to night vision and auto hover? The response from unionized workers is not positive.
Isn't the union position more to do with the lack of overtime for their members if daytime flights get delayed due to fog, and after sunset the weather improves and a night-time crew change becomes possible.
Given night time crew changes are the norm in all sectors of the N Sea, surely the safety case is self defining?
More "Newfie" nonsense IMHO
Given night time crew changes are the norm in all sectors of the N Sea, surely the safety case is self defining?
More "Newfie" nonsense IMHO
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 54
Posts: 178
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I've seen in the media over here there has been no mention of this being a worker's compensation issue, it's all been about survivability reduction during historical night-time ditches.
FLIR and auto-hover are to my limited knowledge still SAR operations only nav aids, I don't believe that these are being proposed for use in regular passenger/freight ops, although IMO FLIR should be the way forward as it has been used for many years by the military to great effect.
The issue in NL was that our SAR helos (S92a) were not Transport Canada approved to use auto-hover. The other issue was our wheels-up time but that has now been resolved with the operational status of our dedicated SAR base in St. John's. If the Canadian S92 auto-hover certification issue has been resolved (I'm assuming so otherwise IMO the operator would not apply for re-enstatement of night flying ops) then I see no reason why we could not officially resume these ops.
Is this not a bigger question/issue wrt flying during DVE? If the helo cannot make a safe approach to the offshore/onshore landing zone, either due to fog, night-time lighting, or inclement weather (e.g. blinding snow), then what are the international standards on that?
We shuttled for years in the dark back in the early 90s, did that make it as safe as reasonably practicable?
Look at the North Sea ETAP missed approach during night-time ops. Was that pilot error, or a combination of factors?
We have sea state and wind limits, why not visibility limits that encompass DVE due to night-time in relation to the available nav aids (FLIR)? Even for personnel vessel transfer operations our limits change between day-time and night-time operations. Here's at least one example of research done in this area, but one that still requires to be reflected in updated safety standards.
Helicopter Operations
Safe flying
Max
FLIR and auto-hover are to my limited knowledge still SAR operations only nav aids, I don't believe that these are being proposed for use in regular passenger/freight ops, although IMO FLIR should be the way forward as it has been used for many years by the military to great effect.
The issue in NL was that our SAR helos (S92a) were not Transport Canada approved to use auto-hover. The other issue was our wheels-up time but that has now been resolved with the operational status of our dedicated SAR base in St. John's. If the Canadian S92 auto-hover certification issue has been resolved (I'm assuming so otherwise IMO the operator would not apply for re-enstatement of night flying ops) then I see no reason why we could not officially resume these ops.
Is this not a bigger question/issue wrt flying during DVE? If the helo cannot make a safe approach to the offshore/onshore landing zone, either due to fog, night-time lighting, or inclement weather (e.g. blinding snow), then what are the international standards on that?
We shuttled for years in the dark back in the early 90s, did that make it as safe as reasonably practicable?
Look at the North Sea ETAP missed approach during night-time ops. Was that pilot error, or a combination of factors?
We have sea state and wind limits, why not visibility limits that encompass DVE due to night-time in relation to the available nav aids (FLIR)? Even for personnel vessel transfer operations our limits change between day-time and night-time operations. Here's at least one example of research done in this area, but one that still requires to be reflected in updated safety standards.
Helicopter Operations
Safe flying
Max
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: all over?
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not believe FLIR to be a valuable tool in normal ops. It is designed and used to great effect for search ops. We have established visibility requirements for offshore approaches IFR as we do for onshore approaches. They are for night 1200m and day 800m. The ARA has a Missed Approach Point at 0.75 nm which is about 1400m or so. If the visibility is such that you cannot see the platform/deck or ship at 0.75nm you go home. Using a FLIR to continue beyond this would be more hazardous in my opinion for normal operations as it does not allow for you to develop proper visual cues, such as rate of closure and descent angle. With the visibility requirements stated we have sufficient visual cues to continue visually after missed approach point and make a safe and controlled landing. The stabilised approach profile and use of coupler are key to this as are the effective and proper use of SOP's. Where this has gone wrong in the past, has been due to either a lack of SOP's, a failure to follow them, poor use of the coupler or equipment failure resulting in unchecked descent. FLIR would not help in any of these cases.
This is very much a two crew operation when the weather is poor and visibility low, with CRM dictating company SOP's. Neadless to say there is a careful controll of airspeed and height all the way to the landing, with one pilot visual with the landing area at all times and one monitoring the aircraft parameters and checking the outside environment and pilot flying. FLIR would not allow for this to be done more effectively.
This is very much a two crew operation when the weather is poor and visibility low, with CRM dictating company SOP's. Neadless to say there is a careful controll of airspeed and height all the way to the landing, with one pilot visual with the landing area at all times and one monitoring the aircraft parameters and checking the outside environment and pilot flying. FLIR would not allow for this to be done more effectively.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HB
Good post. I agree that neither FLIR nor NVG (in my opinion) offer much benefit to night time offshore operations. Sikorsky has developed "Rig Approach" which will fly the aircraft to a pre determined point on an approach, IFR or VFR (1/4 mile and 50" above deck height at 30 knots I think). This should provide constant stablised approaches day or night.
Technology can be a great help but only in conjuction with robust SOPS, Stabilised Approaches and some of the old ways of good calls and monitoring.
Good post. I agree that neither FLIR nor NVG (in my opinion) offer much benefit to night time offshore operations. Sikorsky has developed "Rig Approach" which will fly the aircraft to a pre determined point on an approach, IFR or VFR (1/4 mile and 50" above deck height at 30 knots I think). This should provide constant stablised approaches day or night.
Technology can be a great help but only in conjuction with robust SOPS, Stabilised Approaches and some of the old ways of good calls and monitoring.