Sikorsky S-92: Operations
Yes, I suppose if one includes all the costs it could be $10k per hour. It would vary depending on location I suppose but I wouldn't argue if they were using an average over all of their operations. It would be interesting to compare it against other large types.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Monkey
Age: 59
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested in what other operators of the same type quote as the operating cost. My guess would be that is is less than that quoted by Heli-1. This may have somethng to do with the loss/not winning of contracts by CHC.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course hourly rates can be misleading.
If you compare an EC225 with an S-92 you need to compare mission performance as the 225 is faster and carries a larger payload over longer distances.
You also need to factor in the FOREX at the time of purchase.
If you compare an EC225 with an S-92 you need to compare mission performance as the 225 is faster and carries a larger payload over longer distances.
You also need to factor in the FOREX at the time of purchase.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does everyone really think the S92 is incredibly unsafe? Yes, the gearbox failed in the worst way. But that's fixed now, isn't it? Would you rather fly a sixty year old proven airframe over large distances of unwelcome ocean, or the S92? I'd pick the latter (provided the transmission is fixed).
With absolutely every airframe that's out there, the level of safety increasese with: how new the design is and how mature the airframe is. Level of safety decreases with: how old the design is and how old the airframe is. Truth is that there are growing pains to every design. Stuff that doesn't jump out of the blueprints or the flight test, but becomes obvious once the design gets used.
I know this has little to do with Nick getting a new job, but the 'spin' of the thread was that there was somehow something inherently wrong with the S92. Absolutely sucks that people lost lives to learn this (including a friend of mine) but lets try to be true to the facts and not label the aircraft nor the people involved inappropriately.
Matthew.
With absolutely every airframe that's out there, the level of safety increasese with: how new the design is and how mature the airframe is. Level of safety decreases with: how old the design is and how old the airframe is. Truth is that there are growing pains to every design. Stuff that doesn't jump out of the blueprints or the flight test, but becomes obvious once the design gets used.
I know this has little to do with Nick getting a new job, but the 'spin' of the thread was that there was somehow something inherently wrong with the S92. Absolutely sucks that people lost lives to learn this (including a friend of mine) but lets try to be true to the facts and not label the aircraft nor the people involved inappropriately.
Matthew.
But that's fixed now, isn't it?
The ability for the aircraft to actually operate to certification without MGB oil? Nope. "Extremely remote".
The only things that have been "fixed" are the filter bowl mounting configuration and the filter bypass operation. Band-aids.
The IDMGB is in the works, but its not done, not deployed, and therefore the S92 is not even remotely "fixed". The interim CH148s in Canada dont even have the new box.
Id be willing to bet that Nick will not be working on programs like the S92 moving forward.
Does everyone really think the S92 is incredibly unsafe?
Would you rather fly a sixty year old proven airframe over large distances of unwelcome ocean, or the S92?
That said, "extremely remote" applies to most of the potential failure items on pretty much any airframe. You takes your chances.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You takes your chances.
Last edited by EN48; 11th Jun 2011 at 23:45.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hadn't realised that in the cases of the "Comet, B737, DC-10, ATR 72, Airbus A330", that each aircraft catestrophically failed a critical certification test just like the S-92, and that the OEM agreed with the certifying agency that they could ignore the failure mode because it probably wouln't happen so the aircraft were allowed to enter service anyway.
Or perhaps your hindsight is rose tinted.
Or perhaps your hindsight is rose tinted.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hadn't realised that in the cases of the "Comet, B737, DC-10, ATR 72, Airbus A330", that each aircraft catestrophically failed a critical certification test
Aircraft are designed by humans and humans dont always grasp the implications of their design choices (and the tradeoffs inherrent in these choices).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was no need for hindsight in this case.
In fact I suggest reading the TSB report again:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 2009 - A09A0016
The S-92's gearbox failed dramatically during as loss of oil test in August 2002 - 6 1/2 years before it failed in Canada due to loss of oil... and the studs themselves had failed in Broome in July 2008 too.
If that was a failure of foresight it was a far more fundamental failure of technical competence and professional judgement.
Alternatively if it was a calculated choice, then there is a significant moral and ethical dimension.
In fact I suggest reading the TSB report again:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - AVIATION REPORTS - 2009 - A09A0016
The S-92's gearbox failed dramatically during as loss of oil test in August 2002 - 6 1/2 years before it failed in Canada due to loss of oil... and the studs themselves had failed in Broome in July 2008 too.
If that was a failure of foresight it was a far more fundamental failure of technical competence and professional judgement.
Alternatively if it was a calculated choice, then there is a significant moral and ethical dimension.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that was a failure of foresight it was a far more fundamental failure of technical competence and professional judgement.
Alternatively if it was a calculated choice, then there is a significant moral and ethical dimension.
Does everyone really think the S92 is incredibly unsafe?
HC
Edited to add: some mod action going on here, hence slight non-sequeter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: texas
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foresight. As I recall, after the Broome incident, Sikorsky called for the titanium studs to be replaced by steel within 12 months. In hindsight, should have seen it coming; why wait.
Foresight. Bond's 332L transmission has a chip light. Clean it, flush it, run it and back to the line. A procedure done countless times was insufficient in this case. Should maintenance/manufacturer have seen it coming? In hindsight - yes.
Ironically, the spirited back and forth on this thread about which of the two big offshore helicopters was better, revolved largely around the transmissions. In both cases each had a catastrophic failure.
Foresight. Bond's 332L transmission has a chip light. Clean it, flush it, run it and back to the line. A procedure done countless times was insufficient in this case. Should maintenance/manufacturer have seen it coming? In hindsight - yes.
Ironically, the spirited back and forth on this thread about which of the two big offshore helicopters was better, revolved largely around the transmissions. In both cases each had a catastrophic failure.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Availability Rates for Sikorsky S-92® Offshore Fleet
Top 90% for Three Years in a Row
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
June 21, 2011 6:39am EDT
PARIS, June 21, 2011 — /PRNewswire/ -- Sikorsky's S-92® helicopter achieved an average availability rate of 96% for the offshore oil operators' fleet during the month of April, demonstrating a trend over the last few years that the aircraft are increasingly reliable for customers worldwide. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).
(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110621/NE23251 )
(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20080904/NETH086LOGO )
The S-92 offshore fleet has flown more than 290,000 flight hours, with 83 aircraft in the offshore mission. The April 2011 milestone in offshore aircraft availability was reached after a steady increase in aircraft availability from 92% in 2009 to 94% in 2010.
"It is clear that the S-92 helicopter continues to operate at high levels of performance and capability," said David Adler, president, Sikorsky Aerospace Services (SAS). "Sikorsky places a high value on providing exemplary customer service, and it is the combination of capability, service and customer insight with which they fly and maintain the aircraft."
The improvement in availability is due to a combination of customer support initiatives by Helicopter Support Inc. (HSI), a division of Sikorsky Aerospace Services, to balance spare parts inventory levels geographically, improve repair turnaround times, and expedite parts around the world to minimize customer downtime. In addition, Sikorsky has continued to offer product improvements to prolong component time in service. These product improvements have the added benefit of reducing customer maintenance cost per flight hour. Partnerships with offshore operators to provide specific operational performance data have enabled this availability increase.
"The S-92 helicopter program has a strong focus on reliability improvement, which has resulted in more than 20 projects certified in 2010 designed to expand mission capability and increase aircraft availability," said Spencer Elani, S-92 helicopter program manager.
S-92 helicopters perform search and rescue (SAR) mission as well as a variety of transportation missions for VIPs including Heads of State, offshore oil and gas crews, utility and airline passengers. The worldwide fleet of 137 S-92 helicopters has accumulated more than 320,000 flight hours since deliveries began in 2004.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Conn., USA, is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacture, and service. United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., USA, provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.
Please visit www.utcaero.com for Sikorsky and United Technologies news at the Paris Air Show 2011.
Read more: Availability Rates for Sikorsky S-92® Offshore Fleet - PR News Wire | Centre Daily Times - State College, PA | Penn State, Nittany Lions, weather, news, jobs, homes, apartments, real estate
Top 90% for Three Years in a Row
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
June 21, 2011 6:39am EDT
PARIS, June 21, 2011 — /PRNewswire/ -- Sikorsky's S-92® helicopter achieved an average availability rate of 96% for the offshore oil operators' fleet during the month of April, demonstrating a trend over the last few years that the aircraft are increasingly reliable for customers worldwide. Sikorsky is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).
(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110621/NE23251 )
(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20080904/NETH086LOGO )
The S-92 offshore fleet has flown more than 290,000 flight hours, with 83 aircraft in the offshore mission. The April 2011 milestone in offshore aircraft availability was reached after a steady increase in aircraft availability from 92% in 2009 to 94% in 2010.
"It is clear that the S-92 helicopter continues to operate at high levels of performance and capability," said David Adler, president, Sikorsky Aerospace Services (SAS). "Sikorsky places a high value on providing exemplary customer service, and it is the combination of capability, service and customer insight with which they fly and maintain the aircraft."
The improvement in availability is due to a combination of customer support initiatives by Helicopter Support Inc. (HSI), a division of Sikorsky Aerospace Services, to balance spare parts inventory levels geographically, improve repair turnaround times, and expedite parts around the world to minimize customer downtime. In addition, Sikorsky has continued to offer product improvements to prolong component time in service. These product improvements have the added benefit of reducing customer maintenance cost per flight hour. Partnerships with offshore operators to provide specific operational performance data have enabled this availability increase.
"The S-92 helicopter program has a strong focus on reliability improvement, which has resulted in more than 20 projects certified in 2010 designed to expand mission capability and increase aircraft availability," said Spencer Elani, S-92 helicopter program manager.
S-92 helicopters perform search and rescue (SAR) mission as well as a variety of transportation missions for VIPs including Heads of State, offshore oil and gas crews, utility and airline passengers. The worldwide fleet of 137 S-92 helicopters has accumulated more than 320,000 flight hours since deliveries began in 2004.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Conn., USA, is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacture, and service. United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., USA, provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.
Please visit www.utcaero.com for Sikorsky and United Technologies news at the Paris Air Show 2011.
Read more: Availability Rates for Sikorsky S-92® Offshore Fleet - PR News Wire | Centre Daily Times - State College, PA | Penn State, Nittany Lions, weather, news, jobs, homes, apartments, real estate
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: not where I want to be
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the above advertisement for Sikorsky is supposed to impress me......,well it does not.
It is still the noisiest,most vibrating helicopter I flew,and almost nothing has changed in that department over the last 5 years
It is still the noisiest,most vibrating helicopter I flew,and almost nothing has changed in that department over the last 5 years
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never rode in a S-92 and wonder what the owners, versus the passengers, versus the pilots also think about its vibration and noise levels and if they were within the advertised ranges.
I'd guess the owners are delighted with the availability numbers since I don't believe those levels have ever been attained by any other airframe.
"Anybody...anybody...anybody?"
I'd guess the owners are delighted with the availability numbers since I don't believe those levels have ever been attained by any other airframe.
"Anybody...anybody...anybody?"
@Dan Reno:
Looking at your constant praising of Sikorsky products and bashing of any compeptitors across the board from Bell to EC I have to ask bluntly:
Are you professionally linked to Sikorsky Aircraft´or its parent company?
Please note: That would be nothing to be embarassed about, it would just put things a bit into perspective.
Looking at your constant praising of Sikorsky products and bashing of any compeptitors across the board from Bell to EC I have to ask bluntly:
Are you professionally linked to Sikorsky Aircraft´or its parent company?
Please note: That would be nothing to be embarassed about, it would just put things a bit into perspective.
Rambling,
RT&B does not impact 4/rev levels. The problem with the 92 is too long a blade, too high an rpm, etc. RT&B does not cause vibration hammers to fatique off the wall and start pounding their way into the fuel cells.
The Sultan
RT&B does not impact 4/rev levels. The problem with the 92 is too long a blade, too high an rpm, etc. RT&B does not cause vibration hammers to fatique off the wall and start pounding their way into the fuel cells.
The Sultan