Shell drops Bond
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the move!
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I just selected the wrong choice of wording (my apology).....It is when customers want to dumb a machine in favor of another based on only one safety feature....that will most likely result in a ditching anyway! I am all in favor for an emergency design feature that will make our job safer in the offshore Industry! So the "happy"....wasn't meant to be a negative statement!
Are you referring to the 92 or the 225?
I am referring to the 92....
I am referring to the 92....
Yet, but it will.
HC
Not sure why you would make such a comment, as clearly the FAA/JAA felt that the S-92A was compliant with FAR/JAR 29.927(c) (1) when they certified it and still do, as it still has a ticket.
Are you suggesting that the EC225 is going to get a ‘30-minute Run-Dry’ transmission (something it currently does not have, as was evident just last month)?
I am sure that you are right, in fact I am surprised it doesn't exist yet because the S92 must surely be pretty close to having its certification pulled due to obvious non-compliance with the certification rules.
But the 225 will probably have 10 years head start on 30 mins run dry, which is relevant to those crews flying the aircraft for those 10 years but will eventually become irrelevant.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does have a 30 min run dry capability - that's what the emergency lube system is - Glycol, not oil.
As has been stated before the crew ditched because they had indications that the emergency lube system was not functioning. Had they known that is was working they would have had 30 extra minutes flight time (with no MRGB oil) to find somewhere to land.
As has been stated before the crew ditched because they had indications that the emergency lube system was not functioning. Had they known that is was working they would have had 30 extra minutes flight time (with no MRGB oil) to find somewhere to land.
It does have a 30 min run dry capability - that's what the emergency lube system is - Glycol, not oil.
As has been stated before the crew ditched because they had indications that the emergency lube system was not functioning. Had they known that is was working they would have had 30 extra minutes flight time (with no MRGB oil) to find somewhere to land.
As has been stated before the crew ditched because they had indications that the emergency lube system was not functioning. Had they known that is was working they would have had 30 extra minutes flight time (with no MRGB oil) to find somewhere to land.
Do we bet the Farm that the 30 minute run dry promise by EC/CAA/EASA/JAR/FAA.....is Fair Dinkum?
In the latest event....the crew had cockpit indications it was not....although it appeared to be when checked afterwards. They made the right decision based upon the data they had to consider.
If the system had not been working right.....but no indication of that was evident in the cockpit....and they had decided to fly for 30 minutes.....what might have happened.
I am of the belief that when the "You are now 30 Minutes from Self Destruct...Find a place to Land!" Light/Audio/Horn goes off....I am not going to set the count down timer to "30". I don't care what the EC/CAA et al tell me. Not when it concerns the MGB!
If there isn't a warm dry place within just a very few minutes flying time....I am going to do a very controlled ditching after ever Mother's Son (and Daughter) within hearing range knows exactly where I am and that I desire a ride home.
In the latest event....the crew had cockpit indications it was not....although it appeared to be when checked afterwards. They made the right decision based upon the data they had to consider.
If the system had not been working right.....but no indication of that was evident in the cockpit....and they had decided to fly for 30 minutes.....what might have happened.
I am of the belief that when the "You are now 30 Minutes from Self Destruct...Find a place to Land!" Light/Audio/Horn goes off....I am not going to set the count down timer to "30". I don't care what the EC/CAA et al tell me. Not when it concerns the MGB!
If there isn't a warm dry place within just a very few minutes flying time....I am going to do a very controlled ditching after ever Mother's Son (and Daughter) within hearing range knows exactly where I am and that I desire a ride home.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad that a proactive decsicion to drop Bond has stimulated so much safety debate. They will be pleased over in Rotterdam!
Last edited by Shell Management; 7th Jun 2012 at 20:38.
Hilife, your head does work in a funny way. You imply that because a piece of equipment was faulty one one aircraft on one occasion, it effectively doesn't exist for any aircraft. If you are a professional pilot I do hope you don't apply the same logic to operational decisions!
Neither of us knows how close the S92 certification was to being pulled after the Cougar accident but since it hasn't happened yet it is probably not going to. FAA did accept the compliance with the certification rules on an erroneous loophole, at the time JAA didn't like it at all but it was too politically difficult to take a stance against FAA's decision.
Clearly with hindsight the aircraft does not comply with the 29.927 but it is now far too difficult to back-pedal!
Neither of us knows how close the S92 certification was to being pulled after the Cougar accident but since it hasn't happened yet it is probably not going to. FAA did accept the compliance with the certification rules on an erroneous loophole, at the time JAA didn't like it at all but it was too politically difficult to take a stance against FAA's decision.
Clearly with hindsight the aircraft does not comply with the 29.927 but it is now far too difficult to back-pedal!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think if you know who to talk to you will know that the S-92 would not be certified today. Sikorsky are the only ones who still seem to suffer willful blindness on that.But they have been forced by people like Shell Aircraft to develop an emergency lube.
HC
In order to provide balance to your postings it should be noted that the EC225 does not comply with the latest certification standards either:
EC225 Certification Standard
JAR 29, Change 1 effective December 1st, 1999,
except for the following:
• reversion to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.561(b)(3) Emergency landing conditions-general (Reference CRI C-01)
• partial reversions to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure (Reference CRI C-03)
- FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)
• exemptions from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.562 Emergency dynamic landing conditions (Reference CRI C-02)
- JAR 29.952(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Fuel system crash resistance (Reference CRI E-01)
- JAR 29.955(b) Fuel transfer (Reference CRI E-05)
• partial exemption from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.963(b) Fuel tanks: general; Puncture resistance (Reference CRI E-02)
Of course certification standards don't necessarily result in a safe product. Hence the fitting of magnets to L2/EC225 MGBs until lives are lost. Or indeed the propensity for Super Pumas to fall over!
Maybe one day the perfect rotary machine will be produced......
In order to provide balance to your postings it should be noted that the EC225 does not comply with the latest certification standards either:
EC225 Certification Standard
JAR 29, Change 1 effective December 1st, 1999,
except for the following:
• reversion to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.561(b)(3) Emergency landing conditions-general (Reference CRI C-01)
• partial reversions to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure (Reference CRI C-03)
- FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)
• exemptions from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.562 Emergency dynamic landing conditions (Reference CRI C-02)
- JAR 29.952(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Fuel system crash resistance (Reference CRI E-01)
- JAR 29.955(b) Fuel transfer (Reference CRI E-05)
• partial exemption from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.963(b) Fuel tanks: general; Puncture resistance (Reference CRI E-02)
Of course certification standards don't necessarily result in a safe product. Hence the fitting of magnets to L2/EC225 MGBs until lives are lost. Or indeed the propensity for Super Pumas to fall over!
Maybe one day the perfect rotary machine will be produced......
VL aka S92 driver (!) - the 225 is a variant of the Super Puma family and so did not need to meet all the requirements of the version of 29 extant when it was certified, only the bits that were changed. The non-compliant bits (which are nearly all about crash worthiness) are well documented in the TCDS as you have shown. I don't think that is the same as pretending to meet the certification requirements but in fact demonstrably and repeatedly demonstrating that it does not a la S92.
Personally I would prefer a heli that didn't crash in the first place, rather than one that increased my chances of survival a bit when it did.
The S92 may allegedly meet the latest standards but if you look at the history of the fleets in terms of number of scary near-disasters and actual disasters, the 92 has had far more than its fair share.
Anyway, isn't this thread about Bond and not some rehash of the endless S92 vs 225 debate which has been rather boring since Nick Lappos left!
Back to Bond, they do make some good decisions, one of which I think is an absence of S92s in their fleet!
Personally I would prefer a heli that didn't crash in the first place, rather than one that increased my chances of survival a bit when it did.
The S92 may allegedly meet the latest standards but if you look at the history of the fleets in terms of number of scary near-disasters and actual disasters, the 92 has had far more than its fair share.
Anyway, isn't this thread about Bond and not some rehash of the endless S92 vs 225 debate which has been rather boring since Nick Lappos left!
Back to Bond, they do make some good decisions, one of which I think is an absence of S92s in their fleet!
Last edited by HeliComparator; 8th Jun 2012 at 08:49.
Press Story | Bond Aviation Group
Oh dear, HC. I thought that you would be better informed than that:
Oh dear (again), HC. It must really pain you when you see your colleagues at ABZ go out flying in S92s.
HC,
Is the MGB on the 225 old tech....or part of the new and improved version?
The Bond machines....the one that lost its rotor head...and the latest one...are they old tech or new tech versions of the MGB?
The other question that is begged....is why did those gear boxes have the problems they did....to the same Operator in a relatively short time period? Is it the Gear Boxes were certified to a lower standard than today and thus have a Design problem....or if a "good" design....was there a Manufacturing failure of some kind.....or if not the first two.....something done/not done in the maintenance engineering during operations?
the 225 is a variant of the Super Puma family and so did not need to meet all the requirements of the version of 29 extant when it was certified, only the bits that were changed.
The Bond machines....the one that lost its rotor head...and the latest one...are they old tech or new tech versions of the MGB?
The other question that is begged....is why did those gear boxes have the problems they did....to the same Operator in a relatively short time period? Is it the Gear Boxes were certified to a lower standard than today and thus have a Design problem....or if a "good" design....was there a Manufacturing failure of some kind.....or if not the first two.....something done/not done in the maintenance engineering during operations?