North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC,
Are you really saying you don't know if EC compares HUMS data across its fleet?
I am astounded if EC doesn't do this, as I am astounded that you think it might be (but not necessarily) just 'fanfare and glossy websites.'
I would think that this cross-fleet HUMS comparison is essential, and that you would applaud the effort. Instead, you mock it and (strangely) seem more concerned about protecting the honor of a favored manufacturer.
Yes, the Sik HUMS centre is a good idea, although EC do have continuous access (via VPN) to our M'ARMS server in Aberdeen and other such bases. What degree of comparison with other operators' aircraft goes on I wouldn't know.
I am astounded if EC doesn't do this, as I am astounded that you think it might be (but not necessarily) just 'fanfare and glossy websites.'
I would think that this cross-fleet HUMS comparison is essential, and that you would applaud the effort. Instead, you mock it and (strangely) seem more concerned about protecting the honor of a favored manufacturer.
Matari, I am a pilot, not a HUMS engineer so no, I am not familiar with the detail of the processes between our company, other companies and EC with regard to HUMS data.
Perhaps you should re-read my post because I didn't mock it, just put a generic caveat on not necessarily being impressed by the glossy cover of a book.
There is clearly some benefit to fleet wide data awareness, but once the fleet pattern is established that becomes a diminishing return. I can certainly see it being of great benefit to a small operator who has 1 or 2 airframes and doesn't fly that much, but much less so for a high intensity operator of multiple airframes whose own internal data represents a pretty comprehensive fleet sample.
Don't forget that Bristow invented HUMS (and I played my own small part in that development) and it was probably over a decade before the OEMs grasped the ball (longer for Sikorsky) so we are used to doing our own things and in the past, being the world experts in the subject at a time when the OEMs didn't have a clue. I am just saying all that so you realise "where I am coming from"
Perhaps you should re-read my post because I didn't mock it, just put a generic caveat on not necessarily being impressed by the glossy cover of a book.
There is clearly some benefit to fleet wide data awareness, but once the fleet pattern is established that becomes a diminishing return. I can certainly see it being of great benefit to a small operator who has 1 or 2 airframes and doesn't fly that much, but much less so for a high intensity operator of multiple airframes whose own internal data represents a pretty comprehensive fleet sample.
Don't forget that Bristow invented HUMS (and I played my own small part in that development) and it was probably over a decade before the OEMs grasped the ball (longer for Sikorsky) so we are used to doing our own things and in the past, being the world experts in the subject at a time when the OEMs didn't have a clue. I am just saying all that so you realise "where I am coming from"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Large fleet operators like Bristow have the ability to gather large amounts of data and develop specific maintenance programs based on their operating profiles and experience. They do not have the ability to look across the fleet at others.
That's where the OEMs can really help.
If Sikorsky is capturing, analyzing and making recommendations based on that fleet data, then good for them. If EC is not, I have to wonder why they aren't adopting the best practices of others.
Organizations change and evolve. Sikorsky (and EC, and Bell) may have been slow off the mark, but it seems that partnerships with operators do pay off for all.
So bravo for Sikorsky, however flashy may be their style. I just wonder why someone who I believe genuinely strives for safety improvements, hasn't even asked the question about what EC does (or doesn't do) with fleet ops data. Bristow has an opportunity to lead, and force changes at EC if needed. But when loyalty to a certain type or manufacturer trumps basic engineering inquiry, then all operators suffer.
That's where the OEMs can really help.
If Sikorsky is capturing, analyzing and making recommendations based on that fleet data, then good for them. If EC is not, I have to wonder why they aren't adopting the best practices of others.
Organizations change and evolve. Sikorsky (and EC, and Bell) may have been slow off the mark, but it seems that partnerships with operators do pay off for all.
So bravo for Sikorsky, however flashy may be their style. I just wonder why someone who I believe genuinely strives for safety improvements, hasn't even asked the question about what EC does (or doesn't do) with fleet ops data. Bristow has an opportunity to lead, and force changes at EC if needed. But when loyalty to a certain type or manufacturer trumps basic engineering inquiry, then all operators suffer.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matari
You have to remember that OEMs were not only slow off the mark they were very anti. They faced the prospect of an operator telling them, for example, that a new gearbox was producing vibes detected by HUMS and they wanted it replaced under warranty. They would say "on your bike and a curse on your box of tricks'. As far as they were concerned the scope for serious warranty issues was so great they lobbied against HUMS so Bristow, with I believe some help from Shell Aircraft, put up the cash to develop it.
G.
.
G.
.
Matari, perhaps you think I am omniscient? We have a HUMS Type Engineer whose job it is to look after this sort of thing. He works with SIK and EC and I am confident that if there was a gap in EC's process that was not in Sik's, he would have done something about it. But I don't need to be breathing down his neck to see if he is doing his job properly. I doubt you would expect other pilots to be intimate with all their company's engineering processes so I don't understand why you think I should be?
I am editing my post to say that I guess the truth of it is that I still suspect that all this global analysis of data lark is just so many words. Exactly what processes do SIK follow with all this data? Easy to put it in a sales brochure but what does it actually mean? Any fleet has refinements made to its HUMS systems in the light of experience, obviously having more data helps this happen quicker, but I wonder if the 92 has had more refinement than other fleets, how often do refinements occur now, with the fleet reaching middle age? Can you give me some actual examples where it has achieved something other OEMs did not? Or is it all just talking up what is a fairly straightforward system?
I am editing my post to say that I guess the truth of it is that I still suspect that all this global analysis of data lark is just so many words. Exactly what processes do SIK follow with all this data? Easy to put it in a sales brochure but what does it actually mean? Any fleet has refinements made to its HUMS systems in the light of experience, obviously having more data helps this happen quicker, but I wonder if the 92 has had more refinement than other fleets, how often do refinements occur now, with the fleet reaching middle age? Can you give me some actual examples where it has achieved something other OEMs did not? Or is it all just talking up what is a fairly straightforward system?
Last edited by HeliComparator; 10th Nov 2012 at 14:21.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoffers, I agree completely and I think 'slow off the mark' was a bad choice of words.
An analogy might be the industrial gas turbine world, where the OEMs followed the same tack. Early on they simply produced engines to sell to customers, and provided minimal service with new parts. When the competition did something new, they followed. They had no 'P&L' to partner with operators. Some within the OEMs viewed outspoken operators as a nuisance at best.
It took really bright, creative and tough operators like Statoil, GDF Suez, Duke Energy, FP&L, ExxonMobil to force the OEMs to make changes. Things like Remote Monitoring and Diagnostics, hot section component repairs, extended life...all these were forced on the OEMs by operators determined to create value and improve reliability and safety of their equipment.
It is a fundamental difference in what the two cultures are trying to accomplish.
The OEMs want to produce safe, reliable, competitive products. Operators want to get the most out of those products, and make them safer and more cost effective within the constraints of their stakeholders and regulatory authorities. This requires collaboration, give and take, and above all, money. Smart OEMs see this, and change the way they do business.
I am only surprised, and we can leave it at this, that someone who opines on all sorts of engineering subjects seems indifferent to an apparent best engineering practice by an OEM who he constantly berates. Openness to new ideas, even if they come from 'Brand X', should be welcomed.
An analogy might be the industrial gas turbine world, where the OEMs followed the same tack. Early on they simply produced engines to sell to customers, and provided minimal service with new parts. When the competition did something new, they followed. They had no 'P&L' to partner with operators. Some within the OEMs viewed outspoken operators as a nuisance at best.
It took really bright, creative and tough operators like Statoil, GDF Suez, Duke Energy, FP&L, ExxonMobil to force the OEMs to make changes. Things like Remote Monitoring and Diagnostics, hot section component repairs, extended life...all these were forced on the OEMs by operators determined to create value and improve reliability and safety of their equipment.
It is a fundamental difference in what the two cultures are trying to accomplish.
The OEMs want to produce safe, reliable, competitive products. Operators want to get the most out of those products, and make them safer and more cost effective within the constraints of their stakeholders and regulatory authorities. This requires collaboration, give and take, and above all, money. Smart OEMs see this, and change the way they do business.
I am only surprised, and we can leave it at this, that someone who opines on all sorts of engineering subjects seems indifferent to an apparent best engineering practice by an OEM who he constantly berates. Openness to new ideas, even if they come from 'Brand X', should be welcomed.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global data gathering
If EC are so keen on gathering data to improve the safety of their own aircraft, as well as improving their own understanding of problems that are arising, why don't they offer AAD as a free service instead of charging quite a substantial sum per aircraft?
Some of the smaller operators are not keen to pay this amount, thus everybody is losing out!
Some of the smaller operators are not keen to pay this amount, thus everybody is losing out!
Matari - you persist in your line and ignore my question about the actual benefits - if any. Therefore, until you prove me wrong I will have to assume that you can't actually quantify the benefits. Perhaps you too are taken in by the glossy spiel?
ps can't help noticing that your profile says "sales manager". Does that tell us something?
Flyer - fair point but unfortunately everyone is in it for the money - the OEMs, the Operators, the Oil companies and even the pilots. Especially the oil companies (just for you!). Why should the OEMs give stuff away for free when the Operators and Oil Cos are making a profit (and the pilots are scraping a meagre living). I don't recall receiving any free petrol recently!
OMB - surely HUMS is a key issue in this ditching and for once, I don't see thread drift.
ps can't help noticing that your profile says "sales manager". Does that tell us something?
Flyer - fair point but unfortunately everyone is in it for the money - the OEMs, the Operators, the Oil companies and even the pilots. Especially the oil companies (just for you!). Why should the OEMs give stuff away for free when the Operators and Oil Cos are making a profit (and the pilots are scraping a meagre living). I don't recall receiving any free petrol recently!
OMB - surely HUMS is a key issue in this ditching and for once, I don't see thread drift.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 10th Nov 2012 at 22:13.
OMB....and you are trying to take in a completely different path yourself. Folks are quite happy with the discussion which is dealing with topics related to the ditching if you care to check it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An old boss once had a sign on his wall that said: 'Nothing happens until somebody sells something.' Pretty accurate, if you think about it.
Back to HUMS: You never know what the data will say. The larger the data set, the better. How can that be bad?
I've seen OEM-captured data from a gas turbine on a North Sea platform, used to prevent a failure in a Petrobras gas turbine offshore Brazil. If Petrobras had not had access to OEM captured data, they never would have known about the pending failure.
Two large, capable engineering companies, connected only by the OEM. Everybody benefited. Again, why knock an OEM trying to do the right thing?
Back to HUMS: You never know what the data will say. The larger the data set, the better. How can that be bad?
I've seen OEM-captured data from a gas turbine on a North Sea platform, used to prevent a failure in a Petrobras gas turbine offshore Brazil. If Petrobras had not had access to OEM captured data, they never would have known about the pending failure.
Two large, capable engineering companies, connected only by the OEM. Everybody benefited. Again, why knock an OEM trying to do the right thing?
Yes, clearly nothing happened in the billions of years before capitalism was invented.
A well timed article here . So it's all about cutting costs/increasing profit, and not at all about safety. Our shareholders will like it, not so sure about our passengers and pilots!
A well timed article here . So it's all about cutting costs/increasing profit, and not at all about safety. Our shareholders will like it, not so sure about our passengers and pilots!
Last edited by HeliComparator; 10th Nov 2012 at 23:42.
Sikorsky's comparison of all S-92 HUMS data in the "glossy brochure" FMOC shows some very different data between companies who operate their S-92s differently.
The data is now being used to determine the provision of spare parts known to be used more often in some operating regimes. It can also be used, together with historical parts used data to adjust PBH rates to be operator specific.
The data is now being used to determine the provision of spare parts known to be used more often in some operating regimes. It can also be used, together with historical parts used data to adjust PBH rates to be operator specific.
AAD costs?
Flyer
What is the cost of GEs AAD?
FYI. Bell's commercial HUMS fleet management system monitors 150+ aircraft at no cost to the customers via an Internet based application. This system allows Bell product support to monitor fleet and individual aircraft health, allows operators to see their ships and the rest of the fleet(with all competitor specifics sanitized so no one knows who is who), and emails alerts to the specific operators.
The Sultan
What is the cost of GEs AAD?
FYI. Bell's commercial HUMS fleet management system monitors 150+ aircraft at no cost to the customers via an Internet based application. This system allows Bell product support to monitor fleet and individual aircraft health, allows operators to see their ships and the rest of the fleet(with all competitor specifics sanitized so no one knows who is who), and emails alerts to the specific operators.
The Sultan
One area in which the Sik system is a bit of a pain in the whatsits is that you need a separate computer for each airframe,
So I am getting the picture now, the centralised fleet monitoring is all about spares / PBH / increasing component lives. Nothing wrong with that of course -it's a good thing - but also nothing to do with safety.
VL that's interesting. We certainly have a networked laptop for each airframe in Scatsta, whether we realise we don't need that, I am not sure. Has it always been the case that a single PC can be used, or was this a development?
VL that's interesting. We certainly have a networked laptop for each airframe in Scatsta, whether we realise we don't need that, I am not sure. Has it always been the case that a single PC can be used, or was this a development?
Last edited by HeliComparator; 11th Nov 2012 at 07:17.
HC, your analysis is one sided and simplistic.
SAFETY was of course the initial priority for the FMOC when the S-92 was introduced as a new type. To impugn Sikorsky is, however, one of your characteristics, and one which belittles your 30+ years in the industry.
However, after 7+ years of operations, including one fatal which did not show on HUMS but we have discussed that one enough, (hopefully) other uses have become apparent. Actually, as much as increase component lives for some and decrease their costs, analysis has even reduced lives for those who thrash their aircraft hard.
SAFETY was of course the initial priority for the FMOC when the S-92 was introduced as a new type. To impugn Sikorsky is, however, one of your characteristics, and one which belittles your 30+ years in the industry.
However, after 7+ years of operations, including one fatal which did not show on HUMS but we have discussed that one enough, (hopefully) other uses have become apparent. Actually, as much as increase component lives for some and decrease their costs, analysis has even reduced lives for those who thrash their aircraft hard.
Not impugning Sikorsky, merely pointing out that Matari's impugnment(?) of EC for not having the same type of centralised HUMS system ( if indeed that is the case) is correct only on commercial grounds, not on safety grounds.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HUMS - the future
We have to remember that when HUMS was 'invented' the designers said it would take 10 years to gather enough data to understand what the HUMS is telling the end-user. That would appear to be an underestimate on two counts. The first is the need to extend HUMS usage across the board to expand the spectrum of data accumulated from all types and all applications and the second is to find the tools capable of providing reliable analysis of such a vast quantity of data.
I suspect that the way ahead is to somehow get closer to the problem. Wouldn't it be great if you could implant vibe-sensors into the gear wheels and read the output directly. I wonder if any of the electronics boffins are working on such ideas.
The problems caused by harmonics in a structure with so many rotating components are horrendous and trying to second guess the failure mode is a kind of self defeating process given that identifying a failure mode means that you have put your finger on a weakness. Best answer = remove the weakness. The failure mode is therefore by definition the one that takes you by surprise.
Better sensors could be the way forward.
G.
I suspect that the way ahead is to somehow get closer to the problem. Wouldn't it be great if you could implant vibe-sensors into the gear wheels and read the output directly. I wonder if any of the electronics boffins are working on such ideas.
The problems caused by harmonics in a structure with so many rotating components are horrendous and trying to second guess the failure mode is a kind of self defeating process given that identifying a failure mode means that you have put your finger on a weakness. Best answer = remove the weakness. The failure mode is therefore by definition the one that takes you by surprise.
Better sensors could be the way forward.
G.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of GE AAD
Sultan. The last I heard was around $6K per aircraft - at least that is what one OEM is charging.
HC. Although I agree that everybody is in this for profit. However, on a legal stance - if an accident occurs and it is found that AAD was not being used, although everybody knows that AAD provides enhanced risk management, could the operator and/or OEM be held culpable?
HC. Although I agree that everybody is in this for profit. However, on a legal stance - if an accident occurs and it is found that AAD was not being used, although everybody knows that AAD provides enhanced risk management, could the operator and/or OEM be held culpable?