Parts issue for the S92
Just read an article yesterday that Sikorsky are committed to the S-92 and increased parts production also S-92's production has started again in Florida , currently 3 on the line built to S-92A+ spec. With original production aircraft coming up to 20 years old and oil companies having a 20 year age limit production has started again.
The following 3 users liked this post by Blackhawk9:
Just read an article yesterday that Sikorsky are committed to the S-92 and increased parts production also S-92's production has started again in Florida , currently 3 on the line built to S-92A+ spec. With original production aircraft coming up to 20 years old and oil companies having a 20 year age limit production has started again.
Not sure what this 20 year rule is? It’s not in IOGP 690 - certification status is (post Part 29 Amd 45).
The following users liked this post:
There isn’t enough customer interest in the B to warrant bringing it to the market, so LM/SAC took the decision to shelve it for now (ever?).
As for the A+ option. Just start with a new build Baseline S-92A and install the A+ kit as a Customer Option during Completions.
I suspect SAC will likely lose millions on each sale, as there is little efficiency or continuity to be had in starting up an idle production line for just a few platforms.
As for the A+ option. Just start with a new build Baseline S-92A and install the A+ kit as a Customer Option during Completions.
I suspect SAC will likely lose millions on each sale, as there is little efficiency or continuity to be had in starting up an idle production line for just a few platforms.
Only difference between the A+ and the B was the B was to have new fuselage sides with larger windows, none ever build so staying with the old style fuselage with all the other upgrades, I have been told the 20 year rule is something the oil companies want , not taking aircraft over 20 years old , this has been brought up by Shell about one of the 92's in Australia approaching 20 years old.
Only difference between the A+ and the B was the B was to have new fuselage sides with larger windows, none ever build so staying with the old style fuselage with all the other upgrades, I have been told the 20 year rule is something the oil companies want , not taking aircraft over 20 years old , this has been brought up by Shell about one of the 92's in Australia approaching 20 years old.
interesting to hear Shell are saying that. I very much doubt the BSP machines will be changed in 3 years!
Safety is our number one priority... after the bottom line.
After years of flying for oil companies I was pleased to move into the VIP industry - At least with a Billionaire you knew you were working for an honest criminal!
Last edited by OvertHawk; 19th Dec 2023 at 00:16.
Good old oil company policy
Safety is our number one priority... after the bottom line
Safety is our number one priority... after the bottom line
The following users liked this post:
Bit of a rant. It is early and I haven’t had my coffee yet.
Please explain how a 20 year old airframe, well maintained, is a safety issue?
Please cite examples.
Aside from the airframe itself, every gearbox, engine, gearbox, avionics and wiring has been changed and / or upgraded multiple times.
Oil Company: “We mandate that you buy a new 20+ million dollar aircraft to service this 2 year contract and we want to pay the same rate as for the legacy aircraft.”
My favourite at renewal time: “ We don’t take your on time reliability, serviceability, safety or crew performance into consideration, we just take the lowest bidder!” This usually from someone who works in a tall office somewhere far from the field who has difficulty even identifying a helicopter.
Rant over—-I feel much better now!
Please explain how a 20 year old airframe, well maintained, is a safety issue?
Please cite examples.
Aside from the airframe itself, every gearbox, engine, gearbox, avionics and wiring has been changed and / or upgraded multiple times.
Oil Company: “We mandate that you buy a new 20+ million dollar aircraft to service this 2 year contract and we want to pay the same rate as for the legacy aircraft.”
My favourite at renewal time: “ We don’t take your on time reliability, serviceability, safety or crew performance into consideration, we just take the lowest bidder!” This usually from someone who works in a tall office somewhere far from the field who has difficulty even identifying a helicopter.
Rant over—-I feel much better now!
Last edited by albatross; 20th Dec 2023 at 15:37.
I have had mine, but it has yet to kick in.
Cite, not site. 
(It's PPRuNe, we get pedantic sometimes) And well maintained is the key, isn't it?
Kind of like dropping a good deuce.
Please explain how a 20 year old airframe, well maintained, is a safety issue?
Please site examples.
Please site examples.
(It's PPRuNe, we get pedantic sometimes) And well maintained is the key, isn't it?
Rant over—-I feel much better now!
Bit of a rant. It is early and I haven’t had my coffee yet.
Please explain how a 20 year old airframe, well maintained, is a safety issue?
Please cite examples.
Aside from the airframe itself, every gearbox, engine, gearbox, avionics and wiring has been changed and / or upgraded multiple times.
Oil Company: “We mandate that you buy a new 20+ million dollar aircraft to service this 2 year contract and we want to pay the same rate as for the legacy aircraft.”
My favourite at renewal time: “ We don’t take your on time reliability, serviceability, safety or crew performance into consideration, we just take the lowest bidder!” This usually from someone who works in a tall office somewhere far from the field who has difficulty even identifying a helicopter.
Rant over—-I feel much better now!
Please explain how a 20 year old airframe, well maintained, is a safety issue?
Please cite examples.
Aside from the airframe itself, every gearbox, engine, gearbox, avionics and wiring has been changed and / or upgraded multiple times.
Oil Company: “We mandate that you buy a new 20+ million dollar aircraft to service this 2 year contract and we want to pay the same rate as for the legacy aircraft.”
My favourite at renewal time: “ We don’t take your on time reliability, serviceability, safety or crew performance into consideration, we just take the lowest bidder!” This usually from someone who works in a tall office somewhere far from the field who has difficulty even identifying a helicopter.
Rant over—-I feel much better now!
The rational, probably included, the fact that newer airframes were likely to be newer tech/spec.
It’s great in theory:All things equal, the newer machine should be as safe, and usually potentially safer. (Mtce aside, less corroded/fatigued, and as mentioned, newer spec)
But tired old machines are cheaper.
Similar to the statement made at CHC after one of the many “Changes at the top”; “Our employees are our most important asset, we will only buy ANCAP 6 (?) cars, as they are the safest.”
Turns out 20yo Toyotas, and Chinese MG’s are cheaper…..So:Safe enough.
The following users liked this post:
Is the 30,000 hour definition only listed in the Notes section of the TCDS or is there a hard limit listed in the approved Airworthiness Limitations Section?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30k S-92
ISTR that many of the 'parted out' examples of recent years, were around 10yr old and 15,000 Hr TT.
Cougar also must also have some pretty high time airframes but with much lower cycle counts.
Perhaps 212man can provide much better information..