Parts issue for the S92

[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.

[helicrazi]

But still 12 months for an mbg

[212man]

Originally Posted 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.

if they’re A+ models then they’re surely not new? The new model is the B and the A+ is the upgraded A.

Not sure what this 20 year rule is? It’s not in IOGP 690 - certification status is (post Part 29 Amd 45).

[Hilife]

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.

[Blackhawk9]

Originally Posted by 212man

if they’re A+ models then they’re surely not new? The new model is the B and the A+ is the upgraded A.

Not sure what this 20 year rule is? It’s not in IOGP 690 - certification status is (post Part 29 Amd 45).

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.

[212man]

Originally Posted by Blackhawk9

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.

I think my point about the A+ is that it requires an existing airframe to upgrade, so to talk about ‘production restarting’ is a play on words.

interesting to hear Shell are saying that. I very much doubt the BSP machines will be changed in 3 years!

[That lights normal!]

The oil companies in Australia, have a strict 20yo limit on helicopter airframes.
It’s for safety, and can only be ignored if a contract utilising older airframes is cheaper.

[OvertHawk]

Originally Posted by That lights normal!

The oil companies in Australia, have a strict 20yo limit on helicopter airframes.
It’s for safety, and can only be ignored if a contract utilising older airframes is cheaper.

Good old oil company policy

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!

[RVDT]

Originally Posted by OvertHawk

At least with a Billionaire you knew you were working for an honest criminal!

Yup! Nailed it.

[megan]

Good old oil company policy

Safety is our number one priority... after the bottom line

You certainly got that right, standards were zip in ours, on the other hand we always had very good machinery, less than 20 years old.

[albatross]

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!

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by albatross

Bit of a rant. It is early and I haven’t had my coffee yet.

I have had mine, but it has yet to kick in.

Please explain how a 20 year old airframe, well maintained, is a safety issue?
Please site examples.

Cite, not site. (It's PPRuNe, we get pedantic sometimes) And well maintained is the key, isn't it?

Rant over—-I feel much better now!

Kind of like dropping a good deuce.

[jetrotor1]

S-92 has a 30,000-hour airframe life limit and Sikorsky has no intention of extending. It's a certification issue.

[That lights normal!]

Originally Posted by albatross

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!

I think it was “Safety and Quality” trying to justify their existence (and expense)
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.

[OvertHawk]

Originally Posted by jetrotor1

S-92 has a 30,000-hour airframe life limit and Sikorsky has no intention of extending. It's a certification issue.

So the old joke about the crew that delivers the last S-92 to the boneyard flying home in an S-61 is in fact not really a joke at all!

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by jetrotor1

S-92 has a 30,000-hour airframe life limit and Sikorsky has no intention of extending. It's a certification issue.

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?

[BTC8183]

30k S-92

Originally Posted by wrench1

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?

Have any S-92's got anywhere near 30,000 hrs?
ISTR that many of the 'parted out' examples of recent years, were around 10yr old and 15,000 Hr TT.

[albatross]

Originally Posted by BTC8183

Have any S-92's got anywhere near 30,000 hrs?
ISTR that many of the 'parted out' examples of recent years, were around 10yr old and 15,000 Hr TT.

I don’t ‘t know about highest TT but last I heard the Shell Brunei folks had the highest cycle counts on their 92s.

Cougar also must also have some pretty high time airframes but with much lower cycle counts.

Perhaps 212man can provide much better information..

[helicrazi]

VIND at OHS must be pretty high being one of the first? Number 7 I think?

[212man]

Originally Posted by helicrazi

VIND at OHS must be pretty high being one of the first? Number 7 I think?

92-0007 is G-LAWX