|
It is only in places like the North Sea where the operators think they know better http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/cwm13.gif that no cabin attendant is carried. Is the issue not that there is sometimes insufficient robustness in the A/C's mechanical components, either due to a compromise on acceptable limits and/or design flaws? Nothing is perfect, to believe so is false, so is putting faith in effectively another PAX who will have no effective control in the event of a MR/TR failure. PAX are trained to evacuate the A/C in the event of a ditching/capsize, that's only ones of a few areas that require improvement IMO. All 491 crew and PAX were unconscious from impact, so even a cabin attendant would have been in the same unfortunate situation. These A/C are designed to stay in the air and thankfully most of the time they do. Placing a cabin attendant and/or mechanic in the rear smacks of other inadequecies. PAX and crew should have 100% confidence in the A/C and the maintenance/condition monitoring system, negating the need for another set of "condition monitoring eyes" or a morale booster to PAX. We have made some progress, but until the mechanical design issues and pro-active maintenance procedures are properly addressed/implemented and all 16 recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry are actioned we are no further forward apart from self-awareness by all involved. Regarding reliability of A/C types in general I've just returned from offshore Malaysia where numerous A/C types are in use by MHS and Westar. It's worth noting that Westar were brought in partially due to the poor accident record of MHS with 3 AS332 accidents and one S61 (see extract below from Malaysian Wings). "QUOTE “Since its operation in 1981 in Miri, MHS has been providing excellent service. It only encountered one major accident off Bintulu in Jan 29 last year which resulted in just one death,” he said when met yesterday. I personally find the phrase "just one death" somewhat disturbing and insulting to the family of the deceased! MHS have lost the work because they actually had 4 major accidents in a very short period of time. One involved an S61 helicopter just after take off from Kerteh (May 2005). Another involved AS332L2 9M-SPA being flown into the water on a flight from Kerteh (Nov 2006). On services from Miri they had two ditchings with Super Pumas with "just one death", AS332L 9M-STT (Jun 2005) and AS332L2 9M-STR (Jan 2007). The customers in Miri lost faith in their services and brought in CHC to take over. As mentioned previously CHC have now set up a Malaysian Company with local businessmen called Awan Inspirasi Sdn Bhd." IMO the above is an excellent example of where you cannot just blame the A/C type. I believe that's what commissioner Wells was implying in his report. Safe flying Max |
It is only in places like the North Sea where the operators think they know better that no cabin attendant is carried. If the N Sea contract called for cabin attendants then that's what Shell would get. Bottom line is that it costs money, so it doesn't happen. We have been pushing Shell in Malaysia to pay for cabin attendants on the S92s here, but I'm sure you already know what the answer is - NO, NO and NO again! :{ I really do hope that you don't actually believe the bo**ocks that you continue to spout in these forums. |
VL, please don't confuse Smellie with facts. He has enough trouble with comprehension as it is.
then you chew on your toes |
Whilst I agree that generally a cabin attendant might not add a huge amount to the overall safety, I can say from experience that a good rear crewman is worth their weight in gold when required. The problem here is that the times when a crewman is really required for normal civilian offshore ops is so seldom that nobody really is going to justify the cost. Of course it would be a very nice to have in many situations, and emergency handling in a 3 crew environment can be far slicker than in a 2 crew, if trained correctly. But here we are talking about a nice to have not an absolute necessity. In the cougar aircraft a rearcrew could have helped by looking out of the window and confirming the oil coming out of the side, and could have assisted with the checklist, maybe even offered a "casting vote" on the land immediately situation the crew were in and in slight disagreement about - however the last is purely speculation and it could have been easily the other way. A crewman would also be very nice when landing on the platform especially at night and in bad weather, giving additional guidance and clearance, but we have been doing it for years without one so difficult to suddenly justify. All of this however could also be done much more easily and cheaper, and it amazes me that today we still have not come fully on board. The use of a camera on the tail boom can certainly go some way to giving more vital info to the crew. Whilst some aircraft already have these fitted, it is far from standard in the industry. Even my car has one to stop the wife from hitting the lamp post! (Sorry wife!). Even the 332 L had mirrors fitted to allow the pilot to have a look behind at the top of the aircraft.
In the cougar case the crew would likely have been able to see something awry if they had a view forward over the fuselage. This is also an extremely nice feature to have in cases of engine fires, various oil leaks and other things that can go wrong. In addition it greatly enhance safety when landing during normal ops. A more relevant question to raise might be why are externally mounted aircraft monitoring cameras not installed as standard, as opposed to why are we not carrying a cabin attendant. |
While DND still refuse to accept the Sikorsky Cyclone helicopter there is a belated push to fix the faulty gearbox on the civilian S-92, as TC announce a summit with FAA and EASA.
Not everyone is happy though with the slow pace to resolve the fatal compromise Sikorsky and FAA agreed in late 2002. A woman whose husband died in the Cougar helicopter tragedy east of St. John's in 2009 is frustrated the federal government hasn't acted more quickly to improve offshore chopper safety. Newfoundland resident Lori Chynn said the families of people who died in the crash want helicopters that transport workers to offshore oil platforms to run for at least 30 minutes after losing oil pressure. "It's very frustrating. There's been lots of discussion, lots of investigation. We know what the problem is. So let's put some action into place and let's fix the problem," said Chynn. Cougar flight 491 crashed in to the ocean east of St. John's on March 12, 2009, killing 17 people. The chopper hit the water 11 minutes after oil pressure dropped in the main gearbox. Transport Canada is looking into the issue, but said it is consulting with other countries before making any decision to legislate changes. Transport Canada regulates the aviation industry TSB recommended changes In February, the independent body that investigates crashes, the Transportation Safety Board, recommended several improvements to offshore helicopter travel in its report on the crash of Cougar Helicopters flight 491. The TSB said helicopters must: Have a main gearbox able to run without oil for 30 minutes. Not fly in rough conditions. Have an air supply on all helicopters that fly over water. Its investigators also highlighted the fact that Cougar Flight 491 crashed 11 minutes after problems were detected. "There was a complex equation of 16 factors involved in this accident. No one factor stands out above the others," said board spokeswoman Wendy Tadros in St. John's on Wednesday. "The manufacturer, the regulator and Cougar have largely address the problems that have been identified, but risks still exist." The board's Mark Clitsome said the Sikorsky S92A still cannot run without oil for 30 minutes. "The Sikorsky S92A came to be certified without a 30-minute run-dry time.The studs have changed, but the gearbox has not changed and in the event of catastrophic oil loss, the S92a would still crash in 11 minutes." Transport Canada too slow: chopper crash families - Nfld. & Labrador - CBC News |
Cuts in SAR cover make improvements in the S-92's safety (or its replacement) even more important: Budget cuts deep at sea - Local - News - The Telegram
|
There is a campaign to reverse the cuts
Campaign to save N.L. marine rescue centre ramps up after deadly weekend | iPolitics |
Helmets
The Wells Inquiry into offshore helicopter safety made an early recommendation on helmet use after they recieved the pathologist's reports on the crew. From the TSB report:
Although not fatally injured during the impact sequence, both pilots received severe injuries due in part to striking their heads/faces against the instrument panel. Neither pilot was wearing head protection (i.e., approved helmet, complete with visor). No helmet use policy was in place at Cougar Helicopters at the time of the occurrence, and helicopter pilots were under no regulatory requirement to wear head protection. Prior to the occurrence, approximately 10% of the Cougar Helicopters' pilots were routinely wearing head protection. As shown in this occurrence, without ongoing promotion of the benefits of head protection usage, helicopter pilots will continue to operate without head protection, increasing the risk of head injury and consequent inability to provide necessary assistance to crew or passengers. The lack of a requirement for pilots to wear helmets and visors places them at greater risk of incapacitation due to head injuries following a ditching or crash. This type of injury jeopardizes the pilots' ability to assist in the safe evacuation and survival of their passengers. Another Wells Inquiry recommendation is mandatory helmets for all pilot’s flying offshore. Daniel Bourgeois, a reservoir engineer with the CNLOPB, said it was the first recommendation the implementation team studied — believing it would be straight-forward and easily done. But, he, said the issue of potential neck injuries among pilots regularly wearing a three-pound helmet was raised by a team member who is a senior pilot with Cougar. The issue has been further studied, and Bourgeois said the team will meet in July to come up with an action plan. While helemt use is rare on offshore transport use they are not in SAR an military operations. Therefore arguments two years after this accident about "potential neck injuries among pilots regularly wearing a three-pound helmets" give more of a clue on the state of Cougar's SMS and safety culture. |
There was a lot of resistance in GOM to the Shell Aircraft initiative to introduce safety glasses and helemts after the S-76C bird strike accdient in 2009.:sad:
|
Some Postive News
It looks like some experts (EASA, FAA & TC) have agreed that the means of compliance used for the S-92s certification is adaquate and should not be perpetuated:
Transportation board says foreign regulators to review helicopter certification - thestar.com Foreign regulators have promised to review controversial certification rules linked to the crash of a Sikorsky helicopter off Newfoundland, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said Thursday. The board said the Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Canada and the European Aviation Safety Agency will undertake the review with a view to possibly changing how the aircraft is certified. The pledge was part of the regulators’ response to recommendations made by the board last February after the crash of a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter in 2009. The accident killed 17 people and revealed that the helicopter had been given a 30-minute run-dry certification, based on the assumption that the chances of an oil leak were “extremely remote.” The safety board found the primary cause of the 2009 crash was a massive loss of oil to the chopper’s main gearbox after two of three titanium studs snapped off the oil filter assembly during flight. The safety board recommended that Transport Canada change regulations so that offshore helicopters are capable of flying without oil in the main gearbox for at least 30 minutes. The helicopters can still only fly for 11 min utes in the event of a total loss of oil and the board says it needs a commitment that they will be able to fly for at least 30 minutes after a major oil loss. “We’d like to have a minimum standard so that all the helicopters in that category, if they lose oil they’ll be able to fly for 30 minutes,” Wendy Tadros, chairwoman of the safety board, said in Gatineau. “There seems to be good intent there, but we don’t have firm plans or commitments there.” Tadros said the FAA has said it will look at proposing rule changes to either clarify or eliminate the extremely remote provision. But she added that changes to the certification may only affect future helicopters and not the S-92. Some of the families of those lost in the Newfoundland crash have been calling on the regulators to demand that the helicopters be able to fly for at least 30 minutes after a massive oil loss. The board would like to see that eventually, following a phase-in period. “The responses are a little bit tentative now,” she said, adding that they include the creation of a task force and focus group. “They have to be firmed up ... so we’ll take another look at them in six months.” "It is going to take more than promises to solve the safety problems we found," said Tadros [TSB Chair]. "We need firm commitments and action to make these helicopters safer." 1) confirming that the S-92 has an MGB no better then aircraft a generation before it 2) that the marketing of the S-92's safety was hype 3) the 'social media' discussions by 'senior Sikorsky managers' (discussed in the TSB report) rubbishing other types were, at best, grossly misguided One would at leat hope Sikorsky have the commercial sense to develop the S-92 to match the capability that their competitors have or that their competitors will be required to demonstrate in the products they are currently developing. |
"They do seem content to leave the S-92 without a full 30 minute capability which is a great concern but at least they are:
1) confirming that the S-92 has an MGB no better then aircraft a generation before it 2) that the marketing of the S-92's safety was hype 3) the 'social media' discussions by 'senior Sikorsky managers' (discussed in the TSB report) rubbishing other types were, at best, grossly misguided One would at leat hope Sikorsky have the commercial sense to develop the S-92 to match the capability that their competitors have or that their competitors will be required to demonstrate in the products they are currently developing." squibb66, There are some changes that Sikorsky can make to the existing S-92 gearbox that might actually give it a 30 minute run-dry capability. Designing a gearbox to achieve a run-dry capability is ultimately an exercise in heat transfer. There are some new types of gear steels (C61/C64) that have been developed in the last 2 or 3 years, which have a very high tempering temperature (up to 900degF vs. 400degF for conventional gear steels). Having a gear steel that maintains its hardness/strength at high temps is a critical factor in achieving gearbox loss-of-lube operational capability. The critical gears in the S-92 gearbox could have their material replaced with these newer C61/C64 alloys, without any other dimensional changes. So it would be a "drop-in" replacement. Of course the C61/C64 alloys are also much more expensive than conventional aircraft-grade gear steels, and require different processing. But the additional thermal margin provided by C61/C64 gear alloys might be enough to give the S-92 gearbox a full 30 minute run-dry capability. The only question being would Sikorsky management accept the cost involved? |
How much is the increase in cost in the total price of an S-92? 1%? 10%?
Most likely small potatoes in the big picture. It would also likely have some unintended positive side effects, like increased overall gearbox life, etc. And probably a very good marketing point to. |
How much is the increase in cost in the total price of an S-92? 1%? 10%?
Most likely small potatoes in the big picture. It would also likely have some unintended positive side effects, like increased overall gearbox life, etc. And probably a very good marketing point to. Not really, they would just be living up to the 30 minute dry run capability they claimed when they sold the A/C. |
Shell Management-
The materials were developed by QuesTek Innovations using computational design techniques. Latrobe Steel is the licensee. Here's a good overall presentation. Slide 11 gives a good comparison between C61/C64/C69 and 9310 alloys. riff_raff |
Commissioner Wells has written his Phase II Report and it was with the inquiry's editor late last month.
The final piece of information necessary for completion was received on June 23rd past when the TSB published its response to submissions made to it by the FAA and Transport Canada. After editing, formating and printing it is expected the report will be delivered to C-NLOPB in mid-August |
IMHO, it was the bearing that failed
After reviewing the CTSB report it is apparent that the T/R output pinion tapered roller bearing shoulder failed as they can do in a lube starvation situation which allowed the pinion to back out of mesh. Thus neither the Questek C series steels nor nitrided steels (also hardened at higher than 400°F) would have helped here.
|
Sikorsky loses appeal in Cougar crash dispute
I doubt a simple material change will suffice. However, when Sikorsky bow to the inevitable they need to publically prove that they can fulfill the 30 minute certification test and not the certification-lite test that was used by a poster here to claim they could run for 3 hours after an oil loss, patently a BS claim.
Sikorsky have lost an appeal in court: Sikorsky loses appeal in Cougar crash dispute - Nfld. & Labrador - CBC News Aviation manufacturer Sikorsky has lost another court challenge in its attempt to move a lawsuit over the fatal 2009 Cougar Helicopters crash to the U.S. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., which manufactured the S-92A chopper that crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in March 2009, has argued that a pending lawsuit should be heard in Connecticut, where the company is based. In a new decision the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision that ruled that the case — in which Cougar Helicopters and an affiliate of insurer Lloyd's of London, are suing Sikorsky — can proceed in St. John's. "It follows that the courts of this province have jurisdiction to decide Cougar's claim," a panel of three judges wrote. Seventeen people died in the crash. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada said 16 inter-connected factors led to the disaster, including broken studs and catastrophic drop in oil pressure in the aircraft's gearbox. Sikorsky reached a settlement in January 2010 with Robert Decker, the sole survivor of the crash, as well as the families of the deceased. |
How unreasonable of a Canadian court to expect a case on the loss of a Canadian registered, Candian ownered, Canadian operated helicopter, being flown by Canadians, in Canadian airspace, on charter to Canadian companies, carrying Canadian passengers, from a Canadian airport to Canadian oil rigs to be held in Canada. Now do you blame their lawyers for trying to get the trial moved to a venue that would give a " Home Court" advantage? Nice try.... but I would guess they had not made any wagers on their winning! |
SASless Well I suppose the guilty always look for a friendly jury.
BTW Do you blame OJ for struggling to make the glove fit? |
OJ....who won in criminal court....lost in civil court....and lost again in criminal court and is now in Prison....that OJ?
Shame I was not on the Jury, Sir! I suppose the trail of blood leading from his Bronco into his front door...which then hid in his socks....the cuts on his hand....the glove found beside his house...all very circumstantial along with his attempted escape and threatened suicide....naw.....the Jury came to a rightous decision did they not? Now all that being said....perhaps a change of Venue might be in order....at least to some location a bit remote from the place all this happened. I can see a lynching coming....as I see a whole lot of shared responsibility in this tragedy that will not be fairly considered. I would happily take on either side of the argument as an Attorney as in the end....the attornies shall be the only winners out this. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:52. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.