Anyone brave enough to explain emlube?

AA, wasn't that S92 instead of Super Puma, off Newfoundland you mention? In which case, it's about design whose certification in US and Canada shouldn't have gone through (MGB dry run time).

Glad all are OK and back on dry land :D

Are the Bond ec225 not equipped with glycol 30 min. lubrication?

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...tching_raf.jpg

RAF/BBC Image

The Emergency Lubrication system allows 30 minutes at Vy (80 kts) so whilst that is a "good thing" as in general it will allow one to land somewhere solid, that cannot be guaranteed if the heli is outside 40 miles (still air) from a landing opportunity. Since the aircraft came down allegedly 25 miles from EGPD it was perhaps in that slightly awkward zone inside of 80 miles with few landing opportunities. Not sure what the wind direction was but looks NE so hard to turn back out to sea and into wind to reach an installation further out.

At least the 30 mins allows SAR to be launched and reduces time in the water / dinghies.

Of course it is possible for the emergency lube system to fail to activate (or at least, to give indications of failure) in which case the drill is land immediately. At this stage only a select few know if this happened, and I am not one of them!

Yes, as are all EC225s - it is part of the certification requirement, not an optional extra.

HC

30 min 'run dry' time doesn't mean that you can run for thirty minutes without MRGB oil before landing; it means (IMHO) that you should consider that you have 30 mins max to effect a landing in the safest place possible, and the closer you are to the 30 mins point the closer you are to a catastrophic failure. The captain's primary responsibility isn't to maximise profitability for the shareholders, or even to minimise the cost of an aircraft recovery; it is to maximise and ensure, as far as is possible, the safety of the passengers. On the basis of the limited information available thus far, the captain here achieved that admirably. Kudos, my friend; I'm glad I've never been faced with that situation.

So what is it that Bond does wrong? Is this simply the third "freak accident"?

Very true Louis, if the aircraft has screwed you, then screw it!::) Seems like the perfect outcome here.

I would suggest that you cease your inane uneducate waffle about this incidente
if you recall the S92 that speared in off Newfoundland a couple of years ago had an MEL statment that the gearbox could run for 30 mins without oil and this led to the crews deciion to make for land
The crew involved in this event ditched, good for them.

3rd accident by Bond in as many years true, but glad they all got out, reports are out or imminently out on the last 2 the Etap ditching makes for interesting reading and is used in CRM courses as a talking point.

mtoroshanga

Please try not to post totally inaccurate information when the truth is in the public domain - it just causes confusion

First of all, the MEL only applies when one is on the ground.

Secondly, neither the MEL nor the emergency procedures in the S92 flight manual says that the S92 can run for 30 minutes without oil. The only thing that said that was sales material.

Louis. I agree to a certain extent, but depending on sea conditions and the proximity of a safe landing site, it might or might not be appropriate to continue for the full 30 minutes. Clearly in this case the crew made the correct decisions because everyone was OK.

Yep, absolutely agreed - that's pretty much what I meant by 'the safest place possible'.

Louis

30 minutes is the requirement. Given the quantity of glycol in the EC225 ELS, how much MGB runing time would it give?

Arrakis

Not even showing as an item on the BBC website now. Obviously no celebrities on board and no one wiling to say they were screaming all the way as the jet plunged to the bottom of the sea.:rolleyes:.

Thank God that all involved walked away from this unfortunate incident. And absolutely Sterling effort from the lads on Rescue Bond One, RAF Boulmer and the RNLI.

Well done to the crew!
 

Well done to the chaps up front! If i'd been onboard i'd certainly be buying the crew a pint or two tonight.

They certainly earnt their money today. :D

The traditional saying of 'any landing you can walk away from is a good landing' doesn't really apply here... but perhaps 'any landing you can walk or swim away from is a good landing' should be introduced...? :ok:

I think the question is, 'Is a light, a ditching decision?'

Depends on the light.

I think you might find in this case it might be a light, a noise and a smell!


Well done guys, proud of you