Not sure if this was asked previously in this long thread but what sort of altitudes do the helos travel to and from the rigs. I would have thought that if they were at higher altitudes they might have had the chance to get away a mayday call but according to what I have read they didnt even get the chance to do that.

Autorotate.

The HUMS acquisitions are carried out by one processor in the DAPU, there is another separate processor for FDAU (FDR) data gathering. The DAPU has no crash-proof memory.

The FDAU data (and some HUMS data) is stored on a standard CVFDR (voice and data) using a tape loop. It is this unit that holds the information that the AAIB will investigate.

Autorotate On the sector in question the transit would proably have been around 1500ft. Having said that if they were as suggested 1.5 - 2 miles from the destination rig they would have been much lower ready for the landing.

Heliport or anyone:.......

Has there been any worthwhile and official update on the accident?

News in Australia has slowed to nearly zero.

Most of the major Australian Oil Companies I understand have ceased operations with the S76 pending some statement from the UK.

Red Wine
I've not seen anything 'official' since I posted the update last Friday.
I'm surprised at what you say about the Australian operators. Is that rumour confirmed?

Heliport.....

Just spoke to my colleague who works those machines.......they are firmly on the ground.

Pre-emptive maintenance
 

Canadian Helicopters Ltd in Canada operating nearly a dozen S76A's sent a priority message to all their bases in Canada on Thursday, mandating that the base engineering staff re-do a number or previously completed ASB's including the Rotor brake, main mast NDT, and T/R gearbox. I can emphasize that the motivation for this action was ONLY to ensure that these ASB's were completed properly and thoroughly. The due date for completion in July 22 at midnight save the NDT (FPI) on the main mast which has a re-do date of early August. Meanwhile, we continue to fly the aircraft for EMS work in Ontario.

The world wide fleet was never grounded. As an operator flying the B model we have heard nothing from Sikorsky at all. We are therefore still flying. I understand from a friend that the B models are still flying on the North Sea from Holland.

From my understanding of the situation Shell requested that the Bristow machines didn't fly in the Southern North Sea (English or Dutch side). I don't know whether that extends to Shell worldwide.

Red Wine

The newspapers over here are pretty quiet on the accident. However, the BBC Website is keeping reasonably up to date. The following link gives their latest, together with links on the right-hand-side to previous related articles.


In response to another users comment - S76's have definitely not been grounded. However, as a precautionary measure, some clients requested to discontinue operations on all variants pending some further news.

Update
 

For our members who don't have easy access to UK news reports:

Five more bodies have been found, bringing the total to 10.
The search for the last remaining victim is continuing using the survey vessel, the diving support vessel and an ROV (remotely operated vessel).

A large amount of aircraft wreckage has now been recovered, including the Flight Recorder which has already been sent to the AAIB for analysis.

The rest of the wreckage will be recovered to the shore and sent to the AAIB.







http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3...h_sea5_300.gif

Re: Update
 

Oops. Forgot to give the URL of the BBC news site in my last posting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/...00/2142385.stm

Our S-76 is grounded leaving us with a Bell 214 to service 2 rigs. It's because Bristows is a partner with a local Kazakh company as I understand the situation.

LowNSlow

I think you will find that the S76 has not been grounded by any aviation authority, but by the operator as a safety precaution.

I believe that if you were to look in the hangar you will find that there are two Bell 212 helicopters (not one 412), configured to a very high safety spec, including IHUMS (CV/FDR), external liferaft. etc etc. These should be more than enough to service several rigs.

Heard about it when deprived of my computer, hence the late reply. I feel gutted about it. But what puzzles me is that the A/C type has not been grounded by any authority. Unless one is absolutely positive that it is a one-off event (like being hit by a meteorite or a missile), how can anybody be sure that it won't happen again? Who is responsible for grounding a type?

Remember, whatever happened came about so quickly that there was not even a Mayday call. How can one justify continuous operation without even a clue as to what happened?:confused:

"How can one justify continuous operation without even a clue as to what happened?"

On the contrary, how could it possibly be justifiable to ground an aircraft type with a well-proven safety record "without even a clue" about the cause of the accident? That would be a complete over-reaction.

Airliners sometimes crash without a 'Mayday' call. That doesn't mean the type is grounded until "one is absolutely positive that it is a one-off event (like being hit by a meteorite or a missile).

The Flight Recorder has already been recovered to the AAIB for analysis. If there was any reason to do so, the AAIB will would recommend that the CAA grounds the type pending further investigation. It would be up to the aviation authorities of other countries to decide whether to follow.

It is a sad fact that aeroplanes and helicopters crash from time to time. Grounding all other aircraft of that type pending an investigation would be silly.

Flying Lawyer, I respectfully disagree with your views. As a pilot, I make damn sure that I plan the flight to be as safely as possible, covering as many variables that I can think of. Now it appears that there is a variable that is unknown, yet fatal..it killed in mere seconds.
I personally don't see how one can justify NOT grounding AC until they have been thoroughly inspected for possible failures.
Perhaps they have been checked already, as I mentioned I have had limited acces to hard info after a computer problem, depending on newspapers instead :rolleyes:
but should not the CAA have grounded the type on Tuesday and make some sort of drive train check ( I suspect that's where the cause will be found as it was a swift and catastrophic failure) mandatory before commencing flight operations?

And yes, it has affected me personally, perhaps that makes me biased

S76 Heavy

"should not the CAA have grounded the type on Tuesday and make some sort of drive train check ( I suspect that's where the cause will be found as it was a swift and catastrophic failure) mandatory before commencing flight operations?"

It would be too easy to ground any flying machine following an accident and then implement some form of inspection on "selected" components.
Would you have been happy to resume flying after an inspection of the part(s) of the drive train? What about inspecting cowlings, doors, emergency windows, main and tail rotor blades, gearbox mountings etc. etc. etc. Failure of any one of these items could ultimately cause a catastrophic crash!! (Departing cowlings and doors could impact with rotor blades etc)
Where would you draw the line without any real evidence to work on?
Nothing from the initial reports would suggest that this accident indicates a generic problem with the S76. However, some operators and clients have demonstrated prudence by temporarily suspending S76 operations.

The AAIB now has everything at Farnborough. They have no doubt been working flat out to establish initial findings and will surely make recommendations in the very near future.
Let's not jump to hasty conclusions and fire off an unnecessary panic wave.

Press release Today, heli crash
 

I understand a press release is out today, ref main blade spar failure on VX.

Indeed, where DO you draw the line? I'm a pilot, not an engineer. But I want it beyond a reasonable doubt that my machine is safe to fly. And when in doubt, I chicken out. It's valid for weather, crew and for the machine.

I'm a bit confused about the issue of when to ground a type, but if it's a main blade spar, it seems generic enough for me.

Without casting undue critisism on authorities and people, I'd like to learn more about the mechanisms of the grounding of A/C and mandatory inspections. I remember mandatory rotor mast inspections every x hours just a few years back, because of a non-fatal accident. So what's the rule?

Perhaps Nick Lappos can comment on this particular case as a Sikorsky man?

S76Heavy

"I'm a bit confused about the issue of when to ground a type, but if it's a main blade spar, it seems generic enough for me."

Now you are talking with hindsight. Your original statement referred to grounding the S76 when absolutely nothing was known about the possible cause of the accident.

Let's see what the press release says and hope that common sense will prevail thereafter.

I'm a pilot as well and would also like to know that I can confidently expect to be home after work each day!! Provided that suitable rectification and/or control measures are put in place by the right people, I would be happy to fly in any S76 again.