Parts issue for the S92
 

Heard from a client that Bristow sent out a letter stating that maintenance of the S92 will be affected due to supply chain constraints and lead times on critical spares. Anyone have any insights?

Is that a Bristow problem or an industry problem?

Bean Counters and Managers seeking bonus income have been known to cause such problems by cutting meat instead of fat.

This was in the press a little while ago.

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...ives-up-prices

Yes, this is becoming a major issue and a significant concern for the operators. They don’t have much if any spare gearboxes on a global scale. Sikorsky seem disinterested.

I have heard operators parting out old airframes for valuable parts and the situation is getting worse more recently with some aircraft grounded for 6+ months awaiting spares.

It will be an interesting couple of years, whether there is a move to a new type of heavy or whether 175/189 become more dominant, it remains to be seen.

The EC/H225 appears to have got itself a new enhanced MGB, now that would be interesting as arguably it’s the best aircraft of the lot. Confidence issues there though.
The Bell 525 is marketed as another Super Medium so it’s doubtful we will ever see that. Preference would surely be 175/189?

All manufactures are the same, this time last year there were 40-50 odd S-92's parked up world wide, the lease companies were desperate to get the belly tank certified for fire bombing to get some flying again , 6 mths later you can't find a spare 92 for love no money ,and the belly tank has dropped into the distance, no way could the manufactures crank up spares when not long ago that many were parked up , all 4 manufactures the same watch over the next 6 mths when aircraft world wide will be parked for lack of spares , Leonardo will give spare to those on the top support contract , the less you pay the longer you wait , Bell first come first serv and as normal nothing from Airbus you will just wait.
new 92's haven't been build for about4-5 years now so if you want a new 92 Sik want 10 pre paid confirmed orders to open line again.

Not sure how you perceived AH as you described. Ours and many we know experience the same across the board including AH.

The S92 is particularly poorly affected at the moment by poor parts supply. Of main concern is the gearbox overhaul issue which means that at this time there are over 14x aircraft on the ground waiting on gearboxes in the oil and gas fleet alone. SIK are apparently trying to fix the problem but they broke their supply chain during covid and now are reaping to consequences.

Its not just rotary wing, its an issue the world over, fixed wing, piston, jet, avionics, the lot. My thoughts are a lot of companies gave staff the heave ho to save a buck through covid and are now paying the price through both supply of raw materials to production, lack of skilled staff to produce the goods and difficulty in recruiting them..

In a lot of companies forward thinking ends with “What’s for lunch?”

I worked for some that were not that progressive as the Management did not do their "best" thinking until after a three Pint Lunch.

Worse than breaking their supply chain - a couple decades or so they moved a lot of stuff out of house and became reliant on a much larger supply chain. I wonder how much this cost saving maneuver cost in the long run?

Yes, and they wonder why those they binned during covid would ever want to work for them again, on top of that some of the skilled staff have probably found better paid jobs after being let go.

Company management need to learn that to bite the hand of those that feed you, you will reap the reward, without those who actually produce the goods the company sells there is no revenue, and they as a result are nothing but over paid chair polishers..

I’m not sure they care all that much as they were bought out by Lockheed Martin and it appears that they have prioritised the military market over the civilian one. Production of S92 stopped a number of years ago and support from Sikorsky has gone downhill since. The large operators should vote with their feet but I doubt that would matter much to their business model with such a strong military order book. There’s nothing really much to replace the 92 with but every aircraft has a natural life cycle, I’m not quite sure how far we are through the S92’s.

You can still order new 225s with an enhanced gearbox. Line is still open as plenty of militaries are ordering them….

Up to now, I had only been aware of the saga of unavailability and spare supply issues for the worldwide NH-90 fleet. So it isn't only one type.

I had also assumed S-92 production was ongoing. Wikipedia suggests that is the case and you would also think it from Lockheed Martin site.

Looking at the advertising at https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us...elicopter.html they write: "Best-in-class safety and reliability" and "With more than 2 million fleet flight hours and nearly 95% availability, the S-92® helicopter is the industry’s standard for safety and reliability". So how is availability measured when aircraft are sitting on the ground waiting for parts?

Easy. It's available as soon as parts are there.

I have a client that wanted to buy several new ones and not only was the min order as you say, the price being quoted was off the scale. SIK also only wanted to build them as B's so instantly orphaned and unique.

That's actually 100% inaccurate for Leonardo. Operators order their parts with the date they need them, well they should be anyway. If Leo can't supply by that date then the order is upgraded AUTOMATICALLY to AOG status at Leonardo's cost (AOG orders cost more due to priority shipping etc).

There is no priority due to what support contract you are on, only what priority it was ordered at.

If anyone gets priority due to a shortage of parts, it is EMS.

Yes, it goes to AOG, but if theres still no parts available then it makes diddly squat all difference, as is being seen.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicop...155614.article
/
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...s-92-operators

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.

But still 12 months for an mbg

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).

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.

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!

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.:ok:

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!

Yup! Nailed it.

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. :ok:

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 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.

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

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.

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!

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?

30k S-92
 

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..

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

92-0007 is G-LAWX