Oil rig chopper down at sea (March, 2009)

[carholme]

Stl;

There is not the slghtest bit of information to suggest any concerns about certification unless you get caught up in the meaningless argument about 30 min run dry capability. The S92 was given an exemption to the FAR 30 min. run dry based on probabilities. If one were to jump all over this and say that their probablity estimates were well off the mark, that would be true but now that they have replaced all of the weak link titanium studs, external oil leakage as a result of broken studs, may be a thing of the past.

Many helicopters are still flying offshore and do not have run dry capabilities.

To suggest the crews (per the Globe and Mail) were ill informed to the point that they may have presumed the aircraft actually had this ability doesn't say much for the crews and their knowledge of the aircraft.
However the ongoing controversy feeds directly into the angst of the offsore workers and no matter how much you convince them of the technical aspects of the replaced titanium studs, until the aircraft acquires several thousands of safe operations, this nagging question is not going to go away.

I am not suggesting that Cougar imposed the rule as a means of not dealing with the issue but rather as a means of meeting the understandable fears of the offshore workers.

carholme

[sky's the limit]

Sorry Carholme,

I can't buy that.

Sikorsky has marketed the machine as the "only helicopter to be certified under (the stringent) FAR Part 29" and yet they were exempted from a test that makes up part of that certification because they knew it wouldn't pass. This is not how it's supposed to happen.

Replacing the studs does NOT change the fact the tranny won't run without oil pressure, regardless of how it is lost. Granted, the likelihood of complete oil loss after these studs have been replaces is remote, but I seem to remember them saying that before the failures came to light.

There is either a standard, or there isn't. The machine was behind in terms of delivery and certification, and it seems there were oversights made to get it operational. The fact other helicopters are flying without it is here nor there, as this is supposed to be a major step forward in terms of safety and efficiency, neither of which seem to be the case.

I am certainly no expert on the S92, but looking at the machines I do fly, there have been some famous certification gaff's for decades now. Nothing has changed.

stl

[carholme]

Well if you can't buy that, I am not in a position to convince you or anbody else. The regulatory agencies approved the aircraft with the probablity exemption and I doubt they foresaw the stud failures but that is human frailty.

There are no guarantees in helicopter development and after being involved with them for over fourty years and seeing many of the new model problems, I can only wish the S92 well and hope that like the 61 and the intro problems it had, that the S92 forges ahead to become another stalwart.

carholme

[sky's the limit]

And I.

But I question the process more and more the longer I am part of all this.

stl

[2.5milefinal]

Not sure I want to get in the middle of this BUT I can not help but think the regulator (FAA, TCCA,etc.) share alot of the blame. Company's (manufacturers) do only what they a loud to get away with. (?)

[sky's the limit]

Not sure I want to get in the middle of this BUT I can not help but think the regulator (FAA, TCCA,etc.) share alot of the blame. Company's (manufacturers) do only what they a loud to get away with. (?)

That's certainly what I am suggesting 2.5

When regulators are advocates like the FAA, we have a problem, and it is one that has been around for decades.

stl

[2R]

Well if you can't buy that, I am not in a position to convince you or anbody else. The regulatory agencies approved the aircraft with the probablity exemption and I doubt they foresaw the stud failures but that is human frailty.

There are no guarantees in helicopter development and after being involved with them for over fourty years and seeing many of the new model problems, I can only wish the S82 well and hope that like the 61 and the intro problems it had, that the S92 forges ahead to become another stalwart.

carholme

Perhaps they should be registered as "Experimental Aircraft" until such time as they get all those falling out of the skies uncontrolled or inflight destruction bugs worked out .Experimental operation would save them having to fake flight tests for certification .

[Widow]

FAA issues directive to change flight manual for chopper after N.L. crash
By THE CANADIAN PRESS – 1 hour ago

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. — The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has issued a directive to change the rotorcraft flight manual for the Sikorsky 92-A chopper, the same model involved in a deadly crash off Newfoundland earlier this year.

The American regulator says the change to the manual is required because some normal and emergency procedures involving the main gearbox may be unclear following the March 12 crash that killed 17 people.

The regulator says changes to the manual procedures are intended to clarify those procedures to give crew members the best available information in the event of any main gearbox failure.

Shortly after the crash, the regulator issued an emergency directive stating that the titanium mounting studs on the main gearbox filter assembly must be replaced with steel ones before the Sikorsky 92-As could fly again.

A month ago, those choppers resumed carrying workers to Newfoundland's offshore oil platforms.

The Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash and a public inquiry has been launched to review offshore worker safety conditions.

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... HHwMuMlvGw

[YHZChick]

No offence, but that's a pretty useless story considering there is zero indication on what specifically they are clarifying.

[Sulako]

No offence, but that's a pretty useless story considering there is zero indication on what specifically they are clarifying.

No offense, but that's a pretty useless post, considering there is zero new information.

I have gone over your post history and I see some friction between you and widow. Careful that it doesn't affect the quality of your posts.

[YHZChick]

No offence, but that's a pretty useless story considering there is zero indication on what specifically they are clarifying.

No offense, but that's a pretty useless post, considering there is zero new information.

I have gone over your post history and I see some friction between you and widow. Careful that it doesn't affect the quality of your posts.

I have a keen interest in this story, and MGB issues in SickHorsey birds in particular.
What are they saying?
Are they saying when oil pressure drops below a certain point to put her down immediately?
Are they making it clear in the documentation that pilots should not expect a 30 run-dry capability?
I'd like to know, and if the story doesn't specify, than it is rather useless, don't you think?
Window didn't write the story. I have no personal beef with her.

[Widow]

Vertical Mag has made it easy to find:

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S- 92A Helicopters

[_dwj_]

And here is the relevant bit:

Since the fatal accident and since issuing AD 2009-07-53, Sikorsky has issued revisions to the Normal and Emergency procedures of the RFM. We have determined that these revisions are necessary because the existing procedures are unclear, may cause confusion, and may mislead the crew regarding MGB malfunctions, in particular the urgency to land immediately after warning indications of loss of MGB oil pressure and oil pressure below 5 psi. This action does not mandate the procedures the pilot must perform in an emergency, but requires making changes to the RFM to clarify and emphasize the Normal and Emergency procedures addressing specified MGB malfunctions, thus giving the pilot the necessary information to make an informed decision

So as I understand it, they are just saying you really should land immediately if this happens. But of course it won't happen, because it is an "extremely remote" possibility.

[Widow]

Families of passengers on downed chopper of N.L. file lawsuit in U.S. court
By THE CANADIAN PRESS – 58 minutes ago

The families of 15 passengers who died in the crash of a Sikorsky helicopter off Newfoundland and the sole survivor of the tragedy are suing a subsidiary of the company in the United States.

Martin Brigham, a Philadelphia lawyer, says he has submitted a complaint before the U.S. court of common pleas naming Keystone helicopters, a Pennsylvania-based subsidiary of Sikorsky.

In an email statement to The Canadian Press, he says the families of the offshore oil rig workers want answers on the safety issues raised by the crash.

The S-92 Sikorsky aircraft, operated by Cougar airlines, plunged into the North Atlantic shortly after leaving St. John's on March 12, killing 17 of the 18 people on board, including the pilot and the co-pilot.

The statement from the law firm says the primary purpose of the families is to "get answers to serious questions about the design of the S-92 helicopter."

A spokesman for Keystone was not available to comment.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is still investigating the crash, but it has said that titanium mounting studs that attach an oil filter bowl assembly to the main gearbox broke during the flight.

The board has said the pilots indicated there was a problem with the main gearbox oil pressure before the crash.

The titanium studs have since been replaced with steel under a directive first issued by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.

Breakage of a mounting stud "could result in rapid loss of oil, failure of the main gearbox, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter," the FAA said in its order.

Sikorsky was made aware of the issue last August when an S-92A was forced to make an emergency landing in Australia after experiencing low oil pressure. The company issued an Alert Service Bulletin in January, asking that operators replace the studs within a year or by 1,250 flight hours.

The company has not commented directly on the gearbox problem reported before the crash off Newfoundland.

The Transportation Safety Board has said it remains unclear precisely what caused the crash, but less than 10 minutes after the oil pressure loss the chopper slammed at high speed into the Atlantic, about 65 kilometres southeast of St. John's.

Robert Decker, the lone survivor, escaped through the helicopter's window.

In his statement, Brigham says the families want to "use the legal system to ensure that other families never have to experience this type of tragedy."

The statement also says the families are seeking financial compensation, but doesn't provide the amount being sought.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... fkkd4InakQ

[Old fella]

Well I for one think the surviving family members deserve some financial compensation. Outside of company life insurance (if available and provided), I would think any other type of life insurance would be difficult to get and if able, would certainly be pro-rated due nature of the job and risks associated with off-shore.

When the Ocean Ranger tipped over and sank (February 14/1982 – I remember that night well), lots of questions/issues came up on survivor benefits.

[Widow]

Assuming they were all deemed to be worker's, and claimed their Worker's Compensation benefits (which you must claim in short order, and which, in my experience, doesn't even come close to recovering lost wages, let alone other hardships which cannot be sued for in Canada due to the limitations of the Family Compensation Act), the liability coverage required by the air operator is voided/not required to be paid.

Again, assuming they were all deemed workers and covered by WCB, they cannot sue anyone covered by, or that pays into, Worker's Comp in Canada - leaving only the CDN gov't or persons/entities outside Canada as potential parties to a suit.

[Sidebar]

Martin Brigham, a Philadelphia lawyer

There really are Philadelphia lawyers!

[Old fella]

Assuming they were all deemed to be worker's, and claimed their Worker's Compensation benefits (which you must claim in short order, and which, in my experience, doesn't even come close to recovering lost wages, let alone other hardships which cannot be sued for in Canada due to the limitations of the Family Compensation Act), the liability coverage required by the air operator is voided/not required to be paid.

Again, assuming they were all deemed workers and covered by WCB, they cannot sue anyone covered by, or that pays into, Worker's Comp in Canada - leaving only the CDN gov't or persons/entities outside Canada as potential parties to a suit.

Interesting comment and more to the point, educating me as I certainly have no knowledge on Workers Comp. As I said these folks deserve some type of redress( financial) to assist in getting on with their lives and if they have to seek such redress through the US tort law, well so be it and all I can say is - God Speed.

Cheers

[2R]

Any case law on WCB rules trumping Tort law ?

Would not the persons/company/certification branch/ be responsible and accountable for the "thirty minute lies" ?
No new placards for the aircraft yet ,so this is not over .Every big court case ends with a settlement and a placard for the aircraft.

[Old fella]

"Any case law on WCB rules trumping Tort law ?"

Not in the US where proceedings will be held

[Widow]

What the WCB does out east is unknown to me. I only know that in our case, they claimed they had no jurisdiction to investigate. Negligence did not trump the "no fault" rule.

[YHZChick]

My issue with the lawsuit, quoting from the Globe and Mail

The lawsuit argues that the pilots would have attempted a controlled landing on the surface of the ocean almost immediately had they been aware of the S-92's true capabilities. “Within seconds of being alerted to the rapid loss of oil pressure in the MGB, the pilots turned the aircraft towards a safe landing site, which was close enough to be reached within the purported 30-minute ‘run-dry' capacity of an S-92 helicopter. Because of the defendants' misrepresentations and misstatements, the pilots were not aware that complete loss of operational control was imminent, and therefore, they did not attempt to set the craft down immediately on the water while the pilots still maintained control of the helicopter.”

I have a bit of an issue with someone saying what someone else would have done, or what someone else knows when that person is not around to verify that. As we've seen many times over the past 6 months, pilots are not infallable, and it's not inconcieveable that given the hostile Atlantic conditions, they may have opted to push their luck rather than ditch.

I don't have time right now to look for it, but while I have seen SK marketing material which states that the S-92 has run-dry capability, that does not mean the actual flight manuals and checklists indicate that pilots could continue flying (I recall that they indicate otherwise). I'll have to go back and look it up when I have a moment. Those are the documents that count. I've yet to meet a pilot who took slick glossy brochures into the cockpit and relied on the information in them to make their decisions.

[Widow]

Considering what -dwj- pointed out as the relevent portion of the latest AD, I personally can understand why the families/lawyers might make that statement.

[YHZChick]

Considering what -dwj- pointed out as the relevent portion of the latest AD, I personally can understand why the families/lawyers might make that statement.

Oh, I know perfectly well why lawyers would make that statement (I spend far too much time in the company of lawyers) . Can you provide me any evidence to support it beyond a doubt? (Yes, I am well aware the burden of proof for civil suits is far lower than criminal).

[Widow]

YHZChick,

Can *I* provide evidence? Perhaps you meant, can they provide sufficient evidence. I understand why most everyone hates lawyers, and may be suspicious of their motives. I have no idea of the veracity of the suit, but I certainly understand the need of the famlies (with or without the help of lawyers) to "get answers to serious question". I am not the only person who has ever been disappointed in the results from TSB (or other investigative agency). They sometimes present more questions than answers. The emotional need for answers can be overwhelming.

The article states that 15 families (of 18) are parties to the suit. I would be interested to know why the three other families (including Mr. Decker) have not filed. There could be many different reasons.