Jump to content

Globe & Mail Article On S-92 Yesterday


Recommended Posts

There was a article in the Globe & Mail explaining the exemption clause the S-92 had for 30 min run dry main gearbox. Did the operators know that you only had minutes in the case of oil loss? If they did why were they flying at 9000ft? Also why would you wait to change the studs knowing that a failure offshore would leed to the loss of the aircraft. There was a stud failure in a Australian S-92 in 2008. The aircraft landed safely in 8 minutes. I'm sure that gearbox was toast. Why were operators not informed of the condition of the gearbox and the need to land immediately if oil pressure is lost? Those studs should have been a grounding item until fixed knowing that the failure of them could leed to aircraft having to ditch if offshore. I hope Sikorsky is hung out to dry on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You;ve been sucked into the media vortex......... :o There's really nothing new in that article.

 

I'm sure the operators know of the "run dry" problem. This has been public knowledge from the get-go.

 

9000ft??? Wx, icing, wind......you can't fly the machine as if it's going to fall apart.

 

Too many variables to even comment on. None of us were there.....I for one am going to wait for the TSB report.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a article in the Globe & Mail explaining the exemption clause the S-92 had for 30 min run dry main gearbox. Did the operators know that you only had minutes in the case of oil loss? If they did why were they flying at 9000ft? Also why would you wait to change the studs knowing that a failure offshore would leed to the loss of the aircraft. There was a stud failure in a Australian S-92 in 2008. The aircraft landed safely in 8 minutes. I'm sure that gearbox was toast. Why were operators not informed of the condition of the gearbox and the need to land immediately if oil pressure is lost? Those studs should have been a grounding item until fixed knowing that the failure of them could leed to aircraft having to ditch if offshore. I hope Sikorsky is hung out to dry on this.

 

I must admit that a machine not rated for 30 minutes run-dry (not to say you'll ever get the full 30) on the transmission seems like an odd choice for offshore work. Maybe it's just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about landing on a frigate in the North Atlantic? Anyone remember that this is going to be the SeaKing replacement? Obviously the media hasn't figured that one out as I have yet to see any reporter ask that question. I to will wait for the TSB report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good day mmck, here some info , which were missing from the news report:

 

1-The Australian incident was cause by improper maintenance pratices. I guess that why the stud replacement was required to be change during a year period.

 

2-The aircraft RFM is explicit about lost of all oil pressure for the MGB: land or ditch immediatly. If you oil pressure is above 5 psi and no others indication than you can continue to fly.

 

FH :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...