chopper_guy Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 It's been a month since the last mention of the S92 on these pages. Does everyone accept that the basic problem is solved and that this is a reasonably safe helicopter to be flying offshore? This machine has a transmission that will fail 10 minutes after losing it's transmission fluid, and it is flying at least an hour offshore. The cracked filter bowl is only one way in which oil can be lost. To suggest that removing the titanium studs and replacing them with steel solves this problem is rediculous. Anyone who has a good knowledge of aviation knows that this machine is seriously flawed. Has Couger adapted any special proceedures to eliminate as much as possible the possibility of catastrophic failure in flight? Is there a fix coming that gives 30 minute or more dry run capeability? I am having a very difficult time believing that every knowledgeable person on this forum believes that this problem is solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottyp1973 Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 i guess we need a quote for the tc type cert regulations to answer that question. i believe the steel instead of titanium is a huge upgrade due to fatigue, but i have not seen the s-92 installation to form an oppinion, i wonder how many ips the transmission sees to cause these studs to shear. or is it improper torquing during filter change? or do the studs take a side load some time during mtce. lots of questions need to be answered before anyone should say this machine is a pos. im sure the insurance companies will find any outstanding issues before their payouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heliian Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 A longer Dry run capability would have still put them in the ocean. Loss of XSMN oil pressure= land immediately. The military want the dry run to be higher so the machine could hopefully make it to friendly territory when a bullet punctures the XSMN oil system. If you had 30 min dry run time halfway through a 90 min flight, you still ain't makin land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper_guy Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 A longer Dry run capability would have still put them in the ocean. Loss of XSMN oil pressure= land immediately. The military want the dry run to be higher so the machine could hopefully make it to friendly territory when a bullet punctures the XSMN oil system. If you had 30 min dry run time halfway through a 90 min flight, you still ain't makin land. I really don't think that the oil filter studs are the issue, except as the apparent cause of this particular total loss of oil. The dry run capeability is the issue. At least a 30 minute capeability would allow a few more options such as getting clear of a fog bank, or finding another drill rig or ship, etc., to land on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMike Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 . At least a 30 minute capeability would allow a few more options such as getting clear of a fog bank, or finding another drill rig or ship, etc., to land on. 30 mins is better than zero mins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helilog56 Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 A longer Dry run capability would have still put them in the ocean. Loss of XSMN oil pressure= land immediately. The military want the dry run to be higher so the machine could hopefully make it to friendly territory when a bullet punctures the XSMN oil system. If you had 30 min dry run time halfway through a 90 min flight, you still ain't makin land. A controlled ditching perhaps ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heliian Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Yes, the longer run-dry time the better i agree. But I can't think of any other machine with a published run-dry time, most FM's will say to land immediately. Whether you're over the ocean or over a metropolitan area, you're options are severely limited. Hopefully an incident like this never happens again. Canada should have stuck with the eh101 and saved us taxpayers millions upon millions upon millions, WTG government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over-Talk Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Canada has EH101s (SAR Cormorants) and they are definitely NOT saving us millions !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper_guy Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Canada has EH101s (SAR Cormorants) and they are definitely NOT saving us millions !!! We should have bought the EH101's the first time around. It cost us 1/2 billion to get out of the contract for the privilage of getting the same machine, plus some mods, for a lot more. As for the dry run capeability, in the old days, most work was done over land where an emergency landing could usually be made in 5 minutes. It's time the manufacturers woke up and realised that the offshore world needs something better. Shame on them for trying to get away with producing a machine where all you can do when a g/b oil failure occurs is to hope that conditions will be safe for an immediate ditching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outwest Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 AW139 is tested/certified/published with 30 min run-dry, and that is TRUE run-dry, not requiring any kind of aux system of lube/cooling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.