S92- Everything Is Hunky Dory?

[chopper_guy]

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.

[scottyp1973]

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.

[Heliian]

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.

[chopper_guy]

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.

[MMike]

. 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

[Helilog56]

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 !

[Heliian]

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.

[Over-Talk]

Canada has EH101s (SAR Cormorants) and they are definitely NOT saving us millions !!!

[chopper_guy]

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.

[Outwest]

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.