A good but biased report
I am a S-92 pilot.

I think they should have includeed the emergency check list for the problem.

I await the TSB report with great interest.

What I found most troubling about this story is that Sikorsky felt that a year to replace the studs was reasonable following the Australian crash. I mean, how much do studs cost? Why would not they have recommended replacing them immediately?
There seems to be a tug-of-war between admitting a design flaw and possibly opening the gates to litigation versus being transparent and putting safety first. It was interesting to me that Titanium was used for these studs in the first place as Titanium is not inexpensive and some engineer must have thought that they would be superior to stainless steel. Why was that and do the stianless steel replacements have some other troubling aspect of which we are not being informed?

Very interesting and confusing information
regarding the gear box.

Today I would like to know if they have put
in new studs that are twice as large as the
orginal ones. Also Add 4 more studs to the
same Gear Box.

I would like to know how they have repaired this
gear box and have it approved by
Dept of transport. Leaking oil from a main gear
box that can put the helicopter into a quick
uncontrollable crash is certainly has cause for
alarm for the oil workers and pilots. I believe
there minds on this disaster every time they
leave port. Very Sad.

This sounds similar to our disasters with Toyota
and Honda and all car manufactueres cut the costs
of having safety first let the car owners have
their problems and crashes then we might come up
with a solution.

In otherwords you must give up your life in order
for mfgs to make changes.
This is the new age of how much is your life worth
today.

We also have similar problems in the water, air
and rail transportation systems.

We are having problems in the meat industry.

Now I know with all these problems coming
and we have a Government that does not have
funds, inspectors and all the safety issues that
are going to arise. It means the general public
better start looking into this matter along with
CBC who does a great investigative program to
get better results from all the manufactueres
who better start improving all their human safety
elements.

I would like to be notified by the general public
that they need another crusader to fight for
their safety . "Ralph Nader" and if is not
available Call Jerry Ross (email. rossequip@rogers.com

The pilots are required to wear survival suits they don't fly without them and they manage the controls fine Kim.

Air regulation, and by extension ETOPS, are designed to prevent people from going into the water unless the aircraft is suitably equipped. Airplanes and engine manufactures must demonstrate through historical operational data or,.., that a single failure is not going to result in their machine and passengers going down into the water.Having 2 or 92 engines does not mean much if they all depend on 1 part/bolt to keep the machine airborne.
This Sikorsky could not even fly for the 30 minutes the manufacturer claimed.
This is moot if the failure had been half way to the rig (45 minutes). Are these passengers worth less than airline passengers?
Since industry people seem to know that Immediate Ditching” is recommended, is it common insider knowledge that the helicopter won’t stay airborne long? If a maintenance person knows that how come the people in the helicopter didn't?
Ditching is a very hazardous occurrence. Can the S92 be ditches? Has it been demonstrated? Is this another “Trust the Manufacturer claim?

ETOPS clearance for aircraft has nothing to do with how far the arcraft can glide.

i think you need to know about something before you can comment. much like all the public outcry of how unsafe the s92is. most people know nothing about the aviation world and perpetuate a lot of nonsence they heard elsewhere.

i am an S92 engineer and i know of the problems that it has. but there are also many questions to be asked why the crew did not ditch the aircraft. they had time and the procedures said they should land immediatly. but they chose to keep heading for land. im sure it was a horrible decision to have to make, and i dont blame the crew for trying to make land. but there is more to this than mearly how sikorsky got the MGB certified.

One of the key issues must be the 30 minute run dry capability. Did the pilot understand the chopper had that capability - or did he know it had been certified 'as equivalent' due to low likelihood of oil loss - ie - it did NOT have that capability.

With 30 minute run dry - the correct decision would clearly have been to set down on the nearest piece of dry land (as he was apparently trying to do). This would avoid the risks of a ditching at sea (the rule of thumb I have been told is that one third die in a ditching - ie - using the odds, six of the 18 would die).
However, without the run dry - the only choice was to ditch asap - accepting whatever risks followed.

We all know that machines, like people, are not infallible - but there needs to be clear procedures.

As an example - if a vessels requires only one fire extinguisher, but the owner chooses to fit a second extinguisher - that second one must be serviced and maintained equal to the required fire extinguisher - why - clearly because in an emergency, the crew may grab either & they both must work.

Based on the information in the press the key issue in many ways remains the 'run dry capability' - what information was the pilot given. based on his actions - it seems clear he believed he had 30 minutes to make a safe landing.

The oil filter housing studs is of course the proximate cause - the near miss in Australia should have been the wake-up call - how many near misses are ignored?

One other issue is the actions of the TSB. The CBC last June published the families' statement of claim which focused on the 30 minutes run dry issue - a couple of days later the Transportation Safety Board published a press releasae which seemed to imply the cause was different & in some way related to the tail rotor. It appears to me that press release blew the families law suit out of the water - and forced them into a position of settling out of court. Perhaps I misunderstood - maybe someone more closely connected to this would like to comment on the TSB's June 18 press release.

Its insulting that you don't allow these videos available for US fans like me.. What criteria do you use to decide the ones available for Canadian viewers alone??

As an oilfield worker who has flown offshore with Cougar many times, the one question that I still have is: why weren't there more survivors? What went wrong? Why did only two manage to get out and only one survive? What good our survival suits and HUET (Helicopter Underwater Escape Training)? Is there something fundamentally wrong with our training and our survival gear? For that matter, is there something fundamentally wrong with the design of the egress points in the S92? There are only two large openings in the craft. Were the two who managed to get out just lucky to be by those two egress points, whilst the others were doomed by where they sat? Until flight 491, I always thought that - with my training - I had a good chance of surviving a helicopter ditching. That faith in my equipment and training has vanished with Cougar 491.

Thank you 5th Estate for this documentary. I hope that this gives at least one small push to the powers that be to PLEASE rectify these safety issues. Loved ones can never be replaced and families should never have to settle for memories alone. God bless the families and friends left behind, you are never far from my thoughts.

I find it a little hard to believe that sikorsky can't come up with a fix. If the filter can't be secured with studs why not try a conventional spin-on base and filter?I know it sounds simple but maybe that is the problem. Sometimes engineers can't see the forest for the trees. There is also another filter system where the filter is enclosed within the system itself. Foolproof I would say! Maybe would save a few lives, get the drift?

I found your coverage good but incomplete. This tragedy is base on a gearbox that didn't work without oil pressure for 30 minutes. However, the real question is who approved Sikorsky S-92? Our Canadian maintenance manual is side by side with the FAA. Transport Canada is no longer the third party who can also inspect what company are doing, it's too expensive. Therefore, Transport Canada is working with the company to make aircraft maintenance safer. I'm not blaming Cougar. My concern is if Transport Canada is working with the company instead of doing some inspection themselves is the information that lead to approved Sikorsky S-92 was from the FAA or Sikorsky. Is the FAA getting information from Sikorsky themselves or an independent third party is doing the test. I think there might be a conflict of interest. Shouldn't we review how we approved aircraft? If all we do is to modify few things to make it safer, how could we trust them. In my opinion, it's sound like pleasing the public opinion and not getting at the real problem, the expensive gearbox. I'm still not convince that the gearbox can run without oil pressure for 30 minutes (past and current safety standard)even after this terrible tragedy. I think family members have the right to know that Sikorsky S-92 is now safe and verify by a third independent party. To the families who lost loved ones , and to Mr. Decker, may you find the strength and courage to move forward in your lives after such a tragedy.

If this helicopter cannot fly 30 minutes after the common "rare loss of oil"" why is it carrying passengers 90 minutes over water? Airlplanes must be within gliding distance from land if they cant fly after a failure. I guess these passengers are not as important as people going to Europe.

If the pilot does not wear a survival suit[can't manage controls wearing one], where is the motivation for him to land the craft safely on the sea for escape.
It naturally follows that he would keep going for landfall despite aircraft warnings to set down.
I would do the same.