• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Investigators 'Baffled' by Sea King Engine Fires on March 7 2007

Bruce Monkhouse

Pinball Dude
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
5,497
Points
1,360
By Murray Brewster, THE CANADIAN PRESS
     
OTTAWA - Two of the navy's aging Sea King helicopters suffered debilitating engine fires on the same day aboard different warships under circumstances that flight safety investigators are at loss to explain.
A preliminary investigation suggests the No. 2 engines on both aircraft overheated because they were inexplicably sprayed with fresh water, clogging air compressors with ice.

Why it happened on two ships - dozens of kilometres apart - within hours of each other is the subject a continuing probe.
"I'm baffled with that question myself," Capt. Katherine Ashton, a former Sea King pilot and currently a flight-safety investigator, said Monday.

The mysterious incidents, which took place aboard HMCS Charlottetown and HMCS Athabaskan on March 7 last year, are detailed in documents obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
Both warships were part of a naval exercise off southern Nova Scotia and were accompanied by the supply ship HMCS Preserver, according to an incident report filed the day of the mishaps.

The weather was frigid when the helicopters lifted off for separate patrols. As a matter of routine when a chopper returns from over-ocean flights, technicians give the engines a hot-water wash to remove potentially corrosive salt spray.
A solution of 60 per cent fresh water and 40 per cent methanol - or anti-freeze - is hosed on the hot engines.

Ashton said investigators have determined that there was no methanol in the mixture. With the air temperature between -11 C and -18 C in both instances, ice quickly formed on the compressors.

Aboard the frigate Charlottetown, flight line crews noticed a blue flame shooting out of the engine, as warning indicators flashed in the cockpit. The pilots immediately killed the engine.
The circumstances were repeated later that evening with a different Sea King aboard the destroyer Athabaskan. In that case, the pilots shut down the engine before flames started flickering out the vents.

The navy has decades of experience launching and recovering aircraft from warships in the icy grip of the North Atlantic.
Ashton says after 10 months, investigators have not been able to determine why the engine wash solution on both ships was not properly set and whether negligence was involved.

No was injured in either incident, but both helicopters were grounded and their engines removed for repairs, which are continuing, she said.
A bill for those repairs has yet to be finalized and Ashton wouldn't speculate on damages. Both helicopters and a third aircraft aboard the supply ship were lifted off the warships by crane once back in port for safety reasons.

"An investigation is still ongoing," Ashton said.
In the meantime, the air force has tightened maintenance regulations, ensuring that methanol is carried aboard ships where helicopters are deployed.

The CH-124 Sea Kings, which have been in service over 40 years, are due to be replaced by new Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclones, starting later this year

 
'bout time this hit the press.

A preliminary investigation suggests the No. 2 engines on both aircraft overheated because they were inexplicably sprayed with fresh water, clogging air compressors with ice.

I love this one, "inexplicably"! HAHAHA! It's quite simple really, salt builds up on the compressors while flying 150ft or lower over salt water, and during the shutdown we wash the engines by spraying fresh water into the intakes for 1 min. Why is that so inexplicable? This happens everyday, that's right, every single day. And it was the #2 engines because that's the first one we wash.

The media is great isn't it?
 
Inch, i think this is the part that explains their use of "inexplicably"

The weather was frigid when the helicopters lifted off for separate patrols. As a matter of routine when a chopper returns from over-ocean flights, technicians give the engines a hot-water wash to remove potentially corrosive salt spray.
A solution of 60 per cent fresh water and 40 per cent methanol - or anti-freeze - is hosed on the hot engines.

Ashton said investigators have determined that there was no methanol in the mixture. With the air temperature between -11 C and -18 C in both instances, ice quickly formed on the compressors.

 
That may be, but how about this...the techs forgot? Since we usually operate in weather above 4 degrees, ie we rarely operate off the coast of Halifax, more like Virginia where it's usually considerably warmer.

It's actually quite neat to see the methanol mixture hosed into the engines, creates a nice sound and accompanying glow from the exhaust.
 
This really is a non-event - apart for the fact the the techs screwed up the mixture. 

Almost every aircraft in the CF fleet undergoes some time of anti-corrosion bath after every flight in a salt water environment.  The Cormorant hovers in a ball of suspended salt water almost half of its flight hours.  Hence its corrosion issues with the airframe.
 
Sometimes after a long flight in the 140, we can barely see out th windows as they are just covered in salt. A trip through the bird bath and a good corosion cotrol program is key.
 
What is baffling is that a former Sea King pilot would say that she is baffled by the situation.
If the explanation is so apparent, why would the investigator(s) come out in public to say they can't explain it?

Obviously there are issues of who flies em and who maintains em but this Press release makes no sense to my Green (land) senses.
 
geo said:
What is baffling is that a former Sea King pilot would say that she is baffled by the situation.
If the explanation is so apparent, why would the investigator(s) come out in public to say they can't explain it?

Obviously there are issues of who flies em and who maintains em but this Press release makes no sense to my Green (land) senses.

I think she's baffled by the fact that 3 different dets forgot to add the methanol, all on the same day, and 3 helos had to be craned off because of it.
 
... time to check out the SOPs
If all crews follow the same SOPs that have been set in stone by the maintenance gods, then it is reasonable to think that all crews will act in a uniform way... resulting in the same mistake...
 
geo said:
... time to check out the SOPs
If all crews follow the same SOPs that have been set in stone by the maintenance gods, then it is reasonable to think that all crews will act in a uniform way... resulting in the same mistake...

Thanks, but it's already in the FMLD's (fixy & maintainy directions for aircraft) to add methanol when the ambient temperature is below 4 degrees and as I already stated, it's not something we do often so it was forgotten. In fact, in my 800+ hrs of flying the Sea King, I've only had to have the methanol blend for an engine wash twice.
 
Ah.... as I stated, directions (FMLD) from the maintenance gods.
Guess everyone has a brain fart at the same time
 
It happens... most of the mistakes techs make would have been prevented by reading the pubs.  Not to say it's ok, but it happens.  You'll see quals pulled in particularly severe cases.
 
So, any charges filed?  Neglect and failure to comply with directives that leads to a significant asset being rendered unserviceable would seem to meet the standard for proceedings under the code of service discipline.
 
Thanks, but it's already in the FMLD's (fixy & maintainy directions for aircraft) to add methanol when the ambient temperature is below 4 degrees and as I already stated, it's not something we do often so it was forgotten. In fact, in my 800+ hrs of flying the Sea King, I've only had to have the methanol blend for an engine wash twice.

And I have never seen it used in 1200 Sea King Hrs...mostly West Coast and Gulf time where freezing temperatures don't come up that often.   ;)

So, any charges filed?  Neglect and failure to comply with directives that leads to a significant asset being rendered unserviceable would seem to meet the standard for proceedings under the code of service discipline.

We don't sail in the North Atlantic in the winter that often anymore.  Couple that with low at sea experience levels due to the Cyclone run up and tech retirements and I suspect charging anyone would be a bit like continuing the beatings until morale improves...

 
dapaterson said:
So, any charges filed?  Neglect and failure to comply with directives that leads to a significant asset being rendered unserviceable would seem to meet the standard for proceedings under the code of service discipline.

  I'll second SKT's position, I don't see many technical charges on this fleet;  I can only assume the reasoning is similar to what he outlined for the Sea King techs.  That and perhaps our lost experience extends to preparing tech charges from higher up the chain.  I've seen one instance where the effort was made to lay charges but the investigation wasn't carried out in a manner to support them.
  Tough to say.  The vast majority of techs I have worked with don't take any chances where aircrew safety and air assets come into play; nobody wants to be involved with an accident.  People want to produce; but that can-do attitude sometimes shoots you in the foot.  Do everything by the book and it takes as long as it takes; the rest of the weight for operations sits elsewhere.  If it's not safe then I'll open the 349 myself to keep the plane on the ground.
 
dapaterson said:
So, any charges filed?  Neglect and failure to comply with directives that leads to a significant asset being rendered unserviceable would seem to meet the standard for proceedings under the code of service discipline.

If things would work that way (that every time there is a flight safety incident, you press charges), then the flight safety organisation wouldn't be nearly as efficient as it is right now.  People are not afraid to report flight safety incidents.  If you did press charge after every flight safety (after all, 90% of flight safety incidents are due to human factors), people would not report incidents...  And others wouldn't be able to learn from other's mistakes.

Max
 
dapaterson said:
So, any charges filed?  Neglect and failure to comply with directives that leads to a significant asset being rendered unserviceable would seem to meet the standard for proceedings under the code of service discipline.

Neglect and being human are two very different beasts. It wasn't neglect. Does me breaking the landing gear by smacking it on the bear trap constitute neglect or the price of doing business? It wasn't the first time landing gear was damaged during deck landing training and it certainly won't be the last despite what the procedures say. 

It's not like anyone would intentionally damage an aircraft, I'm with the other guys, lower experience levels created this incident. There was a time that there were 7 AirDets on this coast, we're down to 3 now and the accompanying experience levels have also dropped since there are only sea going positions for 33 techs out of 200+, 6 of those slots are for Sgts and MWOs.

FYI, the FMLD's come in many many binders, I'm sure how many, but it's more than 10 3" binders. People are smart, but it's pretty well impossible to know everything in there, we know the stuff we run into regularly and thanks to this incident, there's an entire generation that now know the damage caused by not using a Methanol blend in freezing temperatures. Sometimes a damaged couple of engines is what it takes to learn a lesson, at least no one died. Hell, it took a ditching 2 years ago for us to take a closer look at our night over water procedures.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
And I have never seen it used in 1200 Sea King Hrs...mostly West Coast and Gulf time where freezing temperatures don't come up that often.   ;)

We don't sail in the North Atlantic in the winter that often anymore.  Couple that with low at sea experience levels due to the Cyclone run up and tech retirements and I suspect charging anyone would be a bit like continuing the beatings until morale improves...
So is that to say that admin/disciplinary action shouldn't be taken against the next tech that leaves his watch in the engine compartment because his inexperience made him forget to remove it prior to conducting a maint routine. This is a case though where because it happened on 2 different ships that maybe 12 wing should look at stepping up refresher trg for shipborne airdets. I know they work hard, very hard most of the time (I've sailed with many) and sometimes things do get forgotten, hell I've forgotten things myself.  Perhaps a checklist airframe wide would help, or as the arty world puts it "a series of independant double checks"
 
Perhaps a checklist airframe wide would help, or as the arty world puts it "a series of independant double checks"

Exists already.  We have so many checklists, we need checklists for the checklists...

Our entire maintenance system is built upon at least a double check and sometimes a triple check.
 
dapaterson said:
So, any charges filed?  Neglect and failure to comply with directives that leads to a significant asset being rendered unserviceable would seem to meet the standard for proceedings under the code of service discipline.

My god, stay over at NDHQ.

We're more intersted in finding out what happenned and how to prevent it than charging people. Like others have said, it happenned on more than one det so its not an individual technician issue.
 
Back
Top