Talk:Cougar Helicopters Flight 91

Start

LeadSong, it looks good so far. I heard about this eariler on Thursday from the S-92 article, and I have no doubt this one is notable. Good job getting it up and running. - BillCJ (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bill. While still developing, this one looks bleak.LeadSongDog (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the more "notable" an accident is, the worse it probably was. Definetely no joy in writing something like this. Btw, is the flight number "91" or "911". I'm unclear on the difference. - BillCJ (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like CHI 91 according to CADORS and FlightTrack. I'm unclear where the 911 started.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

CBC was initially referring to it as "Cougar 911", at least on the CBC News website articles covering the story. CTV news, both nationally and on the CTV-affiliate NTV in St.John's, have been referring to it as Flight 491 since the accident on the 12th. I'm not sure where either of them is getting its information.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice little update from the CBC - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/20/helicopter-stud-replace.html Annihilatron (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorporated. Wow.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Times

The CADORS report has: CHI91, S92, enroute from St. John’s (CYYT) to the Hibernia Oil Platform at 12:15Z, declared MAYDAY due to a main gear box oil pressure problem and requested to return to St. John’s. Air Traffic Control cleared the flight as requested. At 12:25Z aircraft ditched at position 472605N515658W. the times appear to disagree with the article which says ditched 9:40 and 9:48. Unless the local time is offset by an odd number of minutes? but we also have a time difference between the events. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The initial reports giving 9:10 and 9:18 were in error, later corrected to 9:40 and 9:48 at this afternoon's press briefing. The error arose because the Rescue Coordination Centre in Halifax is on Atlantic Time, 30 minutes later than Newfoundland Time. I suppose they use local time because of daylight being important to SAR operations.LeadSongDog (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They normally work on zolo time for SAR operations. The guy who incorrectly reported the times is based in Halifax and simply neglected the half hour time difference when reporting the local time. So when they report to the media they try to use local times (for the people watching) but they use zolo time when they work. --Corilof (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See Also

I'm not sure the "See Also" link to the Copterline 103 crash is appropriate; that was a different model of Sikorsky and the possible cause appears to be unrelated to the known or suspected cause at this point. Should this section be removed?Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree it doesnt appear to be related. MilborneOne (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

some more links....

Maybe a section on current "controlled landing", i.e. ditching techniques would help.

Include accounts of successful landings, marine and terrestial and video links.

suggestions: Wiki: "Sikorsky S-6IN G-BEID" [1]

"Helicopter Crash. Pilot could not be saved" [2] "Helicopter Crash 1" [3] Pete318 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete318 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article Water landing to which we pipetrick Ditching. That article could use a discussion of helicopter ditchings. We do not know at this point whether this was a controlled ditching or an outright crash. Was the pilot able to autorotate? Was the gearbox seized? The investigation will eventually tell teh tale, but it is still too soon to know and we don't speculate.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps the the main article on controlled landings, terrestrial and marine, belongs in the "water Landing" item then linked to this one later. Either way marine ditching is much more complicated. At one time pilots might have been expected to break the rotor blades before setting on the water. The "Water Landing" does not articulate the complex differences between fixed wing and rotating wing emergency landings.

Probably too soon to enter either in this main article.

Pete318 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this makes sense to incorporate or not, but it sure is interesting. Oliver Moore, Peter Cheney (26 March 2009). "For want of a small part, was the copter lost?". The Globe and Mail. LeadSongDog come howl 20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a good link. However two points..... (1) I vaguely remember the discussions around AA-flight 191(DC-10) in 1979 that a failure of a single fastener(s) resulted in the disaster. The investigation found that it was a little more complicated than that.[4]

(2) the term "gearbox" is ambigious and vague. Speed reducers with high speed input shafts are far more sophisticated than low speed transmissions ("gearboxes") which often don't even need pressurized lubrication. A good schematic is difficult to find.

Pete318 (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Flight number 91 vs 491

This has been edited from 91 to 491 and back at least twice now. If anyone has a confirmed reference indicating the Flight Number as 491, please include it in the references section and tag the article title or usage with it. So far all official references (the CADOR report and the flightpath website link) refer to this as Flight CHI91.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In CBC News coverage of today's memorial ceremonies, the 491 number was used by both the priest celebrating the mass and by one of the Cougar pilots, shown in uniform, it's clearly a designator that is in use. See this and this local news story. For now, I'd suggest an "also known as" and a redirect.LeadSongDog (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Created a 491 redirect page leading here, added the "also known as" and highlighted the CADORS report which refers to it as Flight 91. Hope that will do.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the aircraft was flight planned as "COUGAR 91" or "CHI91" but was listed as 491 to the passengers with the 4 being for day 4 Thursday. Certainly the aviation authorities like CADORS and the FAA [5] use CHI91 and the popular press 491. Could be wrong just some original research. MilborneOne (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Casualty section

I'm not sure whether this section is appropriate or not; but since others have added it I cleaned up the text and corrected the reference since the previous reference didn't indicate the passengers and crew.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is normal pactice only to list casualties that are notable, that is have a related wikipedia article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday's edits, citing The Globe and Mail

Yesterday a UK-based one-time IP editor made four edits, evidently in good faith, that seem to have drawn on sources other than those cited. These will need to be chased down. Also, the Globe and Mail cites seem to have gone behind a paywall. If a subscriber was to provide |quote= for the relevant parts of those sources it would be helpful. Alternatively, other sources should be sought. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cougar Helicopters Flight 91. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090318073141/http://www.cougar.ca/images/pdf/Cougar%20Helicopters%20-%20Press%20Release%2003-13-09.pdf to http://www.cougar.ca/images/pdf/Cougar%20Helicopters%20-%20Press%20Release%2003-13-09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cougar Helicopters Flight 91. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002180321/http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/ohsi_phase_one.shtml to http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/ohsi_phase_one.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002180341/http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/ohsir_phaseii.pdf to http://www.cnlopb.nl.ca/pdfs/ohsi/ohsir_phaseii.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)