Talk:Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

CH-148 Pic

I have gotton permission from the author of the CH-148 J.PEG for use, please do not remover! thank youSkydog1531 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You still have to provide proof of the release. WP doeasn't play around with copyrights. There is no harm rmoving the image for now while you get things straightend out. I'll have an admin contact you to tell you what you need to do. But until WP has legal proof, you need to stop adding the image to the article. It's a good way to get yourself blocked. - BillCJ (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture posted, with its compression artifacts and motion blur, actually looks like a still-frame from the first flight video which was posted on the Sikorsky intranet shortly after the maiden flight. Is the quoted "photographer" the person who was shooting the film? The listed "Sikorsky" photographer name (Terrance Jonhas) does not appear in the UTC/Sikorsky corporate directory. --Cefoskey (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I can confirm that the picture was not a stillframe and was an actual photo. I believe this is the original. --Cefoskey (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikorsky strike

Sources from 2007 say the Sikorsky strike delayed delivery from November 2007 to January 2008. However, 2004 articles state that delivery was to be no later than November 2008. Somehow the delivery date seems to have changed. Currently, Sikorsky and DND are not discussing delivery, only that DND has not opted to impose late penalties (up to $36 million). If anyone has a better reference for the fluctuation in the delivery timeline between 2004 and 2007, it would be appreciated to clarify this seeming mistake in the cited references. --Born2flie (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The original delivery date on the CH148 had always been November 2008, which was 4 years from the contract award. On 9 Jan 2008 the first delay was announced moving the new delivery date to 9 Jan 2009 (the strike occurred in 2006, and its effect on the CH148 program specifically is arguable). In the summer of 2008 it was announced that the delivery would be delayed further, with no mention of a new agreed upon specific date. The Canadian DND has basically asked SAC for up to US$200 million in upgrades to the helo (mission system, possible engine and landing gear upgrades, all outside the original contract scope), which is why I am assuming the harsh rhetoric regarding the older dates has been toned down since Jan. --Cefoskey (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The current reference used states January 2008. While that is likely to be a typo, the article is from 23 January 2007, so the date confusion ensues. Flightglobal.com doesn't clarify the issue any,[1] and neither does Rotor&Wing.[2] So, what is needed is another reliable source that spells it all out accurately. Got references? --Born2flie (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My only reference is myself, so I suppose its "original research". I'm a Sikorsky engineer and was on the H92/CH148 program full time from 2004-2007, and still support production. However, I've since moved on to other SAC development programs. --Cefoskey (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From SAC press releases here and here --Cefoskey (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. today announced it has signed contracts worth C$5-billion with the Government of Canada to provide and maintain 28 Sikorsky H-92 maritime helicopters. The new H-92s will replace Sea King aircraft currently in service with the Canadian Forces and deliveries are scheduled to begin in late 2008.

We are on target for the first flight of Canada's new Cyclone in November 2007, and for deliveries to begin in November 2008

This may be the source of the confusion, the reference to first flight in November 2007 and delivery a year later. Still, there seems to be no direct reference to the delay being until 2009, although IP editors will continue to edit the year to make sense. Was the integration of fly-by-wire also a reason for delay? --Born2flie (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail source states the 9 January 2009 revised date which was set in January of this year [2008]. Various Canadian news sources over the spring and summer had been quoting a further delay of up to 30 months. No official word Ive been able to find from either SAC or DND regarding such an extension. The FBW system was tested successfully on a development S92 in December 07; but I am unaware of any specific issue with the FBW system with respect to the CH148 delays.--Cefoskey (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

July 2,2012 (4 years later): Still no CH-148s delivered. The Globe & Mail reports,"The company is late on two fronts. In addition to delays in delivering the final version of the Cyclone helicopter, Sikorsky is also well behind on its promise to deliver an "interim" version of the Cyclone for training."[3] Santamoly (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

dead link at sikorsky site

I found a nov08 press release [4] --Jor70 (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The program costs seem a little low..

FlightGlobal says it's a much more expensive program with a more up-to-date cost revision Another source on the cost increases is a defense blog:

1. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/28/345477/sikorsky-accepts-concessions-to-canada-after-new-ch-148.html 2. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canadas-CH-148-Cyclones-Better-Late-Than-Never-05223/

Hope you see it fit to update the costs! 98.223.65.187 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)imnotaneditoryet

Running 30 minutes on dry gearbox

I removed this claim. I searched for a reference that could back it and found none.

"The CH-148 will be designed to fly for 170 minutes under extreme conditions and to fly over 30 minutes with a dry gearbox."

Here is what I did find.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudicourt (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This Av Week article mentions the CH-148 will share the modified gearbox with the S-92. I added that to the article in the Design section, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not yet delivered

I removed this statement from the article:

"After a long series of delays the Canadian Forces began to take delivery of interim aircraft beginning in February 2010."

The CF has not yet taken delivery of any CH-148. The aircraft that has been coming to Halifax for sea trial has a Civilian US registration, N4901C and is operated by the manufacturer. Here is its picture:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Sikorsky-Aircraft)/Sikorsky-CH-148-Cyclone/1716227/L/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudicourt (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Good point. Similarly I modified the lead sentence from

"The Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone is a twin-engine, multi-role shipboard helicopter manufactured by the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation for the Canadian Forces."

"The Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone is the name of a troubled twin-engine, multi-role shipboard helicopter program, to be manufactured by the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation for the Canadian Forces.

The program is under the gun, and may still be cancelled.

I am about to add references to support the adjective "troubled". Geo Swan (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh??? The original Lead sentence is not in any way false or misleading, and did not need to be changed in any way. Further info can be addex to the Lead on the status of the program,but don't change the Lead sentence. - BilCat (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, there are better sources available than CSAR, which as far as I can tell is more of a blog than a reliable secondary source. It's certainly not a neutral source, as much of it is commentary and opinion, even if it is well researched info. This story from FlightGlobal is a much better starting point for the latest info. - BilCat (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

1. The original lead sentence refers to the helicopter as if models have actually been built, and delivered. That is false. Sikorsky delivered some civilian airframes -- not CH-148s. No CH-148 have been manufactured. Reliable sources have written that Cabinet may have to cut its losses, and seek another manufacturer. That would be a different aircraft, not a CH-148. So, I will continue to assert it is misleading to write about the CH-148 as if models had been built and delivered.
2. So far as you can tell CSAR is "more of a blog than reliable secondary source". Well, I suggest if you look more closely, you will find it is a (small) academic think tank. If used to be based out of Simon Fraser University.
3. You assert CASR is not a "neutral source". Wikipedia contributors are supposed to draft our contributions from a neutral point of view. There is no obligation for us to only use references that are written from a neutral point of view. This is a good thing, as practically none of the references we use are written from a neutral point of view. Please consult WP:NPOV for advice as to how cover topics from a neutral point of view, using references which are not completely neutral.
4. The program is years late, over-budget, and Sikorsky is trying to weasel out of some of the deliverables. Are you really going to dispute RS that point this out and dispute it is fair to paraphrase their coverage of the program's troubles and describe it as "troubled"?

• Lee Berthiaume (2014-01-03). "Tories sticking with TROUBLED' military helicopters to replace ancient Sea Kings". Canada.com. Archived from the original on 2014-01-20. Retrieved 2014-01-20. Rumours had circulated for several weeks that the government was considering all options, including a pushing the reset button, over U.S.-based aircraft manufacturer Sikorsky's ongoing failure to deliver 28 Cyclone helicopters to replace the 50-year-old Sea Kings. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• "Canada's CH-148 Cyclones: 4th Time Lucky?". Defense Industry Daily. 2014-01-05. Archived from the original on 2014-01-20. Retrieved 2014-01-20. Canada's Maritime Helicopter Replacement Program has been a textbook military procurement program over its long history external link. Unfortunately, it has been a textbook example of what not to do. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Marilla Stephenson (2014-01-10). "Cyclone controversy keeps on swirling". Halifax Chronicle Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-01-20. Retrieved 2014-01-20. It is only a few months since the government was huffing and puffing about cancelling the TROUBLED 2004 contract with Sikorsky to buy 28 Cyclone helicopters, plus 20 years of maintenance support, in favour of purchasing a different helicopter from a competitor. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• "Feds rack up $1.7b in chopper expenses". Halifax Chronicle Herald. 2014-01-09. Archived from the original on 2014-01-20. Retrieved 2014-01-20. More than $1.7 billion has already been spent on the elusive effort to upgrade Canada's helicopter fleet, internal documents show — a clue as to why the Harper government is sticking with the TROUBLED program. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Did you read the flight global article you pointed to? Surely it supports the adjective "troubled"? That article has a sidebar that points to six other articles from that site that support the adjective "troubled":

• Canada plays down hints of breakthough in Cyclone deal
• Canada's Cyclone helicopters remain in limbo
• IN FOCUS: Canada's mixed defence procurement record
• HELI-EXPO: Sikorsky “hopeful” on resolution of Canadian helo contract impasse
• No resolution in sight for Canada's Sikorsky Cyclone saga
• Canada reveals new delay for interim CH-148 delivery
• Sikorsky accepts concessions to Canada after new CH-148 delays

Do you, by any chance, have more convincing counter-arguments than those you have offered so far? Geo Swan (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• The article is on the helicopter first and the Lead needs to say what it is/does first. The "to be manufactured" is wrong given that some interim CH-148s have been built. Will use "being developed" instead. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I dispute your assertion that "some interim CH-148s have been built". The militarized CH-148 is based on a civilian air-frame. The civilian version has a different name, and is universally considered a different helicopter. The CH-148 has added military "kit" -- which alter its flight characteristics, and mean the DND can't simply run the civilian version through its acceptance tests. Sikorsky was prepared to provide civilian versions of the copter, for testing and training -- copters that would remain Sikorsky property. DND declined, because the civilian copters are different enough those tests wouldn't be helpful.

So I maintain that it is misleading to assert "some interim CH-148s have been built." Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• The S-92 has mechanical controls, while the C-148 has fly-by wire controls among other differences. One CH-148 was built and flown in 2008. Three or four CH-148s were at CFB Shearwater in 2012 for testing/evaluation per DID. So at least 3 'interim' CH-148s have been built, but not delivered. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Note: your linked article explicitly says "Throughout the program’s troubled history, Sikorsky has remained largely silent about contractual issues and aircraft development." Given that you can't find references that don't call the program troubled your intransigence over this term is deeply puzzling. Geo Swan (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• What does that have to do with my post that you are actually replying to? And I stated why 'troubled' was out of place in the first sentence above. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I made this change, re-inserting the accurate and helpful description that the program is "troubled" -- a description I explained above.

Without any explanation except labelling my edit "nonsensical" in their edit summary another contributor reverted my edit -- including an unexplained referencectomy. I left a note on their talk page, requesting as a courtesy to other contributors could you please explain controversial or complicated edits on the talk page -- not in your edit summary? Controversial edits, explained only with an edit summary is our most common trigger for edit-warring. There is a very strong temptation for the other party to reply in their own edit summary, when they make another reversion. Instant edit-war.

Discussions like this can't be followed, just by looking at the contribution history page. To really make sense of the discussion a later third party reader has to page through every edit in a series of edits, because the edit summary comment doesn't makes sense outside of the context of the change it explains. Even then, these comments are so rapidly made, rest on so many unstated assumptions, that no amount of patience and good faith can make them make sense afterwards. Further, good faith contributors should really feel entitled to expect to find explanations for controversial or complicated edits on the talk page.

If no one makes a meaningful, civil attempt to explain this excision I will assume there is no meaningful, policy-compliant explanation, and I will restore the wording I prefer. Geo Swan (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• BilCat's edit mainly removed the "is the name of a troubled..." wording that was removed previously. His edit summary said there was no consensus for such a change. Also, the citing format/style should not be changed except by consensus per WP:CITEVAR. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• User:Fnlayson, are you arguing that you and User:BilCat can object to calling the program "troubled" -- without making any effort to explain why?

I am sorry if you are offended by this, but I think your unexplained objections make it necessary for someone to remind you of the WP:COI policy. If you work for Sikorsky, of the DND, or a Sikorsky subcontractor, you are not supposed to edit this article, without disclosing that you are in a potential conflict of interest. The policy lays out the limits to edits that can be made by individuals in a potential conflict of interest. I am not accusing you of being in a conflict of interest, but your apparent unwillingness to address the overwhelming references that either explicitly call the program troubled, or have used equivalent wording, gives the appearance that you may be in a conflict of interest, and need to be reminded of the COI policy.

• As for your claim that your edit was justified by WP:CITEVAR -- sorry, this claim exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what that guideline means by "citation style". CITEVAR absolutely did not authorize your disruptive rewriting of perfectly good references, to conform to your personal preferences.

Wikipedia:Footnote3 describes and example of what CITEVAR means by the term "citation style". Back in 2005, prior to the introduction of <ref></ref> directives, contributors used pairs of {{ref}} {{note}} pairs. It is an inferior citation style. It is compatible with the more recent <ref></ref> directives. You have totally misunderstood what the CITEVAR guideline suggests. What it suggests is that if you work on an older article, written when contributors used the WP:Footnote3 citation style, and all those references still worked properly, you should leave them alone, on the well known principle "if it is not broken, don't fix it."

You claimed I introduced a new citation style, without first gaining consensus for doing so, and thus was not complying with CITEVAR. Bzzzt. I used <ref name=""/> directives and {{tl}cite}} templates same as the other references in the article. I did not introduce a new citation style, and your edit did not restore an original citation style -- it was instead a disruptive and unnecessary reformatting of those references without transforming their style at all.

The first sentence of the WP:CITEVAR section says:

Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.

Neither my edit, or your edit, lapsed from the specific letter of the advice of CITEVAR. But, given that your disruptive edit was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of CITEVAR, the actual motivation of your edit seems to be a serious lapse from the spirit of the advice in CITEVAR. Specifically your unnecessary and disruptive reformatting seems to be motivated solely by what CITEVAR recommends against -- edits based "merely on the grounds of personal preference".

I am afraid you have no idea how disruptive reckless unnecessary reformatting like yours is.

The Wikimedia software suite provided to us on the wikipedia has powerful features that help enable collaboration. One of those feature that can help enable collaboration is the revision history maintained for every article, talk page, template, file.

Our articles mix together two kinds of information. Articles contain the "text", the intellectual content -- what the article actually says; and articles contain "metadata", information that controls the formatting of the article's content, and how it is linked together.

Those of us who have a long history of contributing intellectual content, work on articles, incorporate info from new references, and then go away, until we come across another new reference that should be incorporated into that article to bring it back up to date. That could mean we haven't looked at the article for months -- or years.

The first thing a content contributor will want to do when they return to an article they have worked on in the past is to use the article's revision history to generate a diff showing just the changes to the article since the last edit they made, or the last edit they knew was trustworthy. When other contributor have been responsible, and have resisted the temptation to make edits solely to make the appearance of the article within the editor conform to their personal preferences, the diff will show just the actual changes.

But when reckless contributors feel free to make pointless, unnecessary disruptive edits, solely based on personal preference the diffs will be lit up like christmas trees, making worthless the diff between points in time separated by months or years. Reckless contributors who make pointless, unnecessary edits, as you did, force content contributors to step through each individual edit, one at a time. Sometimes that can take a half hour -- or an hour.

Please reflect on how angry reckless contributors make content contributors, who realize, after they have been forced to page through all those edits, one at a time, that they have found that ALL of the intervening edits were reformatting of how the article appeared in the editor, and none of them were made to the actual article content. It is maddening.

1. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to never make edits to articles, merely to make its appearance within the editor conform to your personal preferences.
2. If you have a genuine, legitimate reason to add metadata, formatting information, linking information, new templates, I urge you to do so in a way that changes the actual text as little as possible. Some paragraphs are composed of multiple shorter lines, while others consist of a single very long line. It is disruptive to unnecessarily reformat paragraphs composed of multiple shorter lines into a single long line. It is the kind of worthless edit that erodes the utility of diffs. Adding or removing newlines is one of the most disruptive unnecessary reformattings someone can make.
3. If you have a genuine, legitimate reason to edit references leave them in the form you found them to the greatest extent possible. If the reference was written with all the fields on a single line, leave it that way, and merely add or amend the fields that need attention. If the reference was written with each field on a single line, leave it that way.

Let me return to my first point. Neither you, nor BilCat, has offered a single meaningful reason why the deeply troubled program should not be described as troubled. Geo Swan (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Geo, your complete failure of WP:AGF here is extremely troubling, with your unfounded accusations of WP:COI being especially so. Please remember that casting aspersions on other editors is a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy and can be considered a personal attack, and your accusations on other editors of being "reckless contributors" skirts civility as well.

Now, as for the actual statement at the root of this dispute, stating in the body of the article that the program "has been described as troubled" would be an accurate and fair, cited description. Placing as the tenth word in the lede the unqualified descriptor "troubled", however, is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:POV. It is not Wikipedia's place to describe any project as "troubled" - which is what putting that word in the lede does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see your UNDUE -- and I suggest that in this particular case, you are not calling upon it appropriately -- I suggest WP:FRINGE applies. The program has been troubled for so many years that every independent reference that comments on the program now either calls it troubled, or uses equivalent wording. Putting wording in the lead paragraph that reflects that the news articles routinely called "troubled", right in their headlines, would only be UNDUE if there were other articles that described the program as on budget, on schedule, and able to deliver all the elements in its original contract. But we won't find any coverage that says this. Even Sikorsky, the contractor, has tacitly acknowledged the troubles in the program, since it has pleaded to have elements of the original contract struck -- because it can't deliver them.

I don't care if we choose to keep the word "troubled" exactly where I put it. But to obfuscate how deeply troubled the program, by keeping coverage of its troubles from the lead sentences, that would be a serious lapse from accuracy and could be interpreted as us choosing to give the appearance of a pro-Sikorsky bias. The wikipedia should not publish hagiographies. When the references available to us describe a program as troubled, it does not require WP:SYNTH or a lapse from WP:NPOV for our coverage to describe it as troubled. We have no obligation to help Sikorsky Corporation maintain the value of its stock by obfuscating from our readers the well documented opinions of all independent RS that the program is troubled. When essentially all the references describe it as troubled I suggest it is appropriate for us to say so in the lead sentences.

The notion that the program is not troubled is not covered by any RS -- making the notion the program is not troubled a FRINGE notion. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That is not how WP:FRINGE works, and it doesn't change the fact that even if the program is described as "troubled" by all sources, describing it as "troubled" in the lede is still passing judgement on the program in Wikipedia's voice, which is something we do not do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There are now four Cyclone helicopters which have been delivered to Canada and lots more controversy has occurred.

Four helicopters have been delivered

"Spooling Up The Cyclones". Vertical Magazine reporting on July 11, 2013 noting that four (4) helicopters have been delivered to Canada: http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Spooling-up-the-Cyclones -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewest (talk • contribs) 08:53, 2013 September 10

More controversy about the Cyclone helicopters

"Cyclone Helicopter Contract Revisions Urged By Report". CBC News has a detailed 18 minute news video report and article from September 4, 2013:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/09/04/pol-power-politics-cyclone-sea-king-helicopters-sikorsky.html?autoplay=true

"Helicopter Purchase's Fate In Doubt As Ottawa Examines Other Models". The Globe and Mail reporting on September 5, 2013:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/helicopter-purchases-fate-in-doubt-as-ottawa-examines-other-models/article14155484/

" 'Other options' sought For Sea King Helicopter Replacements". CBC news reporting on September 5, 2013:<br / http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/09/05/pol-sikorsky-cyclone-helicopters-sea-kings-contract-public-works.html

"Maritime Helicopters' Future Up In The Air". The Star Phoenix reporting on September 6, 2013:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Maritime+helicopters+future/8882589/story.html

"Helicopter Timing Unclear If Sikorsky (Is) Ditched". The Metro News reporting on September 6, 2013:
http://metronews.ca/news/canada/787563/helicopter-timing-unclear-if-sikorsky-ditched/

Mikewest (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)