End of the 225?

[Hompy]

Is this the end for the 225 offshore?

It took a lot less for the chinook but back then passengers had a younger and louder voice.

The move by Airbus to include an older Puma variant puts more pressure on operators and regulators to get the type(s) flying again. Were it to remain 225 specific would it be easier to 'do a chinook' and leave the 225 for military use only?

What would it take in the current economic climate for a type to stop transporting passengers offshore?

[roundwego]

Is this the end for the 225 offshore?

It took a lot less for the chinook but back then passengers had a younger and louder voice.

People tend to forget that the Chinook continued to operate in the Norwegian sector very successfully for several years after the last UK accident. It eventually stopped service for economic and commercial reasons, not because the aircraft was unsafe.

[Hompy]

True, but the three flying for Conocco stopped flying for over a year and were subject to seat reduction and other modification before returning to service(until 1995). They stopped flying altogether in the UK sector.

I draw the comparison because the chinook has proved itself as a very effective and safe machine. Many pilots and crew liked it.

However, the majority of offshore passengers didn't like it and decided they did not want to fly the type offshore. Apart from the three in Norway from 87-95, it stopped flying offshore.

[henra]

However, the majority of offshore passengers didn't like it and decided they did not want to fly the type offshore. Apart from the three in Norway from 87-95, it stopped flying offshore.

The Chinook was simply not economical for Pax Offshore Transport. Way too much lifting capacity and too complex Mechanical design for pure Bus Shuttle service.
Unless you want to transport 105mm Howitzers Offshore. Than it's the ride of choice. :E

If the Chinook had been economical they would have returned it to Offshore Service. Created some Smoke and Mirrors and some Power Points around it (Had that existed back then) and everything would have returned to normal a bit later. The reluctance of the Pax was just the final nail in the coffin.

[Tango123]

Fingers pointing on the end of not only the 225, but also the L2 as well. That could be the case, unless there is evidence that it is not the main gear box that failed.

Nok en helikoptertype settes på bakken ? (http://offshore.no/sak/267383_nok-en-helikoptertype-settes-pa-bakken)

[roundwego]

It stopped in the UK because Shell no longer had a requirement to move the large number of workers required on the Brent and associated platforms. Most of the flotels were disappearing and it was cheaper and more efficient to use fixed wing to Shetland and smaller helicopters from Shetland to offshore. Although the Chinook had a chequered history in the UK sector, it was pure commercial reasons that caused its demise.

[Hompy]

It stopped in the UK because Shell no longer had a requirement to move the large number of workers required on the Brent and associated platforms. Most of the flotels were disappearing and it was cheaper and more efficient to use fixed wing to Shetland and smaller helicopters from Shetland to offshore. Although the Chinook had a chequered history in the UK sector, it was pure commercial reasons that caused its demise.

And yet it stopped immediately after the last accident in the UK. There was pressure on the oil companies from the offshore workers but how much this had an effect is anybody's guess. However, you cannot call the last accident and subsequent cessation of offshore flying for the type a coincidence.

That was 1987. This is 2016 and the 225 has had an equally 'chequered' history, if not worse.

[Tarq57]

Guy I work with used to work on a rig in the North Sea.
He said that all the workers were quite worried about the trip out (and back), but were always relieved when they found that their steed for the day was a Sikorsky 61.

They were all scared to travel on a Puma. Chinooks weren't mentioned. Maybe they weren't used on the operation he was on.

[Fareastdriver]

The old S61s used to catch fire quite often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_British_International_Helicopters_Sikorsky_S-61N_crash

[roundwego]

The old S61s used to catch fire quite often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_British_International_Helicopters_Sikorsky_S-61N_crash
....and again here.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Engine fault caused helicopter fire (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2159156.stm)

[Special 25]

And that is where you have Lies ........... Damn Lies ............... And Statistics.

The EC225 / H225 hasn't had 6 incidents, although I'm sure the press would have you believe that.

The 225 has had 4 incidents (I think) and this is the first that has ever resulted in injury / fatalities. How you view the Gearbox issues previously - Serious incidents for sure, but if they had happened over land and the aircraft had landed in a field, we wouldn't have really been talking about it - As per the S92 that did that at least 3 times (Australia / Brunei)

And another incident that was entirely pilot error, where the strength and excellent escape characteristics of the 225, enabled everyone to vacate the ditched aircraft without getting their feet wet.

So an excellent aircraft with a well proven and trusted design, or an inherantly flawed machine? I don't honestly know the answer, but I'd still fly the EC225. I think it is as proven as any helicopter globally. On the flip side, I guess Concorde was always flawed, there just weren't enough flying hours on it to have seen that fatal scenario occur previously.

[industry insider]

From Fareastdriver's link

The helicopter left the Safe Felicia semi-submersible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-submersible) oil rig in the Forties oilfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forties_oilfield) at 13:45 with 2 pilots and a full load of 19 passengers for the one hour flight to Sumburgh Airport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumburgh_Airport) on the Mainland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainland,_Shetland) of Shetland.

Not surprised that G-BEID caught fire if they were pulling enough torque in the old S-61 to make Forties - Sumburgh in one hour.

[Max Contingency]

End of the 225

Long term: No idea, but the history of aircraft being removed from commercial service due to lack of passenger confidence goes right back to the Comet (Concorde, Chinook et al)

Short term: CHC plus Zenon are both looking for S92 pilots for Aberdeen, the Zenon recruitment says 12 month contracts. To me that indicates that no one expects to see the 225 released back to the line in the UK any time soon.

[cyclic]

Babcock also looking for S92 contractors.

[212man]

As per the S92 that did that at least 3 times (Australia / Brunei)

Yes; they dodged a couple of bullets there!

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I used to fly the 332 L1 and L2, and the S61N. I'd be very interested in a worldwide set of stats for MGB failure on the S61. Off the top of my head I can count 5 in flight on the NS alone.

There is a bit of research failure in demanding the 225 be grounded for ever. The 332 had small number of MGB problem after 30 years of service, the 225 has had one failure after maybe 10 years. I had a 61 MGB problem, landed on the platform we had just left and found the MGB was failing fast, another 5 minutes and we would have been swimming. The S61 MGB was a known weak link, but no-one shouted for the 61 to be grounded.

I would happily fly the 332 series again or the 225 because their safety record is in fact bloody good.

SND

[Outwest]

The S61 MGB was a known weak link

The MGB was/is very reliable, no rotor heads that I know of ever departed. Now the inputs/free wheels , those are a weak link.

[Satcomm]

The MGB was/is very reliable, no rotor heads that I know of ever departed. Now the inputs, those are a weak link.

No rotor head, just main rotor blades ... Which all had the same negative result.

I don't believe the 225 will be done. The big oil companies will ultimately dictate the return to the Northsea and I suspect with the down turn there will be no major rush. If we were still in the 100+ a barrel, I bet the push would already be on. Hey, we already seen one self proclaimed advisor stating in the other thread that his company were already talking about how they could rehabilitate the 225. By that I don't believe the oil company is going to redesign the gearbox for Airbus ... Pretty sure they mean, they are going to "rehabilitate" the passengers!

[Outwest]

No rotor head, just main rotor blades ... Which all had the same negative result

As I mentioned in the other thread, even losing 6' of one blade did not cause the head or MGB to depart.

My post referred to the statement that MGB was a weak line, which I disagree with. Not saying the 61 did not have other issues in its 60 years of service.

[Satcomm]

Outwest, there were several issues with the 61 gearbox early on with oil loss that resulted in ditchings and that may have been what Sir Niall was referring too.

Didn't mean to undermine that fact that there have been no rotorhead detachments in the 61 but there have been several fatal crashes resulting from the rotor head throwing blades.

Really just comes down to the fact that every type out there is responsible for loss of lives and its really not conceivable to believe that one fatal crash of the 225 will end its days.

[Twist & Shout]

Isn't it two fatal crashes involving failures of this transmission? One L2, and one EC225. Hence both types currently grounded by some authorities. (Cause of failure still to be determined. Which might end up being the biggest problem.)

If the cause can not be 100% determined, it can't be fixed.

[Outwest]

Satcomm,
Yes, oil loss meant input/babbet bearing failure, definitely a ditching immediately situation. However as I said as far as I know there was never a situation where the head and half the gear box split and departed, and this is when a/c were designed with slide rules. I would hope things would be better engineered today with the tools available now.

[Satcomm]

T&S - Was only referring to the 225 as that is the title of the thread. There has only been 1 fatal crash of the 225. Yes, I agree, this has always looked like a repeat of the L2 and now looks like the CAA may be going that route as well ... that said, it does not change the fact that this is still the only fatal crash of a 225.

The 92 has had a fatal accident and at least one other emergency landing for the same reason. Luckily, the aircraft that ditched was still at the coastline and was able to easily land on solid ground. Had they been off shore it may have been a different outcome. It took about 5 years for that oil filter issue to arise and we now have another 6 years on the new filter design. Who's to say we are not on the verge of seeing an issue there again. During the 92 incident, people wanted it gone ... Bring back the super puma.

The 61, the workhorse right, well, it has been responsible for many many lives over the years. Many of which were repeats of known areas of concern ... Maybe the 61 would not have survived in today's age of the Internet. There would have been Facebook pages and petitions calling for the 61s head .... People swearing they would never get in a 61 again .... Send me on the super puma. You could cycle a petition around Facebook on any topic and get 20000+ to jump on board. The problem is it holds zero weight, 90 % of the people signing wouldn't even know what they are "liking"

The list goes on and on from the the 76 to the 139 to the mils and everything in between. Flying in a helicopter will always come with a risk. It is a known risk but an accepted risk when you decide to step aboard ... Whether you are going to work, sight seeing, fishing, skiing, etc. The guys up front have accepted this risk as a profession everyday.

[Satcomm]

Satcomm,
Yes, oil loss meant input/babbet bearing failure, definitely a ditching immediately situation. However as I said as far as I know there was never a situation where the head and half the gear box split and departed, and this is when a/c were designed with slide rules. I would hope things would be better engineered today with the tools available now.


Again, sorry, but like what? The 92? The 139?

[Outwest]

Again, sorry, but like what? The 92? The 139?
I assume you are referring to my statement that I would hope things would be better engineered today...
Yes, agreed, all of those types included.

I'll say one more time, my inital post was in response to the comment that the 61 MGB was weak, I don't know of any other type that could take the punishment that heli-logging put on a 61 MGB and survive. I do know that they tried logging with a Puma once and the bbq plate failed with fatal results.

No type is perfect, but the 61 gear box and its mounting is not weak

[Satcomm]

Outwest, I agree, the 61 is a beast. I have been involved with the 61 helilogging, fires and offshore. My initial posts were only to state that regardless of MGB, it has been involved in its share of incidents.

Having said that, If you've been involved in logging, you have seen plenty of MGB mounting (gearbox fittings) failures! Nothing catastrophic but you have seen plenty of fittings cracked and replaced .... Just saying! She's a beast, no doubt!

[Outwest]

For sure, lots of cracks in logging machines, but lots of warning and always stayed attached to the airframe ;-)

[jimf671]

... ...

The list goes on and on from the the 76 to the 139 to the mils and everything in between. Flying in a helicopter will always come with a risk. It is a known risk but an accepted risk when you decide to step aboard ... Whether you are going to work, sight seeing, fishing, skiing, etc. The guys up front have accepted this risk as a profession everyday.

Good post Satcomm.

Much agreement.

[HBXNE]

"I do know that they tried logging with a Puma once and the bbq plate failed with fatal results."

In CH we were logging with the first AS332c/c1 700-800 hours a year from mid '80s to mid-late 2009. Logging has tapered off. We did have our share of broken bbq plates in the early years. 1 or 2 of forward tangs are what usually broke. (I also had 2 AS332c models with broken plates in Nfld.) While logging in CH we were visually inspecting this area at lunch and in the evenings. Working rivets under the attachment points of the bbq plate were repaired as required at the 400 hour and later 500 hour inspections. Westland produced the bbq plates intially. AS brought the plate manufacture back in house after the Super Puma was lost on Vancouver Island. The new plate was stronger and there was new attaching hardware at the bbq plate airframe interface which was tq checked at 50 hour intervals. The transmission/bbq plate hardware was on a 25 tq check cycle. How AF cycles were counted was much clearer defined while logging: 20 cycles/hour. We had no more broken plates after that. Our logging machines were and are very well maintained.
A very strong, reliable well built aircarft IMHO that I was very happy to work on and fly in.
Marcus

[SASless]

The Norwegians has two 61's win the Spindle Chunking Contests as I recall....and it was put down to the Operating Procedures they used as compared to the Bristow Nr procedures.

[Outwest]

It was never my intent to besmirch the integrity of any other a/c, I was only defending the MGB of the 61.

[Satcomm]

Can't run a thread about the end of the 225 without comparing it to the competition. Old and new!

[Outwest]

Rumor has it that Shell and Woodside in OZ have dropped the 225 regardless of the outcome of the investigation and 225 pilots are being given the option of 92, 139 or 332 re-training.......

[Kulwin Park]

Maybe the BELL 525 will be the EC225 replacement now?

[Lonewolf_50]

However as I said as far as I know there was never a situation where the head and half the gear box split and departed, and this is when a/c were designed with slide rules. I would hope things would be better engineered today with the tools available now.
Between the new tools and the competitive nature of the industry as it necks down, one of the things that the tools do is aid and abet attempts at optimization, which among other things allows for new and interesting ways to chase the weight bogey with an over all aim to (among other design objectives) increase effective payload? One wonders if, in the slide rule era and only three significant digits, more components didn't get a rounding up in erring on the side of robustness. The other thing I wonder is, from those who have been involved in design and test, is how much and how many tests to ultimate load (deformation or failure) you'd see in the slide rule era versus now? Don't know, and am thinking out loud a bit.

[Subsea]

And yet it stopped immediately after the last accident in the UK. There was pressure on the oil companies from the offshore workers but how much this had an effect is anybody's guess. However, you cannot call the last accident and subsequent cessation of offshore flying for the type a coincidence.

That was 1987. This is 2016 and the 225 has had an equally 'chequered' history, if not worse.

The Chinook crashed off Sumburgh in '86. The offending pieces still lie with RGU in Aberdeen for student case-studies.

The Chinooks stopped flying to the Shell offshore installations as soon as the telex was received from the Brent Charlie stating that the next Chinook landing there would be flipped over the side by use of the crane. Almost immediately we were into S-61's that were well liked - even after the Brent Spar disaster. Puma's were always distrusted, particularly after the Tiger variant ditched off the Cormorant Alpha. I was close by on the horrific night.

[P3 Bellows]

Puma's were always distrusted, particularly after the Tiger variant ditched off the Cormorant Alpha. I was close by on

I do wish people would us the word "ditched" correctly.

The Tiger (AS322L) off of Cormorant Alpha was flown into the sea and therefore "crashed". It was pilot error and nothing to do with the aircraft. The aircraft did what the pilot asked it to do.

The press often use "ditched" when in fact the aircraft "crashed".

The two EC225s that lost lubrication to the MGB and conducted a precautionary water landing "ditched". All of the other recent helicopters in the North Sea "crashed"

Just because water is where the aircraft ended up is no reason to use the word ditched.

P3

[John Eacott]

I do wish people would us the word "ditched" correctly.

The Tiger (AS322L) off of Cormorant Alpha was flown into the sea and therefore "crashed". It was pilot error and nothing to do with the aircraft. The aircraft did what the pilot asked it to do.

The press often use "ditched" when in fact the aircraft "crashed".

The two EC225s that lost lubrication to the MGB and conducted a precautionary water landing "ditched". All of the other recent helicopters in the North Sea "crashed"

Just because water is where the aircraft ended up is no reason to use the word ditched.

P3

Since many of us have always referred to an unplanned water arrival as a ditching, I fail to see your point. Whether it is an uncontrolled crash or a water arrival as a result of a mechanical failure, it's a ditching.

Hence the standard call in the dunker (HUET): "Ditching, ditching, ditching"

As you revolve upside down, blindfolded and last man out :p

[212man]

I agree with P3. Websters defines 'ditch' as "to make a forced landing of (an airplane) on water" which does not reflect the cases of G-TIGH or G-REDU, for instance, and in both cases there was no warning to the pax (as per your HUET example).

[John Eacott]

We'll have to agree to differ, but I'll lend you a razor blade to split the difference!

Even Dad refers to ditching after a pack of Me109Fs used him as target practice at 20ft above the Aegean........

[Outwest]

CFIT(W) is appropriate whenever a fully serviceable a/c is flown into the water or land....

[OnePerRev]

T&S - Was only referring to the 225 as that is the title of the thread. There has only been 1 fatal crash of the 225. Yes, I agree, this has always looked like a repeat of the L2 and now looks like the CAA may be going that route as well ... that said, it does not change the fact that this is still the only fatal crash of a 225.


Type certificate starts with AS330
Proponents love to refer to the full fleet hours of all puma variants, it is a variant, certified to those standards as a variant. Frankly OK with that, as long as there is consistency. If the argument is that it is separate, then talk about the fleet hours on this version alone.


A variant is certified as a "change" in the certified product, whether small or large. What that also includes is the ability to not address things that are not changed. One would need to know details of that process to know what extensive work was done when the design grew each time.
Clearly the recent tragedy raises questions on the design which is similar to previous versions.
On other hand, a corrective action is sure to follow - it may take more substantiation to convince customers than it takes to convince authorities. Overall the situation is not good for the industry, a mixed fleet is essential for the overall health of the industry. No going back to boats.

[Cyclic Hotline]

The demise of the Chinook has been discussed here, but let's not forget the Wessex. This accident saw the type immediately and permanently withdrawn from service by Bristow. https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5423008ded915d1374000a57/4-1983_G-ASWI.pdf

There is also the SA330J Puma in the Gulf of Mexico operated by PHI. Had a number of accidents, then disappeared from service.

[Tango123]

Kommisjon har tre teorier etter Turøy-ulykken ? (http://offshore.no/sak/268918_kommisjon-har-tre-teorier-etter-turoy-ulykken)

Havarikommisjonen trekker i rapporten fram tre scenarioer for hva som kan ha gjort at hovedrotoren løsnet.

Det ene er feil i sluttsteget på girkassen (omtalt som epicyclic failure). Nummer to er feil ved stagene som forbinder rotorsystemet med skroget (lift struts), mens nummer tre er feil ved veksel mellom girkasse og rotormast (MGB conical housing).

– Dette er områder som vi jobber videre med, forteller avdelingsdirektør Kåre Halvorsen i Havarikommisjonen til NTB.


If this is correct, then I believe the 225 is history in pax transportation offshore role.

T

[DCP123]

Kommisjon har tre teorier etter Turøy-ulykken ? (http://offshore.no/sak/268918_kommisjon-har-tre-teorier-etter-turoy-ulykken)

Havarikommisjonen trekker i rapporten fram tre scenarioer for hva som kan ha gjort at hovedrotoren løsnet.

Det ene er feil i sluttsteget på girkassen (omtalt som epicyclic failure). Nummer to er feil ved stagene som forbinder rotorsystemet med skroget (lift struts), mens nummer tre er feil ved veksel mellom girkasse og rotormast (MGB conical housing).

– Dette er områder som vi jobber videre med, forteller avdelingsdirektør Kåre Halvorsen i Havarikommisjonen til NTB.


If this is correct, then I believe the 225 is history in pax transportation offshore role.

T


That lists three possibilities under consideration. Are you suggesting the model is doomed if any of the three turns out to be the cause?

[HeliComparator]

Kommisjon har tre teorier etter Turøy-ulykken ? (http://offshore.no/sak/268918_kommisjon-har-tre-teorier-etter-turoy-ulykken)

Havarikommisjonen trekker i rapporten fram tre scenarioer for hva som kan ha gjort at hovedrotoren løsnet.

Det ene er feil i sluttsteget på girkassen (omtalt som epicyclic failure). Nummer to er feil ved stagene som forbinder rotorsystemet med skroget (lift struts), mens nummer tre er feil ved veksel mellom girkasse og rotormast (MGB conical housing).

– Dette er områder som vi jobber videre med, forteller avdelingsdirektør Kåre Halvorsen i Havarikommisjonen til NTB.


If this is correct, then I believe the 225 is history in pax transportation offshore role.

T
I think we can be fairly sure that the crash was caused by one of those things. But the question is, why did one of those things fail? A design weakness, or a maintenance error?

[Satcomm]

OnePer,

Proponents love to refer to the full fleet hours of all puma variants, it is a variant, certified to those standards as a variant. Frankly OK with that, as long as there is consistency. If the argument is that it is separate, then talk about the fleet hours on this version alone.

I cannot quote accurate flight hours for each type and I don't think many on here really can ... Beside what Wikipedia tells us! However, I can state that as of April 28 2016, it was the only helicopter type currently in serious competeion for this role (I don't consider the AW189 there yet) that had NOT had a fatal accident(s). This includes the AS332, S76, S92 and/or AW139. Having said that, as of April 28th, despite the number of hours it was the only aircraft to have zero fatal per X number of flight hours. Obviously now, after 11 years of holding that LONELY title, things have changed. My point earlier, I thought was clear, I am simply saying that legally, Airbus must be holding their own that this is again the FIRST fatal occurrence in the 225. I'm sure they know they will be in for a fight over that but I bet that's what they hold on to. Also, trying to come up with any other possible cause that would put this as a first for the entire family.

You are right though, I am a proponent of the 225 and of all its previous family. It has had many many safe flight hours and I have had many safe flight hours in one. I'm sure they have saved at least an equal number of lives that have lost(again not going to spend the day searching mister Google to support this). In fact, I have been involved with the PUMA doing full rig evacs due to a very unsafe condition on board the rig. Nobody thought about jumping onboard that day. I am a proponent of any helicopter that can do what the puma has done over the years. Time will tell with the 92, its closest competitor ... I really do hope so because I am also a proponent of it as well, it has fed my family for the past few years!!

[OnePerRev]

I love all kinds of helicopters myself, and am a proponent of safety improvements. When a deficiency is found, it simply needs to be corrected. S-92 box problems were addressed.
There are statistical ways to predict likelihood of occurrence of a given issue, based on a mix of factual history, assumptions and judgment. If problems are denied by OEM then you can make no mitigation improvement. Frustrating to see AH not holding more accountability for these issues.
And I would jump on one tomorrow as well but full disclosure I do ride a motorcycle.

[Lonewolf_50]

And I would jump on one tomorrow as well but full disclosure I do ride a motorcycle. Please wear your helmet, as your inputs are of value here. :)

[OnePerRev]

Yes I do, and thank you!

[OnePerRev]

... Maybe not tomorrow.
Unless with a parachute.
No worries about entanglement.

[Satcomm]

... Maybe not tomorrow.
Unless with a parachute.
No worries about entanglement.

Too soon?? Maybe??

[OnePerRev]

If I got a good look at the records yeah, and first hand inspection myself.
Most passengers can't though. And would not know what they are looking for anyway.
I do generally have a high confidence in the mechanics, despite seeing examples over the years of mistakes.
They don't know what they don't know. The manufacturer seems to be elusive in accountability on this and previous gearbox issues. While protection from liability is expected, they are in over their heads in the denial game.
In context of the thread, no it's not the end, but uphill battle for sure to get customers confidence.

[nbl]

It appears Bristow has suspended all flights on 225. Including SAR and Training flights.

[krypton_john]

Yep:

Bristow grounds its Airbus EC225 helicopter fleet - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bristow-grounds-its-airbus-ec225-helicopter-fleet-2016-06-01)

[CG4A]

Same with CHC......all flights now suspended.

[TommyL]

It's pretty amazing...the complete rotor head on the Puma departs from the aircraft not one, but TWO times...and still some people here claims it is a safe aircraft. Unbelievable!

I do not know what agenda those people have, but on the Norwegian shelf I believe this aircraft has seen it's last flight. A majority of my fellow offshore workers has completely lost faith in this aircraft, and many has said that they will flat out refuse to board one. I am one of those people. Enough is enough!

[HeliComparator]

Great, go fly in a new type or an S92. But can you explain why you think that would be any safer? But of course even if you continued to fly the EC225 for the rest of your career, you will almost certainly die as a result of something else.

Or to put it another way, please keep the emotive hysteria for Facebook.

[TommyL]

Did you read my post? THE COMPLETE ROTOR HEAD HAS DEPARTED NOT ONCE, BUT TWO TIMES ON THE PUMA!!! How is that even possible?? Tell me, is that something that is to be expected, and accepted? Would the 737 be flying still if it lost its wings mid-flight twice in 7 years? I think not.

Look, I understand you obviously have some sort of agenda, maybe working in the industry, what do I know. But you can keep mocking people as much as you want, but the fact of the matter is, that as long as there is no faith left in this helicopter type it is doomed. It has been to many incidents and lives lost. After 20+ years offshore I can assure you I know a lot of people in that industry...and the majority feels the same as me.

It won't help a bit that you claim it is hysteria. Because it is not, it is simply eliminating risks, as we are taught offshore every day. Maybe you have a different perspective on the HSE bit, i dunno.

[HeliComparator]

I see the Aberdeen Press and Journal is full of EC225 doom-mongering this morning. Amongst other bits of foolishness it links the AS332L2 Sumburgh crash into the anti-225 pot. In its ignorance it fails to understand that the type of event that caused the accident could equally apply to the S92 and in fact we know of several very near misses on the S92 that very nearly did. However that type of accident could not happen on the EC225. But of course it is not newsworthy to report anything good about the 225 at the moment!

We don't yet know what caused this latest catastrophe. Only when we do will it be time to decide whether the EC225 should be kept in service. Any ranting and hysteria in the mean time is just a reflection of the travelling public's foolishness and ignorance. And probably a general dislike of going to work by helicopter because they don't like being squished up.

[S92PAX]

The 225 seems well liked by those upfront but if you spent more time cramped in the back I think you might have a different opinion.
It will be the unpopularity with the workforce that kills it and not wholly on safety performance. It is dammed unpleasant being so squashed in for hours and hardly being able to walk off the dammed things due to complete loss of feeling in your legs.

[ericferret]

TommyL

The 737 is a good choice for a comparison. Two unexplained fatal crashes in the early 90's resulted in a a modification programme to the rudder control system that was not scheduled to be completed until 2010. So in effect what you say would not happen to a 737 is exactly what did happen. The paying public were flying on aircraft with a known defect for years that could lead to total loss of control.


The Rudder Story (http://www.b737.org.uk/rudder.htm)

[HeliComparator]

The 225 seems well liked by those upfront but if you spent more time cramped in the back I think you might have a different opinion.
It will be the unpopularity with the workforce that kills it and not wholly on safety performance. It is dammed unpleasant being so squashed in for hours and hardly being able to walk off the dammed things due to complete loss of feeling in your legs.
Yes it is cramped in the back with 19. And of course it can routinely carry 19 whilst the S92 can't. So I sympathise to some extent, however I would just mention that I'm 6'41/2 and am very cramped in the front too (the cockpit is designed for small Frenchmen!) and of course I had to spend much, much longer in those conditions that a passenger flying one sector every couple of weeks does.

However it would be disingenuous to be "anti" the 225 on safety grounds when the real agenda was one of comfort.

Perhaps the answer is to ration food offshore? If the pax were all skinny I'm sure there would be a lot more room.

[TommyL]

ericferret

I knew about these crashes, but did not know that the plane was allowed to keep flying before these modifications were fixed after they found the cause of the accidents. Well, I'm no aviation expert, so that may have been a bad example then. Just insane that they let the public fly on these with a known, un-rectified defect. But I guess money talks.

[Brother]

Bristow is apparently ramping up its pricing on S-92s and 139s to take advantage of the EC225 grounding and trying to pitch the oil companies against each other. I suppose its payback time for recent cost cutting by oil companies.

[SASless]

One does have to admire HC's loyalty to the 225.

Even events since the great 225 v 92 Shoot Out....HC is still in there swinging away like Casey at the Plate!

[HeliComparator]

One does have to admire HC's loyalty to the 225.

Even events since the great 225 v 92 Shoot Out....HC is still in there swinging away like Casey at the Plate!
And you similarly for those aircraft made in your country of birth. Anyway if there is grounds to condemn the 225 for the reliability of its epicyclic then I'll do so. But if the 225 is being "dissed" out of ignorance and stupidity, I'll defend it. Until we get the concrete results from the investigation we don't know either way. Although what we do know is that the EC225 is superior to the S92 in so many ways. But just possibly, not all ways. We shall see. Let's remember the S92 was the first to nearly kill, and the first to actually kill, by a long margin.

It is also worth bearing in mind that I have flown both the S92 and the EC225, you have flown neither. So one of us is taking from experience, the other is making it up to suit their personal agenda.

[birmingham]

The 225 and the L2 are formally grounded in the NS and informally by their operators in many other regions. If they are to return we will have to understand that the views of TommyL and others are not "hysterical" to be brushed aside by we who think we know better. 13 more colleagues have died and to suggest that 1970s levels of fatal accidents is inevitable let alone acceptable is disrespectful, complacent, arrogance - you know who you are!

Whether the Puma survives is neither here nor there. We just need to find a way to make this business safer.

[212man]

Did you read my post? THE COMPLETE ROTOR HEAD HAS DEPARTED NOT ONCE, BUT TWO TIMES ON THE PUMA!!!

Actually, it's three times, when you include the Bristow AS330J flying from Miri to Brunei in the early '80s (with Shell wives on a shopping trip). The MGB was making metal but the Chief Engineer didn't know his 'square mm' from his 'mm squared' when monitoring the debris being collected by the chip detectors.

I know of 5 incidents with the S92 where, in very slightly different circumstances, the crews would have ditched due to MGB problems. Instead they landed on unmanned platforms with closed decks, coast line, jungle and a chicken farm, so are not very familiar to the offshore workforce. All of that in the first 700,000 flying hours and ignoring the fatal accident.

The Sumburgh accident was caused by automation mismanagement and inadequate monitoring. In Norway an S92 came very close to spearing into the ground above Vne - due to automation mismanagement whilst flying an ILS in IMC. But didn't so nobody knows about it!

Bottom line is that HeliComparator's comments are accurate, and logic and statistics should prevail over emotion and ignorance (of the actual facts).

[HeliComparator]

If they are to return we will have to understand that the views of TommyL and others are not "hysterical" to be brushed aside by we who think we know better.

They are hysterical because they are born out of ignorance, fear, mob rule etc. Once we know the full picture we will be in a position to calmly decide whether or not the EC225 should fly again. If it is decided to return the 225 to service then yes we will need to explain carefully the rationale behind that decision. What we won't be doing is joining a wail-fest of shouting and expecting he that makes the most fuss to win the day. We probably won't even mention big-boy pants.

[SASless]

HC,

Bit unkind of you to say all that when I have posted this in the Accident Thread.

I am on record as waiting for the Final Report/Determination before crafting an Opinion.

You are absolutely correct I have flown neither of the two Types but that does not mean I cannot place a certain amount of credence in thinking two losses of all Rotor Blades and MR heads compared to none does suggest one Type of Aircraft might have a rather serious problem the other does not at this time.

For sure....when the Rotor Blades leave the aircraft all the flying experience on Type means naught....as everyone is a Passenger on their Final Ride.

It is still early in the investigation and lots of questions remain and more work needs to be done but even as an idle spectator to discussion One simply must think Gearboxes just do not fail that often anymore and for two to have gross similarities resulting in a loss of the Main Rotors as a group.....One must wonder why!

I am quietly waiting to hear how all this turns out but evidence keeps turning up that brings us back to a possible cause a lot of folks just do not want to confront for any number of reasons.

[HeliComparator]

You are absolutely correct I have flown neither of the two Types but that does not mean I cannot place a certain amount of credence in thinking two losses of all Rotor Blades and MR heads compared to none does suggest one Type of Aircraft might have a rather serious problem the other does not at this time.


Can you explain how, from the passengers' point of view, it matters whether they die because the head came off or because the transmission seized due to running out of oil (due to a known issue that wasn't addressed appropriately by the manufacturer)?


The main difference I my opinion? One event happened in Europe, the other happened too far away for anyone in Europe to care much. We are still very tribal!

[[email protected]]

So both manufacturers are guilty of producing sub-standard designs that slipped through a supposedly stringent certification process? Just remind me, this is the 21st century isn't it?

[Gaspode the Dog]

I seem to remember that the S92 fatalities were, most likely, the result of the crew not following the ECL or misunderstanding the meaning of Land Immediately. Something the Bond and CHC 225 crews who ditched did not. For the 225 in this instance a fault an action and a ditching. For the S92 a fault an incorrect action and a crash!

[HeliComparator]

So both manufacturers are guilty of producing sub-standard designs that slipped through a supposedly stringent certification process? Just remind me, this is the 21st century isn't it?

No, it's the 22nd century, you've been asleep for a while.

Anyway I agree with your sentiment in theory but the reality is that design errors get through due to certification weaknesses. But whilst there is room to improve the certification process it will never be perfect. There would be a danger of creating such a certification burden that no new aircraft could be certified and then we might have to do something really crass like spend our lives flying around in 1960s technology helicopters.

IMO what we need is a certification process based on knowledge, experience and "cleverness" rather than the one we have at the moment which is mostly based on bits of paper.

[CertGuy]

HeliComparator,
How about "bits of paper" and a whole lot of testing?

[SASless]

Cleverness can get you killed just as dead as a missing sentence in a pile of paper.

I quite like some 50's Tech Helicopters....Huey's, 61's, 64's, and 107's Chinooks...all of which are still working their Hind End's off throughout the World.:ok:

[HeliComparator]

And all of which have had endless crashery. It's just that they're in parts of the world where life is cheap.

[jimf671]

As HC says, endless crashery. Hundreds of deaths. Most of those deaths having been pre-internet and many far enough away from European shores to be invisible to the thick and manic British press.

I am engineer. Give me the numbers. The numbers do not lie.

All those hours. All those aircraft. All those years of service. The spec of that autopilot. The size of those escape windows.

I'll still be happy in my favourite second row seat in a 225 where I can see the instruments and reach the door release before some fat f3ckwit slides it past my window.

[HeliComparator]

HeliComparator,
How about "bits of paper" and a whole lot of testing?

Some testing, yes. But only the tests that someone thought to do, ie the tests that were required by the bits of paper. Wasn't it the S92 that had a big deal when one of allegedly duplex oil pumps lost drive? Apparently that scenario hadn't been taken into consideration during certification. Not much point in doing FMEA if you don't spend much time thinking up the Fs. That is where some intelligence is required.

I think one of the problems with large complex helicopters is that within a manufacturer, virtually no-one really understands how the whole thing hangs together. Lots of clever chaps with supreme knowledge about their little bit, but lacking the big picture.

[Lonewolf_50]

I think one of the problems with large complex helicopters is that within a manufacturer, virtually no-one really understands how the whole thing hangs together. Lots of clever chaps with supreme knowledge about their little bit, but lacking the big picture. How much time did you spend on design and flight test (pre production) of a helicopter?
I know a few people who have done both.


That asked, the interaction of all of the parts trying to go in opposing directions does take a bit of time to sort out. What can kill you sometimes crops up in novel ways. The complete :mad: design of the seat harness killed a friend of mine ...

[OnePerRev]

Some testing, yes. But only the tests that someone thought to do, ie the tests that were required by the bits of paper. Wasn't it the S92 that had a big deal when one of allegedly duplex oil pumps lost drive? Apparently that scenario hadn't been taken into consideration during certification. Not much point in doing FMEA if you don't spend much time thinking up the Fs. That is where some intelligence is required.

I think one of the problems with large complex helicopters is that within a manufacturer, virtually no-one really understands how the whole thing hangs together. Lots of clever chaps with supreme knowledge about their little bit, but lacking the big picture.


Yup, a big deal HC. Just like when a bevel gear driving the pumps fail, without losing oil, and an emergency system comes on, never been evaluated with a box full of oil, and two ditchings result. Manufacturers need to learn from the other's mistakes as well as their own. In this case, the failure mode SHOULD have been predicted. certainly before the second occurrence. But according to your statistics, all of the events on S-92 should be counted as mishaps, but only one now on 225? The argument could be made the other way, as some have suggested - Seven (at least) gearbox events on puma either catastrophic or leading to ditching. Three catastrophic events, no time for pilot to react. S-92 actually zero direct - as the one breakup was secondary, with PIC ignoring the RFM. The previous event was cluttered with an unapproved repair, yet a solution was fielded, so not ignored at all. By the true 'catastrophic gearbox failure' count, it is puma three, S-92 zero. Real people died in all, so out of respect to consider all issues as significant, S-92 has corrected the issues you mention whilst puma has not.


17 occurrences in the puma family where input gear resonance caused failures, one led to a tragedy. Nobody looking at the big picture on that one?
C'mon, HC really. You are a smart dude, (not being sarcastic) be honest and Tell us how each of the identified puma 'issues' involving dynamic components were resolved, that are no longer an issue on the 225.
Even lightning striking a tail blade leading to loss of tail rotor gearbox, and a ditching. S-92 has experienced multiple lightning strikes, including large portions of blades departing, flew back safely every time. Thor must have been pissed.
Lost a freewheel camshaft too during firefighting, and ditched in Hong Kong - reason - power rating was increased without really thinking it through.


With some magic wand waving and similar AS/ EC/ AH style ignorance, er, approach, the S-92 could be upgraded to over 30,000 lb. Then it would beat 225 as well, and probably just as safe. As we see, when you up-rate higher power through an old design, and only are held to the 1960 standards, well you simply lose some margin. It is what it is, but maybe if the 225 was held to the same standards, it would need to lose payload to keep the loads down.
Let's talk data and facts as you suggest, rather than opinion that the 225 is superior in every way - just not true. Not in safety. and if you normalized the safety, it would not be as competitive in other areas. Not even considering the sardine experience.


Otherwise, I agree with a lot you are saying - in particular, no panic, be patient.

[HeliComparator]

How much time did you spend on design and flight test (pre production) of a helicopter?
I know a few people who have done both.


None, but I've seen the consequence. I'm sure that in the good old days of flying by steam, it was feasible for one chap to grasp the whole machine but these days where 50% of the design and behaviour is in electronics and software it is not really. Most folk are either good at whirly round bits, or good at dancing electrons, but not both. Well that's my experience of OEMs anyway.

[HeliComparator]

@oneperrev. A bit of a ranty post if I may say so, but my point about the certification process was applicable to both sides of the Atlantic. The reason why I consider the 225 superior to the S92 in nearly every way (apart from the quickly detachable rotor head) is based on a pilot's perspective.

Uncluttered Avionics, autopilot and its protections, smoothness at speed, noise, ability to just put in full fuel regardless. We now have a lot of people bouncing from 225 to 92 and back, I know of one person who prefers the 92 but he is mad.

[Lonewolf_50]

None, but I've seen the consequence. I'm sure that in the good old days of flying by steam, it was feasible for one chap to grasp the whole machine but these days where 50% of the design and behaviour is in electronics and software it is not really. Most folk are either good at whirly round bits, or good at dancing electrons, but not both. Well that's my experience of OEMs anyway. I see your point vis a vis complexity and specialization. It puts another burden on the graceful degradation objective ~ the idea behind that seems to be that if you know (or know how to listen to) your machine, it'll start warning you when things start to go in the wrong direction. The deeply disturbing bit of this 225 issue in Bergen is that unlike a case where one could ditch (which opens a new can of worms for the crew and pax but they've still got a good shot at showing up at home to the wife and kids) it all went wrong with no chance for the pilots to apply their skills. The initial report covering the analysis of FDR/CVR paints a very bleak picture.


This makes it hard to swallow your argument with TommyL, - I can't find a rational way to counter his voiced concern until a) the root cause is identified/agreed and b) the root cause is addressed/resolved/mitigated.

The failure mode that led to this crash is the antithesis of graceful degradation: seems to me that everyone -- pilots, OEMs, passengers, maintenance/engineering, operations folks -- should be speaking with one voice. This needs to be figured out and not guessed at.

[HeliComparator]

This makes it hard to swallow your argument with TommyL, - I can't find a rational way to counter his voiced concern until a) the root cause is identified/agreed and b) the root cause is addressed/resolved/mitigated.

The failure mode that led to this crash is the antithesis of graceful degradation: seems to me that everyone -- pilots, OEMs, passengers, maintenance/engineering, operations folks -- should be speaking with one voice. This needs to be figured out and not guessed at.


My argument with TommyL et al is that there shouldn't be a clamour to kill the EC225 whilst the facts remain unknown. I'll agree that this latest news is not good and if it transpires that there was a flaw in one of the planet gears that caused the catastrophe, and there were no prior warnings such as chips or VHM in the preceding days, and there was no obvious maintenance error either on the aircraft or at the gearbox maintenance facility (or a manufacturing error for that matter) then I will be in the queue to say that the 225 shouldn't fly again unless the issue can be robustly and fundamentally addressed. But so far we don't have the information to make that call. We don't know the epicyclic module's history, when and where it was last overhauled, seen the records from the overhaul, know whether there were any chip or VHM warnings. In fact so far we know very little and it is thus too early to condemn the 225.

[birmingham]

Several Oil Companies in the last couple of days have decided that reintroduction of the 225 will take a long time, be very difficult from an IR perspective and have decided to move away from the 225 permanently.

As An oil company advisor who advises the board, I will wait until more information becomes available before adopting a final recommendation. Since the 225 is now grounded by my regulator and operator, there seems little point in rushing to a conclusion, adding my voice is meaningless in the current situation.

It will take a while I'm sure - but technically speaking it will definitely be feasible to mitigate the problem and return the beast to the air. It is highly unlikely the regulators will issue a permanent ban. However, depending what they ultimately decide is the cause, their recommendations might amount to the same thing.

REDL was preventable, this one might have been we don't yet know.

As you correctly point out the economic and industrial relations considerations can considerably outweigh the technical. It is only my own opinion, but I suspect that in the NS, 29 April 2016 was their last full day of service. Elsewhere they will probably live to fly another day.

As you say some of the Pumas have already departed the scene.

[212man]

It is only my own opinion, but I suspect that in the NS, 29 April 2016 was their last full day of service. Elsewhere they will probably live to fly another day.


I suspect your opinion is shared by many

[CG4A]

...and if so, that leaves only one heavy machine left for the offshore industry. For a long time. There appears to be no S-92B or EC 225 Mk II anywhere near fruition. Tough times, indeed.

[SASless]

HC....at the risk pointing out the obivious to you.....just why does this Thread exist?

Seems a new tech flying Wonder ain't doing so well is it?

One thing for sure this new fanged flying machine has just been made Crash Proof by the Authority hasn't it!

[HeliComparator]

HC....at the risk pointing out the obivious to you.....just why does this Thread exist?

Seems a new tech flying Wonder ain't doing so well is it?

One thing for sure this new fanged flying machine has just been made Crash Proof by the Authority hasn't it!
I'm not quite sure what the purpose of your post is. Is it just to gloat at others' misfortune?

[The Sultan]

SAS,

Classy as ever. With modern helicopters like the B429, AW139/189 having 30m+ loss of lube capability (as well as the 225 if a sensor was wired correctly) I expect at least the NS to soon mandate the capability. No hiding behind marketing BS. Bye-bye S-92 when that happens.

The Sultan

[helicrazi]

SAS,

Classy as ever. With modern helicopters like the B429, AW139/189 having 30m+ loss of lube capability (as well as the 225 if a sensor was wired correctly) I expect at least the NS to soon mandate the capability. No hiding behind marketing BS. Bye-bye S-92 when that happens.

The Sultan

Problem with the 225 is the 30 min emergency lubed gearbox is only of use if it's still attached to the helicopter

[Apate]

like the B429

Yeah, the B429 is going to replace the S92 :ugh::ugh::ugh:

You don't happen to work for Bell by any chance :=

[SASless]

Bell doesn't have anything that will replace the 92 or 225.

[Lonewolf_50]

It is pretty clear from the history on PPRuNe Rotorheads forum that the Sultan works for (or worked for) Bell. But that doesn't matter, as each voice on the internet adds to the great cacophony we have come to love so well, so well, so well.

So it's up against the wall, Rotor Headers
Rotors ... spin round the head so well (So well, So well)
It's a four per rev as long as we have got the donks
It's an auto otherwise
Which ain't so swell.

R, is for the Rotor on my Helimacopter
O, is for the oil that keeps her in the air
T is for torque
O is for "Omigod what the heck was that?"
(finally) and
R, is for RPM, about which I deeply care.

So it's up against the wall, Rotor Headers ...

(Apologies to Merle Haggard for that spoof there. I just now realized that rotor is a palindrome. It took how many years?)

On a more serious note, the FAA has spoken. (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/e8afb3f556876b0b86257fc7006d82e2/$FILE/2016-12-51_Emergency.pdf)
FAA’s Determination
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved
for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its
technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA Emergency
AD. We are issuing this Emergency AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA
and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of
these same type designs.

[OnePerRev]

@oneperrev. A bit of a ranty post if I may say so, but my point about the certification process was applicable to both sides of the Atlantic. The reason why I consider the 225 superior to the S92 in nearly every way (apart from the quickly detachable rotor head) is based on a pilot's perspective.

Uncluttered Avionics, autopilot and its protections, smoothness at speed, noise, ability to just put in full fuel regardless. We now have a lot of people bouncing from 225 to 92 and back, I know of one person who prefers the 92 but he is mad.

Fair enough HC. My rant was in response to the many items, could have broken it up I suppose. I can certainly appreciate a preference, and in particular if it is based on a particular professional point of view. Your comments in context however was aimed at other areas of technical superiority and you furthered the argument to add in some inconsistent data about manufacturers reaction to issues that also applies to both sides of the Atlantic.. It just demanded a rebuttal . But that's part of the makeup of this board after all.


We all should be mad even though Most of us had nothing to do with the tragedy. Seriously, the best points of these discussions is that it tends to formulate opinions, both rational and irrational, and if those can lead to practices and actions, the industry moves forward..


I am not one to pile on your misfortune - on contrary I wish the best for the displaced professionals with simple recommendation to objectively learn from it what we can.

[OnePerRev]

SAS,

Classy as ever. With modern helicopters like the B429, AW139/189 having 30m+ loss of lube capability (as well as the 225 if a sensor was wired correctly) I expect at least the NS to soon mandate the capability. No hiding behind marketing BS. Bye-bye S-92 when that happens.

The Sultan

30 minute rule again? has that not been beat to death? Do you really want to keep flying with no MGB oil in any helo? At that time are you going to trust that some arbitrary demonstration guarantees your safety for xx minutes? I bet no.
I also think you must really be just a big old teaser, you would be sad to see S-92 go away, and don't be so sure of status quo.


You touch a real topic however, and that is regarding "mandated capability". The real news in this thread context is regarding capability of failure detection. The one claim that is made in the preliminary report is that the present means are not sufficient. Very powerful statement in a preliminary report, with widespread implications. This will be the basis of new rulemaking, mark my words... it will take 10 years to implement.

[vfr440]

LW, I love it :D
The late MH would have been proud of you :) - VFR

So it's up against the wall, Rotor Headers
Rotors ... spin round the head so well (So well, So well)
It's a four per rev as long as we have got the donks
It's an auto otherwise
Which ain't so swell.

R, is for the Rotor on my Helimacopter
O, is for the oil that keeps her in the air
T is for torsion
O, is for "Omigod what the heck was that?"
(finally)
R, is for RPM, about which I deeply care.

So it's up against the wall, Rotor Headers ...

(Apologies to Merle Haggard for that spoof there. I just now realized that rotor is a palindrome. It took how many years?)

PS no I didn't get the palindrome either!!

[SASless]

I love it....Year 2016....Billions spent using every method possible to forecast/detect/warn/minimize wear and failures....and now we finally learn it was for naught.

So just where do we go from here?

Just how do we square this circle and wind up with helicopters that just do not come apart in the air without sufficient notice to prevent tragedies such as this latest one?

I mean really....just when we thought it safe to go outdoors we discover we can be ambushed by an inanimate piece of machinery at any time it decides to give up the Ghost.

[gulliBell]

Being knocked over in the street by a falling piece of helicopter would be an unlucky event. Perhaps about as unlucky as going swimming and being eaten by a shark or a crocodile. Unfortunately in Australia in the past week both unfortunate events happened to people who's luck ran out. Any time you get in a helicopter there is a risk of bad luck ensuing which may rear it's ugly head at any time.

[Nescafe]

Being knocked over in the street by a falling piece of helicopter would be an unlucky event.

Unlucky, but not impossible.

Vauxhall AW109 crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_helicopter_crash)

[[email protected]]

30 minute rule again? has that not been beat to death? Do you really want to keep flying with no MGB oil in any helo? At that time are you going to trust that some arbitrary demonstration guarantees your safety for xx minutes? well actually, yes! if the option is to ditch in horrendous sea conditions then continued flight could well be the preferred option.

Let's not forget that SK implied the S92 had 30-min run dry (even though it didn't explicitly say so) and it wasn't made clear that they slipped past that part of certification by arguing that is was an extremely remote failure.

That would have been fine but the oil filter housing was poorly designed with a poor choice of number and quality of fixings - it became a 'not extremely remote' failure.

The poor suckers in the cockpit lined up the final hole in the Swiss cheese by not following the RFM exactly but they shouldn't have been left in that position by poor design and dodgy certification.

The 225 certainly appears to have a design flaw in its epicyclic gearbox but don't hold the S 92 up as a paragon of virtue.

[Brother]

The 225 certainly appears to have a design flaw in its epicyclic gearbox but don't hold the S 92 up as a paragon of virtue.

Maybe not a paragon of virtue Crab but since that horrible event, the S-92 fleet has flown 700,000 hours and managed to keep ts oil in its box where it belongs. Total fleet hours on the S-92 are now around 1 million.

My passengers yesterday very happy to be in a 92 and not a 225 or any Puma variant. The dislike of the Super Puma fleet has been going in since before the REDL and the 225 ditchings / fatal accident. Passengers have never liked flying in them. In spite of the window size, they have always felt claustrophobic and unsafe.

Its a sad indictment on our industry that the helicopter operators have been so poor at communicating the safety record.

[[email protected]]

I don't know where you fly but do you routinely brief your pax that in the event of loss of MRGB lube you will have to ditch, even if the sea state (and temperature) mean survival is unlikely?

since that horrible event, the S-92 fleet has flown 700,000 hours and managed to keep ts oil in its box where it belongs. shame we have to keep using pax as crash test dummies and wait for deaths to drive improvements.

[birmingham]

I love it....Year 2016....Billions spent using every method possible to forecast/detect/warn/minimize wear and failures....and now we finally learn it was for naught.

So just where do we go from here?

Just how do we square this circle and wind up with helicopters that just do not come apart in the air without sufficient notice to prevent tragedies such as this latest one?

I mean really....just when we thought it safe to go outdoors we discover we can be ambushed by an inanimate piece of machinery at any time it decides to give up the Ghost.
SASless - that is exactly the point.

Every single heavy helicopter ever used in the NS sea has gone in the water somewhere due to gearbox issues of one form or another -

Wessex-Chinook-S61-L2-225-S92... and if I have missed any then I'm sure they probably did too.

The industry has decided this happens too often - I agree - but wringing our hands, banning pumas or forming committees isn't going to stop it happening again.

What do the Puma/S92 engineers on this forum think can be done to minimise the likelyhood of this happening again (on a regular basis)

[Heathrow Harry]

Maybe it's just not possible to build a heavy (-ish) helicopter than can stand the strain of routine day-out day for many years in N Sea type ops without getting a severe mechanical failure

[Fareastdriver]

Heathrow Harry. Tell that to Boeing. When the 234 was introduced to the North Sea they thought that the years and millions of hours in military service would mean that just flying to/from platforms would be a coast.
They were horrified when they realised what punishment the aircraft was taking.

[henra]

Seems a new tech flying Wonder ain't doing so well is it?


Like dozens before. And dozens to come.

What is a bit special (and disconcerting) about this case (leaving aside all childish hysteria just because there is a video existing of the final moments) is that it possibly happened with little to zero warning (from a tech perspective).

If it turns out it was a failure of the epicyclic and if it turns out this can happen without any prior indications/chips it will take a lot of time to make sure (and prove) a redesigned epicyclic will definitely cure this issue. We are surely talking >>1Year, rather >2 years. By then it might indeed be obsolete, being considered an 'old' helicopter. Therefore if it turns out to have been an unpredictable epicyclic failure which led to the separation of the Rotor it would probably be indeed the (obviously frantically hoped for by some for various reasons -it is interesting to see which Country the most vocal are coming from :suspect:, I had hoped we were over that) end of the 225.

[[email protected]]

Maybe it's just not possible to build a heavy (-ish) helicopter than can stand the strain of routine day-out day for many years in N Sea type ops without getting a severe mechanical failure I'm sure it is
they thought that the years and millions of hours in military service would mean that just flying to/from platforms would be a coast. How did the inspection routines change from military to civilian service? How did the usage of the aircraft (MAUM, high cruise speeds etc) differ from the military flight regimes?
What do the Puma/S92 engineers on this forum think can be done to minimise the likelyhood of this happening again (on a regular basis) I suspect the answers to that cost money in terms of increased servicing, reduced TBOs and accepting a weight penalty (at the expense of passenger/mile costs) to ensure robust engineering in the first place.

The 'race to the bottom' often quoted on this forum regarding offshore ops has a lot to answer for - not directly so that one could take legal action, but indirectly by shaving margins off the operating costs whilst generating enormous profits to keep the stock exchange and the investors sweet.

[Fareastdriver]

How did the usage of the aircraft (MAUM, high cruise speeds etc) differ from the military flight regimes

Offshore and military aircraft fly out at MAUW at high speed. Military aircraft fly back empty.

[Bitmonx]

Maybe it's just not possible to build a heavy (-ish) helicopter than can stand the strain of routine day-out day for many years in N Sea type ops without getting a severe mechanical failure
Helog were (ab)using their Pumas for many years in logging.
I think the problem nowadays is with the suppliers and with the EASA focusing mainly on if the paperwork is right all else must be fine.

[pax2908]

Sorry, just an engineer, not even aero.
So there are components which "must not fail" - over their entire service life ... which is determined ... how?
One would hope that, for these parts, they would be periodically replaced so that the used ones can be analysed (metallography) while looking for any sign of accelerated degradation?

[Steve Stubbs]

Fareastdriver and Crab@SaaAviation

In the case of the BV234LR (civil Chinook), Boeing were told when they were ordered that we would operate them at VNO and at least 90% MAUW for around 150 hours / month. Boeing obviously didn't believe it, and we ended up with over 1000 lbs of reinforcing on each airframe as the build was clearly not up to that task. Clearly all their military operating experience did not read across to the operational pattern of the civil world. And for what it is worth they continued to operate on the Norwegian side of the North Sea long after they were withdrawn on the UK side.

[Lonewolf_50]

One would hope that, for these parts, they would be periodically replaced so that the used ones can be analysed (metallography) while looking for any sign of accelerated degradation? That's the better idea, and who pays for this analysis program? If one watches how margins get pinched all over industry, someone in a board room stands up and says "that's a cost center that never produces revenue" and doesn't get the clu until the cost of damages spikes... which I guess is all part of the infamous risk calculus.

[Never Fretter]

The BV234 is perhaps a red herring. Its withdrawal from the UKCS was exclusively down to the customer, Shell, who had chosen the BV234 to try to save money by flying direct to the big Brent and adjacent platforms (avoiding the Shetlands), then rolled over to keep the bears happy rather than try to justify the BV234 was safe after the accident.

[jimf671]

... ... then rolled over to keep the bears happy rather than try to justify the BV234 was safe after the accident.


Sensationalism and fear win over mathematics again?

[Steve Stubbs]

Never Fretter

Actually the ultimate rationale for the withdrawal of the Shell Chinooks was the task they were doing was not what they were procured for, and Shell wanted out of a contract that had few break opportunities (and all expensive). The idea originally was an out and back trip to the ESB changing over 44 workers at a time, but in the end Shell working practices couldn't make that work and the Chinooks were doing two or three stops per rotation, swapping around 15 to 20 guys per stop, except for the Auk platform which was on its own. Using that beast as a shuttle was never going to be economic, made worse by the need then to refuel offshore. And something not mentioned here yet was the fact that Shell were using it to transport their contractor staff, the Shell employees not being happy with the high amplitude low-frequency vibration level (blade slap downwash onto the top of the fuselage) and discomfort of the really short seating pitch. Most Shell staff rotated through Sumburgh on smaller types and then fixed wing.

[Satcomm]

The true fact of the matter is, the price of oil right now allows the 225 to sit for a period of time without the oil companies getting too worked up. If the price were to start sky rocketing again we would have a different story on our hands.

The big oil companies have been pushing the operators to the brink of bankruptcy (some beyond the brink) due to the "downturn" .... Hopefully the operators will now have enough Gull to get some pay back!

[OnePerRev]

Sorry, just an engineer, not even aero.
So there are components which "must not fail" - over their entire service life ... which is determined ... how?
One would hope that, for these parts, they would be periodically replaced so that the used ones can be analysed (metallography) while looking for any sign of accelerated degradation?

At time of certification an evaluation is done to determine which parts are critical. Obviously main hub and blades main shaft. Less obvious are things that will not immediately be catastrophic due to redundancy or even partial detectable fail modes. Planet would normally be in this category as there are several and initially the chips would come before total box failure.
Next is to determine fatigue life by test usually until failure or acceptable margin. It is an expertise all on its own.
The parts replaced should not actually show fatigue damage or else not enough margin was used. The damage is in the molecular crystalline structure long before crack formation.


At

[Brother]

Crab

I don't know where you fly but do you routinely brief your pax that in the event of loss of MRGB lube you will have to ditch, even if the sea state (and temperature) mean survival is unlikely?

No, I tell them that in 700,000 fleet hours, so far, the oil has remained where it should be, which is in the MRGB.

[Fareastdriver]

Should the 225 be grounded and a complete redesign of the MRG be required it would seem that the type would be withdrawn from offshore transport. So what happens to the leased aircraft? CHC is protected by Chapter 7 so it can return without penalty but what about BHL ands Babcock? Do the leasing companies insist on the contract period being completed or do the operators return them to the leasers on the basis that they are not fit for purpose, who in turn return them to the factory.

Whatever way, one is going to be in financial difficulties saddled with n$millions of useless equipment.

[Heathrow Harry]

"How did the usage of the aircraft (MAUM, high cruise speeds etc) differ from the military flight regimes"

I'm pretty sure that in a "hot war" the helicopters take a real beating (and we do see failures then but they are thought to be acceptable or at least likely to a degree

Offshore is day in day out, several times a day for years - to some extent the difference in use between a fire engine/truck and a bus..................

[disting]

There is no comparison between military and civil flying. I have worked for a large civil operator on a military base in support of HM forces. Our cabs flew all day, full up, dawn til dusk. The Crab ones were occasionally seen outside the hangar if the weather was nice. I can imagine if its combat it changes but otherwise they fly a fraction of civvy cabs. Its no wonder they underestimated NS usage.

[ericferret]

Just to add some numbers, prior to there departure from the North Sea one of the Chinooks did 7000 hours in 5 years. Any military helicopters hitting that?

[[email protected]]

No, I tell them that in 700,000 fleet hours, so far, the oil has remained where it should be, which is in the MRGB. which would be no different to a 225/L2 driver a few years ago if he had briefed that the rotor head has stayed exactly where it was designed - attached to the rest of the MRGB fo hundreds of thousands of flight hours.

Lets hope that 11 mins of run dry is enough to get your 92 safely on the ground/water if the filter issue ever raises its head again.:ok:

[Satcomm]

Crab,

which would be no different to a 225/L2 driver a few years ago if he had briefed that the rotor head has stayed exactly where it was designed - attached to the rest of the MRGB fo hundreds of thousands of flight hours.

Not years, just a couple months ago any 225 pilot could have stated the same. That's what I find kinda odd, apart from the sa330 that happened A LONG time ago. The G-REDL accident and Cougar S92 accident happened basically 1 month apart, yet, everybody is so trusting that Sikorsky has 100% fixed the issue and we will never see it again.

[Apate]

Surely the difference is that the cause of the S92 failure was clearly identifiable and a fix HAS been put in place.
Whereas there was no clearly identifiable cause for REDL.

Night and day springs to mind, helped by a good dose of hindsight.

[Lonewolf_50]

which would be no different to a 225/L2 driver a few years ago if he had briefed that the rotor head has stayed exactly where it was designed - attached to the rest of the MRGB fo hundreds of thousands of flight hours.

Lets hope that 11 mins of run dry is enough to get your 92 safely on the ground/water if the filter issue ever raises its head again.:ok:
11 minutes is enough time to set up a controlled ditch. I'd rather see that the folks at Sikorsky made sure that the oil stays in the gear box.

[SASless]

The 92 had a design flaw....it has been addressed.

The Check List was quite clear....but was not followed....and that is the direct cause of the Fatalities.

The 225 has a design flaw that was addressed....there was naught a crew could do. It seems perhaps just maybe....that fix did not solve the problem. Time will tell as the Investigation unfolds.

This back and forth about the 92/225 is just some much Willy Waving.

Let's deal with reality.

The Authority (Authorities) certified both.

Both Designs have serious issues that must be addressed by the Maker, the Authority, the Operator, and the Crews.

Now let's admit the existence of serious flaws in the whole of the System and start working to identify the problems so resolutions can be found.

Lives are at risk until that occurs.

[megan]

Should the 225 be grounded and a complete redesign of the MRG be requiredI don't think a complete redesign would be the way to go, because you are back at square one with a product that has no operational history. What gotchas may have been included in the new design?

The gearbox has had thousands and thousands of hours of successful operation, until a couple of recent events. Fix what caused those aberrations.

[[email protected]]

Inspect all the gearboxes, assess which ones show signs of distress and note their running hours then adjust the TBO for the MRGB downwards across the fleet appropriately - replacing the epicyclic stages on condition.

Expensive? yes but not as bad as redesigning the whole box or scrapping the fleet.

[EESDL]

...yes, I'm afraid so.

[HeliComparator]

Inspect all the gearboxes, assess which ones show signs of distress and note their running hours then adjust the TBO for the MRGB downwards across the fleet appropriately - replacing the epicyclic stages on condition.

Expensive? yes but not as bad as redesigning the whole box or scrapping the fleet.

That would be fine if the failures tend to occur on gearboxes with high hours. But do we know that is the case with this accident? ISTR that of the two bevel gear shaft failures, one was quite high hours but wasn't one quite low hours?


If a newish gearbox can fail big-time with low hours and without warning, whilst other gearboxes of the same design regularly run to TBO, then that is a bit worrying. But surely under that circumstance it would be likely a flaw at manufacture, in which case the remedy is to tighten up on the quality control at the factory.

[birmingham]

I don't think a complete redesign would be the way to go, because you are back at square one with a product that has no operational history. What gotchas may have been included in the new design?

The gearbox has had thousands and thousands of hours of successful operation, until a couple of recent events. Fix what caused those aberrations.
Indeed. For a couple of reasons;

1. The L2 has been around since the early 90s and was operated successfully for many years. It should be possible to isolate the problem and develop a fix.
2. Replacing the gearbox is just not economically viable in the current climate.

If the Puma has any chance to return to the sky the best way for it to do so is to find out what exactly caused the problem and fix it. But even if we can I believe its future in the NS at least is going to be determined by industrial relations and the state of the industry - the machine is caught in something of a perfect storm

[SASless]

HC is correct on this one.

I would suggest tightening up QC all down the Chain but only after a definitive cause can be determined with great specificity and certainty.

Though it will have to draw upon past technical evidence....the perspective should be from a clean sheet of paper by ruling out previous assumptions and perspectives.

These two tragedies of Rotor Heads departing aircraft in Cruise Flight are clear signs that something is being missed in the past investigations and testing.

The results of being unable to find such a certain answer are going to be very detrimental to the future of not only the 225 but to the industry as a whole.

[birmingham]

...yes, I'm afraid so.
A lot of machines have already been moved into place

Babcock have taken delivery of two (planned) new S92s for the NS
CHC have transferred 2 S92s from canada
Bristow one from Nigeria, three from the Falklands one of which went to Norwich and one from Brazil
Statoil have moved their two 225 SAR machines to S92s following the extension of the grounding.

I hope nothing happens to an S92

[helicrazi]

Something tells me the 50 positions are more likely due to the chapter 11, but the H225 is a convenient excuse...

[SASless]

Did or did not the Customers take the position reported by CHC....that is the question.

If they did....and you are in Chapter 7 already...then it is probably unlikely CHC would be hard pressed in the current business climate to obtain financing for the purchase of other acceptable aircraft.

[birmingham]

It's inevitable - unfortunately.

CHC Scotia don't fall under Chapter 11? Well yes and no. If they are a direct subsidiary then it is effectively the same thing if the Americans are guaranteeing the finance or the leasing it is effectively the same thing - i could go on. If CHC Scotia is independently viable it could live on its own - to do this they need to return the leases which is effectively the same thing!

And they don't need more new aircraft they already have them or will be able to access stored aircraft against valid contracts. North Sea passenger numbers are down 30%.

But be fair to the clients guys - what possible alternative do they have? They are bound to exercise caution, but if they want to wait for the enquiy, whatever fixes are recommended to be implemented and then see 18 months of safe running by a competitor, then one oilco at least has to stick its neck out and back the EC225. Are any of the advisors on this forum telling their boards to do that and do they think they will listen?

And CHC - do you think they felt the warm embrace of the manufacturer's full support? or did someone imply it was all their fault? ... to put it mildly. What goes around etc.

I appreciate that it could have happened to the 92, but it didn't, at least not in the NS and not so often - yet!.

This is real life, 13 real people are dead and the reputational damage to the beast is pretty well unrepairable.

This is only a helicopter when all is said and done. Unfair? - pretty much definitely but life is unfair.

As I said - perfect storm and a great aircraft heads to retirement as they all do eventually - this one without doubt prematurely... and please HC - I am genuinely as sad to see this happen as you are, really, have some great memories of all versions of this craft from the very beginning all those years ago has been a big part of my life too. I'm sure that some versions will carry on - but the game is well and truly over in E&P - and it's hard to take!

One partisan coment (and I have no connection to CHC/HS) - their people have remained dignified througout this whole episode - my condolences for the loss of their people, those honest souls who are going through hell (still) and for those additionally made redundant.

[Tango123]

German and Brazilian military ground AS532 and H725M:
HeliHub German and Brazilian military ground AS532 and H725M (http://helihub.com/2016/06/08/german-and-brazilian-military-ground-as532-and-h725m/)

[birmingham]

CHC saying decision to end Puma use in UK is commercial

Helicopter operator CHC ends H225 use from Aberdeen base - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-36478443)

[Lonewolf_50]

Which version of the Super Puma is the EC725 made by Helibras based on? (Do the Brazilians make all parts, or are some still provided by vendors in France? )


Helibras began assembly of Cougars French-made parts in 2002. In late 2013, there's a note that the first "Brazilian-made EC725 (http://www.helis.com/database/model/266/)" made its first flight. As a lot of OEM's use outsourcing for a variety of systems, what parts are still coming from France/AH? (key part of course being gear box). (While I only ask about Brazil, there are a number of other military customers who might be getting very concerned ...)

[ARRAKIS]

Like Poland, in the process of buying 50 utility helicopters. H225M was chosen.

Regarding Brasil.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkObf4vVEAAr5B2.jpg

A.

[212man]

Which version of the Super Puma is the EC725 made by Helibras based on?

The 225.
Old numbering system was:
1=Civil, 6=Mil
Tonnage category
0 = single engine
5 = twin.

But, had to only be three digits so EC120 no problem but can't have a 6125 or 1125, so:
1+
125
----
225

and

6+
125
----
725

All changed now.....

[birmingham]

Most of us have been talking out E&P operations as that is what most 225s and many of the L2s spend their time doing.

It is clear by now that economics have taken over and that we are not going to see these types doing that anytime soon, if at all.

However, what about those aircraft not in E&P and those used in the military. It would seem highly unlikely that the military operators will not want to return their aircraft to the air at some point (by the way how many similarities does the RAF HC2 gearbox have to the L2s?).

So how could that be done best?

Obviously the issue of the suspension bars/feet needs to be cleared-up. Was this the initiating factor, a secondary result or a red herring? AH clearly seem to believe strongly it was a factor in al this.

Secondly we have to restore the reputation of the gearbox. To do that we have to show exactly why these fatigue cracks occured and preferably prevent them by a method additional to chip detection.

Then we need to resetablish confidence in the military. That will be easier than NS workers, but still needs to be done (remember Nimrod)

Surely AH will have to try? Wholesale retirement of the fleet would be economically disastarous

[lowfat]

Market forces apply... If nobody wants it no matter what Airbus say and do then its time for the gas axe...... I personally wont miss it

[etudiant]

AH will do a complete product reengineering in any case imho.
There are so many models of that family in service that they cannot just wash their hands of the one version involved, even if there is no immediate market requirement.

[Brother]

Bristow Australia engineers are mothballing the 225s and Bristow is looking for somewhere to store them. Its possible they will be packed up and shipped out of the country. Potentially not good for jobs for the 225 engineers and pilots. Sad to see the end of the 225 like this.

[cteneto139]

Helibras has started its bussines in the helicopter industry in 1978. As a state owner company, just few years ago it became private company. It is a simple assembly line company. It began to build the AS350 in late 1970s providing our Air Force and Navy.
The helicopter came up from France in boxes by sea!
In late 1980s, because our Army has started to fly helicopters, Dauphin were included in the production portfolio in the same way of AS350!
Recently, the government did an agreement with France government to sell 52 725/225 forecasting our Oil Industry and Armed Forces. Due some issues involving political and financial matters, this wasn´t fine and, they delivered only 6 or 8 725 to Air Force and Navy... Including this agreement, we had too, a 225 FTD installed in Rio de Janeiro. As a 225 pilot, it is frustrating to see all this mess, with no one possibility to help...

[buzz66]

The Super Puma Family have plenty of design flaws that have never been addressed.
Here is the best example, I have plenty more!
The Engine Fire Extinguishing system is Armed at all times. It's common sense design practice to ONLY arm the system after the Fire Handle has been pulled.
No good putting out the fire if the Fuel is still running.
Of course it's in the Emergency procedures to pull the Fire Handle first.

NO other Aircraft is designed this way....It's an extra hole in the Swiss Cheese put there by the OEM and never rectified because the Aviation Industry is Reactive NOT Proactive.

Who uses 3 Sus Bar instead of 4
Who uses the Epicyclic Ring as part of the structure of the case
Who uses the Planet gears as part of the Bearing
Who uses Electronics to Control a HYD Landing Gear System
Who these days uses Bimetallic Fire Detector Systems
Don't even get me started on the Fuel System

Simple answer Eurocopter.
Poor old Airbus, are going to have to clean up the mess.

[Lonewolf_50]

@buzz66
I think the S-70 has gears/bearings combined in their planetary gears, something similar to what you see in the pictures from the 225. (Details no doubt vary and you'd need to compare the blueprints and assembly drawings to see the distinctions ...)

[Never Fretter]

Who uses 3 Sus Bar instead of 4
If one fails it makes little difference if there are 3 or 4, except with 4 there are more parts to fail or be misassembled.

Who uses the Epicyclic Ring as part of the structure of the case
Turns out an OEM that doesn't carry all the load through the casing.

Who uses the Planet gears as part of the Bearing
See previous post.

Who uses Electronics to Control a HYD Landing Gear System
Combining electronics and hydraulics eh? You going to query Bell's FBW 525?


Who these days uses Bimetallic Fire Detector Systems
Anyone who hasn't applied the SB that is available.

I could go on but buzz66's ill-conceived rant doesn't really deserve the effort.

[buzz66]

Anyone who hasn't applied the SB that is available.
I could go on but buzz66's ill-conceived rant doesn't really deserve the effort.


There it is right there!
You clearly don't understand
I'm not talking about when Eurocopter brought out a better sealed Fire Detector.
It's still a bi-metallic jobby!
Everyone else uses a Closed loop Capillary action Detectors
You know the ones, they look like a long piece of thick lock wire.
If you still don't have a clue, then you need to start working on some other Aircraft Types

The sealed Bi-Mettalic rubbish that even 3rd world manufacturers like Embraer dropped decades ago will still get enough moisture inside and cause a Fire D fault if the sumpy's hose down a Warm Gearbox. Another nice move was to Decrease the fault tolerance from K OHMS on the Anologue 332L L1 to Meg Ohms on the EC225.
Eurocopter are so worried and paranoid about there crappy gearbox they had to put a DUAL 7 detector system around the gearbox......2 SYSTEMS with a total of 14 Fire Detectors JUST around the gearbox.

Even a Cessna 210 uses the Hyd to select gear up and gear down, not and electrical switch

Maybe now Eurocpoter are Airbus the Helciopter devision could start learning a few things from the fixed wing world

[Never Fretter]

Yawn. Whatever.

[ericferret]

"Maybe now Eurocpoter are Airbus the Helciopter devision could start learning a few things from the fixed wing world."

Wow!!!!

[CTR]

"Combining electronics and hydraulics eh? You going to query Bell's FBW 525?"


The Bell 525 landing gear is electrically actuated with electric motors and ball screws, like the Bell 429 WLG and AB H160. The AW 149 may be all electric also. Most new helicopters are adopting all electric actuation for landing gear.

[Lonewolf_50]

"Combining electronics and hydraulics eh? You going to query Bell's FBW 525?"


The Bell 525 landing gear is electrically actuated with electric motors and ball screws, like the Bell 429 WLG and AB H160. The AW 149 may be all electric also. Most new helicopters are adopting all electric actuation for landing gear. I think the comment
You going to query Bell's FBW 525?
had to do with the Fly By Wire system: using only electricity won't provide the power to move primary flight controls the way hydraulics does. :E I have it on good authority that another OEM uses "electrically activated hydraulically powered" flight controls. From an old SH-60 flight manual
The Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) is an electrohydromechanical system that provides inputs to the flight control system to assist the pilot in maneuvering and handling the helicopter. Tthey mixed electric and hydraulic and mechanical all together. (Should I call the Admiral and ask them to ground the fleet?) :E:}:cool:

[noooby]

It is coming though Lonewolf 50. Airbus (fixed wing) have already tested electric actuators on a flying test bed.
It is coming. Will be a while till anything filters through to eh helicopter world though.

[SASless]

I am ok with it....so long as an infamous British Electric Bits Maker is not the Subcontractor!:uhoh:

[riff_raff]

The Super Puma Family have plenty of design flaws that have never been addressed. Here is the best example, I have plenty more!
Who uses the Epicyclic Ring as part of the structure of the case
Who uses the Planet gears as part of the Bearing

buzz66-

I can't think of any other MRGB that uses the epicyclic stage ring gear as a structural member. But the AH MRGB designs are different in how they use struts to transfer rotor loads to the airframe.

However, almost every MRGB I can think of has the outer race of the epicyclic stage planet gear bearings integral to the gear. Including Bell, Boeing, AW, and EC designs.

[dascanio]

@riff raff:

If I remember well, at least CH47 (!) uses the epicyclic stage ring gear as a structural member.

But I agree with you that almost every MRGB has outer race of the epicyclic stage planet gear bearings integral to the gear.

[ericferret]

http://icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2006/PAPERS/048.PDF

http://williams.best.vwh.net/172RG_POH/7-28.jpg

I remember from training back in the 70's that wet lines into cockpits was to be avoided at all costs as the effect of a leak was quite dramatic. We've all seen the films with the WW2 pilot getting covered in hot oil.

The quoted 210 has a working pressure of between 1000/1500 psi, modern systems have 3000 psi plus. Nobody wants that in the cockpit.

[SASless]

Ask any Chinook Pilot about Hydraulic Leaks in the Flight Control Closet on the Port Side of the Cockpit Companion way! Fight controls at 3000 PSI and Utility System pressure lines at 2500 PSI...makes for an interesting time.

Likewise...the Forward Transmission Oil Filter blowing off and the Sound Proofing not being installed under the Tranny gets interesting in the Cockpit as well.

What is more impressive is a fuel leak back aft when one of the 400 PSI lines with a diameter of about six inches lets go....(at least that is what One would think when a Jet Fuel Niagara Falls happens).

[Three Lima Charlie]

My new Toyota has Electric Power Steering (EPS), no pump, no fluid. Many large airplane use electric motors for landing gear and flaps (B-29).

[lowfat]

Eurocopter / airbus helicopters use renualt and citroen parts.. there electrics suck ass...

[Self loading bear]

Eurocopter / airbus helicopters use renualt and citroen parts.. there electrics suck ass...

Suck ass....
Such as their English?

SLB (Renault driver)

[AW009]

And the fuel tank cap of Squirrel is of BMW 1502 - 2002 series which you can buy at a scrapyard.:ooh:
AW009, a BMW driver:ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

And the fuel tank cap of Squirrel is of BMW 1502 - 2002 series which you can buy at a scrapyard.:ooh:
AW009, a BMW driver:ok:
Gentlemen, we appear to be drifting with the tide and away from the thread's topic. (My Mini Cooper S had electric power assisted steering, sadly the wife got tired of one of the finest driving cars I ever owned ... :().


The hydraulics weren't what was wrong with the accident aircraft 225's, were they?

[AW009]

@Lonewolfe_50: Then let’s return to auto-transmisson gearboxes of cars. You will never find an epicyclic module with planet gearwheels being the outer race of it’s roller bearing and with a ring gear being the housing of the gearbox. By AVIO AERO resp.in H225, AS332L2 and TP400D6 this might be a standard:ugh:
(https://www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/55670976/planetary)
https://www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/55670976/planetary

[ecureilx]

Maybe related, or not:

Singapore delays $1 billion military helicopter buy after Super Puma crash: sources



Singapore delays $1 billion military helicopter buy after Super Puma crash: sources | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-airbus-group-idUSKCN0Z71AR)

[Lonewolf_50]

@Lonewolfe_50: Then let’s return to auto-transmisson gearboxes of cars. Not sure why, since the topic of this thread is actually helicopters. Cars only function in two dimensions unless one is stunt driving for a movie. Their altitude design spec is 0 feet AGL.


@ecuerilx: that's a signal sent. (Can one blame the buyer in this case for getting cold feet until a "we know why" and "here's how that's resolved" is on the table?)

[AW009]

@Lonewolf_50: Can you show me any gearbox which is not burdened by three dimensional forces and loads and which does know in which altitude it is running, flying or swimming?
:=

[AW009]

Where are the markets for all those H225 / AS 332L2 that are returned by the lessees - such as by CHS due to Chapter 11 petitions - to the lessors?



What will happen with those H225 / AS332L2 which are returned by operators to the lessors because those helicopters do not meet the contractual characteristics for safe flight operations?



How are realized alternative and just in time solutions (eg. S 92, AW 189, AW101) by industry and lessors, otherwise the lessors risk to be liable for the losses of lessees?



How will the lessors act against AHB?


Looking on the worlds markets, these questions must be put 100 to 150 times!
Or what is the opinion of the PPRuNe Community to the situation and to the figures?

[riff_raff]

@Lonewolfe_50: Then let’s return to auto-transmisson gearboxes of cars. You will never find an epicyclic module with planet gearwheels being the outer race of it’s roller bearing and with a ring gear being the housing of the gearbox. By AVIO AERO resp.in H225, AS332L2 and TP400D6 this might be a standard:ugh:
(https://www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/55670976/planetary)
https://www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/55670976/planetary

That image you linked shows an epicyclic ring gear attached by a flexure. The flexure flange is clamped between the housing faces, but is not a structural member of the housing. This flexure attachment is commonly used with large epicyclic ring gears since it provides some misalignment capability between the planet and sun gears.

As descanio noted, the CH-47 gearbox does use the epicyclic ring gear as part of the housing structure.

As for automatic auto transmissions with epicyclic gear stages, most of the ones I have seen incorporate the outer bearing race of the planet gears as part of the gear.

http://www.nsk.com/company/presslounge/news/2015/images/1030/a02.jpg

[AW009]

@riff_raff: The Image (https://www.yumpu.com/xx/document/vi...0976/planetary (https://www.yumpu.com/xx/document/view/55670976/planetary)) shows the TP400 main propeller gearbox on display at Paris Air Show 2013 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Europrop_Airbus_A400M_engine_PAS_2013_03_TP400-D6_PDB_Main_Propeller_Gearbox.jpg/1024px-Europrop_Airbus_A400M_engine_PAS_2013_03_TP400-D6_PDB_Main_Propeller_Gearbox.jpg).

You are very right, the flexure flange as a unit with the ring gear is clamped between the front cover and the housing by means of through-bolts and is supported or propped up directly as a fitting element (Surface pressure) in the housing.

In my view this design transfers all radial forces by the ring gear (e.g. deformation or crack of ring gear due to mashing or squelching of satellite epicyclic (broken pinion gears) directly to the housing of the PGB.

Therefore I don’t see much mechanical difference to the CH-47 and also not to the H225/AS 332 Design, where the ring gear is one part with the housing structure. Of course the construction of the TP400-D6 PGB by AVIO AERO is much friendlier to overhaul and repair.


In a BMW or a Mercedes you will never find an auto-gearbox where the large epicyclic ring gears are parts of the housing or are in direct mechanical contact to the housing (see http://www.ipsen-blog.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BMW-8-HP-Automatikgetriebe2.jpg & http://i.auto-bild.de/ir_img/1/1/6/0/7/8/8/Mercedes-E-Klasse-1200x800-57c95dd4701683b0.jpg)



In case of gear mashing the gear housing never will explode and the cardan shaft wouldn't do the very same as the main rotor of H225LP LN-OJF did in Bergen Crash.



In (Super) PUMA MRGB the ring gear is part of the housing!



To incorporate the outer bearing race of the planet gear as part of the gear might be a cheap solution in automotive transmissions, but we are talking about gearboxes in aviations. High quality outer bearing races by press-in conection to the planet gears don’t make much difference in costs, but are an enormous profit in safety and reliability.

Those are precisely the four crucial core issues which were not catched by the very loud ‘engineer’ Lonewolf_50, because he lapsed up to now into a suspicious silence!

In summary: The MRGB of (Super) Puma does not even meet the present standards of automotive engineering.

[PhilJ]

In a BMW or a Mercedes you will never find an auto-gearbox where the large epicyclic ring gears are parts of the housing or are in direct mechanical contact to the housing (see http://www.ipsen-blog.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BMW-8-HP-Automatikgetriebe2.jpg & http://i.auto-bild.de/ir_img/1/1/6/0/7/8/8/Mercedes-E-Klasse-1200x800-57c95dd4701683b0.jpg)



In case of gear mashing the gear housing never will explode and the cardan shaft wouldn't do the very same as the main rotor of H225LP LN-OJF did in Bergen Crash.



In (Super) PUMA MRGB the ring gear is part of the housing!



To incorporate the outer bearing race of the planet gear as part of the gear might be a cheap solution in automotive transmissions, but we are talking about gearboxes in aviations. High quality outer bearing races by press-in conection to the planet gears don’t make much difference in costs, but are an enormous profit in safety and reliability.

Those are precisely the four crucial core issues which were not catched by the very loud ‘engineer’ Lonewolf_50, because he lapsed up to now into a suspicious silence!

In summary: The MRGB of (Super) Puma does not even meet the present standards of automotive engineering.



Points 1 and 3 are the same point worded differently.

An automatic gearbox works by allowing the ring gear to rotate in some ratios and fixing it in others whereas the helicopter gearbox has one ratio only. Apples vs oranges.

[AW009]

@PhilJ: From the perspective of @lonewolf_50 you're right.

[Lonewolf_50]

@AW009 Nothing suspicious about lack of further comment, when dealing with someone in broadcast mode who has demonstrated having an ax to grind.

[AW009]

@Lonewolfe_50: Do you also have substantial arguments or do you have as an ’engineer’ still problems to differentiate between an engine from a gearbox, as you had in http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/578298-ec225-crash-near-bergen-norway-70.html#post9416248

[henra]

Removed. Sorry if my last post came across differently than intended. Was really intended as light hearted joke but seems to have failed badly.
Apologies and really trying to get back on an amicable level.

[AW009]

Truth by replicating hearsay or rumors is none. And lobbyists and trolls fears the truth like hell. That’s the fine but relevant difference between professional arguments and spoofing.or trolling. And what I have done and still are doing, in which position, by which status, on whomoever paylist and for which companies in aviations, about this gyrus of trolls may dance like a sack of potatoes in the very wrong cellar. Meaning those spoofers are absolute out in their ’Lobbyist-Argumentation’ and therefore are totally off topic by their primitive nonsens in dealing with red herring.

The present thread has the wording ’End of H225’ and e.g. not ’Sympathy for or antipathies against ABH" or 'Prosperity of AW189’. I suppose some users obviously haven't the foggiest idea of military procurement and certification procedure in Germany.

Also AW189 is not an introduced Helicopter by German FMOD and within the life cycle of NH90 won’t become one. Then - in 25 to 30 years - AW189 is technologically as ancient as NH90 and H225 are already in present days.

Three AS532U2 are introduced by German FMOD for Governmental VIP Services and are currently grounded by the Commander of the German Air Force Lieutenant General Karl Müllner. To declare again readiness of those helicopters is now a technical question and will be directly dependant to the further investigations of AIBN and to the future decisions of EASA and won't be standing any longer under any influence of any lobbyist in FMoD or by the 'porveyor to H.M'.

Those lobbyists already have failed in the lead-up of grounding of AS532U2 COUGAR (military version of AS332L2) because of their cluelessness in certification procedure. This is the reason why General Müllner - also as a responsible-minded and experienced pilot - pulled the rip cord before FMOD created a third or even more stupid statement and/or press release(s), to put the kibosh on a grounding by German Military Aviation Authority (GMAA = Luftfahrtamt Bundeswehr) and/or by Director of Aviation Safety of Bundeswehr (GenFluSi), as evident by an official Document of German FMOD to Dr. Tobias Lindner, Member of German Parliament / Deutscher Bundestag [germ. MdB], member of Defence Committee and member of Budget Committee (compare http://www.tobias-lindner.de/fileadmin/media/MdB/lindner-suedpfalz.de/Dokumente/2016/160531_Antwort_Schriftliche_Frage_SUPER_PUMA_COUGAR.pdf) and as evident by the military TCDS of COUGAR basing on EASA TCDS of AS332L2. All those evidence are non-classified and public.
----------------------------------

N.B.: I'm writting here in PPRuNe as a pilot, technican, former officer and as an empowered citizen with the constitutional right of free expression to the respective topics and therefore I don't care a pap for it, if this would be to the liking of s.b. or not..:rolleyes:

[henra]

Deleted.


Don't want a fight. Seriously. Was trying to move it on a more light hearted basis. Obviously failed with that.
Apologies for that.
Now finally Outta here.

[Lonewolf_50]

The present thread has the wording ’End of H225’ and e.g. not ’Sympathy for or antipathies against ABH" or[I] 'Prosperity of AW189’.
Not sure who is bringing AW 189 into this discussion: not me, maybe you? (Or someone else?)
Three AS532U2 are introduced by German FMOD for Governmental VIP Services and are currently grounded by the Commander of the German Air Force Lieutenant General Karl Müllner. To declare again readiness of those helicopters is now a technical question and will be directly dependant to the further investigations of AIBN and to the future decisions of EASA and won't be standing any longer under any influence of any lobbyist in FMoD or by the 'porveyor to H.M'. Good. On topic. Question: do you think the German MoD decision will have an influence on other nations who have mil versions in their fleet (For example Brazil?)
or
are the configurations different enough to make such a decision by one MoD of little influence on another MoD's airworthiness decision?

N.B.: I'm writting here in PPRuNe as a pilot, technican, former officer and as an empowered citizen with the constitutional right of free expression to the respective topics Accepted as offered. You are also indulging in personalization of an argument; please don't, mein freund.
For the record:
1. Not bluster. Statement of fact (current employment).
2. "I have no dog in that fight" is an idiomatic expression in English meaning that I am not emotionally invested one way or another in an issue. (For example, I am neither pro nor anti Airbus; I am neither pro nor anti Bell; I am neither pro nor anti Boeing; etcetera). It's meaning is not as you implied, that someone is referring to another in a discussion as a dog. (The allusion is to dog fighting where two people might be wagering on a battle in the ring, and someone can be a spectator but not "have a dog in that fight" i.e. he's not bet on either dog in that particular match).

Let's try to stay on topic. I certainly shall do my part.

[AW009]

@Lonewolf_50: Absolute ‘d'accord' with your post.
Thank you for your clarification to "dogs", I've learned more about some English Idioms.

To your topic question:
Do you think the German MoD decision willhave to influence on other nations who have mil versions in their fleet (For example Brazil?)
or
are the configurations different enough to make a decision examined by one of MoD little influence on another MoD's airworthiness decision?
Yes and No; It is absolutely dependent on the exact type of SUPER PUMA the respective military are operating.
In miltitary Type Certification Data Sheet (TCDS) of the German COUGAR is written:
2.3 Type Certification (due to simplified Type Qualification Test)

The Cougar AS 532 U2 type is a military version of the French civil certified type Super Puma AS 332 L2. There still exists an EASA certification (EASA R.002, Issue 02 of 21 April 2006) for the type AS 332 L2 which is based on the French authorization DGAC-Fn from 09 September 1994th ; based on the French homologation 532 U2 as a simplified type test was performed for the type Cougar AS.

[…]

3. Technical features, limitations and requirements

3.1 documents to define the Structural and Technical Conditions of Type

- A list of construction documents the manufacturer Eurocopter France
- Type Specification 532 U2 15.FLU.O4 A from August 1995
- EUKUUOPTER 332 P04 3521 Ed E of 19.06.1997 (Technical de fi nition of the 532nd
U2 VIP Aircraft)
- EUROCOPTER 332 P04 4522 Ed F from 18.02.1997 (List of Equipment).
- EUROCOPTER 532A.00.1000 U2 (AS 532 U2 Master Drawing)
- EUROCOPTER 332 P001205.00 (AS 532 U2 Top Drawing for the German version)
- Engineering Order EOM 0000-27260 (Product Change IFR upgrade)

[…]

5. Rules for Use maintenance, repair an overhaul
It is valid the latest approved by the Director of Airworthiness edition.

5.1 Aircraft: 'Cougar AS 532 U2 Flight Manual

- Cougar AS 532 U2 Maintenance Program
- Cougar AS 532 U2 Airworthiness Limitations
- Cougar AS 532 U2 Maintenance Manual
- Cougar AS 532 U2 Structural Repair Manual
- Cougar AS 532 U2 Overhaul Manual
- Cougar AS 532 U2 Service Bulletins
- Cougar AS 532 U2 Mandatory Service Bulletin

5.2 engine:
DGAC Data Sheet N° M10 12 issue; March 1994 for aircraft type: Cougar AS 532 U2

5.3 IFR upgrade:

- Heli-One (Norway) AS Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement No. AHS 065.CMA 9000 multi-sensor navigation system
- Heli-One (Norway) AS Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement No. AHS-066, ARTEX C406N HM Emergency Locator Transmitter
- Heli-One (Norway) AS Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement No. AHS-067, VH F-4000E VH F-Radio
- Heli-One (Norway) AS Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement No. AHS-068, APX-119 IFF / Mode S transponder
- Heli-One (Norway) AS Aircraft Flight Manual Supplement No. AHS 069th TALON VIUHF Transceiver
- Heli-One (Norway) AS MEL Supplement No. AHS O40A
Such a simplified and supplementary military type certification corresponds strictly to the National, EMAR, MAWA, STANAG and other NATO Standards. Hence the case was crystal clear up from the start resp. since the Crash at Bergen!

As the spokesman for the German Air Force and the German FMOD have very poore professionally experience in aviations, mostly absolute no ideas about what they are speaking and furthermore are obliged by FMOD to 'rose-tinted glasses', they made a call to the AH-Lobbyists and afterwards the spokesmen have told stupid stories and were writing completely nonsense to Parliament and in Media .

Ltn General Muellner has once again enforced the simple principle "where is written what" and thus “Basta”!

AS 532U2 COUGAR only come back into the air when the EASA cancels the grounding of H 225 / AS 332L2; thus again “Basta”!

May be, Gen Müllner became by his tough decision and order the ’best friend’ of Merkel, von der Leyen & Co, but for a knick-knackery Gen Müllner is already to old and he also must worry little by little about lucrative ’hobbies’ to buff up his 'barely state pension' after retirement.

The whole story seems to be no more as one of many typical FMoD Comedies, but the present might become a long time one.

Dear Ladies Angela and Ursula don't worry, Governmental VIP in Germany still can be flown by Federal Police (’De Maizièré Airlines’) in AS 332L1 (but lamentably without armchairs, carpet, galley and toilette).

[AW009]

@henra: We had an agreement of an amicable and mutual settlement of dispute. I've followed the rules; you did not by your silly comment #187.
Of course the inevitable reaction won’t appear in PPruNe.:=

[AW009]

@all: By time and leisure I will support an interesting thread about Polish Aviation Valley (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxZNtjkPpSE) and about PZL (Państwowe Zakłady Lotnicze (= [former] State owned Aviation Works (Plural; meaning a convolute of >20 works)). Then – perhaps as side effect – s.b. will catch which nerve he hit with his most stupid comments "former AW PZL Lobbyist", no “longer in industry” and by further defamations.

To give you a first glance of this new thread:

Already my nick "AW009" obviously missed the aha-experience of s.b., that there are a lot of evolutions and upgrades compared to "PZL SW-4 Puszczyk", which I know since August of 2004 very well due to an intensive cooperation and a lot of suggestions for improvement (approx. 80% are realized in AW009) by the German Group (AOC, CAMO, ATO) I’m working for.

Furthermore we presented to German Bundeswehr / FMOD Delegation (10 people) already in 2004 at Swidnik the 2nd prototype and presented in 2005 the first civil serial HC in Rhineland-Palatinate to ’hand selected’ civil & military operators (task forces; no administrative bodies of FMOD) and each pilot (approx. 18 + 2 'girls' (ATPL) of 34 guest) got 15 Minute flight time on PZL SW-4 under dual controls.

After some problems between the earphones of Polish Testflight Pilots and Engineers with ‘hot autorotation’ (whe have solved end of 2004 as shown in 14 Video Clips (by https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUMT86JGxoFGg9d8nzhdnetg as one of our contributions to a still at present given cooperation),

SW-4 Puszczyk is successfully operated at Polish Air Force Academy at Deblin and its outpost at Bydgoszcz by 24 Training HC since mid 2005 (compare “Polish Trainer AW-PZL SW-4 Puszczyk „Waldkauz“, der Polnische „BSHS“ : https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/54543829/polish-trainer-aw-pzl-sw-4-puszczyk-waldkauz-der-polnische-bshs).

Again, for a very good HC as AW009 - now with optional RR C30 engine + FADEC + HUMS + FDRC + VRC + EFIS - you must not fear the H120 or the brand-new JetRanger 505x and [B]you do not need lobbyist. You also must not worry about demand of commercial helicopter market. The very same effect is given to nearly the complete AW-Series, because AW developments are traditionally very near to customer demands. The same is done by Sikorsky and MD Helicopters (but by the latter still have problems in after sales services)

Of course military business is always welcome, also to LEONARDO, to its companies, sales & service organizations and business partners. Being in a market position to become more and more independent of a 50% / 50% mil/civil market diversification doesn’t mean market leadership, but is economically very comfortable, is an adequate position in negations with customers and is saving much expences for lobbyist.

There are cooperating a lot of experts and consultants with Polish Aviation Industry but most of them had never seen any money from Poland. Why? The answer is very easy; they work for the cooperation partners, the primary customers. So s.b. with worm's-eye view and primitively but very dangerous bashing against “AW-PZL Lobbyist” are totally off the matt, don’t catch it and don’t keep their wicked tongue under control.

In military HC-markets PZL Mielec and her subcontractors of Aviation Valley together with AERO Vodochody AEROSPACE a.s. (Czechja; AERO Vodochody AEROSPACE a.s. (http://www.aero.cz/en/)) and her subcontractors in the metropole region of Prague) and PZL Swidnik – also in Aviation Valley of Poland - have already some surprise in their shelves (UH-60M BLACK HAWK, S70i BLACK HAWK, S-76D, Bell AH-1Z, Bell UH-1Y, Apache AH Mk.1, T129 and SW-4 ‘Solo’ (RUAV/OPH a Polish – British – Italian R&D Project completed within 2 ½ years!).

Might be I’m not only in cooperation with PZL X, but also with PZL Y and PZL Z and can report some more insider know-how out of Polish HC and also AC scenario.

To give a first assessment of present situation:
Poland and all EU and/or NATO Members in Eastern Hemisphere are on the best way to become a nightmare for H225M, Tiger and all M-series of AH. Although there is an urgent need to replace up to 400 HC of the Warsaw Pact Era in total. Only Romania and Bulgaria are traditional Aerospatiale-EC-AB countries.

Of course the Offshore Market is an other severe problem, but in the scenario as said before not so relevant as e.g. in North Sea or in Overseas

By this, let’s finish with those OT to present H225-Thread and back to the topics of H 225.
Thanks you for Interest.

[whoknows idont]

Semi off topic, but can be als a part of end of H 225

You should look up the word "semi". Yet another totally misplaced post.

[Apate]

Thank you for Interest.

Sorry but I lost interest very quickly :sad:

[AW009]

@whoknows idont & @Apate: Suggestion; set the new thread Aviation Valley - PZL and me on your ignore list, but don't troll. Poland and I can live without you!

[whoknows idont]

@whoknows idont & @Apate: Suggestion; set the new thread Aviation Valley - PZL and me on your ignore list, but don't troll. Poland and I can live without you!

Suggestion: Try to get to the point from time to time instead of extensively blathering pointless stuff with introductions that sound like you are actually about to contribute something.
Your posts could probably be quite interesting if they were posted in the adequate threads at the right place and if they were a lot less diffuse.
Making this about Poland? Again you couldn't possibly be more disconnected from the actual discussion.

[henra]

@henra: We had an agreement of an amicable and mutual settlement of dispute. I've followed the rules; you did not by your silly comment #187.
Of course the inevitable reaction won’t appear in PPruNe.:=



See my edited post. Was really meant as a lighthearted way of getting back to an amicable communication. Didin't work obviously. Apologies.

[AW009]

@henra: Let's forget it, after your 2nd PM. But please never again comments to my business activities ...... :O

[birmingham]

"Growth of a fatigue crack requires repeated load cycles, for example through rotation of a gear or a
main rotor start/stop cycle. More work is required both to understand the propagation rate and the
origin of the observed fatigue cracks, but at present, the AIBN finds it most likely that the fatigue
fracture of this planet gear subsequently resulted in loss of the main rotor. It is considered unlikely
that this fatigue crack propagated as a consequence of a structural break-up of another component."

.... Looks like they are getting to the bottom of this and it does not look good. AH must regret the initial suspension strut statement.

[SASless]

All this being said....why this particular MGB at this time?

Also....is this failure comparable to the previous Crash involving the loss of the Rotorhead thus showing there is more to the problem than imagined?

What are the odds of chasing down the exact set of circumstances that would cause the two MGB's to fail....and more importantly....not be detected/prevented by existing protocols in Design, Manufacture, Over Haul, and Operation?

http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/AIBN-Main-gearbox-fatigue-fracture-likely-cause-of-Norway-H225-crash

[Jdbelo]

I've heard some rumors that CHC it is returning all H-225 from Brazil.
Is it real?

[twisted wrench]

Not exactly the leasing company or bank that owns them has to come and get them.

[Lonewolf_50]

I've heard some rumors that CHC it is returning all H-225 from Brazil.
Is it real?PPRuNe contributor cteneto139 (http://www.pprune.org/members/306515-cteneto139) looks to be in Brazil, he many be able to shed some light regarding local rumors/news there.

[Satcomm]

Think this thread should be punted ... It has seriously just turned into a babbling rodeo of off topic conversation. Sorry if that offends anyone but the thread is long dead. The page long posts by some individuals are getting old .... Is anyone even reading past the first line? I personally just skip them posts and move onto the normal people (ie, lone wolf, SASless, Henry, Whoknows). These guys seem to be in touch with earth!

[bigglesbutler]

Think this thread should be punted ... It has seriously just turned into a babbling rodeo of off topic conversation. Sorry if that offends anyone but the thread is long dead. The page long posts by some individuals are getting old .... Is anyone even reading past the first line? I personally just skip them posts and move onto the normal people (ie, lone wolf, SASless, Henry, Whoknows). These guys seem to be in touch with earth!

Second that, I now have one person on my ignore list from the various 225 threads, makes reading a LOT easier.

Si

[SASless]

Never mind the chaff....there is some Wheat amongst the posts!

I am learning far more about Gearbox design and manufacturing, heat treatment, gear coatings, and bearing wear than I ever have....which does make for an interesting read of some of the posts.

This is a very serious situation, not only for AH and the Operators, but the Industry as a whole to include the Authority's that Certify Aircraft.

To lose two aircraft and all of the people in them as has happened....requires the causes be definitively identified no matter how much it costs or however long it takes.

It will require the dropping of Shields by every involved party if that is to happen.

There lies the major problem in my view....as there are too many vested interests that might not be as candid in their review as might be required.

We had a similar situation back when the 92 was having its problems but at least part of that was due to it being a brand new Machine having its teething problems. Those issues seem to have been identified and resolved.

Hopefully, the Gearbox issues with the 225 will be resolved as well and the Aircraft can be returned to service.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

SAS, as ever, clarity in a sea of technical flotsam!

[casper64]

So now we have confirmation that there was a fire onboard the egyptair A320 without a cause for it (yet)... How come, the fixed wing world acts so differently than ours? Why haven't all A330s been grounded till the cause has been found?
Is the rotary word "over-reacting" or is the fixed wing world not doing enough because of much more money involved?

[bigglesbutler]

The client in the stuck wing world is us, if we don't want to fly on a type the airline laughs knowing there are plenty of other passengers. In rotary world the client is the oil company and if they say no there are no more passengers. It's the power they have as each company pays for many passengers.

Si

[Lonewolf_50]

So now we have confirmation that there was a fire onboard the egyptair A320 without a cause for it (yet)... How come, the fixed wing world acts so differently than ours? Why haven't all A330s been grounded till the cause has been found?
Is the rotary word "over-reacting" or is the fixed wing world not doing enough because of much more money involved?
Are you involved in rotary wing aviation, fixed wing aviation, or any aviation at all? Your post mixes apples and tire irons, at best.

[riff_raff]

Never mind the chaff....there is some Wheat amongst the posts! I am learning far more about Gearbox design and manufacturing, heat treatment, gear coatings, and bearing wear than I ever have....which does make for an interesting read of some of the posts,.

Glad to hear you are learning from some of the posts. Unfortunately, the subject of rotorcraft gearbox design is very complex and not easy to summarize in a couple sentences of the typical post.

Scanning thru posts that you don't find helpful just comes with using an open public forum. Much preferable to censorship.

[AnFI]

riff raff: "Unfortunately, the subject of rotorcraft gearbox design is very complex and not easy to summarize in a couple sentences of the typical post."

and that is why the risk assosciated with these gearboxes should be taken into account when the 2 engine solution is considered

it is not correct to say 1x10^-5 squared (1x10^-10) is the risk and it is a completely untrue premise

[EESDL]

Can we just answer the original thread - the 225 is now a dead duck.
EC/AH flummoxed the industry lay time - even stating that fault could have been caused by a bead of sweat dropping into the shaft from a guy in Marseiile. FFS - they have an ology in BS - or as AH call it - Merde du Vache.
AH tried to get away with minimal last time - they have stretched max fro MGB and been found wanting.

[AnFI]

This thread should read is the twin dead

its got nothing to do with being a 225

its got everything to do with what Ive been banging on about

its just a hideously complicated gearbox with hundreds of bearings and back up lubrication systems and all sorts of pig ignorant engineering solutions more fatally dangerous freewheel units than one needs to be exposed to this sort of problem is inherent in the Multi Engined approach

S92s 225s Merlins ec135 a109s all have multi engine related accidents often

a guy dies in London under a twin and a bunch of people die in a pub under a twin so theyre going to ban singles great logic guys ordinary people are sick of being kicked around by pompous ignorant elites

now its going to be twin only in the military too !!
totally nuts

[Lonewolf_50]

This thread should read is the twin dead
Nope
its got nothing to do with being a 225
Actually, it does.

S92s 225s Merlins ec135 a109s all have multi engine related accidents often Merlin isn't a twin, nor is the CH-53E. ;)

The S92 crash in Canada (Cougar) was not due to the input gears failing from the two engines, but output from the bevel to the TTO -- whether you had one or two engines driving the gear box has nothing to do with the box running out of oil and then failure of drive to the tail rotor.

Can you offer an example of an S92 accident that actually has to do with two engines?

AnFI, if all you have is a hammer, does everything really look like a nail?

The 225 has a particular design issue that will or won't be addressed successfully enough to return that fleet to service. Can't be a rush job, that would probably defeat the purpose.

[PlasticCabDriver]

its got everything to do with what Ive been banging on about



Yes, on and on and on and on.....

[AnFI]

Lone 50 4 ref
Anfi quote "its just a hideously complicated gearbox with hundreds of bearings and backup ....... to be exposed to this sort of problem is inherent in the Multi Engined approach "

ref hammer and nail metaphore its the illogical focus on engine related accidents as opposed to general system failures that deserves that parallel
engines are only a small proportion of accidents why is that hammer used when nails are so rare?

PCD "on and on and on and on....."
and eventually the point might get some serious consideration

helicopters are fundamentally simplex, the most reliable components are simplex, duplication and complexity are the helicopters enemy

[henra]

This thread should read is the twin dead


So your proposal would be to fly the Bears offshore with Robbies?! :}
Could you please stop wasting bandwith with this utter nonsense?

[henra]

S92s 225s Merlins ec135 a109s all have multi engine related accidents often


No, they don't.
They do have accidents but they are rare and they have to do with very demanding Usage profiles rather than the question 1 engine or two or even more. In this particular case the second stage epicyclic that apparently failed could give a flying f*ck if the first stage gear was driven by one, two or three donks.
The thought you are a helicopter pilot thoroughly scares me, seeing that you have obvious difficulties understanding the most basic causal inferences.

[SASless]

Banging on.....an empty Drum!

[AW009]

@henra: Don't worry, be happy (respective amused):)

[riff_raff]

The question regarding the future of twin engine helos is actually interesting.

First, consider the fundamental reason for using twin engines. It is primarily because existing turboshaft engine designs were not perceived as having an acceptable level of reliability for the given applications. On the other hand, using a single larger turboshaft engine would give better fuel efficiency and much lower manufacturing cost.

The new generation of turboshaft engines are far more reliable than previous ones. So I think we'll see more new helo designs using a single engine instead of twin engines.

[Evil Twin]

First, consider the fundamental reason for using twin engines. It is primarily because existing turboshaft engine designs were not perceived as having an acceptable level of reliability for the given applications.

Hmmmmm....:eek:? So, nothing to do with getting you to LSALT, to a safe landing place or back on the deck or ground then....?

edit:- Should've said in the event of an engine failure

[212man]

Quote:

First, consider the fundamental reason for using twin engines. It is primarily because existing turboshaft engine designs were not perceived as having an acceptable level of reliability for the given applications.
Hmmmmm....? So, nothing to do with getting you to LSALT, to a safe landing place or back on the deck or ground then....?

Or simply not having sufficient installed power?

[singesavant]

The question regarding the future of twin engine helos is actually interesting.

First, consider the fundamental reason for using twin engines. It is primarily because existing turboshaft engine designs were not perceived as having an acceptable level of reliability for the given applications. On the other hand, using a single larger turboshaft engine would give better fuel efficiency and much lower manufacturing cost.

The new generation of turboshaft engines are far more reliable than previous ones. So I think we'll see more new helo designs using a single engine instead of twin engines.
riff raff I am sure that you are ruled under FAA, come across the pond to see how things re looking and you will quickly realize that European agencies are not looking at thing in this way at all and so are Europeans manufacturers: we europeans love to make things very complicated and pragmatism isn't something that attract our laws makers trust me...

I only wish you were right, but me think we can only dream of it!

Davy

[bigglesbutler]

If we are going to have the 1 v 2 engine debate let me be plain, I AINT going offshore with one period.

Peace out

Si

[singesavant]

I can understand this statement, would make sense I guess, eventhought I have no experience in these fields at all...

[birmingham]

Gents this argument is futile as no manufacturer is going to propose a large single for marine environments. FACT
Let's get back on topic or maybe wind up the thread. The 225 is currently stone cold dead. It died while we were debating in this forum.
We are now debating whether it can be brought back to life.

[TipCap]

If we are going to have the 1 v 2 engine debate let me be plain, I AINT going offshore with one period.

Peace out

Si

I used to fly singles offshore, Si.

Whirlwind s3, Hiller 12E. AB206A, AB204B to mention a few

TC

[Lonewolf_50]

riff raff I am sure that you are ruled under FAA, come across the pond to see how things re looking and you will quickly realize that European agencies are not looking at thing in this way at all and so are Europeans manufacturers: we europeans love to make things very complicated and pragmatism isn't something that attract our laws makers trust me... Waters colder off the shores of Europe than, for example, off of the coast in the Gulf of Mexico. (Granted, in the winter it's cold enough that hypothermia can still be a factor). Do you think that may contribute to the PoV differences? We've got a long running thread that addresses Single Engine helicopters flying, and losses, over the GoM.

[bigglesbutler]

I used to fly singles offshore, Si.

Whirlwind s3, Hiller 12E. AB206A, AB204B to mention a few

Aye but we are beyond that now and I would rather have two.

Hope you're well TC :)

Si

[whoknows idont]

Waters colder off the shores of Europe than, for example, off of the coast in the Gulf of Mexico. (Granted, in the winter it's cold enough that hypothermia can still be a factor). Do you think that may contribute to the PoV differences?

No, that's not it. In Europe we just have a different take on GA safety. Compare the whole HEMS situation. Also European law makers have a tendency to heavily overregulate.
But I think for US Americans life threats subconsciously translate to ultimate freedom in some weird way. Ref the crackbrained gun culture...

[Lonewolf_50]

Ref the crackbrained gun culture... Stick with what you know, like flying helicopters. Your use of the term "gun culture" shows both bias and ignorance. Let's not let this become a JB eligible thread, shall we?

Back on topic:
As to the risk averse / less risk averse cultural baseline, I thank you for your observation. My idea on the water temp was a bit too simplistic, in retrospect.

[whoknows idont]

Your use of the term "gun culture" shows both bias and ignorance.

I must admit I am heavily biased on that topic, yes. I didn´t know the term Gun Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture_in_the_United_States) was a no-go, sorry about that. No personal insult intended whatsoever.
It was just a simple comparison that sprung to my head thinking about the different GA safety measures. Interesting enough that in the airliner industry you won´t find that difference across the pond as far as I know.

But you´re right, it doesn't have anything to do with helicopters in generally and especially not with the hypothetical (?) end of the 225.

[Lonewolf_50]

It was just a simple comparison that sprung to my head thinking about the different GA safety measures.


Interesting enough that in the airliner industry you won´t find that difference across the pond as far as I know.

I may be a bit too sensitive on that other point, so sorry for any offense from my end.
Good point made on the closer philosophical bent in the airline industry than GA.

[handysnaks]

Good grief! We'll have none of that compromising, seeing the other fellahs point of view, understanding and apologising behaviour around here you two. Get with the programme!�� (Thumbs up smiley)

[whoknows idont]

Alright handysnaks :ok:
I see your point. I understand and apologize... :E
Will try and get more into the whole AnFi vs crab kinda mood if you prefer that.

[henra]

The 225 is currently stone cold dead. It died while we were debating in this forum.
We are now debating whether it can be brought back to life.

Since they don't seem to have a clue why this happened it is quite difficult to foresee a fix that will be considered convincing. And even after a potential fix it will take a significant time until a bit of trust would be restored. Realistically the 225 is more or less dead, at least in the North Sea O&G industry. Probably time for AH to accelerate work on the successor. Hopefully they learn the lesson and don't try to cut too many corners to shave the last ounce of the design.

[SuperF]

i think that you will struggle getting the bears offshore in a 22, or even off the ground, don't they have a seat weight limit??? ;)

[jimf671]

Good grief! We'll have none of that compromising, seeing the other fellahs point of view, understanding and apologising behaviour around here you two. Get with the programme!


Where's that LIKE button? :ok:

[riff_raff]

Consider this example. A single engine is apparently acceptable for the F-35B, a couple of which just safely flew across the Atlantic Ocean. Yet the new CH-53K helo is designed to use three engines to make the same flight.

When the established reliability rate of turboshaft engines meets or exceeds that of the rest of the propulsion system which has no operational fault tolerance, such as much of the rotor system and gearbox, what is the justification for not using a single engine?

[gulliBell]

@riff_raff post #240

I was just about to make that point exactly, when I noticed you beat me to it.

[birmingham]

Consider this example. A single engine is apparently acceptable for the F-35B, a couple of which just safely flew across the Atlantic Ocean. Yet the new CH-53K helo is designed to use three engines to make the same flight.

When the established reliability rate of turboshaft engines meets or exceeds that of the rest of the propulsion system which has no operational fault tolerance, such as much of the rotor system and gearbox, what is the justification for not using a single engine?
There isn't one - simplicity is a major benefit and single engines can undoubtedly be safer than twins - It's just human nature - I very much doubt the Pilatus PC12 is any less safe than the King Air and it has many advantages in performance and cost. But I also doubt you would get an oil company flight department to specify it over the twin. Same probably goes for helicopters

[Lonewolf_50]

The F-35 is not a passenger carrying aircraft. (Nor is the F-16). The risk profile in the design spec is probably different, with stronger emphasis on different performance goals and the way to get there.

[Concentric]

Consider this example. A single engine is apparently acceptable for the F-35B, a couple of which just safely flew across the Atlantic Ocean. Yet the new CH-53K helo is designed to use three engines to make the same flight.

When the established reliability rate of turboshaft engines meets or exceeds that of the rest of the propulsion system which has no operational fault tolerance, such as much of the rotor system and gearbox, what is the justification for not using a single engine?:

Maybe the F35B is not the best choice of example for propulsion reliability…? They may have flown here but when they go back to the factory for repair it will be by surface. The UK’s forward thinking MOD is building 2 new ‘transporter’ ships, so they can run a shuttle service across the pond ;)

Also an ejection seat and parachute might be some comfort to the F35B pilot, as he bobs around on his personal life-raft, waiting to be collected by a twin-engined helicopter, expecting it to be capable of the return journey.

I do understand your point and that reasoning is why we now see 2-engined airliners crossing the Atlantic whereas the norm used to be 4-engined. Not yet singles though...

[SASless]

But then as Memory serves...was the A-7 the last Single Engine Navy Operational Aircraft?

There was the F-14, FA-18, A-6. S-3. A-3. C1.C2. all Two Engined Aircraft.

[Lonewolf_50]

But then as Memory serves...was the A-7 the last Single Engine Navy Operational Aircraft?

There was the F-14, FA-18, A-6. S-3. A-3. C1.C2. all Two Engined Aircraft. Yeah. That the Navy signed up for the single in JSF is an interesting bit of acquisition decision making, which I think Engines can talk to in the F-35 thread. (Maybe he already did). Navy put the November (Twin Huey, either HH-1N or UH-1N) onto Amphibious ships as a SAR bird back in the 70's.

[Fareastdriver]

Hopefully they learn the lesson and don't try to cut too many corners to shave the last ounce of the design

I have been privileged to fly the Puma and the Super Puma since their first introduction in The Royal Air Force in 1971 until my last flight in a 332 L1 in 2008. Having sat in a 225 I found it interesting but had no desire to operate it.

The Puma started off as a French Army requirement and first flew in 1965. Being a French military project there were certain requirements that regulated the design. One of these was that it had to be able to travel in a SNCF railway truck so it had to be sufficiently narrow. Another was that it had to fit into the back of a Transall C60 so it had a height restriction. This meant that compared with other helicopters of that era, ie S55 and S58, one could not stand up in the back. The first two prototypes had blunt UH1 type noses and minimal instrumentation. Small windows were admissible because being a military helicopter any passengers were not going to be on board for much more than ten minutes at a time.

A lot of the dynamics were licenced from Sikorsky and others, blades, autopilot, but there was a severe vibration level which was only brought under control by inventing the barbeque plate. Apart from that it was a fast, powerful helicopter with impressive manoeuvrability. It was accepted by the French Army and subsequently by the Royal Air Force, among others. It entered service in France in 1967 and the UK in 1970. It was fast, cruised at the unheard of speed of 145 knots with a VNE of 167knots. It flew like a fighter, being able to hold a 2G 60 degree banked turn and could carry sixteen troops and fuel up to a MAUW of 6,400kgs..

There was a demand for a civilian version to satisfy the market. A major obstacle was the TBO of the gearbox made in those day IIRC by FIAT. This was only 800 hours which in the military sphere was no problem but it was in the civilian world. A program known as CAAP (Component Advanced Ageing Program) was initiated using two RAF and I believe four French Army helicopters whose sole job was to continuously fly some 100 hrs./month using the same gearboxes that would be inspected at regular intervals and reissued. The aim was to prove that they could go to 1800hrs. TBO. It was difficult to find enough tasks to suit the one aircraft so it would be used for anything that burned off the hours. (Germany to pick up wine for a party, kippers from Machrihanish, look up old girlfriends, even to Aberdeen looking for a job) The project was successful and the civilian model became a reality.

Some problems were manifesting themselves. The engine mountings were cracking because of the vibration and there was a reinforcement programme. The boom/pylon joint was also suffering because of the very powerful tail rotor and doubling plates were applied. The initial models had no protection for the tail rotor and when subsequent examples appeared with a 'sting' on the boom that we were informed that they would not be fitted retrospectively. At Stanford PTA one brushed it's tail rotor and crashed; two weeks later they all had them on. It was generally thought that any helicopter that cruised at 145 knots was entitled to shake so the general moderate to heavy vibration was tolerated. The structure of the aircraft did not agree and bits were starting to fall off, things like doors and doghouses.

The along came Chadwick Helmuth.

Main rotor balancing and dynamic tracking transformed the vibration levels. You could read the Decca roller map and yout coffee stopped spilling over the floor. To celebrate this new found smoothness the AUW went up to 6,700kgs. With the proviso of being limited to 30 degrees of bank above 6,400kgs. The so-called standard problem of the Puma remained, however, which was the lack of anticipators owing to the steam traction system of engine control. (Spinning weights) This was usually a secondary cause when sudden contact with the ground was concerned. In the civil world the because of the more refined handling the MAUW was increased to 7,200 and with the 330J with the new plastic blades up to 7,400kgs. 1,000kgs above it's original MAUW.

The 332 then came on the scene. The heritage was obvious as the first 'Super Puma' was a 330A blunt nose prototype with Makila engines, a two wheel main undercarriage and an AFT plug in the fuselage. It's introduction with it's lead customer was accelerated because their large S76A order had been cancelled owing to their blades shedding. Their 332s had large windows, proper plug doors, anticipators and were delivered in a green state and completed in the UK. The MAUW was now up to 8,600kgs, 1,800 above it's original MAUW with the same basic fuselage design and similar rotor swept area. Despite the fact that it was still the original size as required in the 1960s so one could not stand up in it but was very successful especially when the production of the S61 ceased.

One would have thought that that was as far as one could stretch a Puma. Apparently not, and we have the 225 which has generated all sorts of problems in it's relatively short life. Putting new wine into old bottles springs to mind and one must wonder whether they stretched the elastic just a bit too far. I cannot think of it regaining its passenger's trust in the same way as the BV234 exited the offshore world so it is time for Airbus or whoever they call themselves nowadays to start with a new sheet of paper.

[Agile]

Thanks, great background story fareastdriver.


like new H160, H175, direction of new designs
welcome to the H190 (just made the name up, now start designing...)

[jimf671]

That is an amazing review Fareastdriver. Thank you.

On the point about stretching the elastic too far, I understand the point you are trying to make and I am sure that it's a point that will appeal to many. However, people trying to design complex products (cars, trucks, ships, aircraft, ...) to be reliable and safe, like to know exactly how much the elastic has been stretched already. With this objective, some industries aim for 80% proven product and 20% new design. It seems to me that this is broadly how the Puma story has been written, and over at Leonardo, how the AW169 and AW189 stories are now being written. BK117 anyone?

[roscoe1]

Fareastdriver, thanks for the chronology. Interesting stuff. I'm curious what folks may feel about what is now the H215C1e variant. Different upper planetary gears and so on. Obviously that model is not affected by the EASA or FAA bulletins. Sure, it is smaller but it is a brute of a helicopter as far as I can tell. Not having the history with these machines it still seems like a very good aircraft for a chunk of the niche that the 332L2 and 225LP filled.

[ScotiaQ]

Roscoe, that may be so but Offshore personnel already regard the 225 & L2 cabin to be too small. So to get them into something smaller will require some sales talk !! If we are going to go backwards.....S61 anybody ???

[jimf671]

People bought Super Pumas in the 1980s because it had performance more suitable for a large passenger helicopter than a S-61. How does a S-61 (in which quite a few have ended their lives or had a very bad day) magically become safer because of the recent Super Puma history?

[SASless]

If you factored in systemic safety improvements into the S-61 to include aircraft...I wonder how the safety record of the Old Girls would look?

In the UK the 61 never shucked two Rotor Heads ever as I remember?





People bought Super Pumas in the 1980s because it had performance more suitable for a large passenger helicopter than a S-61. How does a S-61 (in which quite a few have ended their lives or had a very bad day) magically become safer because of the recent Super Puma history?

[ericferret]

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=S61&page=1

There seem to be a lot of rotor failures in this list, dampers spindles and blades.
The most remarkable being the loss of a main rotor blade on 29/12/90 to KLM PH-NVK
I believe the aircraft shut down on a rig after vibration issues and the blade departed as the rotor was coasting down.