EC 225 latest ......so quiet

[gnow]

It has been a few weeks since we last heard Anything from Airbus or EASA or anybody else. I wonder what is happening either in Airbus (maybe they are secretly testing a new gear!) or the investigators. This silence is deafening for those of us who are 225 drivers.:ugh:

Anybody knows or has heard any good or bad news?

[SASless]

How close are you to Retirement?:E

[Geoffersincornwall]

We have availability for 139 or 189 type ratings at your local friendly factory school. First come first serve.

G :)

[Ex Machina]

Or perhaps Airbus are busy trying to negotiate a merger with Leonardo :ooh:

[birmingham]

AH will have to wait for the accident report before they can finally address this. Those things take a while at the best of times and this one is very complex. I'm sure they are discussing with interested parties behind the scenes as whatever the fate of the 225 AH the lessors, operators etc will have to find a way forward. The solution may involve a fix for the 225 or take another path. Unfortunately it is going to take a while to work through.

[bigglesbutler]

Problem is the longer it is quiet the more people are going to mentally move on from the 225 and the job to get it airborne and people confident of it will be even harder. Sometimes a bulletin saying "No new news" helps ease the nerves.

Si

[OldblokeTH53]

Airbus Helicopters braces for post-Turøy impact - Vertical Magazine (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/airbus-helicopters-braces-post-turoy-impact/)

[birmingham]

Gnow is in the know. Nothing from Airbus in months. Biggles is right, industry is moving on and there are no real capacity constraints now caused by the absence of the 225.

I agree entirely but there are two distinct markets. The E&P market has gone Perfect storm of no confidence, no demand, no future. Time to move on.

The military is another story. That hasn't gone yet and can be fixed in the longer term if an engineering solution can be found.

[rotor-rooter]

Although this pertains to the original grounding, I'm sure other operators may have similar issues with their customers?
Boustead's MHS Aviation seeks RM42.7m in damages from Petronas Carigali - Business News | The Star Online (http://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2016/09/01/boustead-mhs-aviation-seeks-damages-from-petronas-carigali/)

[Pablo332]

I heard yesterday from a helicopter operator with 225s that their senior management have been invited to visit Airbus in Marignane towards the end of the year for discussions about the structure of a return to service plan for the 225. Also within the last 24 hours, I have been contacted by Airbus looking to make some time for a "chat"

Are things stirring?
I hope the topics under discussion after the obvious one will include AH inability to supply the glycol for the emergency lubrication system and the lunatic man hour eating inspection of the life rafts mechanism every 6 months.

[SASless]

Insider,

The 225 is DOA when it is put back "into" service as the Bears have turned their collective noses up at the thing.

I suppose Management at the Oil Companies could "force" their employees to ride in the things but I suppose such and edict would not be well received by the Unions.

What Admin, Safety, Labor, Legal hurdles would the Oil Companies have to get over to enforce such a policy?

[Sevarg]

SASless, it would be a good way for the oil companies to reduce their wage bills or am I being cynical.

[gasax]

By the time the 225 gets back in the air the labour situation for offshore people will have stabilised.
Which will mean a lot of people will have left and finding replacements will cost money, if only for training etc. It has been like this after each price slump. People are generally reluctant to re-locate, retrain when the memories of the last slump are still current and to some extent that protects the remaining workforce that has survived the culls.
In that environment any level of 'coercion' really costs money - if only through not having people to do the things that have to be done.
Bear opinion killed the 234 and it seems likely it will do the same for the 225

[riff_raff]

Here's some news:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-helicopters-edges-closer-to-polish-h225m-deal-429120/

[PhilJ]

I heard yesterday from a helicopter operator with 225s that their senior management have been invited to visit Airbus in Marignane towards the end of the year for discussions about the structure of a return to service plan for the 225. Also within the last 24 hours, I have been contacted by Airbus looking to make some time for a "chat"

Are things stirring?

So did you have that chat?

[SASless]

If we accept the "Damaged in Transit" theory for the one....what is the explanation for the other one?

[Frying Pan]

'Damaged in transit'....really? Do Airbus realise their customers are grown ups?

This tragedy warrants a lot more than that. Whatever the final cause, the confidence of the people flying them and reputation of the 225 is pretty much shot!

[roundwego]

Don't believe everything you read on these rumour forums (or the press for that matter). It could be malicious rumour, it could be from sources who don't know anything about it, or it could be just good old fashioned gossip based on hearsay of dubious source.

Wait for the official report.

[Variable Load]

I don't think it matters what the root cause actually was i.e. damage caused by a road accident and the subsequent repair by the OEM not correcting any issues.

The worrying part for industry is that HUMS did not detect damage and deterioration in the epicyclic such that it resulted in a catastrophic failure.

Or so the reports to date have indicated!

[henra]

I don't think it matters what the root cause actually was i.e. damage caused by a road accident and the subsequent repair by the OEM not correcting any issues.

The worrying part for industry is that HUMS did not detect damage and deterioration in the epicyclic such that it resulted in a catastrophic failure.

Indeed! That story is not nearly confidence inspiring enough to return it to service. There must be a clear way how to make sure this doesn't re- occur in future. Hoping that no one ever dings a gearbox again does not fulfill that. Besides the obvious question if the MGB od G-REDL was also damaged in an accident.
I seriously hope this is mis- information.

[Hot_LZ]

Il take a stab and say that's probably Bristow...

[212man]

The worrying part for industry is that HUMS did not detect damage and deterioration in the epicyclic such that it resulted in a catastrophic failure

Or even the good old fashioned 'making metal'.

[SASless]

In the second failure....was there metal made to be detected?

[Noiseboy]

There was a document at some point, in which Airbus removed from service any gearbox that had suffered an unusual event, this included impact damage, but also lightning strike, which the gearbox fitted to DL had previously suffered while fitted to another red aircraft.

[riff_raff]

Noiseboy-

That point about lightning strike damage to a main rotor gearbox is interesting. There are a couple way lightning strikes can damage main or tail rotor gearboxes.

Rotor blade lightning strike damage can produce sufficient dynamic imbalance force to damage mast bearings or even load bearing housing structures. I believe this occurred with an AS332 TR gearbox a few years back.

If the electrical bonding devices of a helicopter rotor system are poorly maintained and not performing properly, the next best electrically conductive path between the rotor and airframe are often the contacts between the rollers and races of the gearbox bearings. This can produce arcing at the very small roller/race contact areas, and pitting of the race surfaces.

Lightning strikes to turbine engine compressor blades occasionally cause damage to the shaft bearings. Here is an interesting report of one such incident. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213290214000108)

[Fareastdriver]

A lot of Airbus Helicopter's future is tied up with the 225 program. They will find a cure for the gearbox problem and they will continue with strong military sales.
In a few years, especially if the the oil picks up and distant oilfields become viable, then a long range transport system will become necessary. Those that work in this environment will step into the back of a 225 with no qualms whatsoever.

[Lonewolf_50]

Those that work in this environment will step into the back of a 225 with no qualms whatsoever.
I would be interested to see the opinions of the rig workers on that prediction. A bad rep can be tough to overcome.

[Sky Sports]

I would be interested to see the opinions of the rig workers on that prediction

Their opinions will count for little. Their taxi will turn up and they can either get on it or not!

[Concentric]

Their opinions will count for little. Their taxi will turn up and they can either get on it or not!
No doubt some will. Remember though you are talking about 2 different cultures, the UK one and the Norwegian one.

Even in the UK the workers opinions will have an effect. It will not be visible in suited up passengers refusing to board the aircraft when it turns up outside the departure lounge (although personally I have been very close to that scenario, ironically with a Chinook at Sola in the 1980’s). They will usually have made their decision long before that, having considered work prospects, income, family,and many other personal considerations.

The oil company may fill the seats on the aircraft but the sum total of experience on the rig or platform will decline. That erodes confidence in safety levels offshore that leads others to then leave too. Experienced workers may already be disillusioned at having to work longer rotas, often for the same pay or less. Reactively, oil companies may then improve pay and conditions to try to arrest the decline (we have seen this before) and will wind up spending more (closing the stable door too late) just to keep one type of helicopter flying than they would have paid for an alternative type with slightly reduced but often adequate load/range.

[SASless]

In a few years, especially if the the oil picks up and distant oilfields become viable, then a long range transport system will become necessary.

By that time perhaps it will not be a Helicopter that is put into use for that long distance transport.

[md 600 driver]

it doesn't look good for the super puma,
even the swiss military have grounded there super puma after another puma crash of one of theirs

[albatross]

Initial reports on the Swiss accident speculate that it hit powerlines.

[birmingham]

A lot of Airbus Helicopter's future is tied up with the 225 program. They will find a cure for the gearbox problem and they will continue with strong military sales.
In a few years, especially if the the oil picks up and distant oilfields become viable, then a long range transport system will become necessary. Those that work in this environment will step into the back of a 225 with no qualms whatsoever.
Your comments on the military sales are spot on. The military have not moved on and there is time to restore confidence. In oil and gas, long short and medium range it's dead Jim. They have moved on and aren't coming back - no need to take my word for it ask the pax and the customers. Operators don't really come into it I'm afraid as however willing they may to resume operations be it is the client who ultimately decides.

[etudiant]

Your comments on the military sales are spot on. The military have not moved on and there is time to restore confidence. In oil and gas, long short and medium range it's dead Jim. They have moved on and aren't coming back - no need to take my word for it ask the pax and the customers. Operators don't really come into it I'm afraid as however willing they may to resume operations be it is the client who ultimately decides.
The military may not have moved on, but they are not oblivious.
South Korea is making AH pay for deficiencies in the 225 derived Surion, notably replacing the gear boxes:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/koreas-surion-beset-by-icing-issue-amid-gearbox-gr-429923/

[Cyclic Hotline]

And more bad news for them.

Poland says ended talks with Airbus on helicopter deal | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-poland-airbus-idUKKCN12425J)

[jimf671]

Not good for Airbus but I imagine that is just a matter of taking a nationalist position to get a AW149 order for Świdnik rather than part of the 225 story that we know so well?

[Scuffers]

And more bad news for them.

Poland says ended talks with Airbus on helicopter deal | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-poland-airbus-idUKKCN12425J)

Is it correct to assume the EC725 Caracal uses the same gearbox as the EC225?

[gnow]

Someone told me the 225 may be flying again pretty soon! Anyone else heard this rumour too?

[Mee3]

AD will be in a day or two. If you are from UK or Norway, you can forget about it.

But you may wait longer due to epicyclic time max

[helicrazi]

Any one care to decipher the above statement for me?

[206Fan]

http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/10086/aviation-authority-announcement-clearing-super-pumas-to-fly-expected-today/

[FC80]

What's the fix then?

Another HUMS threshold sticking plaster? :zzz:

[SweetComanche]

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/10076/super-pumas-cleared-to-fly/

it's confirmed, actually

[Groquik]

latest AD
EASA Safety Publications Tool (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2016-0199)

[212man]

Pulling the chip detectors and filter every day - any unintended consequences awaiting there?

[gnow]

So the little bird which brought the rumour was telling the truth!

[SASless]

"Flying again" it might....the question is who will be flying in it?

The Airbus folks are rolling the Dice on this....one more catastrophic failure that kills a load of passengers and the crew...and their whole product line is going to be looked at very closely by potential buyers/operators/passengers.

The stage is set to see the end of a helicopter manufacturer if they get it wrong yet again.

[nbl]

The CAA said today the ban will remain in force in the UK

[albatross]

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
Not to impressed with the no fuzz burn aspect. This will make a difference in the "emergency Procedure" for a chip. I would certainly like to know if the light is just fuzz or perhaps something bigger.
Also do not like the daily chip plug / filter inspection.
But that is just my opinion.

[Tango123]

Helihub.com:

Source: EASA
On 7 October 2016 the decision to lift the temporary flight suspension of the Super Puma EC225 LP and AS332 L2 helicopters from Airbus Helicopters put in place on 2 June 2016 following the crash of an EC225 LP helicopter in Norway on 29 April 2016. The set of very stringent protective measures which enable the decision to allow these type of helicopters to return to flight include:

The elimination of a specific type (Type A) of 2nd stage main gearbox planet gear involved in the accident by another type (Type B) which has a demonstrated reliable service life.
An additional safety factor applied to the demonstrated service life of this gear type (Type B), resulting in the time before replacement being reduced to less than half its current value.
The daily inspection or after 10 flight hours (whichever comes first) of the chip detectors, and every 10 flight hours oil filter with very stringent criteria.
All main gearboxes that have suffered from unusual events will be withdrawn from service. Unusual events include external events that might shock the gearbox but without visual evidence of damage.

EASA has been closely monitoring the analysis and tests conducted by Airbus Helicopters. We maintain our full support to the investigation led by the Accident Investigation Bureau of Norway (AIBN) for the accident. This action continues to address the initial safety recommendation on EASA and we will address any further recommendations addressed to EASA.

EASA will closely monitor the compliance action taken by the helicopter manufacturer and operators following the return to service along with operational information.

We will continue to work with the helicopter manufacturer, international regulators and national aviation authorities, offshore operators, to ensure that the highest possible safety standards always prevail.

[500e]

Seems to be managing a problem rather than a cure, the underlying problem is still there

[roscoe1]

Droppage of a main transmission from a truck, is at last, cause for rejection of a gearbox assembly.....:ugh:

[krypton_john]

I'm with 212man... something bad will happen from an incorrectly refitted detector or filter, or maintenance cover, or spanner left in the wrong place, or ...

[loop swing]

krypton john - You are describing general maintenance of an aircraft. Yes, more system disturbances will occur, but are you implying standards of maintenance will drop? Perhaps you should give our maintenance crews more respect?

[roscoe1]

As a maintenance crewman for the last 36 years I have to partially agree with 212man. When you do an overhaul or perform almost any maintenance that requires disassembly of parts (which I think is the definition of maintenance), you run the risk of incurring some damage that was not there before your endeavor. We have all cut an o ring while reassembling something and fortunately we usually find the seep/leak before it goes back in service. Sometimes it takes a while to show up. The chances of catastrophic failure are slim but it can happen ( S92 oil filter studs not withstanding). I think if people get complacent because they do something every day the likelihood increases but filters and O rings should never fall into that category if proper procedures are followed, even if it means replacing cheap o rings every day and performing an extra run-up to leak check. Geez, do you check your landing light on pre-flight or do you think that if you turn it on an extra time that might be the last time it works before it fails and you would have been better off not checking it because it would work when you actually needed it? I think I'll stay in bed today......

[riff_raff]

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
Not to impressed with the no fuzz burn aspect. This will make a difference in the "emergency Procedure" for a chip. I would certainly like to know if the light is just fuzz or perhaps something bigger.
Also do not like the daily chip plug / filter inspection.
But that is just my opinion.

Generation of nuisance debris (or fuzz) is common with new components like gears/bearings/splined shafts that have not been run much. Fine ferrous metal debris generated by a gearbox with some hours on it, and picked up by magnetic chip detectors, is often an indication of early stage spalling failure of a bearing or gear. This type of failure typically progresses at a fairly slow rate, and does not usually present an immediate hazard to continued operation of the aircraft.

Inspecting chip detectors and the oil filter every 10 hours will require a lot of man hours. It is common to replace o-rings and fasteners every time these components are re-installed. Larger pieces of debris usually do not make it to the oil filter, since there are wire mesh screens located at the oil pump pickups.

[212man]

The elimination of a specific type (Type A) of 2nd stage main gearbox planet gear involved in the accident by another type (Type B) which has a demonstrated reliable service life.

I'm no lawyer, but that looks like a gift to the lawyers acting for those seeking damages!

Anyone have a picture of the filter housing?

[212man]

Larger pieces of debris usually do not make it to the oil filter, since there are wire mesh screens located at the oil pump pickups.

It was small particles that caused the filter clogging in the S92, requiring much more frequent filter changes than was anticipated. See where that ended.....

[birmingham]

Apparently the 225s are safe to fly again according to one agency but not two others, the cause is not fully understood and the investigation hasn't finished. It is as clear as mud to me.

[birmingham]

"There are two configurations of planet gear within the current type design. In depth review of the design and service data showed that one configuration has higher operating stress levels that result in more frequent events of spalling, associated with rolling contact fatigue, while the other exhibits better reliability behaviour. By limiting the type design to the gear configuration with lower stress levels and better reliability and specifying a reduced life limit, combined with more effective oil debris monitoring procedures and other operational controls, an acceptable level of safety can be restored."

Redesigning an epicyclic is hardly a trivial exercise and there must have been a very good reason to do so. I don't know the engineering history of this does anyone know if it was in response to earlier failures or simply to increase time between inspections or allow higher loadings?

Also were all the previous MGB accidents (excluding the bevel gear systems) involving type A?

[Cyclic Hotline]

And now a full commercial and governmental response. Airbus criticises Poland for cancelling helicopter deal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37622842)

[Lonewolf_50]

Airbus criticises Poland for cancelling helicopter deal - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37622842)
They would say that, wouldn't they? It's their ox being gored. :cool:

[Blackhawk9]

Poland have gone with Black Hawks , which are already built in Poland anyway!! Better assault Helo anyway.

[Concentric]

This is no more than basically putting AS332L1 Type gears into all epicyclic modules because they are "known" to be reliable and monitoring them by checking chip detectors and filters every 10 hours.

With respect, I think this is at best misleading. An L1 2nd stage planet gear is smaller than an H225 one (L1 has 9 planets; H225 has 8) so they cannot be interchangeable in the same epi module. The L1 epi would not have the torque capacity for an H225.
It might be there will be some shared characteristic (e.g. bearing vendor or material) between L1 and Type B H225 planet gears but they are not the same item.

[Concentric]

"There are two configurations of planet gear within the current type design. In depth review of the design and service data showed that one configuration has higher operating stress levels that result in more frequent events of spalling, associated with rolling contact fatigue, while the other exhibits better reliability behaviour. By limiting the type design to the gear configuration with lower stress levels and better reliability and specifying a reduced life limit, combined with more effective oil debris monitoring procedures and other operational controls, an acceptable level of safety can be restored."

Redesigning an epicyclic is hardly a trivial exercise and there must have been a very good reason to do so. I don't know the engineering history of this does anyone know if it was in response to earlier failures or simply to increase time between inspections or allow higher loadings?

Also were all the previous MGB accidents (excluding the bevel gear systems) involving type A?

It was mentioned on the crash thread that planet gear types A and B have both been used since introduction of the AS332L2 and subsequently EC225/H225 but are manufactured by different bearing manufacturers. This might simply be for commercial reasons to ensure competitive pricing and security of supply. It has not actually been publicly stated if both crashes involved type A, possibly for legal reasons, but we seem to be steered to that assumption otherwise the change to type B would be foolhardy.


Excluding the bevel gear failures "all" the MGB accidents amount to 2 (the SA330 having a different gearbox). If types A and B are indeed made by different bearing manufacturers then careful perusal of published information confirms both failures were Type A.

[dascanio]

Concentric

There are 2 types of gear with different part numbers -06 and -07. Each gear has bearings from a different manufacturer. -07 gear bearings have a different span and shape and a corresponding greater contact pressure on the outer race (inner rig of the gear) than -06 gear bearings.

It is thought that the greater contact pressure of the bearing in the -07 gear causes spalling. The -06 gear bearing is not known to suffer spalling according to AH.

Any metal on the plugs or in filter at the 10 hour inspection must be analysed. Any presence 16NCD-13 metal would indicate spalling of the -06 gear bearing. The -06 gear / bearing / cage combination has been in the L and L1 for some time and are regarded as the reliability benchmark.

Industry Insider, a technical question:
In AAIB report on G-REDL, page 17, it is written that second stage on AS332L2 increased the dimension of planet gears and reduced their number from 9 to 8. So, it is really possible to install a -06 gear and its bearing in the L and L1 and their carrier?
Besides, is 16NCD13 steel the material of the planet gear only? Maybe other power gears, apart the bevel shaft of 2012 memory (in steel 32CDV13), are made from the same material.

[Concentric]

Concentric

There are 2 types of gear with different part numbers -06 and -07. Each gear has bearings from a different manufacturer. -07 gear bearings have a different span and shape and a corresponding greater contact pressure on the outer race (inner rig of the gear) than -06 gear bearings.

It is thought that the greater contact pressure of the bearing in the -07 gear causes spalling. The -06 gear bearing is not known to suffer spalling according to AH.

Any metal on the plugs or in filter at the 10 hour inspection must be analysed. Any presence 16NCD-13 metal would indicate spalling of the -06 gear bearing. The -06 gear / bearing / cage combination has been in the L and L1 for some time and are regarded as the reliability benchmark.
Thanks for that info. On reading EASB 63A030 it looks like there are more than just 2 part numbers, in fact -00, -02, -03, -04, -05, -06, -07. Of these the ones I marked in bold appear to require replacement. So what you say appears to be a subset of this. The total number of type-07's listed is 2972 (over 370 gearboxes).

From the AAIB report 2/2011:

"The design of the AS332 L2 MGB was based on the design of the L1 model, and used essentially the same main module as the L1. In order to maximise the benefits of the increased engine power between the L1 and L2, changes were made to the epicyclic gearbox module. These included increasing the size of the second stage epicyclic planet gears and reducing their number from nine, in the L1, to eight. These changes not only took account of the increased power to be transmitted, but were also aimed at reducing the probability of spalling".

So the AS332L1 planet gears are not the same as H225 type B gears (or type -06 if you like)?

[Concentric]

So reading the above from EASB 63A030 if the 06 ones don't require replacement in the 225 gearbox, they must therefore be fitted?
The listed -06 parts total 3597 (approx. 450 gearboxes worth) so just over half of the total combined -06's and -07's. That is not to say how many are actually presently fitted given that some may have previously passed discard criteria and some may be in stock as spares.

[birmingham]

It was mentioned on the crash thread that planet gear types A and B have both been used since introduction of the AS332L2 and subsequently EC225/H225 but are manufactured by different bearing manufacturers. This might simply be for commercial reasons to ensure competitive pricing and security of supply. It has not actually been publicly stated if both crashes involved type A, possibly for legal reasons, but we seem to be steered to that assumption otherwise the change to type B would be foolhardy.


Excluding the bevel gear failures "all" the MGB accidents amount to 2 (the SA330 having a different gearbox). If types A and B are indeed made by different bearing manufacturers then careful perusal of published information confirms both failures were Type A.
Thanks very helpful insight - Despite their admission that the cause is not fully understood the advice is clear - change to type B and up inspections. It is safe to assume that a very thorough evaluation of the service history of the two units has been undertaken and, as you point out, the failures have occurred only in type A. In addition maintenance records must also point to spalling/chip detection data suggesting that type A has proven less durable than type B. If not the advice to go flying is either very brave or very foolhardy. One can therefore assume that the AIBN and AAIB are continuing to examine this theory and obtain more concrete evidence that the problems in A definitely do not exist in B. Proving it happened in A is a very different thing to saying it cannot happen in B hence the extreme caution - the safety and legal consequences of such a statement make it a very high stakes game.

[Concentric]

A word on probabilities...

This hopefully will be obvious to most people but I think worth mentioning anyway.

In the absence of ‘particular engineered differences’ between the 2 planet gear types, statistically the probability of a failed planet gear belonging to one type or the other is proportional to the number of that type in service as a % of the total.

With roughly equal numbers of 2 types, A & B, in service the recurrence of failure in 2 Type A’s might seem (at first) to point to some sort of particular susceptibility or trend. However this is misleading, for the actual random probability of ‘both gears being of the same type’ remains 50-50 since AA and BB both satisfy that definition. The other side of the coin would have been AB or BA.

It is easy when searching for ‘an answer’ rather than seeking the truth, to accept ‘evidence’ that fits a theory without challenging it objectively.

There now does appear to be some stated ‘particular engineered differences’ between the 2 types but there also appears to remain this lack of understanding as to the cause(s) of these 2 gear failures.

[birmingham]

A word on probabilities...

This hopefully will be obvious to most people but I think worth mentioning anyway.

In the absence of ‘particular engineered differences’ between the 2 planet gear types, statistically the probability of a failed planet gear belonging to one type or the other is proportional to the number of that type in service as a % of the total.

With roughly equal numbers of 2 types, A & B, in service the recurrence of failure in 2 Type A’s might seem (at first) to point to some sort of particular susceptibility or trend. However this is misleading, for the actual random probability of ‘both gears being of the same type’ remains 50-50 since AA and BB both satisfy that definition. The other side of the coin would have been AB or BA.

It is easy when searching for ‘an answer’ rather than seeking the truth, to accept ‘evidence’ that fits a theory without challenging it objectively.

There now does appear to be some stated ‘particular engineered differences’ between the 2 types but there also appears to remain this lack of understanding as to the cause(s) of these 2 gear failures.
Absolutely - also given the very small number of occurrences the results would not be particularly significant, hence a scientific understanding of why the gear in this accident (and the previous one) failed is essential to restoring confidence.

[PhilJ]

With the EASA lifting the temporary flight restriction, which regions/companies are using the 225 again?

[TWOTBAGS]

Have ben told that the following countries are back on the 225 bandwagon.
China, Vietnam, Brazil, Angola, USA, in commercial transport operations.

[twisted wrench]

Brazil is only the military flying there 725´s , no commercial 225´s operating yet

[fagin's goat]

The biggest question remains 'will UK and Norwegian CAAs or offshore customers be satisfied that the Airbus Helicopters 'fix' is sufficient to get back onboard a 225'...I think it will take more than a clearance to fly from EASA.

[singesavant]

Although I am not very knowledgeable, I would yet question/highlight that EASA is supposelly to take over all sovereign power within the easa members concerning aviation authorities by 2017, thats at least what i was being told about the french DGAC (french CAA counterpart) or maybe am I wrong?
If so that would imply some serious troubles me think in particular keeping in mind brexit...

[nowherespecial]

I heard Total are pushing (or being pushed?) to use the 225 again once an appropriate tender comes out. Fundamentally this has been a technical problem with an understandable emotional response. Take away the technical problem and there is no reason for the ac not to come back once the fix has been explained to the workforce and demonstrated to be compliant and safe.

The NS it's done but in other markets it'll be a case by case phased re-introduction. Let's not forget that when the final engineering solution is in place, the 225 is still capable of taking more people further for less money than the alternative. The economics will always win out with some customers, particularly in places with less powerful unions and gutter press screaming every time a warning light comes on.

This is in no way an exoneration of EASA seemingly bowing to pressure from Airbus to let it fly again when no definitive word has been sent by the investigation.

Helicopter operators are gleefully taking all the idle S92s at the moment forgetting that the S92 had major engineering issues when it came in. Those loading up on S92 will find the rug pulled when the 225 comes back online as it cannot compete on price in those places where price is the only thing that matters.

My 5c worth.

[etudiant]

The appeal of the aircraft is that it 'carries more people further', missions which imply maximum demands on the gearbox.
But the technical problems that have produced two catastrophic crashes have not been identified, much less fixed.
The confidence of the workers that the aircraft is safe is not enhanced when the EASA releases the aircraft even before the investigation has wrapped up.

[sitigeltfel]

582 jobs to go at Airbus Helicopters due to the downturn in oil related activity and loss of the Polish contract.

Airbus Helicopters annonce un plan de 582 départs | La Provence (http://www.laprovence.com/actu/en-direct/4175214/airbus-helicopters-annonce-un-plan-de-582-departs.html)

[nowherespecial]

II, I hate the 225, overwhelmingly a design that is trying to be the constantly evolving French helicopter version of the Porsche 911, without German engineering. But I'm in the industry so I have to be objective and you've taken certain sentences out of context and deliberately ignored my caveats. Let me set you straight.

One the first point you dislike, I noted that EASA have jumped the investigation. I dislike that immensely as well. Maybe my 3rd para was too far down the page for you to read?:{

The S92 vs 225 argument on commercials is centered around the payload at distance and cost per seat argument, most often used in production. There is almost nothing in the PBH rates, the S92 burns more fuel but a full 225 can go further than a full S92. If you want to go more than 135nm then it's cheaper/ person in a 225. A 225 full goes out to 170nm. And the 225 in OGP fit was a bit cheaper than an S92 in similar.

As for the grounding, your point is valid I agree. But different regulators have different interpretations of issues concerning design faults. It would have been interesting to see EASA's response to the S92 issues and FAA to the 225.

On the final point of costs of heavies, as I noted, if helicopter operators have to price them as super mediums to get customers to contract them, you're not looking at like for like vs the S92. Balance will be altered in markets which allow the 225 back. Do you really think that a safe 225 capability for the price of a SM will be ignored in Angola or other jurisdictions of that ilk? I think you are too North Sea focused in your thought process. I doubt that helicopter operators are sat at home with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ac sat idle and saying, "ah well I guess we'll just go bankrupt because this conversation is a bit hard"... They'll be back, the industry will just re-balance again.

[albatross]

Just curious but what are you using for fuel burn and TAS when comparing the 225 and the 92? As an aside are you using PC2 for both aircraft? ISA?

[nowherespecial]

II, thanks for the patronising attempt at a lecture. I'm sure you know that Heli Union had a 225 in Angola with Sonangol until last year. I'm also sure you knew that Tullow didn't pay NHV for the 175s, it was just a PR exercise to get the SM into Ghana and give NHV a launch customer in O&G outside Europe. You think the 225 is dead globally. I disagree with a global view. I don't like it but that is commercial reality. Let's revisit this in 12 - 18 months.

"Payload? We can't fill a 225 or a 92 out to 170nm IFR at 32c" - You can't with a 92, that was my point. Maybe 'we' need to get back in the books on the 225.

Albatross, my data was from 100kg per pax, ISA +15. not going to reveal my PBH and burn rates but the 225 PBH was slightly higher but the fuel burn overtook it for the S92 for hourly charges overall. It was very close. S92 issue is the swapping of pax for fuel as you go further (135nm plus). 225 takes more people further for basically the same money. I stand by the figs I quoted below. Let me know by PM if you want to discuss further. PC2 yes.

[nowherespecial]

Having spent all day yesterday crying, I'm now over it II... :)

[Pittsextra]

Take away the technical problem and there is no reason for the ac not to come back once the fix has been explained to the workforce and demonstrated to be compliant and safe.


Fair point but where, and on whose, credibility? There have been a few bites of a few cherries and little by way of explaining even the past oversights.

[bondu]

Unless I am very much mistaken, I saw an EC225 (as a retired 225 driver, it will always be an EC225 to me!) flying over Seaford and Newhaven yesterday lunchtime. It was overhead for around 30 minutes at an estimated 2000ft or so. It did not appear on Flightradar24, so I assume it was on a VFR flight plan.
Does anyone know any more about this?

bondu :ok:

[ABZSpotter]

Unless I am very much mistaken, I saw an EC225 (as a retired 225 driver, it will always be an EC225 to me!) flying over Seaford and Newhaven yesterday lunchtime. It was overhead for around 30 minutes at an estimated 2000ft or so. It did not appear on Flightradar24, so I assume it was on a VFR flight plan.
Does anyone know any more about this?

Bondu, new glasses needed. Your aircraft did show on FR24 at 1230 and was showing callsign "164114". FR24 showed the hex code as 406D62 which G-INFO decoded to AS332L G-BWMG which is now registered to Airbus Helicopters. Guess it may have come out of Fleetlands on an air test.

[bondu]

ABZSpotter

New glasses indeed needed! It certainly looked more like a 225, rather than a 332L! But I definitely didn't see it on FR24.

bondu :E

[SweetComanche]

I read in the news that Airbus went:

"Frankly we have to understand why they are not following EASA: is that an anticipation of Brexit or is that due to other evolutions or influences? We need to understand that."
Airbus fumes over UK ban on Super Puma helicopter flights | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3874682/Airbus-fumes-UK-ban-Super-Puma-helicopter-flights.html#ixzz4PSNfIcyy)

It looks to me that they are making a technical problem a political issue, which doesn't look very good to the public. If just the guys at AH read a bit around, there is a clear answer in:

"However, the report states: "Although the ‘interim action’ could reduce the frequency of spalling, spalling with the potential for catastrophic failure remains an inherent characteristic of the Puma family for which no long term solution has yet been identified (...) Despite the EASA decision, both the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority have kept bans on Super Pumas flying in their airspace in place.
The two organisations are awaiting the final report into the crash near Bergen, which is expected to be several months away."
Super Puma has 'potentially catastrophic' design failure, report claims (From HeraldScotland) (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/14832969.Super_Puma_has__potentially_catastrophic__design_fa ilure__report_claims/)

While I can understand the HS could not be the main read around Marignane, AH basically says nothing more about the report, other than denying.

[jimf671]

So somebody seems to be telling us we would be safer with a single-sourced new design than with an evolution that we now know a huge amount about.

I'm not sure I can go along with that.

[BJ1]

Heard that bristow Australia has pulled their 225's from storage and potentially getting them ready to fly? anyone know anymore?

[SweetComanche]

Good news for AH and Boeing, looks like in Singapore they've hit the spot:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-selects-h225m-and-chinook-helicopters-431238/

Military it's a totally different situation

[tottigol]

Yes, they are expendable.

[casper64]

Yes, they are expendable.

I hope you are kidding and even then it's not funny...

[SweetComanche]

Yes, they are expendable.

Actually, no trained resource is expendable, especially in aviation, for a matter of costs AND tactics. True is that military ops are based on different parameters: while in civil aviation you have a scale that's normally safety-economicity-tempestivity, I guess in military you have effectiveness at first. Plus, very different safety margins, since the aircrafts fly essentially much less than in commercial environment.

[tottigol]

As a military pilot you cannot say no without repercussions.

[Bing]

As a military pilot you cannot say no without repercussions.

What military are you flying for? It can be a lot easier than saying no in a commercial environment.

[etudiant]

Most people on this site know military usage is a lot different from commercial.
Military aircraft usually do a few hundred hours/yr, commercial operators schedule a few thousand for jetliners.
So it is eminently reasonable for military operators to keep using the 225, it is a very good performer, it has a well established support structure and it is very reliable, plus it is available at a good price currently.
The fatigue issues that dog commercial operators are unlikely to be of concern to the military buyer. The revised overhaul life AH offers is about 10 years service for the military. That means it is unlikely to drive the economics for the military.

[Fareastdriver]

When the SA 330, the 225's predecessor, entered military service the TBO for the gearbox was 800 hrs. There was a concentrated trial in the 70's to extend this to 1,800 hrs. not for the benefit of the military but to make it acceptable for civilian operators.

[birmingham]

When the SA 330, the 225's predecessor, entered military service the TBO for the gearbox was 800 hrs. There was a concentrated trial in the 70's to extend this to 1,800 hrs. not for the benefit of the military but to make it acceptable for civilian operators.
It will be quite possible to focus on the military versions, they will be new build, will mostly not be delivered until after the completion of the accident report and will be fitted/retrofitted with whatever recommendations that brings. They can use the epicyclic which did not feature in the accidents and adopt stringent TBO and operating procedures.
This has been so from day one. I very much doubt however if, as some have suggested, it can slip back into widespread operation in Oil and Gas

[EESDL]

If you do not think mil personnel are 'expendable' (tongue slightly in cheek) then you must not be aware of the 'second-class citizen' mindset that pervades the corridors of power.
That is why the UK mil at least were decades behind HSE and airworthiness regulations. If you ever thought otherwise I'm afraid you were very much mistaken.
The list of examples is effing endless and now we have slipped the surly bonds of this topic and danced the skies of thread creep........

[etudiant]

Actually I'd say this thread has come to a plausible conclusion.
The AH fix for the 225 is sufficiently suspect to keep the type out of high intensity commercial service, but is adequate to give good confidence for much lower time military operations. The 225 continues to sell only to military operators.
Given the current state of the oil patch, demand there is still a good ways from recovery, so AH has time to come up with either a successor model or with a more convincing fix to the 225.

[roundwego]

Don't kid yourselves. The O & G companies will secretly be desperate to get the 225's back in service because they know that the next accident will be a S92 (because that makes up 99% of the existing helicopter capacity). If it is a technical failure which it could well be and they are forced to ground it they will be up the creek without a paddle.

[tottigol]

But then Bell's new wonder machine shall be ready to go.
And the AW239 of course.

[jimf671]

A new type will of course solve all the world's problems. I shall put aside time in my diary for reading the 600 posts on that subject.

[Lonewolf_50]

But then Bell's new wonder machine shall be ready to go. Which one? V-280 Valor or 525 Relentless?

[casper64]

But then Bell's new wonder machine shall be ready to go.

Last thing I heard: it crashed... 😬unless you mean the new jet ranger?

[jimf671]

Don't kid yourselves. The O & G companies will secretly be desperate to get the 225's back in service because they know that the next accident will be a S92 (because that makes up 99% of the existing helicopter capacity). If it is a technical failure which it could well be and they are forced to ground it they will be up the creek without a paddle.


Remember where you heard it first. :ooh:

North Sea helicopter in emergency landing at Sumburgh - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-38112703)

[Geoffersincornwall]

Jim

Don't worry, the AW139 and AW189 will ride to the rescue in those areas where they have the legs. Where capacity is short you can aways increase the number of flights.

G.

[SweetComanche]

Which one? V-280 Valor or 525 Relentless?

Not the Valor for sure because it's only military, and there's already the AW609 which is still a Bell aircraft; The jet ranger only sits 5 ppl; He's indeed talking about the 525, which unfortunately just crashed in a bad way.
Looks like there's not much on sight as far as new machines.
Fortunately, as Geoffers said :ok:, we don't really need what we already have.

[Jdbelo]

In Brazil, H225 back to service yesterday flying with passengers. Very good news.

[barbados sky]

In Brazil, H225 back to service yesterday flying with passengers. Very good news.

Yes, c'est fantastique, a French Helicopter flying for a French oil and Gas company using a Brazilian helicopter operator. Mainstream 225 service just around the corner it seems.

[Twist & Shout]

In Brazil, H225 back to service yesterday flying with passengers. Very good news.

I hope there aren’t too many people on board the next one to lose a main rotor.

[Mee3]

T&S your life is just about venting hate towards EC?

[SASless]

One thing for sure...a third fatal crash due to loss of the rotor system and the 225 is as dead as all the people it killed.

The manufacturer, the operator , and the 225 will all go as a package.

The authorities being government will keep right on as nothing happened.....as they will say it had nothing to do with them!

[birmingham]

One thing for sure...a third fatal crash due to loss of the rotor system and the 225 is as dead as all the people it killed.

The manufacturer, the operator , and the 225 will all go as a package.

The authorities being government will keep right on as nothing happened.....as they will say it had nothing to do with them!

Totally agree. We know that the type of epicyclic now fitted to all the machines has never failed. So the (unspoken) conclusion seems to be either; the type used on the fatal accident flights had some undiagnosed design flaw or, the design was solid but subject to some form of undiagnosed externality which caused the accidents. So government has determined that the new regime of inspection and restriction will provide sufficient protection. If so I hope they are right. Of course, they may have access to information to support the decision that can't be in the public domain for legal reasons. That might make them less nervous than me.

[SASless]

Weren’t they the same folks that said the 225 was safe to fly twice before the second crash....once during certification then again after the first crash.

Now we should trust them a third time?

For sure someone is betting their life on that and it is not the bueauracrats.

[henra]

One thing for sure...a third fatal crash due to loss of the rotor system and the 225 is as dead as all the people it killed.

Yup.

The manufacturer,
As desperately as you're hoping for this, it ain't gonna happen.
(Hint: They are the biggest Heli Manufacturer in the World - the Puma is a total niche product for them)

the operator ,
doubtful but possible.

and the 225 will all go as a package.
in all likelyhood.

[Twist & Shout]

T&S your life is just about venting hate towards EC?

My life is about getting home from work alive so I can enjoy life.
I feel I’m a little lucky to be alive after flying EC225s and being particularly close to one of the MRGBs that later failed killing all on board.

Further, as SASless and others have pointed out: EC have incorrectly twice told us the MRGB won’t fail and kill all on board.

That, and they way they have handled the second fatal incident, causes me to hold that organization in disdain. This is obviously reflected in my attitude and posts.


“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Third time lucky?

[Evil Twin]

Sorry to be pedantic but, only one 225 gearbox has failed catastrophically the other failure was a 332L2 which is very very similar but slightly different. Yes the architecture is very close but they are different, before I get flamed by all and sundry.

[Flying Bull]

My life is about getting home from work alive so I can enjoy life.
I feel I’m a little lucky to be alive after flying EC225s and being particularly close to one of the MRGBs that later failed killing all on board.

Further, as SASless and others have pointed out: EC have incorrectly twice told us the MRGB won’t fail and kill all on board.

That, and they way they have handled the second fatal incident, causes me to hold that organization in disdain. This is obviously reflected in my attitude and posts.


“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Third time lucky?

Well, destiny will catch you, where ever you are....

With Helicopters, normaly the Crew will kill you...

Looking through the accidentreports you will find, that about 90 % of the accidents are Human failures.....

Airbus has done quite a lot to prevent further incidents/accidents involving gearboxes. Which is a pain in the a.., cause I have to fiddel with the gearbox mag plug on a daily basis, even without any warning and on a different helicoptertype, just because of the similaritys of the gearboxdesigns....

It is good to prevent risks, but you also need work/live and take risks, which you can think you can handle.

The 225 has flown for years over years without major problems and I would rather get a lift in an 225 before getting in any Robinson helicopter....

[helicrazi]

Well, destiny will catch you, where ever you are....

With Helicopters, normaly the Crew will kill you...

Looking through the accidentreports you will find, that about 90 % of the accidents are Human failures.....

Airbus has done quite a lot to prevent further incidents/accidents involving gearboxes. Which is a pain in the a.., cause I have to fiddel with the gearbox mag plug on a daily basis, even without any warning and on a different helicoptertype, just because of the similaritys of the gearboxdesigns....

It is good to prevent risks, but you also need work/live and take risks, which you can think you can handle.

The 225 has flown for years over years without major problems and I would rather get a lift in an 225 before getting in any Robinson helicopter....

But it's not between a 225 and a Robinson is it.

[Twist & Shout]

Well, destiny will catch you, where ever you are....

With Helicopters, normaly the Crew will kill you...

Looking through the accidentreports you will find, that about 90 % of the accidents are Human failures.....

Airbus has done quite a lot to prevent further incidents/accidents involving gearboxes. Which is a pain in the a.., cause I have to fiddel with the gearbox mag plug on a daily basis, even without any warning and on a different helicoptertype, just because of the similaritys of the gearboxdesigns....

It is good to prevent risks, but you also need work/live and take risks, which you can think you can handle.

The 225 has flown for years over years without major problems and I would rather get a lift in an 225 before getting in any Robinson helicopter....

Destiny will catch you wherever you are!?!

I’m finding I’m perhaps not thinking like the majority of pilots.
I prefer to rely on facts and logic.
For eg:I’d rather follow the ECL than bleed a goat, in an emergency.

We all understand that flying Helicopters is not now, or ever going to be, risk free. The differences from what we usually accept, and the EC225 risk include:

-It is a known and demonstrated (unfortunately) fatal fault.

-Nothing the pilot can do, can predict, or mitigate it’s occurrence.

-If it occurs, no amount of skill or luck can prevent a terrifying last few seconds of life.

No one has claimed they know why two similar MRBs have failed in almost identical ways. Some things have been done that might make reoccurrence less likely. This is good enough for some people. Not good enough for me.

If you are flying an EC225, and are happy - good on you, and I wish you all the best. They are a great machine to fly.

I hope never to fly one again.

Viv le difference

[Mee3]

lol when you said relying on facts and logic, you are doing the opposite.

[Flying Bull]

@T&S - causes were found, rollerbearings from one Manufaktura were within limits but slightly different in shape and in both incidents within the gearbox.
These are withdrawn and no longer appoved.
Second was a rough handling (drop) of the gearbox recorded.
Gearboxtransport is now closely monitored and gearboxes, which suffer rough handling or i.e. a lightning strike are withdrawn from service.
Additional Checks to discover metal are brought in, the runtime of the gearboxes are reduced.
What else do you want?
A new gearbox design?
Nearly every helicopter has planetary and sun gears and therefore could have the same failure- where as in a 225 the fault was analysed and the risks reduced as far as possible.
With the rollerbearings now only permitted was no accident so far, with the ones withdrawn two.
Even with a high pressure behind getting the 225 airborne again, I‘m quite sure, that Airbus knows what will happen, if a similar accident happens again and won‘t take that risk...

[HeliHenri]

.
At the present time, there are more than 250 H225, EC332L2 and KAI Surion (all with the same MGB) flying every day around the world.
.

[industry insider]

At the present time, there are more than 250 H225, EC332L2 and KAI Surion (all with the same MGB) flying every day around the world.

According to a recent briefing by Airbus at the present time there are more than 120 H225s that remain grounded by their operators and customers.

I‘m quite sure, that Airbus knows what will happen, if a similar accident happens again and won‘t take that risk...

That's the problem Flying Bull, Airbus has proven itself to be cavalier taking risks with the L2 / 225 gearbox since 2009 and I for one don't trust what they say, at least until the final AIBN report is issued.

[HeliHenri]

According to a recent briefing by Airbus at the present time there are more than 120 H225s that remain grounded by their operators and customers.


That's right.
and they're not alone. According to Westwood’s annual World Offshore Helicopter Market Forecast, global helicopter fleet utilisation hit a low of 54% in 2017 due to falling demand. Oil companies required fewer journeys offshore and as a result, many airframes were put into storage.

[Twist & Shout]

lol when you said relying on facts and logic, you are doing the opposite.

Care to support your claim?

[Twist & Shout]

@T&S - causes were found, rollerbearings from one Manufaktura were within limits but slightly different in shape and in both incidents within the gearbox.
These are withdrawn and no longer appoved.
Second was a rough handling (drop) of the gearbox recorded.
Gearboxtransport is now closely monitored and gearboxes, which suffer rough handling or i.e. a lightning strike are withdrawn from service.
Additional Checks to discover metal are brought in, the runtime of the gearboxes are reduced.
What else do you want?
A new gearbox design?
Nearly every helicopter has planetary and sun gears and therefore could have the same failure- where as in a 225 the fault was analysed and the risks reduced as far as possible.
With the rollerbearings now only permitted was no accident so far, with the ones withdrawn two.
Even with a high pressure behind getting the 225 airborne again, I‘m quite sure, that Airbus knows what will happen, if a similar accident happens again and won‘t take that risk...

You see, it is openly admitted no one knows why these gearboxes came apart.
If they knew it was one of these reasons, they would have fixed the ONE reason.

Basically for eg, AH are saying “we use two manufacturers of the gear, only one has failed, so maybe, that’s the issue.” (Allegations that the other manufacturers gear has been found with spalling, but none have actually failed have been reported on this forum, but not addressed. )

The first failure occurred in a gearbox that hadn’t had been reported as exposed any unusual shock. But that might have been the reason the second failed in an almost identical way. Where is the logic in this?

After the first failure of this design in the AS332L2, AH said similar things: “increased inspections might prevent further catastrophic, fatal failures”. They were proved, at great cost in human life, to be wrong that time.

Some of you guys are falling for a propaganda campaign of smoke, mirrors and a scattergun approach. Perhaps reading comprehension is an issue for some.

Stay safe my friends. (Avoid believing what proven liars tell you.)

[Twist & Shout]

.
At the present time, there are more than 250 H225, EC332L2 and KAI Surion (all with the same MGB) flying every day around the world.
.

Playing Russian Roulette with 1000 chambers empty and only one loaded with a +P hollow point. Statistically quite safe, but the next flight could be the last.

To continue with this colorful analogy:
The rest of the industry is doing the same thing, but 1001 chambers were checked and empty before the game. Doesn’t mean you can’t drop the gun on your toe, or be hit in the head with it, or even have a bullet slipped in after the inspection. But it’s not the same as pulling the trigger, knowing there is a loaded chamber.

AH have tightened the trigger, cleaned the grips, painted the muzzle orange, and checked some of the chambers..might have fixed it....this time.:ugh:

[birmingham]

I would like to think that AH know definitively that the problem is confined to a single type of MRB arrangement i.e. the one that failed but can't say so for legal reasons. Hopefully all will be made clear by a future report. The corner they have backed themselves into is that previous statements, especially the suspension rod debacle, has undermined credibility somewhat. So trust has been eroded. This cloud is going to hang over the type unless and until the AIBN are able to give us something more definitive

[etudiant]

I would like to think that AH know definitively that the problem is confined to a single type of MRB arrangement i.e. the one that failed but can't say so for legal reasons. Hopefully all will be made clear by a future report. The corner they have backed themselves into is that previous statements, especially the suspension rod debacle, has undermined credibility somewhat. So trust has been eroded. This cloud is going to hang over the type unless and until the AIBN are able to give us something more definitive

The simplest answer is that AH has acted to close off the most plausible causes of this accident, but has no special knowledge beyond that.

Perhaps AH could show their confidence in their fix by offering very substantial free life insurance to all 225 passengers. If the payout were set at a few million pounds sterling per head, people might be less troubled. Also, the underwriters might be more motivated to find the answer than the authorities.
Separately, afaik all components involved were properly certified and operated, so if there is a deficiency, it is a regulatory problem, rather than a corporate liability.

[birmingham]

It seems that market uncertainty in this segment is such that AH has delayed the launch of the X6 replacement until it can make a better commercial case and the suppliers can deliver more disruptive technologies. It would seem that AH will concentrate on military customers in this segment for the time being at least.

[henra]

Seems the H225 is coming back. Albeit in other Markets than NS O&G:
https://www.verticalmag.com/news/airbus-ramping-h225-production-100-next-5-years/?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_feed%3BfbonjC%2FlSuyxfvd i07BQQg%3D%3D


Particularly interesting for me that there were 54 orders in 2017.

[As332l12]

Think Kuwait armed forces ordered around 50?

[CopterDoctor]

All good points, the downturn in oil n gas was good timing to drop the most successful long range option from the game -leaving the rest to fill the gaps whilst reducing long range projects, and rejigging to reflect $50/$60 oil.
I believe the 225 / 725 will fill the military market,and some niche slots-SAR and perhaps UN type roles, but only the financially brave would suggest it as an offshore option for a good while yet-shame , i am a fan , and a lot of experienced offshore types came around to it as the better option-begrudgingly .
:ok:

[S92PAX]

All good points, the downturn in oil n gas was good timing to drop the most successful long range option from the game -leaving the rest to fill the gaps whilst reducing long range projects, and rejigging to reflect $50/$60 oil.
I believe the 225 / 725 will fill the military market,and some niche slots-SAR and perhaps UN type roles, but only the financially brave would suggest it as an offshore option for a good while yet-shame , i am a fan , and a lot of experienced offshore types came around to it as the better option-begrudgingly .
:ok:

Who for? certainly not for the poor souls squeezed in the back. In some of the seat there is so little leg room that it is virtually impossible to walk after a 2 hour flight.
Even before the fatal accidents there was a growing objection to their use.

[Mee3]

Who for? certainly not for the poor souls squeezed in the back. In some of the seat there is so little leg room that it is virtually impossible to walk after a 2 hour flight.
Even before the fatal accidents there was a growing objection to their use.
On a puma, you numb your legs for two hours. On a 92, you shake your spine for 2.5 hours. One have insignificant higher per hour cost compare to the other. The other flies longer hour to cover the same range. Did not see any trend suggest what you claimed.

[MajorLemond]

The design has serious flaws, and needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

They can fly massive Mi26’s around without their gearboxes having catastrophic failures and I would imagine the maintanence standards of those aircraft being somewhat diminished compared to western types.

With the budget and resources of Airbus, this should be something easily rectified with an appropriate amount of development and money.

What happens when the next one loses it’s rotors?

[S92PAX]

On a puma, you numb your legs for two hours. On a 92, you shake your spine for 2.5 hours. One have insignificant higher per hour cost compare to the other. The other flies longer hour to cover the same range. Did not see any trend suggest what you claimed.


I haven't really noticed a vibration problem on the S92 - I remember the early Pumas before the pitch reduction shook that much you couldn't read but the S92 cabin is spacious and comfortable.
You wouldn't see a trend about people complaining, you would hear it if you worked amongst them

[birmingham]

The design has serious flaws, and needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

They can fly massive Mi26’s around without their gearboxes having catastrophic failures and I would imagine the maintanence standards of those aircraft being somewhat diminished compared to western types.

With the budget and resources of Airbus, this should be something easily rectified with an appropriate amount of development and money.

What happens when the next one loses it’s rotors?

Yes but look at it from AH point of view..

1. Despite some green shoots the E&P market for heavies is down and recovering only very slowly. Most think its halcyon days are gone. The accidents have left the /2 and 225 with a damaged reputation. Only 20 something have yet returned to E&P.

2. It is not economic to embark on a complete redesign at this stage in the product lifecycle. This is compounded by the inability to track down a definitive cause of the current problem.

3. The 225 is selling well in the military/quasi military arena with 54 orders last year and production being scaled-up to meet demand

4. The successor project has been suspended as AH don't think the technology or demand for it is sufficient yet

So it is easier and cheaper for them to play second place in E&P and try and prevent further accidents with the measures they have introduced. They seem to believe they can sleep easily with that and they have much better knowledge of the problem than I. i hope for everyone's sake they are right.

Hopefully the AIBN will find a definitive cause but at the moment their silence is deafening.

[ShyTorque]

I haven't really noticed a vibration problem on the S92 - I remember the early Pumas before the pitch reduction shook that much you couldn't read but the S92 cabin is spacious and comfortable.
You wouldn't see a trend about people complaining, you would hear it if you worked amongst them

But the S-92 has hardly been without its own gearbox failures....

[S92PAX]

Of course you are completely correct ShyTorque but I would prefer to travel to my demise in reasonable comfort than squashed like a sardine in a tin.

[Fareastdriver]

The 225 is selling well in the military/quasi military arena

The Puma, and its successors, has always been a military helicopter. Narrow, so it can fit on to a railway truck, low, so that with the gearbox removed it is tactically air portable with a cabin designed for squaddies to sit in for fifteen minutes before they go to war.

Not a lot has changed over the years.

The cabin is still cramped, the passengers have to surmount a step to get in and it must be the last commercial aircraft in the world where the crew have to climb up the outside of the aircraft to get into the cockpit.

Its day has gone; like me, I flew them for thirty six years and they have had enough of the civilian world.

Militarily is different. The specifications haven't changed a lot and they are abreast with the electronics and systems so there is still a future.

Its like the Comet and the Nimrod.

[Nigerian Expat Outlaw]

The Puma, and its successors, has always been a military helicopter. Narrow, so it can fit on to a railway truck, low, so that with the gearbox removed it is tactically air portable with a cabin designed for squaddies to sit in for fifteen minutes before they go to war.

Not a lot has changed over the years.

The cabin is still cramped, the passengers have to surmount a step to get in and it must be the last commercial aircraft in the world where the crew have to climb up the outside of the aircraft to get into the cockpit.

Its day has gone; like me, I flew them for thirty six years and they have had enough of the civilian world.

Militarily is different. The specifications haven't changed a lot and they are abreast with the electronics and systems so there is still a future.

Its like the Comet and the Nimrod.

What he said. Except I didn't fly them anywhere near as long as Fareastdriver, thankfully.

NEO

[Non-Driver]

New home for some of the ex-CHC machines:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ukraine-signs-55-unit-deal-with-airbus-helicopters-449103/

[His dudeness]

New home for some of the ex-CHC machines:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ukraine-signs-55-unit-deal-with-airbus-helicopters-449103/


Interesting. One wonders how they can afford this ?

[HeliHenri]

Interesting. One wonders how they can afford this ?

That's because you don't know the price of a second hand 225 (ex O&G) !
.

[Bravo73]

BOGOF at the moment, I’d imagine.

[Mee3]

BOGOF at the moment, I’d imagine.
on contrary, 225/725 are selling slightly lesser price tag but definitely no where close to 50%. Actually been a good sell for 2 consecutive years.

[Apate]

on contrary, 225/725 are selling slightly lesser price tag but definitely no where close to 50%. Actually been a good sell for 2 consecutive years.

Ooo, so much spin I'm feeling dizzy ;)

[Aesir]

ICG Icelandic Coast Guard is getting two H225 Þyrlur Gæslunnar endurnýjaðar langt á undan áætlun: ?Stórt skref fram á við? - Vísir (http://www.visir.is/g/2018180609086/thyrlur-gaeslunnar-endurnyjadar-langt-a-undan-aaetlun-stort-skref-fram-a-vid-)

[havick]

ERA managed to offload all of their 225’s recently

[Mee3]

Ooo, so much spin I'm feeling dizzy ;)
Earth is round and spinning. Hold on tight!

[gnow]

Just thinking out loud...Would the French oil companies be interested to use "their" machines in future offshore contracts?

[HeliHenri]

Just thinking out loud...Would the French oil companies be interested to use "their" machines in future offshore contracts?

https://www.omnibrasil.com.br/en/noticias/omni-volta-a-operar-o-h225-para-a-total

.

[TipCap]

Who said the 225 would never fly commercially on O&G again? Obviously Total E&P seem happy to take them on board. I am sure these flights will be watched like a hawk by others

[212man]

Who said the 225 would never fly commercially on O&G again? Obviously Total E&P seem happy to take them on board. I am sure these flights will be watched like a hawk by others
I'm not sure anybody did, and in some countries they never stopped (Vietnam), however I don't think anybody seriously thinks they will appear in the N. Sea again.

[industry insider]

Tip Cap wrote:

Who said the 225 would never fly commercially on O&G again? Obviously Total E&P seem happy to take them on board. I am sure these flights will be watched like a hawk by others

There is a lot of background to this. C'est Team France in action.

As time goes on, more aircraft are being returned to leasing companies. The market is still down, Super Mediums are becoming established where they make sense, in some cases replacing what were 225 contracts. There are spare S-92s available on the market. Many new tenders no longer include the 225 as a qualified type.

[helicrazi]

Spare S92's, but no surplus of type rated pilots and companies reluctant to pay for the ratings. Industry is on its head, anyway I digress...

[havick]

Spare S92's, but no surplus of type rated pilots and companies reluctant to pay for the ratings. Industry is on its head, anyway I digress...

if you’ve scratched that itch enough flying helicopters, now is the time to switch to the airlines.

[SASless]

if you’ve scratched that itch enough flying helicopters, now is the time to switch to the airlines.



If you can.... GO....GO....GO.....GO!

If you do....don't waste a second looking back!

[jimf671]

Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.

Two types with a substantial period in service (14 yrs), shine out above all that has gone before in terms of the raw numbers concerning accidents and fatalities. These are the S-92 and EC225. Maybe the 7 and 8 tonne newbies will match and exceed the standards set by the 92 and 225 (let's hope they do), but that remains to be proven. Other comparable aircraft have had hundreds of accidents including hundreds of fatalities. In particular, doing 12 years of intense CAT service without a fatality is pretty outstanding.

The numbers are out there.

" when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it"
William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)


[Helmet, body armour, take cover.]

[etudiant]

Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.


The numbers are out there.





Is there a link to the numbers that you can share?

[jimf671]

Is there a link to the numbers that you can share?

ASN is a really good starting point. Clearly, through the manner of how this site operates, rather like Wikipedia, one needs to be sceptical and look for corroboration in news articles and regulators' websites. The thing about the 225 and 92 is that so little has happened to these types that it is relatively easy to join up all the dots.

It's a while ago now so I don't remember all the details of where and how, but in 2013 I set about trying to get some perspective on this. ASN wasa major part of that. Once you start looking back at things like S-61, 330, Mi-8, and 332 accidents, the numbers stack up in a way that is no longer happening with modern types. Take the Mi-8/17, which have been produced in very large numbers compared to most types. The number of accidents is large, though not very large in relation to the number built, but when you get to many thousands of fatalities and then can't keep count, it's quite chilling, and the contrast with modern types could not be greater.

[birmingham]

Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.

Two types with a substantial period in service (14 yrs), shine out above all that has gone before in terms of the raw numbers concerning accidents and fatalities. These are the S-92 and EC225.


" when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it"
William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)


[Helmet, body armour, take cover.]

From what I can tell of the figures from the North Sea the numbers for helicopter safety the numbers are far from encouraging ...

In the first five years of NS ops there were 18 helicopter related fatalities
In the most recent five year period there were also 18 helicopter related fatalities
The safest period of operation 1987-1996 had not a single fatality despite this being the period of peak activity.
In the first 20 years (1975 - 1995) there were around 76 helicopter related fatalities over four accidents
In the last 20 years (1997-2018) there have been around 62 helicopter related fatalities over ten accidents

So in what way are things safer?

Also we need to debunk the myth that most accidents are pilot related. Of course, in aviation in general that is true. But in the NS the vast majority of these 144 deaths were attributed as having a primary mechanical cause.

So why has the Puma been singled out;

It's the most common type so unsurprisingly has been involved in more incidents
The workers and unions have lost confidence as the accident rate increased
AH have failed to win them over
The Puma is an older design which is smaller and arguably less comfortable than the new machine (S92)
Despite a nasty scare the S92 has yet to have a fatal accident in the North Sea
The specific causes of the epicyclic related accidents is similar but remains unattributed awaiting the final report - so doubts remain

[vee_why]

Slight correction, there were fatalities in the period 1987 to 1996, Cormorant Alpha 1992, Brent Spar 1991, to name a couple of fatal accidents.

[birmingham]

Slight correction, there were fatalities in the period 1987 to 1996, Cormorant Alpha 1992, Brent Spar 1991, to name a couple of fatal accidents.
Thanks it is hard to spot them all

[Watson1963]

(Probably a partial) list here, from O&G UK, from start to 2017
​​​https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Appendix-1_Reportable-Helicopter-Accidents-2017.pdf

[ken knight]

I was walking around Alnwick last night about 5pm when a 225 circled around. Red paint scheme with silver flashes (Bond/Babcock) ?. Disappeared from sight wondered if it went into Bulmer? Driving to Dyce tonight caught a quick sight of possibly the same aircraft landing at Dyce. Are they flying again? Anybody have any info. Thanks, Ken

[As332l12]

Think you will find that was AS332L2 G-REDM on airtest supposedly going to Spain firefighting?

[industry insider]

Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd.

[havick]

Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd.

yes some companies and lessors are letting them go for marginally more than a B3e A-Star. Some utility operators are starting to snatch them up and the companies/lessors have been happy to get them off their books and call it a day.

[etudiant]

Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd.

Surely the lessor retains the responsibility for the airworthiness of the item.
It seems unreasonable to have the lessee pick up the responsibility for leasing a deficient unit.

[bombdoorsopen]

There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status..

[industry insider]

etudiant

Surely the lessor retains the responsibility for the airworthiness of the item.
It seems unreasonable to have the lessee pick up the responsibility for leasing a deficient unit.

No, it is the Lessee's responsibility to maintain the aircraft in accordance with the OEM maintenance schedule and in an airworthy state. Remember, most leases were taken out way before the 2016 fatal accident. Airbus does not accept that the 225 is deficient of faulty, after all, its no longer grounded and regulator groundings are excluded from lease arrangements.

bombdoorsopen

There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status..

CHC did return non-airworthy 225s aircraft to lessors but that was under the provisions of Chapter 11, not the lease agreements themselves.

[Bhutan_H130]

There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status..

SonAir also shed a few airframes..

[SASless]

Who are the Lessors of the 225's and how big a bath did they take when the 225's fell from grace?

[industry insider]

Milestone, Waypoint LCI and Bristow who purchased through its Brilog Leasing subsidiary to then lease at inflated prices to its various business units and to contract on to clients. There is quite a fight going on between Airbus, Financiers (BNP Paribas for many of the 225s) Lessors and Lessees.

It was all good living high on the hog for the short time it lasted but the oil industry has structurally changed and the oil and gas helicopter business is going to be a diminishing one from now on.

[etudiant]

etudiant



No, it is the Lessee's responsibility to maintain the aircraft in accordance with the OEM maintenance schedule and in an airworthy state. Remember, most leases were taken out way before the 2016 fatal accident. Airbus does not accept that the 225 is deficient of faulty, after all, its no longer grounded and regulator groundings are excluded from lease arrangements.

bombdoorsopen



CHC did return non-airworthy 225s aircraft to lessors but that was under the provisions of Chapter 11, not the lease agreements themselves.

Thank you for setting me straight.
It seems logical that the lessee be required to maintain the aircraft appropriately, but I am surprised that this would include AD responses as well. If I rent an apartment, I don't assume responsibility for repairs due to building code adjustments.
Aircraft leasing clearly has some pitfalls for the unwary....

[Non-Driver]

Thank you for setting me straight.
It seems logical that the lessee be required to maintain the aircraft appropriately, but I am surprised that this would include AD responses as well. If I rent an apartment, I don't assume responsibility for repairs due to building code adjustments.
Aircraft leasing clearly has some pitfalls for the unwary....

For the aircraft to be airworthy they have to be AD compliant, same risk for an operator as an owned aircraft. Most lessors also insist on a non-discriminatory SB embodiment clause where the operator has a mixed owned/leased fleet i.e. they can't just mod the owned aircraft if the SB is recommended by the OEM.