EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, March is what is reported in the media, if so, the rotorhead has been in service for over a month, not two days.
Last edited by The Bartender; 1st May 2016 at 12:35. Reason: Specified rotorhead
Special 25, I can't see the 225 flying again certainly not in the North Sea. Confidence is certainly at rock bottom & it took a long time for confidence to be built up again after the last accidents/controlled ditching's relating to gearbox issues in the North Sea (including L2) which wasn't that long ago as we all know.
According to FlightRadar24 there was an earlier flight (1hr47min - HKS240) carried out on the day of the accident to an offshore location in the same area as the accident flight: HKS 240 departed 0602, landed back at Bergen at 0749. HKS 241 then shown as having departed Bergen at 0911.
Tyler
That's why it says G-REDL right below on the yellow background !!
Michaa
I am very close to the corpoate men in suits. I advise them for my pay cheque. If this is an MGB epicyclic failure like the REDL failure, it's au revoir to the H225 from me unless it has a whole new MGB design which is proven for a while. Without such a change, the risk would be intolerable.
That's why it says G-REDL right below on the yellow background !!
Michaa
I am very close to the corpoate men in suits. I advise them for my pay cheque. If this is an MGB epicyclic failure like the REDL failure, it's au revoir to the H225 from me unless it has a whole new MGB design which is proven for a while. Without such a change, the risk would be intolerable.
If MGB design/production is to be blamed (again) than NH90 MGB
/ with civil cert. may be considered like one of quick patch up solution...
NH90 fleet have reached 100.000 f/h without known MGB issues.
Regarding HUMS that is for sure way to prevent or reduce such kind
of major structural failure but producers and operators must open the
data access to rest of the industry. Today's single board computers are
powerful enough to perform near real time computing and indication
of something major is about to go wrong.
RIP to all poor souls and sincere condolences to all involved.
/ with civil cert. may be considered like one of quick patch up solution...
NH90 fleet have reached 100.000 f/h without known MGB issues.
Regarding HUMS that is for sure way to prevent or reduce such kind
of major structural failure but producers and operators must open the
data access to rest of the industry. Today's single board computers are
powerful enough to perform near real time computing and indication
of something major is about to go wrong.
RIP to all poor souls and sincere condolences to all involved.
I work for one of the smaller oil companies. Our management fly on helicopters. They get good, independent, technical advice. Whether to use the 225 will be an informed risk based decision, not a decision based on sentiment. Most of us know the guys in our organisation who will make the recommendation and trust both their judgement and their moral compass. They are inherently conservative, because they want to sleep at night. If they decide we shouldn't use the 225 we won't. Money won't come into it.
I can't speak for every company operating on the UKCS and NOCS, but please don't assume they are all lead by immoral bean counters.
I can't speak for every company operating on the UKCS and NOCS, but please don't assume they are all lead by immoral bean counters.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: England
Age: 58
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitchaa,
How confident are you that there is enough spare capacity inthe North Sea to allow normal crew change operations to continue without the225? Whilst I have no specific knowledgein this regards, if there is, it implies that the helo operators have beenunder-utilising their assets. Would beinterested to hear your thoughts and those of anyone else in the know.
How confident are you that there is enough spare capacity inthe North Sea to allow normal crew change operations to continue without the225? Whilst I have no specific knowledgein this regards, if there is, it implies that the helo operators have beenunder-utilising their assets. Would beinterested to hear your thoughts and those of anyone else in the know.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: At the back of the bus
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work for one of the smaller oil companies. Our management fly on helicopters. They get good, independent, technical advice. Whether to use the 225 will be an informed risk based decision, not a decision based on sentiment. Most of us know the guys in our organisation who will make the recommendation and trust both their judgement and their moral compass. They are inherently conservative, because they want to sleep at night. If they decide we shouldn't use the 225 we won't. Money won't come into it.
I can't speak for every company operating on the UKCS and NOCS, but please don't assume they are all lead by immoral bean counters.
I can't speak for every company operating on the UKCS and NOCS, but please don't assume they are all lead by immoral bean counters.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DDA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting quote from the CHC thread. 50% of aircraft sitting without contract??
Still think everything is all rosy there Buddy!
I will be more than happy to revisit this conversation along with my original post and say "Boy did I tell you so"
My original prediction of MAX 2 years almost a year ago is going to turn out to be spot on.
It's simple basic 1 on 1 economics....It was never going to survive...no matter what
Here is my original post
Here are the Facts on CHC's Fiscal performance
85% of the Heli's are Leased
50% of the Heli's are NOT on Contract
Last Financial Year
1,650 Million total Income approx
Last Financial Year Expences (NOT ALL JUST THE BASICS)
109 Million P.A. in Administration (hangers on in Head Offices)
330 Million Crew Costs ( no change in the last 2 years)
1,100 Million in Leasing Costs (Heli's, building ETC)
145 Million Interest on Primary Debt.
Last Financial Year
190 Million NET LOSS
Look at the Interest on primary debt $145 Million.....so even if the Company has NO Debt it would still run at a loss.
That $600 Million CD & R bought as preferred Shares is just another Company Credit Card ....CD & R receive 8.5% Interest P.A. on the purchase Price....Take at look at the the last Quartely results and you will see the 10 Million in interest.
So what they have done is take the $600 Million dropped down the Primary Debt from around 1.5 Billion to 1.3 Billion...Spent god knows how much on new Machines, because no leasing Company will touch them....The end result is in reality the Primary Debt as I see it was about 1.45 Billion and it has now ballooned out to around 1.7 Billion. I haven't even mentioned the Senior Notes yet....I won't go into to much detail....But it goes like this... there is 100's of Millions in Senior Notes that the Company doesn't have to pay a cent on until the maturity of the Agreement.
If there was ever a Company that was insolvent this is it.
It's like this....If you had a Credit Card that got maxed out on,....Then you would get another one to pay the interest Bill on the first Card (Senior Notes) Then when the Second Card get maxed out you get a third Card ( CD & R $600 Million @ 8.5%) to pay the Interest on the Second.
That Moron Joan Hooper only ever Quoted EBITDAR and Cash Flow...No wonder she was sacked!
I give the Company 2 Years MAX before the Padlocks go on the Doors.
My best bet is G.E. will swoop in when it finally grinds to a halt.
If you want hours and hours of Fun Reading here are the 175 Pages of the FACTS (Form 10K)
If anyone things they can dig they way out of this Hole I'm all Ears!!
I will be more than happy to revisit this conversation along with my original post and say "Boy did I tell you so"
My original prediction of MAX 2 years almost a year ago is going to turn out to be spot on.
It's simple basic 1 on 1 economics....It was never going to survive...no matter what
Here is my original post
Here are the Facts on CHC's Fiscal performance
85% of the Heli's are Leased
50% of the Heli's are NOT on Contract
Last Financial Year
1,650 Million total Income approx
Last Financial Year Expences (NOT ALL JUST THE BASICS)
109 Million P.A. in Administration (hangers on in Head Offices)
330 Million Crew Costs ( no change in the last 2 years)
1,100 Million in Leasing Costs (Heli's, building ETC)
145 Million Interest on Primary Debt.
Last Financial Year
190 Million NET LOSS
Look at the Interest on primary debt $145 Million.....so even if the Company has NO Debt it would still run at a loss.
That $600 Million CD & R bought as preferred Shares is just another Company Credit Card ....CD & R receive 8.5% Interest P.A. on the purchase Price....Take at look at the the last Quartely results and you will see the 10 Million in interest.
So what they have done is take the $600 Million dropped down the Primary Debt from around 1.5 Billion to 1.3 Billion...Spent god knows how much on new Machines, because no leasing Company will touch them....The end result is in reality the Primary Debt as I see it was about 1.45 Billion and it has now ballooned out to around 1.7 Billion. I haven't even mentioned the Senior Notes yet....I won't go into to much detail....But it goes like this... there is 100's of Millions in Senior Notes that the Company doesn't have to pay a cent on until the maturity of the Agreement.
If there was ever a Company that was insolvent this is it.
It's like this....If you had a Credit Card that got maxed out on,....Then you would get another one to pay the interest Bill on the first Card (Senior Notes) Then when the Second Card get maxed out you get a third Card ( CD & R $600 Million @ 8.5%) to pay the Interest on the Second.
That Moron Joan Hooper only ever Quoted EBITDAR and Cash Flow...No wonder she was sacked!
I give the Company 2 Years MAX before the Padlocks go on the Doors.
My best bet is G.E. will swoop in when it finally grinds to a halt.
If you want hours and hours of Fun Reading here are the 175 Pages of the FACTS (Form 10K)
If anyone things they can dig they way out of this Hole I'm all Ears!!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Univers
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
f MGB design/production is to be blamed (again) than NH90 MGB
/ with civil cert. may be considered like one of quick patch up solution...
NH90 fleet have reached 100.000 f/h without known MGB issues.
/ with civil cert. may be considered like one of quick patch up solution...
NH90 fleet have reached 100.000 f/h without known MGB issues.
Interesting how the positive Spin on accident statistics separate the new model from the predecessors, however the certification basis relies on this model being a variant, and certified to older standards.
The new standards would clearly make the main shaft a principle structural element, one that would require fatigue substantiation by testing. So the two ditchings would not have been a surprise that the finite element model incorrectly predicted the stresses. And how is the rest of the shaft? Sometimes if you simply make a part stronger where it failed, you just chase the failure somewhere else. Full scale fatigue testing based on measured loads would have prevented those issues. What else was missed in the design assumptions? The authorities should question any other PSE failure mode that was certified by Finite element.
Also, I may have misunderstood, but I recall the statement that AB increased quality inspections to one in every four, as this was an important part. How does one ask to fly on the inspected one?
-many predictions and speculations on this site, here is mine: The facts will show that this accident was preventable. Most are. Never easy to swallow that truth.
The new standards would clearly make the main shaft a principle structural element, one that would require fatigue substantiation by testing. So the two ditchings would not have been a surprise that the finite element model incorrectly predicted the stresses. And how is the rest of the shaft? Sometimes if you simply make a part stronger where it failed, you just chase the failure somewhere else. Full scale fatigue testing based on measured loads would have prevented those issues. What else was missed in the design assumptions? The authorities should question any other PSE failure mode that was certified by Finite element.
Also, I may have misunderstood, but I recall the statement that AB increased quality inspections to one in every four, as this was an important part. How does one ask to fly on the inspected one?
-many predictions and speculations on this site, here is mine: The facts will show that this accident was preventable. Most are. Never easy to swallow that truth.