PPRuNe Forums


Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th Mar 2017, 07:26   #1761 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeliComparator View Post
Well once proven for a 225, but never mind! Anyway I am not suggesting that everyone jumps back into a 225 right now. Even though the probability of a rotor head coming off again is probably much less than the probability of another sort of accident, it is of course sensible to wait until we know exactly what the cause of the problem was and there is a satisfactory remedy. But my point is that if those two criteria are met, the only reason not to fly it again seems to be its trial and guilty verdict by social media, hysteria and general ignorance.
HC
I think we are having parallel arguments, rather than totally disagreeing with each other.

We both agree, that we wouldn't like to fly (in) a machine that has a known fault. A fault that can't be mitigated or compensated for.

Personally, after what has been claimed by AH up to now, I'm disinclined to believe anything they say, especially in regards a "fix". Apparently within 24hrs of the Norwegian tragedy, there was "no problem" that wasn't "caused by maintenance issues". Disgraceful.

Once the problem has been fixed, and scrutinized by an independent authority, Ill happily fly the Super Doopa Puma again.
Twist & Shout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th Mar 2017, 11:44   #1762 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twist & Shout View Post
HC
I think we are having parallel arguments, rather than totally disagreeing with each other.

We both agree, that we wouldn't like to fly (in) a machine that has a known fault. A fault that can't be mitigated or compensated for.

Personally, after what has been claimed by AH up to now, I'm disinclined to believe anything they say, especially in regards a "fix". Apparently within 24hrs of the Norwegian tragedy, there was "no problem" that wasn't "caused by maintenance issues". Disgraceful.

Once the problem has been fixed, and scrutinized by an independent authority, Ill happily fly the Super Doopa Puma again.
The EADS requirement to only fly with the non occurrence type of planetary must have provided a large number of components that can be analysed. What we have here is a specific failure mode not yet fully understood. We still have no idea whether this is a design issue, some type of manufacturing problem or a couple of one off unique occurrences such as the truck accident story. And that's the problem - we can't restore confidence until we know definitively why this happened. Premature statements from the manufacturer and some unfortunate PR hasn't helped. If it turns out the design itself is safe the public will require an explanation they can understand clear and simple. Hopefully the recent discovery of additional parts will help this happen.

Last edited by birmingham; 9th Mar 2017 at 11:58.
birmingham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 03:50   #1763 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by 212man View Post
Epicyclic 2nd stage gear found!
Actually, that is the planet carrier. There are no planet gears present, but there is a single planet gear inner bearing race still attached at the 3 o'clock position. You can also see what remains of one of the tabs used to retain the planet gear inner bearing races at the 2 o'clock position. Took a significant amount of axial force to tear all those planet gears off the carrier pins.
riff_raff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Mar 2017, 10:57   #1764 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by riff_raff View Post
Took a significant amount of axial force to tear all those planet gears off the carrier pins.
riff,

One might assume it took a similar magnitude of axial force to break 4 tabs on REDL as you can see in the photo below (Source AAIB Report 2-2011) but it is interesting that its gears stayed on and there seems to have been a limit to the axial displacement of the inner races possibly contact with the 1st stage carrier?

Of course, the axial force component on LN-OJF may well have been much, much larger than that needed to just break these tabs.

I think the major difference was in whether the larger gear fragments went outwards between planet cluster and ring gear (G-REDL) or inwards between the cluster and the sun gear (LN-OJF). All consequential to the root cause fatigue failure of a planet gear.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg Pages from 2-2011_G-REDL.jpg (141.9 KB, 86 views)

Last edited by Concentric; 10th Mar 2017 at 16:01. Reason: typo
Concentric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Mar 2017, 16:46   #1765 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 141
HC, as you predicted the next fatal incident was indeed an s92 sadly killing an Irish Coastguard crew who were only there to rescue others. At this very early stage no information is available as to what was the cause. I am sure that unless evidence of technical failure is found the S92s will keep flying. If it transpires there was a technical reason and a grounding of S92s as well as 225s is necessary it will be seriously testing for the oil and gas people. For everyone's sake let's hope they can establish the facts quickly. Another sad reminder, if it were needed, of how dangerous helicopter ops can still be.

Last edited by birmingham; 14th Mar 2017 at 17:27.
birmingham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Mar 2017, 12:10   #1766 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 60
Posts: 1,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by birmingham View Post
HC, as you predicted the next fatal incident was indeed an s92 sadly killing an Irish Coastguard crew who were only there to rescue others. At this very early stage no information is available as to what was the cause. I am sure that unless evidence of technical failure is found the S92s will keep flying. If it transpires there was a technical reason and a grounding of S92s as well as 225s is necessary it will be seriously testing for the oil and gas people. For everyone's sake let's hope they can establish the facts quickly. Another sad reminder, if it were needed, of how dangerous helicopter ops can still be.
Much as I like to score points with SAS on the S92 vs 225, I do hope this latest isn't a sudden catastrophic failure as that would seriously scupper N Sea ops. But it does show the dangers of having pretty much a one-horse town.

Obviously we have no idea yet but if it turns out to be CFIT during an instrument approach in bad weather, it does raise the question of whether one sort of fatal accident is worse than another. I'm thinking that, e.g. the Sumburgh L2 accident could have happened to both an L2 and an S92, but not to a 225. What if this accident could not feasibly have happened to a 225?

From the pilots' point of view, we hate the idea of a sudden rotor detachment as it's out of our control. Even though the probability of a CFIT is perhaps greater, we dismiss that as being something that couldn't happen to us because we are competent. And yet it still does.

From the passengers' point of view, I doubt that such a distinction is made since either scenario is out of their control.
HeliComparator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Mar 2017, 12:23   #1767 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,061
Whatever the details, in the last few weeks the principle that if a type does all the work then it has all the accidents seems to be settled.
jimf671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Mar 2017, 15:50   #1768 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: arcachon
Age: 47
Posts: 5
SA less, one advice, do not stay at the bar before posting...
725_driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th Mar 2017, 09:22   #1769 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Hague
Age: 50
Posts: 3,871
Ok, what am I missing here?
Quote:
The Safety Recommendation document relating to the accident concerning AS332L2 Super Puma, G-REDL has been updated.
(March 17th 2017)

When I look at the document: https://assets.publishing.service.go..._Header_V1.pdf

The latest comments I see are still from 2015.
212man is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1