PPRuNe Forums


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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th Jul 2017, 21:37   #21 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Hague
Age: 50
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by loop swing View Post
Your fuel tank placement is incorrect.
92 has external tanks in the sponsons.
225 has internal tanks circa 4000lbs plus and additional 500lbs in each sponson. Same fuel uplift in both machines
I think what he meant was that for the S92 to compete on range, it requires the internal fuel tanks in the cabin which then reduces the space available for the pax. I'm pretty sure he knows about the sponson tanks......
212man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jul 2017, 11:14   #22 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by henra View Post
In all fairness he is maybe slightly exaggerating but not much:

S-61:
Civil: >181 Fatalities
Incl. Mil: >458 Fatalities
S-76:
>181 Fatalities


P.S.:
I don't have the figures for the Mi-8 but that will be easily in the Thousands.

No exaggeration required at all. I lost count on the Mi-8 family around 2700 and estimate the total must be between 5k and 10k (in RECORDED accidents).

Around 12000 built across many decades though.
jimf671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jul 2017, 11:29   #23 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 184
From this week's Flight International ....

While expressing “deep regret” for the 2016 accident, Airbus Helicopters says it welcomes the lifting of the flight ban, but adds: “We understand that this will not necessarily result in immediate passenger flights as there is a lot of work to be done to restore confidence in the aircraft.”

Interesting statement especially with the sudden interest in surveying the users.

There comes a time in the life of all helicopter projects where for a variety of reasons the manufacturer decides to call it a day. I can see why it was necessary for AH to take this to the point where their machine was cleared to fly. Whether there is a commercial case for doing much more beyond that is something AH must have considered. It is a very different market now to when the H225 and indeed S92 were launched.
birmingham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jul 2017, 15:09   #24 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 82
There must have been some very major development between 28 June when the CAA released a statement that it had "no immediate plans to lift the restriction" and 7 July when they stated “The UK and Norwegian aviation authorities have today set out plans for the lifting of operating restrictions on H225LP and AS332L2 helicopters”.

That would appear to be a very short time in which to make, test, verify and document any technical discovery.

It is said however that a week is a long time in Politics.
Concentric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jul 2017, 17:02   #25 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by henra View Post
In all fairness he is maybe slightly exaggerating but not much:

S-61:
Civil: >181 Fatalities
Incl. Mil: >458 Fatalities
S-76:
>181 Fatalities


P.S.:
I don't have the figures for the Mi-8 but that will be easily in the Thousands.

No exaggeration required at all. I lost count on the Mi-8 family around 2700 and estimate the total must be between 5k and 10k (in RECORDED accidents).

Around 12000 built across many decades though.
It would perhaps be very interesting and enlightening to see the same numbers for the entire Puma/Super Puma family. And then perhaps to equate all these numbers into a reasonable analysis of fleet size and hours flown. Anyone? Or are we all just satisfied with half an answer and a pretty meaningless statistic?
rotor-rooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jul 2017, 18:04   #26 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,540
Quote:
numbers for the entire Puma/Super Puma family
670/890 in 2014. I couldn't tell you how many they have killed through mechanical reasons.
Fareastdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th Jul 2017, 21:50   #27 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 58
Posts: 4,853
Fareastdriver: Do you mean that through 2014, from birth, Puma/Super Puma have contributed to 890 fatalities? I find it hard to believe that in one year that many people lost it in that model/family.
Lonewolf_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 05:59   #28 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Reminds me of the Comet-Boeing 707 situation in a way.
You make a somewhat relevant point here. Except I would compare this EC225 helicopter problem to that experienced with the horizontal tail surface actuator jack screws on some MD-80 commercial aircraft. Basically a combination of design and maintenance issues occurring at just the right time to cause a catastrophic failure.

Lessons learned, right?
riff_raff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 07:58   #29 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,540
I didn't write that very well. That was the production figures up to 2014.

From 1971 I can remember eight fatal write-offs. Three of them mechanical, the others mishandling.
Fareastdriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 09:19   #30 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by riff_raff View Post
You make a somewhat relevant point here. Except I would compare this EC225 helicopter problem to that experienced with the horizontal tail surface actuator jack screws on some MD-80 commercial aircraft. Basically a combination of design and maintenance issues occurring at just the right time to cause a catastrophic failure.

Lessons learned, right?
The difference between those two fixed wing examples and the L2/225 failures is that the reason for the fixed wing failures was determined and rectified.
Twist & Shout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 13:13   #31 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: awaiting position fix
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by 212man View Post
I think what he meant was that for the S92 to compete on range, it requires the internal fuel tanks in the cabin which then reduces the space available for the pax. I'm pretty sure he knows about the sponson tanks......
Re-reading original post, I see that now

After reading comments from the not-so-informed on social media regarding all things rotary, you can forgive me for wanting to clarify!
loop swing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 14:17   #32 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Finally some common sense

BP will not reintroduce fatal crash helicopter - BBC News
helicrazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 14:17   #33 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotor-rooter View Post
It would perhaps be very interesting and enlightening to see the same numbers for the entire Puma/Super Puma family. And then perhaps to equate all these numbers into a reasonable analysis of fleet size and hours flown. Anyone? Or are we all just satisfied with half an answer and a pretty meaningless statistic?

I don't have the figures with me but the pattern for the majority of large types is that across a few decades if you put 1000 helicopters out there working then they will typically have hundreds of accidents and one or two hundred people might die in those accidents. Some more, some less. Generally, the more military stuff they do and the more they operate in poorly regulated territories, the more people die.

What seems pretty clear is that the S-92 and H225 stand out from their parents (S-70/H-60 and AS332), and the rest, in their low rate of mishap and fatality so far. Anything that fails to acknowledge that is regrettable.

We can hope the H175 and AW189 will make a further 'step change in safety'.

I have not looked at any numbers separating Mi-171 from the 8 and 17. That might be pretty interesting.
jimf671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 14:27   #34 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicrazi View Post
But when you click on that link just below the headline it says:
Quote:
BP will not use the Super Puma 225 and L2 helicopters until the root cause of last year's fatal crash is known.
Once that is established and the other oil companies start using the EC225 the economics will come into play and they will follow. Everybody knows the EC225 gives better payloads / range in most cases so the operating cost will be lower and this bottom line is what the beancounters are interested in.
finalchecksplease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 14:33   #35 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by finalchecksplease View Post
But when you click on that link just below the headline it says:

Once that is established and the other oil companies start using the EC225 the economics will come into play and they will follow. Everybody knows the EC225 gives better payloads / range in most cases so the operating cost will be lower and this bottom line is what the beancounters are interested in.
Quite possibly, but I think what most have the issue with is the 'smoke and mirrors' and the ban being uplifted without understanding the root cause which is exactly what has happened. Im not getting into the S92 vs H225 argument because for me it isn't about that, its about yet again the aircraft being brought back into service without knowing what actually caused it. Putting chip detectors in place and reducing TBO and increasing inspections is simply not good enough. Stick a plaster on it, it will be fine, and if its not we will catch it in time. yeh right

BP for me have taken the right decision, review the evidence when we understand what caused it. Only then can a proper informed decision be made.
helicrazi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 22:25   #36 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 421
Quote:
Once that is established and the other oil companies start using the EC225 the economics will come into play and they will follow. Everybody knows the EC225 gives better payloads / range in most cases so the operating cost will be lower and this bottom line is what the beancounters are interested in.
I think that the 175 / 189 will fill the medium range market at a lower seat mile cost. The S-92 will continue to fill the longer range heavy requirement as it now does reliably. Contrary to what many think, the workforce does have a voice and won't welcome the 225 back if the stats are true. The return of the 225 is potentially therefore commercially irrelevant. Even if it came back at half price, which oil company aviation department is going to take the cost vs safety risk?
terminus mos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jul 2017, 22:34   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by terminus mos View Post
I think that the 175 / 189 will fill the medium range market at a lower seat mile cost. The S-92 will continue to fill the longer range heavy requirement as it now does reliably. Contrary to what many think, the workforce does have a voice and won't welcome the 225 back if the stats are true. The return of the 225 is potentially therefore commercially irrelevant. Even if it came back at half price, which oil company aviation department is going to take the cost vs safety risk?
You might be right on all the above except when you say the offshore workforce has a voice in the UK sector. They do and stick together on the Norwegian side (still working 2 on -4 week off roster) but sadly not to the same extend on the UK side (same goes for the pilots & engineers).

The future will tell if the 225 will return or not, I think it might (but it will take some time) because sadly money talks.
finalchecksplease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jul 2017, 08:45   #38 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 2
Shell and other supermajors say ‘no plans’ for return of Super Pumas


https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...n-super-pumas/
sinnon7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jul 2017, 14:08   #39 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 152
Last month, Petronas and it's contract partners issued a 90 day termination notice for the utilization of their 225 contract with MHS. This one does specifically identify ExxonMobil as terminating their utilization of the type on this contract.

Petronas' partners want to terminate MHS Aviation's helicopter service too | The Edge Markets
rotor-rooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jul 2017, 17:10   #40 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The sky mainly
Posts: 199
People keep speculating on whether the 225 will 'come back'.
Let's not forget that, in other parts of the world and with other operators, it never went away!
Sky Sports is offline   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 03:44.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1