A new setback for the EC175B ??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new setback for the EC175B ??
The new AD just issued for the EC175 can't instil much confidence in the Airbus engineering systems. If I understand it they seem to have misjudged the wear and tear on a number of vital components. Where have we heard that before?
G
G
Could you elaborate on the AD?
It says the the service life levels have been cut, but refers to separate documents to find out which items and how large the reduction.
That ensures no untoward headlines, as few journalists these days have the resources to pursue these issues.
I'd agree with Geoffersincornwall that this does not speak well of the AH engineering/customer interface.
How could this kind of service usage be a surprise to a firm that until recently was dominant in the North Sea offshore support operation?
Imagine how bad the facts are, if non disclosure agreements are being demanded?
Most people wouldn’t go near a product that had a non disclosure agreement associated with reliability.
Only a rumour in this case, but of course difficult to confirm if all involved have signed!
Most people wouldn’t go near a product that had a non disclosure agreement associated with reliability.
Only a rumour in this case, but of course difficult to confirm if all involved have signed!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: NL
Age: 44
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be an interesting read, since they are working so hard to keep it out of reach from anyone not operating the 175...
Anyone have access to these?
AH EC175 ASB 04A002 Revision 0 dated 23 October 2017.
AH EC175 ASB 05A017 Revision 0 dated 23 October 2017
AH EC175 B ALS Revision 8 dated 02 October 2017.
Anyone have access to these?
AH EC175 ASB 04A002 Revision 0 dated 23 October 2017.
AH EC175 ASB 05A017 Revision 0 dated 23 October 2017
AH EC175 B ALS Revision 8 dated 02 October 2017.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've no particular view on the 175 or the machinations of AH, but I think it's a little paranoid to rope EASA into some conspiracy theory on the basis of this evidence. I went looking for a similar AD in relation to another manufacturer and found this for the AW109SP.
I think this is just a boilerplate way for EASA to deal with this sort of issue.
I think this is just a boilerplate way for EASA to deal with this sort of issue.
That ASB introduces new penalty factors on certain components when conducting Cat A OEI training. Some existing penalties increase and some additional ones are added.
Not unusual for an AD and anyone with the subscription service to the 175 documentation has access. Similar to AW and others.
Normal chain of progression for a new aircraft.
I note that some service life limits (SLL) have been increased, I suppose that can be turned into a negative thing if we try hard enough. How about they didn't do the testing properly in the first place and underestimated the life thereby demonstrating what an appalling shower of cads and bounders they are.
Normal chain of progression for a new aircraft.
I note that some service life limits (SLL) have been increased, I suppose that can be turned into a negative thing if we try hard enough. How about they didn't do the testing properly in the first place and underestimated the life thereby demonstrating what an appalling shower of cads and bounders they are.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've no particular view on the 175 or the machinations of AH, but I think it's a little paranoid to rope EASA into some conspiracy theory on the basis of this evidence. I went looking for a similar AD in relation to another manufacturer and found this for the AW109SP.
I think this is just a boilerplate way for EASA to deal with this sort of issue.
I think this is just a boilerplate way for EASA to deal with this sort of issue.
I do not agree.
In the case of the '175 "the early removal of some components of the main rotor head, it was determined that the certification assumption on the use of the EC175 helicopter in a specific domain (...) were not conservative for some operators, typically conducting off-shore missions. Consequently, the airworthiness limitations were reassessed..."
As for the '109SP the AD's reason is different: "(...) Change 6 of the ALS, recently approved by EASA, introduces new airworthiness limitations.
Failure to comply with the instructions contained in the ALS could result in an unsafe condition.
For the reason described above, this AD requires implementation of the new airworthiness limitations as specified in the ALS at change 6."
I've no particular view on the 175 or the machinations of AH, but I think it's a little paranoid to rope EASA into some conspiracy theory on the basis of this evidence. I went looking for a similar AD in relation to another manufacturer and found this for the AW109SP.
I think this is just a boilerplate way for EASA to deal with this sort of issue.
I think this is just a boilerplate way for EASA to deal with this sort of issue.
Due to the nature of their work, short duration max weight climbs to rescue and then near auto rotation back to base (I'm grossly over simplifying the marvelous work that REGA do), AW thought it prudent to issue a completely separate Maintenance Planning Manual for them. They actually have their own set of Maintenance Manuals for these aircraft they are so different.
EASA enforced the new publications through an AD.
No other 109S/SP are affected. The 175 AD affects all H175's from what I can see.
But yes, it is just EASA's way of making sure that Operators comply with Bulletins already issued by the OEM. I don't know about EASA land, but in FAA land OEM Bulletins do not have to be complied with, even if the OEM says they are mandatory. Only AD's have to be complied with.
So sometimes, the OEM will approach the FAA to get an AD published if the OEM sees that Customers are not carrying out a mandatory Bulletin, thereby forcing them to comply.
Sorry for the thread drift
