Originally Posted by
SASless
HC, not trying to be rude but having a caution light that might illuminate as a major remedial improvement does not exactly fill me with the warm and fuzzies.
I recall in Cockpit BIMs for rotor blades that got disconnected as they were very unreliable and dozens of false indications on various magnetic chip detectors in all sorts of helicopters.
Today we have HUMS....something pioneered by Bristow as I recall that still takes five hours for analysis that usually takes place while the aircraft in question might be out on another flight.
HUMS, in my view, is the very best warning tool if the data can be processed in a most timely fashion and can detect those very minimal changes that might....operative word....MIGHT be detectable and by discovery prevent an inflight disaster.
A Chip Detector in addition to HUMS is fine....but please do not hang your hat on a chip detector as an effective, accurate, reliable fix to a gear box problem.
We still have to recall what the issue is currently and that is the opinion of those being asked to ride in the 225 as their ride to and from work.
What would you have EC/Air Bus/ Oil Companies/ North Sea Operators do to alter those opinions? Or....is it too late to be able to do that?
HUMS and chip detectors are complementary. HUMS for non-debris releasing faults, chip for debris releasing faults. It is very hard to do HUMS on planet gears because they don’t stay in one place! So the protection against planet gear problems is only chip detection.
Probably the 225 is a lost cause from a hearts and minds point of view. I’m retired, so I don’t have to fly a flying tractor thing (aka S92). The 175 is nice to fly though.