Nick - So I take it you have no disagreement with my comments on EGPWS? I think EGPWS has a future but not with the current software. Hopefully one day Honeywell will make a useful helicopter version, not a fudged fixed-wing version, that adds terrain awareness to the simplicity and effectiveness of AVAD, with maybe a "sink after takeoff" that works from elevated helidecks.
I'll just take issue with one item of your desperate post - EGPWS is not the first system to be certified to prevent helicopters from CFIT/W - AVAD is, but of course how typical of the Americans to re-invent something already extant because it was not invented by them, and to then botch it up.
But I am going to be a nice chap and not rub your nose in it, and allow the topic to drift back to the relative cabin sizes etc which your mate Mike (assuming its not one of your handles!) posted to save you. Though I do note that the famous person decided to fly in the 225 not the 92!
On S92 sales you are out of date again - Bristow Group has decided to buy a lot more than 2 S92s and many are destined for the UK. From the pilot's point of view this is a shame but the hard facts are that the S92 is cheap and available whereas the EC225 is more expensive and running on about a 2 year delivery - I suppose you get what you pay for, and good things only come to those who wait!
I expect they will come with EGPWS as well, but hopefully our pilots can cope with the reduced safety margins from not having AVAD. If I were ordering it I would pay Sikorsky to retrofit AVAD and take out EGPWS (as you can't really have both systems - too many voice warnings at once)
But its to Sikorsky's credit that they have made aircraft before they sell them, whereas EC don't fit a rivet until the aircraft is sold.
The cabin pictures are interesting. Putting aside the fact that one is taken with a bit of zoom whereas the other is bit wide-angle, there is of course a lot more headroom in a 92 - we don't need photos to know that! But there is adequate headroom in the 225 when seated so the extra space is only useful when getting in and out, and perhaps adding to a perception of extra space. As we know, in terms of floor size the 92 has about 4" extra length on the 225 but that space is wasted by having no seats at the front where the door is. On the 225 the doors are in the middle and that allows the space to be divided up more evenly with some backward facing seats, so I think the seat pitch is slightly less in the 92.
Width-wise the 92 has about 6 inches on the 225 which is why the aisle looks a lot wider. The 225 shot doesn't show the aisle clearly, as the front row of seats is a different arrangement from the next row so its not quite as narrow as it might otherwise look. But its not quite as simple as that - the photos clearly show that the folk sitting in the front row right and left in the 92 have their shoulders crushed against the wall. Looks to me like they are saying their prayers as well - praying that there is not another engine failure I guess. On the 225 shot the guy on your left shows a relaxed poise with arm resting on the wide window ledge and shoulder in the window aperture. All the seats are like that - you can put your arm and shoulder into the window or door aperture. So although its narrower across the floor, you gain effective space so that effectively, the 92 is only about 2" wider than the 225.
So its certainly is a little bigger, but it ain't no S61. On the other hand, the 225 is smooth as silk whereas the 92 is rough as xxxx. Apparently in the Norwegian sector the rear left 92 seat is known as the "naughty seat" as it has exceptionally high vibration. Comments we received via the Norwegians indicate that the passengers really don't like the 92 because of the vibration, and because the seats aren't very comfortable (but then they are a hard lot to please!). Because of the vibration CHC fly their's quite slowly - barely any faster than a 332L. Meantime the 225 is creaming past at 150+.
I will be interesting when we get the 92 into service in the UK to see just how it does stand up to the 225 in terms of reliability and passenger satisfaction. I'll keep you posted...
HC
ps TOD - I am pretty sure that offshore platforms are in the database but of course not the semi-subs. You would have to use the terrain inhibit function when approaching platforms to avoid the obstacle warnings.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 5th Nov 2006 at 09:12.