Originally Posted by
HeliComparator
You really are desperate for the 225 to be killed off, aren't you. I wonder why? This is the first fatal accident on a 225. There will be fatal accidents on 189s, on the 175, more on the S92. It's funny how you weren't clamouring for the S92 to be killed off after its fatal crash. Biased, by any chance?
We are focussing on the technical failings of the 225 here buts let's not forget that from an operational point of view the safety is superb, by which I mean no conflict between fuel and payload, and a fantastic autopilot /MMI that protects the pilots from their own incompetence in a way that the S92 most certainly doesn't. There have been a number of pilot induced near-miss crashes on the 92 and in all probability there will be an actual one at some point. What then? Will you be desperate for it too to be pensioned off?
Do tell us what your (not so) hidden agenda is.
My hidden agenda?
I genuinely don't have one. As I have previously said I first flew on a Puma at RAF Odiham in the 70s. I have had an association with the type in one way or another ever since. I am currently working in the oil industry but not the NS. I have no commercial or other imperative and have absolutely nothing against them as aircraft - in fact I hold the type in all its historical incarnations in the highest regard and fully accept your point about their design and economics.
I did mention the S92s problems, the fatal accident in Newfoundland and suggested that replacing the Puma was no guarantee of making things safer but could just as easily make things worse.
My view (and it is a view not an agenda) is that a perfect storm of declining NS, low oil price, struggling operators, previous accident history, low workforce confidence, historically high numbers of surplus aircraft, mean that it looks inevitable that the Puma is going to be retired early.
Like you I will be sorry if that happens