Originally Posted by
HeliComparator
Some testing, yes. But only the tests that someone thought to do, ie the tests that were required by the bits of paper. Wasn't it the S92 that had a big deal when one of allegedly duplex oil pumps lost drive? Apparently that scenario hadn't been taken into consideration during certification. Not much point in doing FMEA if you don't spend much time thinking up the Fs. That is where some intelligence is required.
I think one of the problems with large complex helicopters is that within a manufacturer, virtually no-one really understands how the whole thing hangs together. Lots of clever chaps with supreme knowledge about their little bit, but lacking the big picture.
Yup, a big deal HC. Just like when a bevel gear driving the pumps fail, without losing oil, and an emergency system comes on, never been evaluated with a box full of oil, and two ditchings result. Manufacturers need to learn from the other's mistakes as well as their own. In this case, the failure mode SHOULD have been predicted. certainly before the second occurrence. But according to your statistics, all of the events on S-92 should be counted as mishaps, but only one now on 225? The argument could be made the other way, as some have suggested - Seven (at least) gearbox events on puma either catastrophic or leading to ditching. Three catastrophic events, no time for pilot to react. S-92 actually zero direct - as the one breakup was secondary, with PIC ignoring the RFM. The previous event was cluttered with an unapproved repair, yet a solution was fielded, so not ignored at all. By the true 'catastrophic gearbox failure' count, it is puma three, S-92 zero. Real people died in all, so out of respect to consider all issues as significant, S-92 has corrected the issues you mention whilst puma has not.
17 occurrences in the puma family where input gear resonance caused failures, one led to a tragedy. Nobody looking at the big picture on that one?
C'mon, HC really. You are a smart dude, (not being sarcastic) be honest and Tell us how each of the identified puma 'issues' involving dynamic components were resolved, that are no longer an issue on the 225.
Even lightning striking a tail blade leading to loss of tail rotor gearbox, and a ditching. S-92 has experienced multiple lightning strikes, including large portions of blades departing, flew back safely every time. Thor must have been pissed.
Lost a freewheel camshaft too during firefighting, and ditched in Hong Kong - reason - power rating was increased without really thinking it through.
With some magic wand waving and similar AS/ EC/ AH style ignorance, er, approach, the S-92 could be upgraded to over 30,000 lb. Then it would beat 225 as well, and probably just as safe. As we see, when you up-rate higher power through an old design, and only are held to the 1960 standards, well you simply lose some margin. It is what it is, but maybe if the 225 was held to the same standards, it would need to lose payload to keep the loads down.
Let's talk data and facts as you suggest, rather than opinion that the 225 is superior in every way - just not true. Not in safety. and if you normalized the safety, it would not be as competitive in other areas. Not even considering the sardine experience.
Otherwise, I agree with a lot you are saying - in particular, no panic, be patient.