Using Google Chrome translate feature reveals:
SF is composed of representatives from the government, helicopter operators, oil industry, Avinor, unions and others involved in the offshore sector.
They have met three times after the accident with EC225 helicopter that crashed outside Turøy 29 April.
In the second extraordinary meeting on 20 May, attended by several representatives from Airbus Helicopters, including their security chief.
According to the minutes , he ruled out that events are similar in character to the accidents in 2009 and 2012.
In 2012 an emergency landing two EC225 in the North Sea with wrecked Main Gear Box (MGB) with crack in the same place on the shaft.
In 2009 overthrew a AS332L2 after MGB failed due to fatigue fracture on one of the planetary gears in the second stage of the episyklisme module.
But in the interim report from the Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN) from June 1, it is pointed precisely at a similar fatigue fracture in one of the planet wheels of one of the planetary gears.
- Airbus Helicopters (AH) argues that it is not found traces of overheating in MGB. AH do not think the problem lies in the MGB, but must be found outside. That is why AH believes that one can not add design of MGB assumed that the helicopter should not be airworthy, according to the minutes of helicopter safety forum.
At this time argued helicopter manufacturer remains that mistake by one of the hangers, specifically attached to the MGB suspension bar, was a likely trigger for the main rotor loosened.
In the minutes it emerged that Norwegian expertise find it difficult to understand that too much torque on fixing bolts to support braces on MGB should be able to cause a break in the support structure.
- This position Airbus Helicopters had taken, was solely founded on proprietary research. We are critical of the factory as much has been leaning in one direction instead of being more open in an early exploration phase, says SF leader Anders Røsok to TU.
TU has asked Airbus Helicopters question whether they still believe that the primary cause of Turøy accident is outside the MGB.
A spokesman for the helicopter manufacturer says the TU that the only thing they will be quoted on now, is that they work closely with the Norwegian Accident Investigation Board and that they do not rule out some causes.
In conversation also shows that Airbus did not entirely agree with SF-abstract. Their version is that the message on May 20 was that it was too early to draw parallels to the 2009 accident, not to categorically reject any similarities.
TU mentioned last week that the reconditioned main gearbox, which was installed in the accident helicopter on January 17, was subjected to "rough treatment" and had to return to the workshop before installation.
This is among several things AIBN now look more closely at, and which also was the topic of helicopter forum, shows the minutes.
- SF wanted to know what was done by transport damage in Australia. AH explained the process when this transmission came into the AH for repair. They were further asked whether it was possible to see the strip down the report by the overhaul of the MGB. AH would check up.
The highlights are mine.
Note that the box was overhauled/repaired by AH, if the text is correct.