Originally Posted by
Concentric
HC,
Would you care to explain your own rationality in separating the EC225 from the rest of the Super Puma AS332 family, even though Airbus Helicopter groups them together as variants in their sales material? Also, would you care to list the variants that use the same epicyclic transmission module as the 225 and, specifically, that used 2nd stage planet gears with Part No’s. 332A32-3335-00 and -02 to -07 inclusive? Would you care to explain why AS332L2 variants are currently grounded in Norway and UK?
jimf671,
Would you care to share your statistical analysis, also with definitions of ‘safe’, ‘safest’ etc.? e.g. Fatal accident, potentially fatal accident etc.
S92PAX’s comment referred to the manufacturer of the product, not the product itself or any nit-picking derivative/variant/colour of it. The behaviour of AH following the Bergen crash supports his assertion, would you not agree? Or do you actually believe somebody forgot to put a pin in a suspension bar?
The poster I was replying to, said his family wouldn't let him fly in a 225, the L2 wasn't mentioned. I was merely replying in that context. There is an awful lot that is different between the 225 and other Super Puma variants but of course the epicyclic is shared with some other variants as you suggest.
It boils down to, if say we went back to flying the EC225 on the N Sea in equal shares with the S92, 175 and 189, whether the next fatal accident would certainly be on an EC225 due to an epicyclic issue. I suggest it almost certainly wouldn't be. More likely it will be pilot error (S92 - its had plenty of near misses) or as yet unknown design flaw (175 and 189).
But that of course is a logical, rational, evidence-based argument. Decisions made in the modern way, ie by ignorance, scaremongering and Facebook, are likely to reach a different conclusion.