Originally Posted by
HeliComparator
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.
What is the evidence based argument here?
Is it fatal accidents/flight hour in the North Sea theater?
Is it not equally evidence based to argue that the 225 has had 2 very unusual failures which remain unresolved, versus none such for the other 3 contenders?
In fixed wing aviation, aircraft that lose a lifting surface get grounded until the cause is resolved. The same logic should apply to rotary wing products.