EH101 Merlin

[Heliport]

The RAF’s latest troop transport helicopter entered squadron service yesterday at a ceremony watched by the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire.
The Merlin HC Mark III can fly further and faster and carry heavier loads than the existing RAF Puma helicopters it will operate alongside.

Defence Procurement Minister Lord Bach said: “This aircraft is very advanced and its combination of agility, low noise signature, high reliability and 24-hour a day all-weather capability will enhance our battlefield capabilities significantly. “Merlin HC Mark III has been procured under a £750 million programme which is running within budget. The aircraft can carry up to 24 fully-equipped troops, internal cargo or several tonnes of cargo underslung.”

The aircraft will equip 28 (Army Co-operation) Squadron at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire. The Merlin HC Mk III weighs more than 14 tonnes, has three engines and has a top speed of over 150 knots. It will enter operational service in early 2003 following completion of extensive trials with 28 Squadron.

22 aircraft were ordered from GKN Westland Helicopters in June 1995. The aircraft is a military utility version of the UK-Italian Merlin HM Mark I anti-submarine helicopter, which is in service with the Royal Navy.

[Lu Zuckerman]

The part about high reliability “aint necessarily so”. During the design phase all references to catastrophic failures were removed from the Failure Mode Effects Analyses and because of that, they were never considered in the Safety hazards Analyses. The rotor brake problem was one of the failure modes that were removed from the FMEAs.

The most serious failure mode that was removed from consideration is a lock-up of the main transmission. The EH 101 main rotor shaft as originally designed had a shear point that would fracture in the event of a lock-up allowing a successful autorotation. The energy that was required to effect this fracture is the inertia of the main rotor system. At the instant of the lock-up, the rotor would stop rotating and the inertia of the blades would compress the dampers to their stops providing a mechanical lock-up and the inertial energy would pass into the rotor head and then to the shaft causing the fracture. The dampers in the process of this action would destruct because the stress levels would be very much higher than the damper design stress level. In the process of the damper failure the load would be transmitted to the elastomeric bearings and apply a side load that the bearings are incapable of reacting quite possibly causing complete failure of the bearings and the subsequent loss of the helicopter.

I would strongly suggest that the Royal Navy request access to the FMEAs and check to see if my statements are true.

Edit by Heliport
Good idea of yours to seek comments from military pilots - I've put a link on the Mil Aircrew Forum inviting contributions.

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Heliport ]

[BIT]

Hi there, I'm not sure where this link is going but I have a couple of notes on the FMECA.

1. Firstly I fail to see how the presence or otherwise of a catastrophic event within the FMECA would directly change the reliability of an airframe. Surely reliability and availability are functions of MTBF and system redundancy?

2. Secondly, if a catastrophic event were not mentioned at the design stage of an aircraft, that is not to say it would not be in the safety case to the airframe purchaser. Are you saying that there were no catastrophic events in the Merlin FMECA?

3. Lets permit the Merlin to get some serious time in UK Service before we judge it. If after that if there are problems, it will be constructive criticism that will be required.

Thats it. Interested to see how this link fill up.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: BIT

1. Firstly I fail to see how the presence or otherwise of a catastrophic event within the FMECA would directly change the reliability of an airframe. Surely reliability and availability are functions of MTBF and system redundancy?

In a proper Product Assurance program the first thing is to establish the failure rates for the individual piece parts that make up the elements of the components that are in a system. At this time an FMEA is performed at the component level and the failures of the individual piece parts within that component are related to the effect at the top level of that component. Then the FMEA is performed for the system. The end effects at the component level are the modes of failure at the system level. If a system is properly designed with adequate redundancy the effect of failure of a single component within the system will not migrate upwards to the aircraft level. So to answer your question proper design does effect the reliability and ultimate availability of the subject aircraft. The FMEA performs two major functions. 1) It drives the design by identifying the weak spots and 2) it serves to develop the troubleshooting instructions relative to diagnosing system defects / failures.

2. Secondly, if a catastrophic event were not mentioned at the design stage of an aircraft, which is not to say it would not be in the safety case to the airframe purchaser. Are you saying that there were no catastrophic events in the Merlin FMECA?

As indicated above one function of the FMEA is to identify the weak spots. The FMEA is normally performed at the very beginning of the design process so as to minimize the cost and time effects of changing the design. In the design process of the EH 101 the FMEAs identified all of the catastrophic single point failures that could down the helicopter. By definition a single point failure that could cause loss of the helicopter or death and or serious injury to the occupants can occur no more frequently than one time in a billion hours of operation of the aircraft fleet. (1 10-9).
After including all of these failures in the FMEA the department manager for whatever reason decided to take them out. Since they were not included in the FMEA they were never included in the Safety Hazards Analysis. By not being included in the SHA the failures were never mentioned in the training syllabus, the tech manuals nor were they included in simulator training. In other words these catastrophic failures would never occur.

3. Lets permit the Merlin to get some serious time in UK Service before we judge it. If after that if there are problems, it will be constructive criticism that will be required.

When these failures do occur the operators will collectively wonder why this type of failure was never addressed in the design.

[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]

[BIT]

LZ,

thank you for the ethos behind FMECA, I found it most interesting. You appear to have actual hands on experience of the detail of such an analysis on the EH101.

I was surprised that you were so specific in pointing out who, in your opinion was allegedly responsible for removing identified catastrophic events from a FMEA. Were I one of the persons concerned (I am not) I would be keen to question your statement. Nevertheless, your concern for the operators is clear and worthy. Do the operators have access to the Merlin FMEA through their procurement or airworthiness chain? Even if a company put together a weak safety case would it not be checked as part of the airworthiness requirement? Also , was the rotor brake problem that you refer to in your previous post the one that caused the recent EH101 crash? Because if so, surely that would have focussed the airworthiness chains attention on the safety case?

Thanks again
BIT

[Vfrpilotpb]

To Bt and Lu,

Henry Ford had a policy once of letting customers find the major faults in his new models, when it happened one had the car towed to the repair man, Bt has said lets get some serious hours in on the Merlin, if any catastrophic breakages happen you will be left with not only mangled airframes, with this in mind will any new pilots want to fly them!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: BIT

I developed a computerized FMEA for Agusta for use on the A 129 and modified it for use on the EH 101. I worked for Agusta on a consulting basis for almost three years and then performed the same service for six months for the firm that built the hydraulic system. We used the same system on this contract as well.

Our counterparts at Westland constructed a similar system but after their system was fully developed we found out that the two systems were incompatible due to different programming structure and different mainframe computers. A system was to be constructed to allow the computers at Agusta and Westland to talk to each other but while I was on the program this system was not fully developed nor was it tested to my knowledge.

I attended a meeting at EHI offices in London where Agusta and Westland were presenting their respective R&M programs and assigning the respective workloads. Both Westland and Agusta were committing themselves to a level of effort that would be impossible to accomplish. Westland at that time was reducing the size of their product assurance department and Agusta only had five R&M engineers besides myself working the EH 101 program. These five engineers were in training and required constant guidance from myself. Besides, they had limited English skills.

I sat through the meeting and finally I couldn’t take any more. I tore into both companies for committing to such a heavy workload with inadequate staffing. In the process of this lambasting the Agusta manager took offense. When we returned to Italy, the manager told the five R&M engineers to not talk to me nor, could they ask any questions. Shortly after that, he told the men to remove the catastrophic failures. During the next thirty days I sat and read magazines, went out on the flight line and watched helicopters being built. After this enforced situation I went to work for the director of Agusta with the responsibility to integrate the engineering department with the product support department. Six months of concerted effort and it never happened. To my knowledge the two departments are still not speaking to each other and that was over 12 years ago.

The document required for certification are separate from those documents that establish the reliability and maintainability requirements and the safety requirements are still another document. In the certification process the helicopter is tested against the requirements of
Advisory Circular 29-2A (Certification of transport category rotorcraft) or, the JAR equivalent.

This document is performance oriented and has no relationship to safety, reliability or maintainability. If the FMEA is prepared against a military contract, the client has access to all of the documentation. On a civil contract the client can request access to the FMEA but he must come to the manufacturers facility to see the documents. This is also true for the documentation used in the safety analysis.

The latest rotor brake problem was determined by Royal Navy investigators to have been caused by a maintenance error. This would not normally be addressed in the FMEA unless it could be seen as a possibility. The first two failures were addressed in the FMEA but later removed. These failures resulted in a loss of life.

[BIT]

LZ

Thank you for your summary of the FMEA procedures on the EH101.

Clearly ths thread has wondered well offthe Merlin Entering Service line but here goes (all my own opinion without comittment or bias!):

The facts as I see them.
For an aircraft to enter UK service it must have a safety case that is acceptable to the procuring authority. Such a safety case will be agreed by a combination of service and civilian specialists working for or on behalf of he procuring authority. Such a safety case will begin with the contractors safety case with omissions or other changes made as the case develops. This case is in no way hidden from the Service as it is directly involved in its production. Merlin is in service,QED an acceptable safetycase exists or is reaching conclusion.

No safety case wil ever cover every concievable malfunction combination so operators are reliant on the general engineering design basis when push comes to shove.

The best indication of reliability is safe flight hours flown. I think that AUG did their long term hours building in Italy and Scotland to test the longevity of the EH101 major components.

In summary, The Merlin is here and now. Its had a chequered start but the RN and RAF are currently fielding an ac which has been extensively analysed and tested. I would like to hear from Merlin OPERATORS. Whats bad (and good) about it. Can they do the job safely and effectively with it?

[Nick Lappos]

Lu,

I started to address each of your points in turn, and finally gave up, as it would yet again let you set the agenda on these long, pontific posts that you spin.

I find your point of view insulting and inflammatory, and at odds with my intimate knowledge of the Westland and Agusta folks who work in my profession. That anyone would assert that such folks as Jerry Tracy (Westland Test Pilot) or Rafael Longibardi (Agusta Chief Test Pilot who perished in the rotor brake fire accident) would participate in some kind of white wash is offensive and does not serve this forum at all. When you state that these accidents would not have happened if they had only followed your instructions is absurd. While your posts seem erudite to the less experienced members of this forum, you don't fool me a bit!

For all those who look to this forum for straight from the shoulder knowledge to make them better at their craft, let me catagorically state that the manufacturers of the machines we fly are populated with people of high integrity and expertise. Even though I consider the EH-101 to be a prime competitor of the aircraft we make, I have very high regard for the technical integrity and capabilities of the people who make it.

From your egotistical attitude and willingness to slur those others who might disagree with you, I fully understand why you are only a temporary consultant, and even as such why they let you go.

Your previous posts which held that the US Army and Marines lied about the capabilities of their aircraft come to mind, too. For the rest of the readers of this forum, please try to separate Lu's technical opinions from the polemics that slip into his posts.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick Lappos,

I beg to differ with you regarding on what subterfuge aircraft companies enter into when selling a design to the military or to a civilian operator. In my line of work I get to see all of it. By the time it gets to people like yourself the design good or bad is cast in concrete and you have to work with it. Sometimes the problems manifest themselves in a short period and in other cases the design has to accumulate many hours before the problems manifest themselves. A perfect example of this is the fail safe design of the S76 rotor blade.

I have been in this line of work since 1968 and I have been involved in aircraft since 1949. I would say that this provides a good perspective as to what is good and what is bad.

Regarding your two friends at Agusta and Westland they had absolutely nothing to do with the preparation of the product assurance documents and as I stated above they had to work with the design that was presented for testing. Unluckily for those engineers and technicians at Agusta that lost their lives the design was defective and nobody was aware of it because the stated failure among many others were removed from the FMEA and consequently never were considered in the safety analysis.

Now, let’s get on the subject of how honest aircraft companies are when dealing with a customer when there is an accident. Although the following can be representative of any airframe manufacturer it is a story that happened at the Flying S the same company you work for. Put your self in the position of the two investigators from the Navy or, better still in the places of the crew involved in the accident.

I was a techrep for Sikorsky probably before you were born.
Our in plant education consisted of fourteen weeks of classroom study and eight to ten months in the shop. While in the shop, we did everything. We punched rivets, installed hydraulic systems and electrical systems. We built up and installed rotor blades, rotor heads, gearboxes, and clutches, fuel tanks and, flight control components. If it went into the three models being built by Sikorsky our group had our hands in it or on it.

It was during the shop program that the writer became aware of what is to follow. The writer had just completed a two-week stint in the gearbox and rotor head section. The trainees were usually asked to leave because they were building these units faster that the shop personnel. The writer moved into the adjacent group that built tail rotor and intermediate gearboxes, as well as mechanical and hydromechanical clutches. Shortly after moving into this area, the writer became aware of a hushed conversation between the shop foreman, the plant manager and two U.S. Navy Officers. They were reviewing some paper work. They would go off to the transmission run-in room and upon returning they would again look at the papers. They seemed to be in an argument, but they kept their voices down so as not to be overheard. Finally the group broke up and the two Navy officers left. They seemed to be in a heated conversation.

It took a while, but the writer eventually got the full picture. Actually it was two pictures. One was the company picture the other was the Navy picture. The Navy had recently lost a brand new helicopter. It crashed in San Diego Bay after losing its tail rotor. The three crewmen died in the crash. Within hours, the Navy recovered the helicopter with the tail rotor gearbox still attached. They also recovered the tail rotor, which was almost intact.

When the accident investigation began, the tail rotor gearbox was opened. The investigators found that a critical part was missing. It was thought that it may have fallen out of position and got entrained in the gear mesh. Closer examination proved this to be a wrong conclusion. The gears were unmarked and there was no debris inside the gearbox. The finding of the accident investigation team was that the snap ring had never been installed which lead to the accident. That is what the Navy Officers were saying, and the other two men were denying it. The papers they were looking at, were the inspection records for the tail rotor gearbox.

By the time the writer was to move to his next workstation, he had developed his own conclusions, which were in total agreement with the Navy investigation team.
As each element is installed the technician and the inspector sign it off. Then the next part is installed with the same double sign-off. On several occasions the writer saw the technicians install several parts without signing the work off. They would then sign off the work and the inspector would buy the work off on their say so, totally in violation of quality control regulations. This happened many times. In some cases, the gearboxes were closed up before the work was signed off. After the gearboxes are complete and all signed off they are sent to the run in room where they are placed under load and run in for an hour or so.
Under normal condition, the gearbox would be returned to the work area to be partially disassembled to allow the gear mesh pattern to be checked. Some times they would luck out when the pattern was found to be O.K. If the mesh pattern were unacceptable, it would normally be corrected by the second run. This gearbox was returned, not for a check of the gear mesh, but because it was leaking.

The gearbox was partially disassembled to install a new gasket. It was then returned to the run in room. Instead of creating new paper work, the technician’s double stamped the existing paper work. It took three more tries to fix the leak. Each time the gearbox was reassembled, a stamp would be made on the paper work. This time the gearbox didn’t leak and after the run in the gear mesh was checked. To do this, the end of the gearbox, which is held in place by several bolts, is removed. This provides a direct view of the snap ring. The only thing that was of interest at that time, was the gear mesh. The Navy postulated that they didn’t look at the lock nut, which was supposedly held in place by the snap ring. When the end closure was reinstalled and bolted in place all of that work was double stamped.

Some of the tasks on the paper work had as many as fourteen stamps, including the inspectors’ stamps. The technician and the inspector double stamped the end cap removal/replacement. It was the company’s argument that when the end plate was removed the technician not only checked the gear mesh pattern he also verified that the snap ring was in place. That may be true and if it was true, why didn’t the technician double stamp those tasks as well. Another point to ponder was that the two technicians were given time off with pay and the inspector was moved to another department during the period that the Navy Officers were in the plant. The two people that made the argument for the company had absolutely no knowledge of what happened and those people that did were not made available to answer the questions of the two Navy personnel.

Three good men died because of an error made by those technicians. However, it could have been worse. When that gearbox was signed off, it was painted and placed in free stock. As free stock it could have been placed on a commercial or U.S. Army version of the Navy helicopter. These helicopters carry a crew of two and up to twelve passengers.

[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]

[Hoverman]

Nick Lappos
Thanks for your informative posts on several topics over the past few weeks.
You are a welcome addition to the Forum.
You seem to have grasped the fundamentals of Lu's thesis very quickly: All helicopter manufacturers are dishonest with a blatent disregard for the safety of those who will fly/fly in their aircraft. :rolleyes:
Your input is extremely valuable - thanks.

[Jiff]

Mr Lappos,
I find it hard to believe that someone with your experience and in your position would make the kind of comments you have made with regard to Lu Zuckerman.
Whether you like the guy or not, and I don't know him either personally or professionally, the arguments he has put forward are well founded and supported with technical facts. Yet most of the criticism has been along the lines of "that cant be right" and "I don't think your right". Almost none of the criticism has contained anything which says "you are wrong because", do you see the difference?

The real bummer about arguing with competent engineers is that they normally have all there ducks in a row and the fact is that the truth is always completely defendable.

With regard to the technical folks at Augusta and Westland, I agree completely that by far the majority of these people have immense technical talent, ability and are of the highest of integrity. The problem is that there is usually some non technical project manager who's only focus in life is budget and schedule, he saw 001 prototype flying for the first time and thinks everything is just fine and the safety guys are just being a pain in the ass.
Your probably thinking I must be on a different planet or something but unfortunately not, been there seen it and it happens. It doesn't just happen in the aviation industry either.

I certainly hope that the less experienced members of this forum do listen to what's being said here and if it only is sufficient to raise enough doubt in someone's mind that it causes them to question the B.S. and look for the facts then that's a good thing.

A few more facts
After reading all of the info about the Osprey on this forum, the press and the internet, I was certainly left with the impression that there were lies being told. Didn't an investigation prove this?

The R22 debate, well Frank Robinson responded in some very broad terms and completely failed to address the specific points which were raised in the argument, why?

Jiff

[Nick Lappos]

Lu said:
By the time it gets to people like yourself the design good or bad is cast in concrete and you have to work with it. .......
Regarding your two friends at Agusta and Westland they had absolutely nothing to do with the preparation of the product assurance documents and as I stated above they had to work with the design that was presented for testing. (along with many, many many other things)

Nick sez:
Your arrogance is shown in the belief that only the devine Lu Zuckerman can do an FMEA, and few mortals could possibly understand the magic.

I was project pilot on several Sikorsky models, and worked as a member of the design team in many ways, usually before the decision to design the machine had been made. With a great team of experts, I helped set the number and chord of the blades, the electric, hydraulic and control systems design and such. The FMEA is an integral part of this, and I worked with the R&M professionals to assure proper safety in the designs, before the FMEA's are written.

I will not debate with you because you are truly hopeless, but I want the other readers of this forum to see that you are a very cynical observer and do not necessarily understand the import of what you say. In the above post, you wax on and on about a mistake that was made as if that somehow proves your point. It does not, because your point is simply wrong. Our industry is made of operators, Military services, governmental agencies and manufacturers who try in most ways to do the best, and to use a high degree of integrity to fulfil their responsibilities. To assert otherwise, as you are prone to do, is to impune the reputations of many who will never read your puny words, but who could be harmed by them anyway.

The two fellows I mentioned by name are or were of the finest in their field, and fully able to beat your pants off when it comes to preparing an FMEA or in a trip outside in the carpark. I mentioned their names because I want to assure the readers of this forum that there are no faceless individuals who hold our fates in their hands. They are flesh and blood professionals who do, as we do, their best.

I sit in breathless expectation of another long tirade from you about 1) how wonderful you are and 2) how rotten are the manufacturers, militaries and governments and 3) how much better life would be if only we would face toward you each morning and bow.

But to the readers of this this forum, please know that the world of aviation works pretty well, and that the mechanic who tightens the bolts, the engineer who designs the gears and the accident investigator who writes the reports are all trying to do what is proper, in spite of Lu's assertions otherwise.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Nick Lappos


1) I find your point of view insulting and inflammatory, and at odds with my intimate knowledge of the Westland and Agusta folks who work in my profession. That anyone would assert that such folks as Jerry Tracy (Westland Test Pilot) or Rafael Longibardi (Agusta Chief Test Pilot who perished in the rotor brake fire accident) would participate in some kind of white wash is offensive and does not serve this forum at all. When you state that these accidents would not have happened if they had only followed your instructions is absurd. While your posts seem erudite to the less experienced members of this forum, you don't fool me a bit!

Where in my post did I state that your friends at Agusta and Westland had anything to do with a cover-up of problems? You have limited knowledge of what transpired at Agusta during the design phase of the A 129 and the EH 101. There was absolutely no cooperation between the product support department and engineering. The product support department was denied access to the engineering mainframe computer and as a result they purchased an NCR computer that was not compatible with the IBM mainframe. Because of this the product support department had no access to the FMEAs for either aircraft and could not develop comprehensive trouble shooting guides. The tech manuals were minimalist because the Product support department did not have direct access to the drawing system, which was on the mainframe computer. My last six months at Agusta were spent trying to establish a level of cooperation between engineering and product support. This lack of cooperation stemmed from the bad blood between the engineering manager and the manager of the product support department. This bad blood existed since the development of the A109 ten years earlier. By that time both departments changed management at least two times and still the cooperation was non existent. When I left, the two departments were paying lip service to the Idea but nothing changed. Regarding the accidents not happening if the FMEAs had not been emasculated I can’t honestly say but where do you get off challenging my word as if to say I am lying.

1) For all those who look to this forum for straight from the shoulder knowledge to make them better at their craft, let me categorically state that the manufacturers of the machines we fly are populated with people of high integrity and expertise. Even though I consider the EH-101 to be a prime competitor of the aircraft we make, I have very high regard for the technical integrity and capabilities of the people who make it.

It is true that aircraft manufacturers are populated with high minded and dedicated employees. However no matter how high minded and dedicated these individuals can be over ridden when schedules and money are concerned. That is the main problem when it comes to Reliability and Maintainability because any change to improve either will impact design schedules and cost money. I Identified 27 different R&M problems on the Apache and none of them were incorporated because of two things. Engineering had no use for R&M and Engineering did not want to change the design. All 27 of these items have manifested themselves during the life of the Apache. Now, regarding Agusta the one thing that they had that no other helicopter company had was their employees were all Italian and as such possessed a great deal of machismo that was threatened if a suggestion to change the design was implemented.

2) From your egotistical attitude and willingness to slur those others that might disagree with you, I fully understand why you are only a temporary consultant, and even as such why they let you go.

How have I expressed an egotistical attitude? And, when did I slur or take a shot at anyone that disagreed with my point of view? Regarding my position as a consultant short term contracts are the norm. Some last for a week and some for three years and all of that pays a hellova lot of money. I’m 70 years old so no company will hire me as a permanent employee. I have been let go from several jobs but not for incompetence. For example I was let go from Boeing because I kept telling them that the reliability of the hydraulic system would be severely diminished because of the design of the proprotor. Hydraulics. Does that ring a Bell?

3) Your previous posts, which held that the US Army and Marines lied about the capabilities of their aircraft, come to mind, too. For the rest of the readers of this forum, please try to separate Lu’s technical opinions from the polemics that slip into his posts.

“I” didn’t state that the Army lied I stated that the information was provided by an investigator from the Government Accounting Office who was generating a scathing report on the unreliability and poor maintainability of the Apache. I have the greatest respect for you and what you do however I really don’t care to be judged by someone that does not understand what I do and what I stand for. Read my bio. It states that I am interested in flight safety and crew safety. That is why I post what I do. To provide an understanding by the pilots and mechanics of the aircraft the fly in and work on.

[BIT]

Well said Nick,

You put in straight words what I as a newcomer to this forum was thinking. LZ clearly has a long history on the EH101 but the emphasis is on long with that being from my estimates from his comments is from about 12 yrs ago. Therefore, for him to comment on the current safety case is questionable.

I know some of the individuals you have mentioned by name and agree wholeheartedy with you regarding their commendable motives for getting the aircraft right.

Shame that this thread was hijacked but I hope we can get real OPERATORS opinion on the Merlin EH101 on another thread sometime.

Be safe

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: BIT

What you say is true. I did work on the EH 101 a long time ago but it was when the FMEA was being prepared. In almost every program I have ever worked on when the findings of the FMEA were included in the Safety hazards Analysis the whole thing is accepted and cast in concrete never to be changed. It should be noted that when I was on the program a Safety Hazards Analysis was not a requirement for the military end of the contract. Agusta I believe at that time was, as a part of the work sharing agreement would produce the civil variants. Per certification requirements for civil aircraft they had to prepare a Hazards Analysis and this was most likely done after I left the program if in fact it was done because the initial certification was done under RAI rules.

The purpose of the Hazards Analysis is to not only verify that the safety of the design meets the certification requirements it also Identifies single point failures that can cause death, Injury or, loss of the aircraft. This part of the analysis is keyed to the findings of the FMEA. If no single point failures are identified they will not appear in the Hazards Analysis.

If you read one of my previous posts I mentioned that a transmission lockup could cause loss of the aircraft and that with proper stress analysis of the loads on the dampers they could eliminate the problem. I mentioned this to the Agusta Dynamics department and they stated that they were going to demonstrate this malfunction using an A 109 transmission and rotor system. That was about a year prior to my leaving Agusta and the test had not been performed. I don’t know if it was ever performed.

After leaving Agusta I worked in the same capacity with the builder and designers of the hydraulic system for the EH 101 including the dampers. I told them about the problems with the dampers not being able to meet the stress levels imparted on the dampers during a lock up.
I suggested they contact Agusta and tell them. They adamantly refused saying that the last time they brought up a problem relating to an Agusta design the Machismo level at Agusta went up several orders of magnitude and Agusta ended up chewing out their collective butts. Agusta eventually made the change.

Nobody talked between departments and if an individual wanted to discuss a problem with an engineer in another department he had to be introduced by his department manager to the other department manager before he could get to the person he wanted to talk to. The entire program at least at Agusta was operated as if each department was a fiefdom within its’ self and it was unrelated to any other department even though there was a distinct relationship between the systems on the aircraft.

It was because of the above stated problems I suggested that the Royal Navy gain access to the FMEA and if possible the Safety Hazards Analysis.

[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]

[BIT]

Well LZ

That proves my point. Knowledge in aviation perishes quickly. While what you say may well have been correct when you were on the programme, things change, for better or worse but change is a fact of life so:

1. The FMEA which is now known as a FMECA does and has changed.

2. The current procedure involves the production of a Hazard Analysis HA, a detailed analysis DA and a Safety Report for each system with an overall report pulling everything together. It has been worked on extensively by dedicated and skilled people some company, some not. It is most certainly NOT set in concrete.

But rather than drone on about it I'm not going to ask you or anybody else on this forum about safety cases.

I only looked at the thread because I wanted to know what PILOTS (and navs/observers/crewmen etc) thought about their new flying machines.

I wish I hadnt read your reply to the opening note and also wish I had not fuelled your later posts with my questions.

"I learnt about the rotorheads forum from that"

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: BIT

Whether you want to continue this discussion or not, I will respond to your statements. If you wish to respond that is your prerogative.

An FMEA and an FMECA are basically the same thing. The C stands for criticality and it references the criticality requirement of Mil Std. 882 or, the FAA / JAR or, the CAA. There are four criticality levels. For the FAA there are 3 levels. Depending on the contractual requirement one or the other analyses will be used.

CAA 1 Minor JAR Same as CAA FAA Non essential Mil Std. 4 Minor
2 Major Essential 3 Marginal
3 Hazardous Critical 2 Critical
4 Catastrophic 1 Catastrophic

The above categories are tied to the frequency of occurrence related to number of hours flown by the fleet of a given type of aircraft.

It is true, the hazard analyses are worked on by many people and the various reports that are generated reflect the perceived safety of each of the aircraft’s systems based on the use of failure rates that are factored using Boolean algebra. However they are not pulled together to reflect the overall operational safety as to do so it could be shown that at the aircraft level the combined systems do not meet the safety requirements of the governing specification. If you know about this type of analysis each system is represented as a number of gates that must open to allow the failure to migrate up to the top level and the final gate is an and gate. If you take the top levels of each system and raise them one level to the aircraft then using this same Boolean logic it will show that the aircraft does not meet the spec. Once the analysis is complete it is not changed unless there is a major design modification and then only that part that reflects the change is modified. Normally by that time the design is in production.

The failure rates are defined in the reliability analyses, which also define the characteristics of the system to include redundancy. These number along with the redundancies are input into the FMEA / FMECA and then on to the Hazards Analyses.

The whole purpose of these various analyses is to drive the design. Once they are input into the design the company will lay off all R&M contractors and cut back on the department staff by moving them onto new programs. This in essence means that all work is stopped and if that is not cast in concrete I don’t know what is.

I'm sorry but this system does not respond well to tables.

[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]

[BIT]

Its a hard thing to swallow but you are factually wrong. I have worked on FMECA, know what the C stands for and know how the DAs are pulled together.

Been there seen it got the T shirt so I suggest you take your outdated procedures and bring them UP TO DATE before commenting further on this topic.

It may surprise you but other people do know how to do a safety analysis but they choose not to be so self righteous and base their comments on the latest procedures.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To:Bit

Before we get into a P!ss!ng contest let me make a statement. Several months ago I became embroiled in a running argument with various UK and Oz types about gyroscopic precession. The argument went on for some time until I came to the realization that in their POF classes in the UK they address Gyroscopic Precerssion as a minor influence to the point it is minimally addressed. In the USA in POF classes it is everything. Once we got that straightened out the arguments became fewer and fewer as In any of my posts I would preface my statements with the disclaimer that there would be differences of opinion.

Now I’ll address the FMEA and the Hazard analysis. First of all the entire field relating to reliability was developed by the US Airforce about 40 years ago. These principles were applied to every military program and were eventually adopted by the civil sector. Over the years the procedures were modified and the process was taken over by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as it applied to civil applications and military applications are controlled by the Reliability Analysis Center (RAC). The US Military is procuring more and more off the shelf equipment and usually on these programs they recommend the use of the SAE procedures. There is very little difference in the requirements of the two systems it is just that the formatting of the forms is different.

Right now I am performing the reliability analysis and preparing the FMEAs for the Dornier 728 Jet hydraulic system. The format for the FMEAs was developed for civil applications and can be used as an FMECA or an FMEA. The difference is in filling out the column labeled as criticality or not filling out that column. On my system we do not address the criticality relative to the aircraft. However at the next level they will.

Getting back to the opening paragraph relative to differences in approach the FMEA /FMECA forms you use in the UK I believe stem from a MOD Def Stan and were modified from the American procedures. If this is the case we are talking about the same thing but from our own knowledge perspective.

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]

[ 26 July 2001: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]

[BIT]

methinks he doth protest too much

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Speechless Two

I’m sorry you feel the way you do. Your perception of me is wrong. Please read my post on the 18-degree thread addressed to RW-1.

Regarding how long we have been in the aviation industry or being associated with aviation I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. I started in 1949 and if you want to include aviation-training courses in high school we can go back to 1945. At 16 I lied about my age and was in the Air National Guard as a Gunner on A-26 Invaders.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good Morning Ppruners,

Despite being a regular contributor to this Forum I tend to read only when deep technical discussions are being discussed, I read and learn quiet a lot from most of the people who make comments, I feel that LZ and NL despite being from different age sphere's both have massive amounts of information and skill that us mere mortals could only dream of having, why then when some body is not quite happy with some statement or input from another person does it degenerate into a personal attack on the unfortunate contributor, if you are unable to see both sides of any discussion you do appear to be a little blinkered, but that dont mean you are totally wrong, What is wrong is the nasty comments that abound if some one can't see the contributors point or explanation.
Remember attitude is everything !!!
My Regards to you all ;)

[Pat Gerard]

I have been flying helicopters for over 15000 hrs, including nearly 1000 on the EH101. I have been very happy to do that because I did not think too much about mechanical or structural failures. I have been trained to react to emergencies, but only to the ones I can do something about.

Lu, I greatly admire your technical knowledge and I enjoy your comments. I am also glad that someone is looking after my safety.
However, if there is nothing I can do about a particular problem, then I try to ignore it. I am too old to find an other job, and yet too young to retire. Therefore if you can do something about safety that I can't, good. Otherwise, I do not really want to know.

BIT

You want to know what pilots think of the 101 ? Well, I love it. I was involved in the maturity program of the aircraft and wish I could fly it again. I did things with it that I had never done with any other aircraft. I flew PP8 and PP9, wich were not "new" flying machines. We flew nearly 6000 accident and incident free hours.As far as I am concerned, the a/c delivered what was required.

[ 03 August 2001: Message edited by: Pat Gerard ]

[Pat Gerard]

Well, can anyone make me an offer I can't refuse ?

I would love to fly it again.

[BIT]

Thanks for that Pat. I hope you et to fly it again and I'm glad you were happy with the EH101. Are there any RN or RAF Merlin operators with any comments?

[Heliport]

Denmark announced today that it has selected the EH101 produced by AgustaWestland - a joint venture between GKN of the UK and Finmeccanica of Italy - to meet its multi-role search and rescue and troop transport requirements.
The order for 14 EH101s is valued at £300 million and is subject to satisfactory contract negotiations.

The EH101 was selected in a straight competition with the Sikorsky S-92 and NH Industries' NH90 to replace Denmark's long-serving fleet of Sikorsky S-61s.

According to a statement, an important element within the contract negotiations with Denmark will be the level of benefits accruing to Danish industry through industrial co-operation.
In October 2000 teaming agreements were signed with TERMA and Danish Aerotech to collaborate and further develop their existing business relationships.

As part of its commitment to Danish industry, AgustaWestland has already placed a number of contracts with Danish industry for the supply of a range of EH101 components including avionic floors and a recently placed contract for composite nose cap manufacture.

These contracts cover the requirements under current contractual obligations with the UK, Italian and Canadian Governments

[bockywocky]

More and more you can see countries selecting new helicopters based on the workshare and not on performances...

I can perfectly understand there are political issues to consider when selecting a new helicopter for your MoD, but in my opinion it should not prevent someone from selecting the best helicopter.

[Mars]

Bockywocky:

Care to elaborate on your email - I for one do not quite understand your point.

[widgeon]

Think he means that the value of offset work is given too high a weighting in the overall rating of the proposal . A helicopter that is technicaly superior may not be selected if not enough work is given to local suppliers. In the Canadian selection process ( now about 15 years old ) I believe to be compliant you have to offer a certain level of regional industrial benefits . So in this case it should not be a factor in the decision as it is a simple question of whether the bid is complaint or not with no extra credit given ( in theory) for any work above the minimum required by the contract.
It remains to be seen if that will be the case.
http://www.dnd.ca/admmat/mhp/docs_e.html

for copies of all Docs for canadian MHP program.

[NickLappos]

Often the amount of offset is a pass fail, but the quality of the offset is usually a graded value. If you offer to place low tech work, it is worth less than high tech growth work. If you have hard contracts, it is worth more than if you promise to find some.

That being said, the Danish competition was held almost 3 years ago (actually, the Danes gave a quick look at the field and selected the EH.) The S-92 was years away from certification, and therefore judged at that time as a risk. Nothing else in the field came close to the EH-101 or S-92 (typographical mistake edited out! thanks heedem!!) in cabin size or range.

[heedm]

New helicopters are so impressive that the minimum qualifying bid is quite likely an awesome machine. If my government is spending millions on a purchase, I think it would be nice if as much of those millions as possible was spent in my neighbourhood. Government spending only stimulates the economy if it's kept in the country (unless there's trade agreements...won't go there).

Nick, what do you mean by comparing EH101 and S76 wrt cabin size? Two nice machines, but completely different on that front.

Matthew.

[RDRickster]

Actually, heedm, your government IS spending millions on the same helicopter. Canada has a EH101 doing SAR. I understand these aircraft can be as much or more than $47 Million each (depending on configuration). I don't see any subcontract work for EH101 production in Canada, but I could be wrong.

[heedm]

RDRickster, I was speaking more generally. The requirement to include local benefits isn't a bad thing when you consider that every complaint bidder offers excellent product.

I'm familiar with the SAR helicopters here. The project does have Canadian content, although I can't say how much nor how important it was in the bid.

Currently, there's a project to replace our Navy's helicopters. It's intimate with the politics which appears to be slowing things down. There's definitely a lot of posturing occuring with manufacturers lining up Canadian content as well as aboriginal Canadian content.

[Lu Zuckerman]

It would seem to me that every time they want to sell an EH-101 or any other aircraft or military systems they offer an offset to sweeten the deal. If this continues the parent company that designed and “built” the system would eventually cease building parts and subsystem elements because they have farmed all of the work out to prospective buyers. They in the process loose a lot of jobs that used to build those offset elements and the builder then becomes an integration contractor.

If they run out of items to offset then they will start to farm out major structural elements which further exacerbates the lost job situation and the company could collapse due to expensive overhead with nothing to support the facilities.

They used to joke at Douglas aircraft that they lost money on every DC-9 they sold. Then some wag suggested that to compensate they could sell them in large numbers. Substitute B-7X7 or any other new design.

:E :E

[widgeon]

On Cormorant , I know Fleet ( RIP) had some parts they were manufacturing . Bristol in Winnipeg got some work as did Acro and Wescam The lions share seems to be with IMP who are actually providing maintenance support for the fleet.

[trailfinder]

BBC

Helicopter crashes at navy base

A helicopter has crashed at a Royal Navy base in Cornwall

The crash happened near the station's control tower
A helicopter has crashed at a Royal Navy base in Cornwall.
The incident happened at RNAS Culdrose, near Helston, on Tuesday afternoon. A Merlin helicopter crashed near the control tower.

It is not known how many people have been injured. Ambulances and two fire engines have been sent to the base.

Navy paramedics are at the scene and the main road to the Lizard has been closed at Helston.

More soon...

__________________________________

Hope everyone's OK.....

[comedyjock]

Just heard all the crew got out okay.

[SilsoeSid]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/3583409.stm
Helicopter crashes at navy base

The crash happened near the base's control tower
A helicopter has crashed at a Royal Navy base in Cornwall.
The incident happened at RNAS Culdrose, near Helston, at about 1500 BST on Tuesday when a Merlin helicopter hit the ground near the control tower.

One man was trapped in the aircraft and flown to hospital. Four other people were slightly hurt in the incident.

The £60m anti-submarine aircraft, which is thought to belong to 824 Squadron, had just taken off on a training flight.

Road closed

Two civilian fire engines were sent to the base but were not required. Civilian ambulances were also called to assist navy paramedics.

The main road from Helston to the Lizard has been closed as a precaution.

The Merlin, which was first introduced in 1997, normally carries a crew of three comprising a pilot, observer and aircrewman.

The 22.8 metre-long aircraft has a rotor diameter of 18.6 metres, weighs 14,600 kilograms and has an anticipated service life 35 to 40 years.

RNAS Culdrose is responsible for training helicopter pilots, observers and aircrewmen in search and rescue, weather forecasting and aircraft handling.

[jimgriff]

Glad everyone is safe.

But £60 million each..........:eek:

[ZH875]

£60 Million, that will be £20 million for the Merlin and £10 million for Westlands to say it can be flown by the RN and £30 Million for the onboard Pies.


Glad everyone is safe, and best wishes for a full and speedy return to fitness and flying.

[Melrin Dip]

When I was on 700M squadron the right-off cost for RN24 was £39.5m or so the C126 form from the Supply (or is that logistics) people said. £1.5m for a Hawk though!

Obviously a bit of cost inflation going on by the BBC.

Either that or the fine PRO at Culdrose has succeeded in blowing it yet again.

I feel sorry for the lads who will be walking around the airfield for 3 weeks picking up MMMF fibres (very carefully). Obviously the cab rolled over.

[WASALOADIE]

Good to see they all survived, best wishes to them all. Here's wishing them a speedy return to flying.

[Tourist]

Little bird tells me it threww a tail rotor blade on short finals:eek:

[ZH844]

Appears to be rather a mess in the BBC picture - do we know if the aircraft rolled when it met with the ground?

Glad all concerned lived to tell the tell - indicates the strength of the airframe.

Best to let the boys from VL do their job before we all try and guess the cause although T/R failure does seem on everyone's lips - another Italian design!

Let's hope we see the Mighty Merlin flying soon!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Glad to hear that everyone's safe.

[Archimedes]

Ditto the above sentiments.

[jEtGuiDeR]

ZH 844, a/c didn't roll on impact due to low hover height, as he was awaiting departure clearance. Very big relief to see the guys got out eventually, and a speedy recovery to those taken to Treliske. Thoughts are with families of all, and had a couple of light beverages in honour of the crews, Good work fellas :o )

[Gainesy]

Sod the cost, boys got out, can always buy another.

[ZH844]

240 and below - I am told that a member of the crew had to be cut out - do you know which crew member?

At least this example had a EAS installed so that will give some data to aid the investigation.

:ugh:

[RoD Flow]

ZH844 - RHS pilot had to be cut out. That pilot is "recovering" according to this mornings local news.

The three backseaters got out v quick, and were in the bar by 1700.

Glad to see the guys were OK

RF

[oldpinger]

Can anyone PM me with names if known?

Cheers

[Pontius Navigator]

Rod Flow
What took them so long? In Cyprus the Lightning jock was standing in the bar, in a puddle of water, blanket over his shoulders and about 200 aircrew hanging on every word.

Not out of interest per ce but to ensure they could not be on the BOI. Then the Docs got him and whisked him off to hospital.

[RoD Flow]

PN

We are talking RN hospitality here. The bar wasn't open til then!

RF

[Bootneck]

In the hover the half hub broke, separating one tail rotor blade, completely, quickly followed by two others, the aircraft did a 180 and crashed. The pilot went to shut down the engines, but realised it was a waste of time as they were in front of him!
Non-handler being patched up in hospital, the instrument panel banged up his leg, and the mission panel took out his shoulder.:ouch: Ground crew and rear crew very lucky to escape uninjured.
Was it the mayor of Nagasaki who said, "What the F*** was that?"

[Southern Rotary Bloke]

Interesting isn't it.

Quite a lot of money each.

One in the Sound of Raasay, one at Culdrose.

Some early aircraft, excluding the PP a/c, will never actually be mission capable.

Contract cost? Contract value? Not the same thing methinks...

[RichiePAO]

When I worked at Westlands in the late eighties/early nineties they were retailing at £50m for a copy - still thats inflation for you:{ During its development it lost a couple of aircraft - I think it had a rather anoying habit of applying its rotor brake whilst in flight....My memory is a little vague but I seem to recall a crew of one prototype aircraft had to bail put, but sadly a second (I believe Italian) crew lost there lives due to this or a similar fault.
Still at the time I was involved with it a good aircraft, with a lot of potential, something I am sure the crews at Culdrose and Benson would go along with.

[Straight Up Again]

RichiePAO - your memory is almost right (unless mine is wrong). Italian crew that died were in PP2 when the rotor brake thing happened, at low level I believe. The crew that bailed out were in PP4 when the tail rotor pitch control rod broke near the bottom of the fin (up at about 15000'), forcing the tail rotor to max pitch (weight of rod hanging on hyd actuator). That one was over Somerset, a large area of Somerset by the time it stopped.

They do appear to be having more than their fair share of problems, and I have to agree with the lack of value for money comment. RN 1 springs to mind as never going to get to 'mission capable' status.

Having worked on several variants of the big bus, I too think it had potential, maybe it was just poorly executed (I don't mean by the actual workers, the ones I worked alongside were excellent, professional guys and gals), which is a real shame.

[propulike]

Glad to hear they all got out, even though not immediately.
Sounds like a concerning failure for the rest of the crews though.

[Bootneck]

A quick update. Post fleet check of I understand 42 aircraft; they all have the same fault. Ooooops!:ooh:

[Toxteth O'Grady]

I guess the Mk 3s at Benson have the same problem. Have they been grounded?

[Melrin Dip]

Bootneck,

Isn't the first rule of accident investigation to NEVER jump at first conclusions.

If 44 aircraft have the same fault why did this not happen 4 years ago on an older aircraft.

I think as someone said before WAIT until the BOI/RNFSAIC have done ALL the investigation instead of jumping in with both feet.

By the way I am a Merlin Driver!

[brandnew]

Agree to the above; all will be revealed.

"Most tested, most safe and best value for money helicopter in the world today" (c) Westlands.

Nonsense. Very glad they all got out though. Hope they all fly again soon.

[Fatman]

:( Good to see Bootneck was standing alondside the rest of us watching it all happen (not) Evidently he must be on the BOI because he knows more than us giving statements. Just to put the record straight- everything is being considered - and we will find out idc. It is absolute B****cks and unhelpful to suggest anything else. Having flown the beast for the last 2 yrs and enjoyed every minute - most of my bethren will agree that we are anxious to find out the cause - get it fixed and get airborne again.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Air force grounds Cormorant copters


HALIFAX (CP) - Flight restrictions have again been placed on Canada's fleet of Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopters following the crash of a similar aircraft in Britain this week.

The air force said Thursday the Canadian helicopters will only be allowed to fly in emergencies until the tail rotors of each of the 15 aircraft can be inspected.

Lt.-Col. Charles Cue, commander of 413 Squadron in Greenwood, N.S., said the restrictions come following the crash of a Royal Navy Merlin helicopter on Tuesday.

Five people were injured in the crash in Britain.

It is believed the cause of the accident involved cracks in the aircraft's tail rotor.

Cue admitted cracks have been found in the same area on the Cormorants, but said they haven't caused any problems.

"We have had cracking in the tail rotor hub, but we check the hub on a daily basis," he said. "If we find a problem, we take the part off and put a new one on. So far, it hasn't been an issue."

He said the rotors on both the Cormorant and the Merlin are roughly the same.

It's the second time since the beginning of the year that the Cormorants have been placed under restrictions.

In February, concerns were raised about potential fuel leaks.

The Italian-built helicopters have already had problems with cracking windscreens and console brackets.

[RoD Flow]

I too am a Merlin Driver, AND I saw the accident, but I believe it is pointless pontificating about what did or didn't happen, or how much the beast costs, or if any of the active fleet have any sort of defect. This fine NEW aircraft has a lot of potential and is certainly the best kerosene budgie I have flown but, unfortunately, its detractors now have even more ammunition to bitch about it.

Bootneck, please stop second guessing the AI/BOI (unless you really are on it - you seem to know more than them at present)

Fatman, I'll see you at the North Coast for 7 consecutive Check Test Flights.

[insider info]

Don't know who bootneck is and can't confirm all he says, but he is right about a half hub coming apart. Wether it was the cause is for the BOI to decide, but cracking half hubs is something wastelands were already aware of.

[Colonel W E Kurtz]

I reckon the chances of the US Marines buying the US101 to replace their S-65's for the presidential fleet now must be about..........zero.

[Felix Lighter]

Ditto....Ivors crowd are rubbing their hands/wallets with glee Im sure.

My only concern is that all are ok! Good luck chaps with the RnR, hope your all back in the saddle soonest.

FAA (Rtd)

[Cyclic Hotline]

S-65's?

Maybe there is a Presidential fleet we have never heard of?

[Bootneck]

Fatman, is what I wrote incorrect?
I don't think so.
Aviators live for the black arts of suspicion, suspense, scepticism and downright speculation. (Or have they all changed);)

[RoD Flow]

Bootie

"A quick update. Post fleet check of I understand 42 aircraft; they all have the same fault. Ooooops"

- lucky we stopped flying then or they would have all fallen out of the sky at the same time wouldn't they?!?

I think Fatman and many other Merlin operators (like myself) would just rather you weren't so f***in' direct while our comrade lies in hospital being "patched up" as you put it in an earlier post.

Speculation and opinion is fine. Unequivocal 'facts' may give rise to some ill feeling.

By the way, I hope the journo who said on TV that it was "pilot error" has a good lawyer.

[Heliport]

Sorry, guys. I lost some posts while merging threads.

If yours is missing, please re-post.

Heliport

[ZH844]

Right its time to talk facts about this incident!

So what are the facts? We don't know. A few saw it happen and a few have participated in the investigation.

Those that saw it happen would be stupid to discuss it in this forum and those who investigate it would be sacked if they discussed it.

The facts are as follows;

1) A Merlin HM1 has crashed.
2) Five crew survived.
3) The cause is not yet known.

The impact to the EH101 has yet to be realised. What you should all remember is that helicopters malfunction - it happens - we try to prevent it but sometimes we fail.

Re: The US101 - if the most important man in the world has to fly in a helicopter which one would you choose? The S-92: unproven, low operationg hours, etc or the EH101: 100 examples flying; two losses and all survived. Igor might tell you about survivability but wastelands can prove it! Take your pick!

[Time Out]

Safety concerns could affect presidential helicopter selection
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
April 3, 2004, 12:22 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Ongoing questions about cracks in the tail rotor of AgustaWestland helicopters could trigger concerns for the Pentagon as the U.S. Navy considers which contractor will build the next fleet of presidential helicopters.

British Navy officials are investigating whether rotor cracks played a role in the crash last week of an EH101 Merlin helicopter built by AgustaWestland, an Italian-British consortium.

Following the crash the Canadian Air Force restricted its fleet of AgustaWestland-built Cormorant helicopters to emergency operations, acknowledging that the aircraft _ a version of the EH101 _ also had developed similar cracks.

The intense competition for the prestigious role of Marine One is between Connecticut-based Sikorsky Aircraft's VH-92 Super Hawk and Maryland-based Lockheed Martin's US101. Lockheed has partnered with AgustaWestland and a team of contractors to offer a helicopter based on the Merlin.

AgustaWestland spokesman David Bath said the company is participating in the crash investigation. And he said the Canadian decision to inspect all the rotors was "a sensible thing to do."

"We need to find out what caused this failure," said Bath. He described the accident, in which the helicopter dropped from about 50 feet during a Navy training flight, as a "heavy impact landing." Two pilots were injured in the crash, which broke the rotor blades off the aircraft and scattered parts around the Royal Naval Air Station Cultrose airfield.

The Pentagon, which may wait until the end of the year to make a decision on the $1.6 billion Marine One contract, could not confirm that military officials are monitoring the matter.

"It's not appropriate for us to discuss the source selection competition before the contract award decision is announced," said Navy Lt. Commander Danny Hernandez.

But analysts said the military is certainly interested in the crash investigation and any link between that and cracks in the tail rotor.

"We don't know if there is a connection, but if there is it would be blow to the 101," said Richard Aboulafia, a defense analyst with the Teal Group. "If there is a causality between a manufacturing defect and a crash, that would represent a major blow."

Both Aboulafia and Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, said the Merlin had a good safety record and, in general, helicopter crashes are not unusual in military service.

"This is usually seen as a very safe and reliable helicopter," said Thompson. "Any pattern of accidents is going to be a source of concern. But you would have to know the precise cause of the rotor cracks."

Last week the Navy announced that the decision on the contract would not come in May as originally planned. The Navy said officials needed more time to assess the safety and survivability of the two aircraft.

Because of the terrorist attacks and growing security threats, the White House had initially called for the Pentagon to move quickly on the contract decision so the new aircraft would be ready for 2008.

Sikorsky spokesman Edward Steadham said "safety and security are the most important issues for the presidential helicopter."
source (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ct--presidentialhelic0403apr03,0,6622854.story?coll=ny-ap-regional-wire)

[Melrin Dip]

Can I just say how refreshing parts of this thread have been.

The refreshing support of the operators from the SW of this fine aircraft have shone a bright light on a potentially very dark incident for the fleet.

I for one have been banging the drum about the Merlin since I started flying it in 2000.

Lets hope we get it back in the sky soonest so we can continue to prove the ignorant wrong.

I'm just anoyed not to be there instead of shining my butt in VB.

Oh, and by the way I hope whoever is talking to Bootneck, stops and keeps everything in house until we KNOW the cause.

:suspect:

[Bootneck]

Rod, your friend took my slot in theatre on Friday morning, I never felt happier knowing somebody else needed help more than I.
Melrin, the aircraft went through approx 180* and hit the deck, parts of the tail rotor detached. Is the truth to be avoided or covered up. Information from any accident can help the remaining crews. However there must be a speedy accurate flow; unfortunately this is invariably not the case in the services, hence the rumour mill.
It's not my intention to upset anyone, I'll leave Hoon to do that.

[Ian Corrigible]

While I have no first-hand intel on the crash myself, I was interested to see the Canadian DND report as early as last Friday that the UK crash investigation had homed-in on the tail rotor half hub assembly as its main focus: see Cormorant ops restricted (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3560607.1081111166&manuel_call_cat=3&manuel_call_prod=36553&manuel_call_mod=release&modele=jdc_inter)

Glad there were no fatailities on Tuesday.

I/C

[NickLappos]

In a post that I put up a few days ago (and now missing), one ppruner's quest for his friend who might have been aboard reminded us all that this event is above all a tragedy for the occupants. It is people who come first, in the profession and avocation that we all share. We wish those injured a speedy recovery and quick return to the air.

[Head Turner]

US101 must be the choice for the President for the following reasons (Presidential Team please read):-

Where there are mechanical problems that we know of, they can be fixed and just look back on past helicopters and the problems that they had and how superb they have become after the successful fixes.
An unproven helicopter is 'Unproven'.

100 flying examples are better than promises.

[ZH844]

Good words HT - my thoughts exactly!

Nick - thanks for bringing us all down to earth - you are right - people are the most important part of the issue.

Any further news of the crew - heard that P1 was still receiving treatment?

StraightUp - any thoughts from Aussie?

[OFBSLF]

An unproven helicopter is 'Unproven'.Rignt. And therefore we should never buy any new helicopter, because it is "unproven," even though it might be better then the "proven" helicopter.

Using that kind of logic, the US Army would still be flying UH-1s, rather than Blackhawks...

[Straight Up Again]

The photo on the BBC website looked like a mess, though it was a bit small to pick out any details. I will be interested to read the investigation results when they come out.

I have every confidence that if there is a fleet wide problem, that it can be fixed pretty quickly, but then nobody ever seems to post topics on how well or quick something gets fixed (from any manufacturer), but that's probably just human nature.

I'm glad to see a few drivers here supporting the aircraft, it's nice after seeing/hearing a few second hand comments about how disliked the aircraft is. Any other 101 crew care to comment (especially from the other variants).

My thoughts on the presidential bid can be read on the thread dealing with that topic (lets not turn this thread into a repeat), but I do wonder, out of all the people really pushing for either side and trying to put the opposition down, how many work for the manufacturer. All the people I know who work for one of the companies reckon the opposition is a fine aircraft, but just think theirs is slightly better. Even Nick has posted the traitorous words that the EH-101 is a fine aircraft (or something similar, didn't mean to put words in your mouth Nick). I think the S/H-92 will also be very good and popular, but still support the EH-101 (as an ex Wastelander, and I do have a soft spot for the first helo I ever flew in). I am ignoring the 'unproven' argument, it may end up having problems down the line, no matter how much designing you do, or it may not.

ZH-844 - I had to put the 'Again' on the end of my name, I changed my email address and the system wouldn't let me reregister, so I had to start again. Other than that still doing the SeaHawk thing. I can (and will) apply for citizenship in June. Anything going over your way (PM/email me any interesting news).

Any news on the crew member taken to hospital, hopefully it wasn't too serious and they'll all be up (as in flying) and about quickly.

[Flytest]

On the subject of how quick something gets fixed, well, speaking from experience, the Navy don't hang around. They will immediately check the entire fleet, and if it is a fleetwide problem, they will implement a repair / replacement / modification programme in a seaman like fashion, as fast as naval gunfire, but twice as accurate:ok:

Maybe things are different now from when I left in 2000, but back then, we moved fast when we had a snag.

[rjsquirrel]

One possible thing to learn from this is the value of field experience weighed against the newer testing technologies that are available.

A tail rotor hub cracked, and that the crack progressed to fail the tail rotor, toss some blades and cause the crash. Conventional wisdom says that only time and experience (and crashes) will teach us how to eliminate all these critical component failures.

The newest test requirements that are used for every new helicopter (those designed in the last few years, like S-92 and AB-139) find these weak points before production starts, using induced scratches, dents and flaws on all the important parts to try to cause cracks. If a crack is caused by such a flaw, the part is redesigned by adding material, or by reshaping it until the flaw no longer causes a crack. They say that every critical bit is flawed in every critical area, increasing the number of tests quite a bit.

I saw some slides about this that had been posted, but can't find the pointer to the site.

[Head Turner]

OFBSLF, Thanks for the point, but I think that you have missed the point.

What I was inferriong was that the Merlin has found a weakness in a system that all the previous testing was unable to detect. Now that it has occurred, a fix will found.

The S92 has no in srevice time, so I think it is reasonable to expect that there will be some fix required to some critical part at sometime because no matter how much testing is done, something will turn up. Past experience qualifies this assuption.

Using this as a logical base, the US101 must be 'better' than the S92.

To my knowledge there has never been a helicopter built that hasn't had numerous modifications/fixes to solve subsequent problems. Why should the S92 be different?

[OFBSLF]

Head Turner, I think you have made my point for me, again. Using this as a logical base, the US101 must be 'better' than the S92.The UH1 has far more in-service time than the EH101, so using your logic, it is therefore "better" than the EH101.

Older isn't necessarily better (nor is older necessarily worse).

I'm sure that the EH101 is a fine machine. Yes, it is a more mature program than the S92. Does that maturity mean that the EH101 is better than the S92? Of course not. Does the fact that the S92 is newer than the EH101 mean it is better than the EH101? Of course not. The EH101 may be better than the S92 (or vice versa), but maturity alone cannot be the yardstick.

Frankly, I don't know which is the better helicopter. I do not have the expertise to make that determination. Nor do I work for Sikorsky or any other company likely to benefit from this contract.

But asserting that the EH101 is better because it has been around longer is nonsense.

If you believe the EH101 is better, then show me some facts and figures. What are the expected mission profiles? What are the comparative capabilities when flying those profiles? Compare payload, range, cost (purchase and operating cost), etc. Compare the safety and combat survivability features of the two.

The presidential helicopters are frequently transported via US transport aircraft. Compare and contrast the ability to transport the EH101 and S92 on C5 and C17 aircraft. Can they both fit? What preparation/completion is required to do so?

[Flying Lawyer]

Extract from PA News report Military Helicopter Flights Banned after Crash

Restrictions were today in place on the flying of military Merlin helicopters following a crash at a Royal Navy base.

Until investigators determine what caused the accident, Royal Navy and RAF Merlin helicopters will be restricted to life-saving and high priority combat operations.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said it was routine to place limitations on the flying of aircraft after a crash.
He added: “Until we find out what the cause of the accident was, we need to protect the people flying them.
“It will have no impact on current operations. But we are aware that by doing no training we get loss of skills for our people, so there is some impact on long term capability.”

None of the crew members’ injuries in last week’s crash were life-threatening, but one of the two pilots was airlifted to the Royal Cornwall hospital, where he is still recovering.

Initial investigations suggest that there was a problem with the helicopter’s tail rotor, the MoD spokesman said.

This is only the second time that a Royal Navy Merlin helicopter has crashed. The previous accident occurred in October 2002, off the Isle of Skye.

The Royal Navy has 42 Mark One Merlin helicopters and the RAF has 22 Mark Three Merlins.

[[email protected]]

One of the big problems with the Merlin/101 is the extensive use of composite materials - yes they are light and strong but, unlike metal components, there is no Non-Destructive Testing technique for assessing possible damage/failure of components. The crack in the TR at Culdrose was known about and being monitored - just as well they didn't leave it too late then!!
In the bad old days, aircraft were built and tested in role and failures occurred and were rectified (often after loss of life) - are you telling me we should still accept such risk? Are Airbus going to release their new double decker monster plane until it has been exhaustively tested and proved safe for public transport? I don't think so, the negative PR of killing 500 plus passengers in one go would preclude that. But, are Westlands happy to convince the military that they have an airworthy aircraft, despite some high profile failures so that jolly jack tar and the rest of the cannon fodder in the military can play crash test dummies for tthe R & D dept? it would seem so.

[dangermouse]

Being associated with WHL I think the insinuation that WHL are putting pople lives at risk intentionally because they can't be bothered to do anything else is a slanderous accusation without any evidence at all and I hope CRAB will retract that immediately

The cause of the crash and factors leading to it ARE NOT YET KNOWN BY ANYBODY, the BOI has convened, WHL are no doubt helping as much as they can, in short CRAB and everybody else is not speaking from a position of knowledge and anything that says otherwise here is wrong.

Any cracking may or may not be a causal factor it is far too early to tell so let's let the people do their job and report back when the FACTS not the speculation are in.

BTW CRAB you really should get some NDT training before spouting off like that.

Sorry but the previous post went too far

DM

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: rjsquirrel

A tail rotor hub cracked, and that the crack progressed to fail the tail rotor, toss some blades and cause the crash. Conventional wisdom says that only time and experience (and crashes) will teach us how to eliminate all these critical component failures.

If a proper engineering program is initiated it will include Product Integrity analyses which includes an FMECA. The purpose of the FMECA is manifold in that it identifies all potential failure modes and the resultant effect of those failures. The FMECA also is used to create the troubleshooting procedures relative to the identified failures. The severity of the failure and its’ effect will identify to engineering and the test engineers what should be tested and what may have to be redesigned in order to eliminate the effect as well as the failure. A properly executed FMECA will encompass all of these elements. However in this case the FMECA was just executed.



:E :E

[[email protected]]

Dangermouse - you read into my post what you wanted to, I am not going to write 'allegedly' everytime I voice my opinion on something (and I think it would be libellous not slanderous).
If the BOI finds that it was not cracking of the TR hub that caused the accident then I will eat a double helping of humble pie. However, since a fleet-wide check of the TR hub was instigated straight after the crash, and the worldwide fleet remains grounded except for urgent ops and lifesaving, and the grapevine alleges that several other aircraft in the fleet have cracks in the same area as the crashed one - what is one supposed to think? Gremlins????
Would you like to detail the NDT procedures for composite materials, other than a visual inspection or by tapping the item (Lynx MR blade), so that I can be enlightened?

[Melrin Dip]

A RW colleague of mine on another forum said we need a thread on how good the Merlin HM 1 is and why all us operator types like it so much.

Well in these times of rumour and counter-rumour especially from those who want to kill off other peoples projects I will start. Of course there will be the detractors but I'm sure we can guarantee they aren't Merlin orientated or have ever been closer than watching a flypast.

The aircraft is much better than the Sea King it replaces - more space, better radar , sonar and other kit.

It flies very much like a Lynx and around the flight deck whether its at night or in poor weather its a complete dream to handle.

Its fast and smooth - senior officers love to be transported in it.

On a frigate its like having and airborne ops room, SH helo and ASW aircraft all in one. It can do all these things at once without serious limitation to the other roles.

Despite what you might believe or have been told its an epic SAR platform.

You may wish to disagree with me on serviceability or the like but thats not an inherent aircraft design issue - its the support/stores contract that was put in place by our friend Mr Portillo in 1993/4. Funny how the Conservatives forget all their best decisions.

Costs - all costs of aircraft these days relate to total aircraft PROGRAMME costs - including design support and simulators etc. I guarantee you that is not the case when you compare with other aircraft and how much are Nimrod MR4s a piece?

Finally - if you want to really comment on Merlin. Travel SW and visit Culdrose - get in one (or even see the sim) - and decide objectively for yourself.

I expect someone will bring the accident up in this thread - DON'T!, wait for the BOI.


:cool:

[dangermouse]

NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE CAUSE WAS , as I said before any cracking may or may not be a causal factor, nodody knows yet and wild guessing now doesn't help

I believe the aircraft in Italy are still flying, no aircraft are actually grounded (which is in itself a very emotive term) as the Airworthiness certificates have not been withdrawn, they are still available to fly if required.

It is widely overlooked that the aircraft is CAA, RAI and FAA compliant with the requisite rules and therefore any safety case must have been carried out to the certification authorities satisfaction. Obviously it is possible something has been overlooked but the job was done competently enough that all parties were happy, after all the RAF, RN, MMI, CAF, FAA, CAA, RAI and Japanese authorities must have been happy to allow the aircraft to fly. Still nobody is perfect (even Lu must admit to that).

For Crab to say 'But, are Westlands happy to convince the military that they have an airworthy aircraft, despite some high profile failures so that jolly jack tar and the rest of the cannon fodder in the military can play crash test dummies for tthe R & D dept? it would seem so.' is pretty blatant.

for NDT, what about thermal profiles, X rays, ultrasound?

[Bootneck]

Finally - if you want to really comment on Merlin. Travel SW and visit Culdrose - get in one (or even see the sim) - and decide objectively for yourself
If only they'd let me fly the bloody thing. Yes it is neat, fast, commodious and appears to do everything comfortably.
My criticism is not with the machine, but the machinations behind it's development and introduction. In '84 it started out at £12.5M, and as usual has gone way beyond anticipated costs. Unfortunately from what I see and understand the aircraft is under supplied with spares, which must be a tragedy for those trying to introduce it to service.
Glad to see you chaps enjoy the beast.:cool:

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Dangermouse

Obviously it is possible something has been overlooked but the job was done competently enough that all parties were happy, after all the RAF, RN, MMI, CAF, FAA, CAA, RAI and Japanese authorities must have been happy to allow the aircraft to fly. Still nobody is perfect (even Lu must admit to that).

The only documentation provided to the certification authorities for their evaluation relative to certification are the engineering test reports that show compliance with the certification requirements and the Safety Hazards Analysis. The manufacturers do not provide the FMECAs to the authorities unless they ask for them and then they must come to the manufacturers to view them.

The safety analysis reflects the FMECAs so if no catastrophic failure modes are included in that analysis then there are no catastrophic failures considered in the Safety Hazard Analyses.


:E :E

[Skylark4]

I walked up the ramp on one in the hangar the other day. I am only 6' tall in my boots and could not stand upright. I was not wearing a bonedome. Would it have been that difficult/costly/impractical to have the cabin 6" higher. It must be murder on the back of the poor bloke who spends his time wandering around in the back.

In general; why do you bother with retractable wheels on choppers. With your limited speed I wouldn't have thought the weight/complication penalty was worth it

Mike W

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Merlin threads are prone to be troublesome because some of us are talking about the Grey Navy ones, others about Green RAF ones....

[Archimedes]

Marlin threads are prone to be troublesome

Why do the RAF have green fish and the RN grey ones?

We're occasionally visited by Merlins at the plc (useful for drying the outfield on the cricket pitch). Mighty impressive beasties. Although whether one was required to deliver an A4 sized package to an ICSC inmate might be debated....:)

[dangermouse]

Not being a system safety expert I have to concede that point


DM

[action_lynx]

Haven't had the chance to get in one yet (a grey one! ;)) but I understand they are much much smoother and quieter than lynx with similar performance - for a big beast! Also... I believe the ration of aircrew nutty consumed is proportional to the size of the aircraft...? Big helo... :E

Are they looking at re-roling it at all?? SAR or replacement for SKMk4?

[RoD Flow]

Let me count the ways:

Big
Fast
Smooth
Digimap
INS
Does most things other helos do, just as well, if not better
Crashworthiness (I know that one is a bit of optimism in the face of adversity)
Potential - PID/FLIR, Missile, bigger gun for starters

I would never admit it to our jungly or lynx bretheren, but ASW in a SK was dull. Long, long periods of boredom punctuated only occasionally by moments of sheer terror. (There I was, 40', in the dip, 100 miles from Mum, Black as witches bits....etc) With Merlin, the 'driver' has finally been invited to the party and can not only see what is going on, can get involved, rather than responding to (or more often, forgetting) steer commands from the Zero in the back. Stovies called it S.A. We didn't call it anything in Sea Kings cos the front seat didn't have any.

Why do we in Merlin land leap to her defence so readily? Because we have been doing it for so long. Never has a new toy been so maligned. We have bought it, the money is gone, lets fix it, fly it and enjoy it.

The King is dead, long live the sorcerer

[Sashathehungry]

strictly regarding the dark green merlot here...

I had heard that it was a bit of a let down, particularly with not being able to hover on two engines? Admittedly I was talking to a ex-Chinook display pilot (not exactly objective :rolleyes: ) but the impression he gave was that it was the jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

I hope someone can prove me wrong since I could well be flying one if I go to Shawbury and beyond!

Hungry

[Occasional Aviator]

As a Mk 3 operator, I can echo the enthusiasm of the RN. Yes, the Chinook can lift three times as much, but the Merlin can go as far, faster, more quietly, more smoothly, in greater safety, better protected and with more, more modern, kit in the cockpit. Our icing clearance is already better than any other helicopter in UK service and that's only at the interim level. Yes, there are things I'd like to chnage about it, but would I swap places with a Chinook pilot? Not for all the 10 ton ISOs that are moved from one end of a car park to another every year!

As for the rumour that Merlin can't hover on 2 engines, I have to suppress a yawn every time I hear it. At max all-up mass, at high density altitudes, if one engine fails, you can't hover; but show me a helicopter that this isn't true for! Actually the OEI performance is impressive. You're often not committed until the very last minute, if at all at training weights in a temperate environment. Think about it: if you lose an engine in a twin engine helicopter, you're down to maybe 60 percent of your power, taking into account emergency ratings of the engine; in a 3-engined helicopter, losing an engine limits you to something more like 75 or 80 percent. And in any case, the RTM 322 is incredibly good - I believe the rate of engine rejection is still in single figures after some 120,000 hours of fleet operation.

Spares are still an issue, but when you have them, this is a very reliable aircraft. The availability rate of the Mk 3 in Bosnia was close to 98 percent.

[Sashathehungry]

Quote:
Yes, there are things I'd like to chnage about it, but would I swap places with a Chinook pilot? Not for all the 10 ton ISOs that are moved from one end of a car park to another every year!

Nice to hear OA, thanks very much!

You mention servicability being close to 98% in bosnia...

Is this based on an abundance of spares, and the comfort of a solid airbase to wrap up warm in at night? Do you think it would retain a high servicability when compared to the likes of the Puma/Chinook etc in a more "field" deployment (for want of a better expression)?

I only ask since I see the Mk3 a lot at Leeming, with enourmous scaffolding erected around it between flights. Seems to me like it requires a lot to get it going (mind you, I should probably get off my a$$e and talk to the crew ;) ).

Thanks

Hungry

[Occasional Aviator]

Bosnia is actually operating out of a disused metal factory, not an airfield; basic but admittedly not as austere as a field location. We have operated out of field sites a number of times without any significant problems though.

The gantries you see around the aircraft at Leeming are a health and safety thing because it's so tall... as I recall, the servicing is done in a hangar full of tornados in bits and the Merlins seem to spend less time there than the jets!

[The Ferret]

Melrin Dip - thanks for breaking this thread out of the accident - no I will not mention it!

Having flown the aircraft, I agree with your sentiments and support your view that the Merlin Mk 1 is a world beater with much to offer the ASW, AsuW and SAR fraternities. Having also been winched out of the sea by one, however, I still believe that the Sea King, or smaller helos have their place in certain SAR scenarios where the Merlin downwash would be excessive. Do not get me wrong - the aircraft has the speed of response, range and avionics to meet the demands of most SAR situations but there are limitations as I am sure the Canadian Cormorant will find.

There are still a few things missing..........

The twin wheels on the Mk 3 is an item that the Mk 1 dearly needs! With only single wheels of the main undercarriage it imposes too many operating restrictions, not to mention the safety aspects of relying on one tyre on one side!

It needs a Defensive Aid Suite (DAS) if we intend to operate it in the littoral.

It needs an Electro Optice (EO) device if we are going to take the ASuW role seriously and..........

............it needs an anti surface weapon!

How do the rear seat crews now feel about flying backwards (facing aft) - does it still affect their SA or have they adapted?:sad: :ugh: :ugh:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

It also needs a Sea Harrier or similar (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) to protect from enemy aircraft.....

Surely the MOD have thought about defending helicopters from hostile MiGs, Sukhoi etc?

[Roger Greendeck]

Littoral does not always mean enemy bases near by. But enemy is certainly more likely. A good DAS is rather important. But that is a project issue and not Merlin specific.

[Thud Ridge]

Littoral Region:

"Coastal sea areas and that portion of the land which is suscepticle to influence or support from the sea"

Everyday's a school day.

TR

[dmanton300]

The twin wheels on the Mk 3 is an item that the Mk 1 dearly needs! With only single wheels of the main undercarriage it imposes too many operating restrictions,

The problem with having twin wheels on the Mk.1 is that you immediately hit operating restrictions in terms of the Mk.1's home base, which oftimes are ships as small as a Frigate. To maneouvre in the tight comfines of a ship of that size requires an undercarriage that can castor on a helo that big, you don't get that with twin wheels. So there is a good reason for that single wheel main UC, even if it restricts the helo in terms of other ground environments like rough and/or grass. . . .As far as I can see all the Italian aircraft of whatever flavour have twin wheel mains, but even their ASuW ones are land based where it's not an issue, and even if they go to sea it'll be on ships like the Guissepe Garibaldi where moving them around won't be an issue.

[Occasional Aviator]

We can castor the Mk 3 OK?!

[BillHicksRules]

WEBF,

You have to face it mate the Sea Harrier is dead.

I know it pains you but that is reality.

Cheers

BHR

[Spanish Waltzer]

I know this thread is specifically not referring to the accident down at Culdrose which is great, but is the Merlin still 'good' enough to beat the competition for 'Marine One'?

It's going to be mighty hard to fend off the obvious criticisms from Mr Sikorsky about reliability etc and isn't the contract supposed to be being awarded in the next month or so and thus before BOI findings are released......

[goffered again]

I think he was meaning the mains so it can swivel into wind on a flight deck.

Ref. downwash. The Danes have opted for Merlin for SAR having done a Downwash trial against an NH90 so it can't be all bad.

Sea King has more than a Wessex, which had more than a Whirlwind etc, sometimes its good to be picked up by anything.:ok:

[Stitchbitch]

Occasional Aviator I always thought the twin wheels on the Mk.3 were there so the unwary could burst more tyres...;)

[fuel2noise]

What a load of sanctimonious tosh on this strand! This is supossed to be a Professional Pilots RUMOUR Network!

We all know that the best quess/final answer will come after the BOI has done its stuff and published (some months away). In the mean time it does not take the brains of a helicopter designer to work out that this crash must have had something to do with the Merlin TR. It is an insult to this readership to pretend otherwise.

The Merlin is a fantastic aircraft and I endorse the sentiment that we need to get a fix and move on FAST..... but can we please refrain from all the 'don't talk about it cos we don't know yet' b****cks? Likewise, it is well known that the aircraft has cost a shed (no, hangar) load of cash and defence, across the board, is on the bones of its back side - so it comes down to a judgement call on risk v available cash to sort out current and anticipated snags on the aircraft; bit like the decision not to upgrade the door runners on the navy's Lynx fleet some years ago (cost v small risk of a door coming off in flight) which cost me a close friend along with his crew-mate and a cabin load of pax. Sad fact of life.

[dangermouse]

I must disagree with the previous thread, I agree this is a RUMOUR site but all too often rumours become accepted 'facts' that can have a serious impact on an aircrafts image (most unfairly) and consequent sales chances.There have been 'facts' about many aircraft not just the EH101 for years, untrue but they are still spoken of as gospel.

Obviously there was a TR problem, I dont think anyone is pretending otherwise, but maybe it was poor maintenance, not a design issue that caused the crash (for instance), we simply don't know and any speculation can only hurt all concerned. As there has been no conclusion as to the cause yet would seem to imply that the obvious 'facts' are in this case not so obvious.

As far as an incident goes I will always agree with Mr F Gump

'If you've got nothing good (or factual) to say, say nothing'

Peoples livelihoods depend on it

DM:hmm:

[Straight Up Again]

goffered again - I think Occasional Aviator was meaning that the Mk3 can turn on the spot, so to speak, even with twin mains. 'castor' is the switch position to get the nosewheel to turn to the 90 deg position to allow a spot turn, normally the steering is restricted to 45 deg either way. It seemed to confuse the poor marshaller the first time we took one for a visit (can't remember if it was Benson or Odiham or wherever), he wasn't used to stuff that could turn on the spot. The spot around which it turns is where the Deck-lock is on the RN aircraft, so you can spin around with the deck-lock engaged. As always my memory is about 4 years out of date.

I can't see why the RN ones couldn't have twin wheels, I seem to remember the oleos and sponson where the same anyway, and I can't sea how deck handling would have been made more difficult.

If I was bobbing around some nice cold bit of sea, anything would look good to me, even a RAN Seapsrite, which looks pretty ugly in any other situation.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

I can't see why the RN ones couldn't have twin wheels

Easily answered because there was only one reason at the end of the day; yeah, you guessed it.......................cost!

[Jackonicko]

Is the Merlin still 'good enough' for Marine One?

Mr Sikorsky will doubtless be expending considerable resources to try and 'prove otherwise', but that doesn't mean he'll succeed.

Even with the accidents, the EH101 is clearly better and safer than the S.70. And the S.92 is a stretched, enlarged S.70, taking many of the S.70's most vulnerable systems and components.

And the insular and inward looking Americans may not associate the EHI EH101 Merlin as closely as we do with the Lockheed Martin US101.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Jacko

Maybe they could order the US101, then cancel it the morning after the Presidential election, then order a completely different aircraft called the US Cormorant. None none of the electorate will ever notice.

Worked for the Canucks!

[Thomas coupling]

Fuel2 noise:
well said...very well said. Let's get on with rumouring and don't let the truth stand in the way of a good story!

[OFBSLF]

And the insular and inward looking Americans may not associate the EHI EH101 Merlin as closely as we do with the Lockheed Martin US101.Oh please. The people making the decisions will bloody well know where it was designed, and which components will be built where.

[The Ferret]

[QUOTE] Easily answered because there was only one reason at the end of the day; yeah, you guessed it.......................cost!


T O'G ..................yes you are absolutely right - in fact most of the cost lies in redesigning and rebuilding the Scott McTaggart PRISM deck handling system to take twin wheels!:{ :{

[Straight Up Again]

There was a thread about the Presidential Bid on Rotorheads a short while ago that had some good links/points.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, its here: Presidential Bid (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=119433&highlight=presidential)

[rjsquirrel]

dangermouse,

You have an odd way of trying to squelch rumors when you yourself speculate that it might be a maintenance error. To say that "Peoples livelihoods depend on it" and then slur those who maintained the stricken bird is the height of hypocrisy.

I guess you were asleep when the Canadian aviation authorities were quoted as saying that the tail rotor hubs crack so regularly that they change them constantly. I don't think the Canadians said that the maintainers were so sloppy that they cracked their aircraft.

There is a difference between a bald rumor and the discussion of known hub plate cracks followed by a helo that is reported to have tossed three tail rotor blades, experienced subsequent control difficulties and then crashed.

It is also quite interesting that this "crashworthy" helo got so bent up in a hover accident that two people had to be cut out from it.

All the above is as reported from authoritative aviation sources, not rumor.

dangermouse, talking about "Peoples livelihoods depend on it", how much do you want to bet that the accident report won't be filed until after the US Presidential Helicopter selection! Since the livlihoods you are worried about are obviously Westland and Agusta, what say you?

[fuel2noise]

So what's the buzz about when the Merlin will be back in the air again?

Guess there will be a lot of coffee drunk at Culdrose and Benson for the foreseeable future..... Naturally it will be spun as a huge success in the mean time!

[Flytest]

Heard a rumour that a civvy EH101 may be embarking on Argus next week..

Gen dit or crew room sh*t?

[dmanton300]

Truly gratifying to see so many BOI members and accident investigation "experts" giving their verdict on the causes. . .

Sarcasm OFF!

And as far as I can tell Dangermouse did no speculating per se, just threw an idea out there for consideration that so many seem to have neglected as a possible cause. I mean, god forbid that the user may have been at fault rather than the manufacturer eh?

(Oh yeah, I have no loyalty to WHL/Agusta at all, may have once upon a year, but not no more)

[crossbow]

Youre all missing the point guys. The Grey Merlin is an awful awful aircraft.

Good points - Fast, furious, far, smooth

Bad points - Its based in the back of beyond. Its miles away from any sort of civilisation. Who in their right minds wants to fly an aircraft based in never,never land.

Move it somewhere closer to reality and you will win a lot more fans

[Head Turner]

IF it is the gearboxes cracking, one could speculate that there is some other component exciting a vibration leading towards the gearbox. Thus causing stress at the gearbox.

My experience is that in mechanical construction the problem is not always the obvious.

A flat tye is not usually the fault of the tyre but usually the haphazard activity of the builder who threw the screws onto the ground. No offence to any builder.

I would make a wild guess that there is a source of vibration building up within the tail boom and tail rotor components. I could be wrong but now I've put it in print I can only now await the official report.

[Thomas coupling]

They are putting an EH101 on Argus very soon. The rush is on because if the fleet are grounded for any considerable time, then atleast Argus will have a very expensive (and expansive) portacabin for free!!:D

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Head Turner

IF it is the gearboxes cracking, one could speculate that there is some other component exciting a vibration leading towards the gearbox. Thus causing stress at the gearbox.

Or, the stress analysis on the gearbox casting was faulty or the design cross section at a critical point was inadequate for the applied loads resulting in a crack in the casting. Or, the FMECA questioned the gearbox design pointing out the possibility of the gearbox cracking and the FMECA was ignored. Apply this, as you will.

:E :E

[dangermouse]

Saw a Merlin over Yeovil this pm, so I guess things are getting back to normal

[dangermouse]

Saw a Merlin over Yeovil this pm so I guess things are getting back to normal.

[The Nr Fairy]

DM:

PPossibly, but as Yeovil is home to Westlands, might it have been a test flight of some description ?

[fuel2noise]

Living in the Duchy I can vouch for the fact that the sky has been Merlin-free so far. Wonder how the boys are entertaining themselves at Culdrose and Benson.... guess secondary duties are polished to perfection and the sim is working around the clock.

[Matelot B'stard]

I heard a rumour that they were getting contractors in... to re-cover the mess snooker tables :p

[fuel2noise]

...anyone got an update on the coffee and uckers factor at CU/Benson? Sky still Merlin-free?

[The Nr Fairy]

If they're bored with the sim, I'll spend an hour or so !

And I'll even bring my own instructor . . .

[Thomas coupling]

The latest is:

One of the tail rotor blades went walk about during its tour of duty :uhoh:

But I couldn't possibly comment..........................

[fagin's goat]

TC... not daring to comment either in case the thought police get me! Believe you are spot on. In any case the boys must be getting pretty cheesed off with nothing to fly for so long. Any idea when situation is going to change? Also any news on the injured crewperson(s)??

[Cyclic Hotline]

Well, there seems to be one flying anyway.

Que. fishing crew picked up by helicopter after boat runs aground

HALIFAX (CP) - Five people had to be picked up by helicopter Saturday morning after their fishing vessel ran aground in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The crew of the 19-metre-long Stephane C had anchored their vessel, but around 5 a.m. strong waves and winds started pushing them towards Anticosti Island.

The crew managed to call for help, then abandoned ship, making it to shore aboard a lifeboat.

A search and rescue vessel, along with a Hercules and a Cormorant helicopter were all dispatched to the scene.

The Cormorant eventually picked up the crew and took them back to Gaspe, Que.

There were no injuries reported.

[Thomas coupling]

Canada haven't been told yet:oh:

[fuel2noise]

...still Merlin free over the Duchy! Any updates in the air (forgive the pun)??

[Flytest]

I've heard a rumour wastelands have written to Jim'll Fix It.:p

[Neil Porter]

Any news on the Merlin front?
Are they any closer to fixing the problem??

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

No answer,

Guess they must all be on gardening leave:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Bigtop]

For the sceptics:
Flying backwards in a Merlin is not a major problem! Yes facing forwards would have some advantages and make life a little more comfortable with its high nose up attitude on occassion.

Twin wheels - was a cost/weight saver to go to a single wheel. No signficant problems in deck handlingwith twin wheels, not even with the deck handling as the main shuttles are a guide not the engine of PRISM.

Way ahead - yes the cause of the accident has been identifed and a plan to get them airborne again is in hand but wait for the BOI report for the detail.

Despite the teething problems in introducing this aircraft it is immensely capable and an excellent force asset to the afloat commander. DAS/weapons etc would all enhance the aircraft so rather than throw stones lets concentrate on making a good platform better.

As for the sceptics from the other communities - I hope you have learnt the lessons exposed by Merlin when you bring your replacements on-line!!!!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Just spent 45 minutes writing a reply as to why the Merlin HM1 is the greatest thing since sliced bread, only to be told I wasn't logged in. :{ :{ :{

So I'll just say this.........Merlin HM1 replaces Sea King HAS6. Contrast and compare them, particularly in terms of sensor capability.

Merlin (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/merlin/)

Sea King (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/seaking/index.html)

All the senors are hugely more capable. The area of sea that can be sanitised by a Merlin is several times larger than that of a Sea King.

[fagin's goat]

WEBF - any amount of capability is useless if it is grounded (even for a 'brief period'). Merlin build up has been far slower than anyone expected; the current problem will doubtless cause even greater headaches with training throughput, operational programmes, etc, etc. How much longer can the RN wait to have the ASW and ASUW capability provided by Merlin restored. What is the cost v output equation?

[Vage Rot]

We Fanatic

Especially when the Merlin actually gets into the sea to make sure it's sanitised!!!!

Doh!

[Colonel W E Kurtz]

From what I heard during sea trials the launch cycle of the Merlin takes so long that it is incompatable with the launch cycle of the Harrier.

This means that the Merlin and Harrier cannot both operate off a CVS!

As a result the decision has been taken that the merlin will operate off of RFA's in Convoy with the CVS!!!!!!!!

Can you believe this stuff?:mad:

[Oggin Aviator]

From what I heard during sea trials the launch cycle of the Merlin takes so long that it is incompatable with the launch cycle of the Harrier.
Not quite true. It is actually quite quick off the deck when it is fully serviceable. I think the reason for putting them on the RFA's is to do with space, if the CVS has a full complement of FA2/GR7/SKW.

There has always been issues with operating fixed and rotary assets off the same deck. Any U/S helo stuck on the spot (for example unable to fold the rotors) is going to screw up the FW programme.

Plus the RFA's are a lot nicer to live on !!

[Melrin Dip]

I can't stop myself from replying to the 'sh@%e' above invented by those whose sea time can only be measured in ferry crossings.

I have done Ship Helicopter Limit Trials (SHOLs) in both the Sea King and Merlin.

Which is more capable - THE MERLIN
Which scared me the most - THE SEA KING
What is better at night in the pitch black with 4 metres of swell and 30ft of dec movement - THE MERLIN

The Merlin is second only to the Lynx in terms of ship compatibility and manoeuvreability.

The point made above about CVS and aircraft types hits it on the head. Prior to Merlin introduction to service as soon as the GR7s came on board the HAS 6 Sea Kings were kicked off to the RFA. Actually the RFA (both Wave Class and Fort Class) are better platforms and are better in nearly all respects than a CVS for a unit to operate from.

On a totally different note a colleague of mine recently serving with the Army in Bosnia told me how much they liked the Merlin on real ops in comparison to the Puma. He's not a pilot and drives ships for a living.

Merlin will carry on and beat the world whatever those who like to shoot crap at it form the ignorant outside may like to say.



:suspect:

[Twinact]

Army in Bosnia told me how much they liked the Merlin on real ops in comparison to the Puma

Considering the Puma is about to go out of service in the near future, I'm not suprised. However, the Merlin is almost 3 times the size of the good old Puma, but lifts about the same and costs a fortune. It ought to be better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's this real ops **** anyway?

Merlin beat the world - only because the politicians say so - not its ability!

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Are we talking about the grey one or the green one? If its the former, then the operators are impressed by how capable the sensors are, and how well it handles on deck.


However.....

1. Is it possible or desirable for the Merlin to be fitted with the HMG pod, given the current threat from small surface craft?
2. Is it possible for the Type 23 Frigate to carry both a Merlin and a Lynx (for Sea Skua and machine gun capability)?
3. The Italians have armed their Merlins (or whatever they call them) with anti ship missiles. Will we do the same?
4. It is planned that out of sixteen T23s, only twelve will receive Merlin and the new 2087 towed array sonar. Given the ship handling problems associated with towed arrays, isn't Merlin a more serious thing to not get. Shouldn't they at least get Merlin?
5. Is the Junglie Sea King 4 replacement likely to be a Merlin, or is the V22 Osprey a contender?
6. Is Merlin or V22 more likely and/or more desirable for MASC?
7. Broadsheet 2003 mentions that RN aircraft did mine hunting sorties during Operation Telic. It does not say whether this was Lynx or Merlin? Surely no sane person would advocate looking for mines with a sonar suspended directly under the aircraft? Or would they? Or were they referring to an optical hunting role?

[Spur Lash]

Twinact

Puma still has 6 years left.

Merlin can lift with 3.5 hours fuel and still lift a ton. The forthcoming upgrade will give it an extra ton on top.

I think you'll find that killing cattle to 'prevent' BSE has cost more than the procurement of the Merlin. Off topic, I know, but it's worth throwing in an obscure fact now and then;)

[Twinact]

Sorry we got off the thread of the obsolete grey aircraft and started talking about the obsolete green ones.

My point is that a Chinook sized aircraft ought to be doing better than a Puma !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3.5 hours fuel and it can only lift 10 men - Jesus Christ, that's hardly impressive for 3 engines and millions of pounds.

Puma OSD? Will you take bets on 6 years?

[Chairborne 09.00hrs]

I know this thread is about the Merlin, but......

Spur - If the Puma has such a short service life ahead of it, why acquire those 6 ex-SAAF airframes? Will they ever enter RAF service, or is this a smaller and less well-known procurement FUBAR? Just curious.

[Vage Rot]

Fit it with floats and an outboard motor and you stand a chance of making it back to Mother!!!

Fit a crew escape system and the crew stand a fighting chance of surviving those 'teething troubles' with this 'wonderful' panacia of a helicopter.

It might be great - eventually, however, it's not ready to be in service yet. (and yes, I have flown it)

[Melrin Dip]

"It might be great - eventually, however, it's not ready to be in service yet. (and yes, I have flown it)"

May I start by saying I feel your posts on this thread have been nothing less than partisan.

To continue:

1. Are you a qualified test pilot, air engineer or IPT wallah who has sat through hours of meetings, sometimes furstrated and sometimes angry - I have and am the former.

2. Have you ever flown in a grey Merlin on operational sorties in a war zone where it provided the only accurate and comprehensive surface picture available to the allies in the NAG during Telic - I know loads who have?

3. Were you intimitaely involved in the first accident enquiry process or have even bothered to read the openly available report - in service that is?

4. Have you flown the Merlin for 1500 miles across deserts and mountains at 10,000 ft at 130 kts , carried out in excess of 500 Merlin deck landings and operated it with cockpit temps >+60 deg C.

5. Have you then gone flying in a Sea King and realised what a old defunct girl she is ?

6. Have you flown any other aircraft that can operate in icing conditions throughout its flight envelope?

If not you are probably one of those nice Chinook drivers who will never accept there is another aircraft more suited to the roles it was given. And having been in a Chinook Mk 3 I tell you the NAO were right.

On the Merlin Mk3 I will concede only 3 things - did the RAF need to buy it when they did and why, once they bought it, did they not learn any Mk1 lessons at all and ignore it till it came into service.

I don't suppose you will stop your considerable whining on this thread but I suppose you could be a Lynx driver - bad luck!

:cool:

[Vage Rot]

Yes, no, no, no, yes, yes!

Oh, and I'll prefix future posts with a 'tongue in cheek' smiley!

I'm not arguing it's pros and cons Vs other platforms - simply that it was not ready to enter service and is still not up the spec or the job.

1500 miles at 130 Kts eh? AAR capable too!!??

Still, a bite is a bite and all that!!



:p :D

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Nobody has answered my questions on the previous page - wonder why?

[Navaleye]

Webf,

I have some responses to your questions:

1. Is it possible or desirable for the Merlin to be fitted with the HMG pod, given the current threat from small surface craft?

>> I don't think a suitable pod exists as yet and if it did it would not be "integrated". We would still be in manually aimed environment. IIRC there are proposals to fit a .50cal pod to the Merlin. Quite why they chose .50cal beats me. Too light for junk bashing.

2. Is it possible for the Type 23 Frigate to carry both a Merlin and a Lynx (for Sea Skua and machine gun capability)?

>> No. Just not enough room. I don't think the Merlin will ever be cleared for Sea Skua. the T23 hangar seems narrower then the T22. I maybe wrong on this though.

3. The Italians have armed their Merlins (or whatever they call them) with anti ship missiles. Will we do the same?

>>No. but we should. Penguin would be an excellent choice, with good range and warhead size.

4. It is planned that out of sixteen T23s, only twelve will receive Merlin and the new 2087 towed array sonar. Given the ship handling problems associated with towed arrays, isn't Merlin a more serious thing to not get. Shouldn't they at least get Merlin?

>>I suspect the T23s in question will be "retired early" before too long eliminating the problem.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Certain Type 22 Frigates carried both a Lynx and a Sea King. The Type 23 was designed with the Merlin in mind.

T22 beam = 14.8m.
T23 beam = 16.1m.

Surely a Lynx/Merlin combination would allow the Merlin to do anti submarine stuff and surface search, and let the Lynx concentrate on anti surface tasks - Sea Skua, HMG pod and boarding party insertion?

[Bigtop]

WEF - not sure which T22's you've served on but recalling from my days as a Sea King FLOBS I don't recall there being enough space for a lynx with the Sea King in the hangar! 2 Lynx yes but not one of each.
As for 23's there's barely space for all the GSE/ASSE with a Merlin embarked let alone anything else.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Only from articles I saw in Navy News I'm afraid....

[Cyclic Hotline]

From todays Rotorhub (http://www.shephard.co.uk/rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=8e8e3b34-0f04-49de-b2e2-b3ae2ea2251a)

EH101: new tail rotors send UK Merlins flying again

All of the UK’s EH101 ‘Merlins’ are being fitted with the latest version of the tail rotor hub – a move which should have both the Royal Navy and RAF fleets (39 and 22 aircraft respectively) back to full time flying within the week.

Chris Palmer, deputy chief of aviation, Royal Navy, speaking to rotorhub.com said that the preliminary results of the RN’s investigation into the crash of a Royal Navy EH101 at RNAS Culdrose (30 March) revealed that the aircraft had suffered “vibration sufficient to cause the failure of the hub and the subsequent detachment of a rotor blade.”

Tests conducted at AgustaWestland’s Yeovil facility in the UK with the new tail rotor hub fitted onto an RAF aircraft have satisfied the investigation team that all of the Merlins can be cleared to fly.

“Our aim in conducting a detailed investigation was to maintain crew confidence in the aircraft,” said Palmer. “We are fully behind the Merlin and consider it a fantastic aircraft to fly,” he confirmed.

Both the Italian and Canadian aircraft fleets have different tail rotor hub varients to those on UK aircraft.

[junior tech]

The Canadian CH149 Cormorant has the same TR as the 101 Mk1 and 3. They have gone through the exact same mod program as the 101s but have got to the end of the mod chain more quickly.

I just though I would point that out in case anyone thought that the delay in UK Merlin flight was based on some fundamental difference between the A/C

[Spanish Waltzer]

I have on good authority that the RN had a Merlin 'turnin & burnin' down at Culdrose today.......not airborne but at least its a start. Culdrose has its airday in a week or so so there must be some pressure to get one airborne for that....

[airborne_artist]

Still very quiet at Benson though - tis a Friday though....

[fagin's goat]

Why is the 'way ahead' just sooo secret?? If Culdrose are getting their aircraft back in the air, what has been done to fix the grounding snag??

Any clues or even rumours on the street?

[Leprechaun]

Positive mental attitude time!!

The Merlin Will be up and flying next week!!

In a couple of years time we will look back at these forums and laugh that we ever doubted her at all!

Also we are missing the important issues here! The Merlin is the sexiest looking and sounding big helo in the world and that's what's really important isn't it!?:D

[Melrin Dip]

Dear Mr Goat,

Your are obviously one of those who can't read the thread so idlely slag things off for ever.

This thread says it all- i was going to repeat it but its all here.

Give your fingers and us all a break.

[Heliport]

This thread started in the Mil forum.
Copied here.

[Thomas coupling]

Why have other operators got different hubs. Did they know something the UK operators didn't?

Finally, (and this is definitely what the military are cr*p at), a beast like this wouldn't exist in civvy street. No-one would touch it because the R and D programme would bankrupt the company that built one.
If you throw money at something for long enough - anything is possible and this is what the mil have done.

An RN Merlin now costs between £30 and £40 million pounds. Not a squadron of merlins - just one / uno / on its own / single...

Where in the name of faith is the sound business sense in that?

It's the equivalent of swapping white van mans van with a bloody bentley estate!!!! Great if youre the driver............................

:suspect:

[fuel2noise]

Thomas C is on the money..... Merlin is a great cab but what of the cost/benefit analysis? At the end of the day we are all tax payers and you have to look at what we are getting for the money. If money was not an issue in UK defence planning it would not be so tragic.

Nevertheless it will be great to see the aircraft type back in the skies as soon as possible to pick up where it left off in development terms.

[scenictours49]

fuel2nose good argument, I went to google, searched "merlin helicopter project cost" and found :

http://www.mod.uk/dpa/projects/merlin.htm

Just for fun lets suppose we divide the big number (4.65 billion GBP) by the small one (44) ?

I guess, being an official government website, the project cost figure includes research, development, surface combatant modifications, hangars shoreside, simulators, stores, training, avionics, personnel, manufacturer profit etc etc over the past many years

Is that not the way to compute true unit cost ?

Would keep Thomas Coupling in Bentley "estates" for a while !!

[waivar]

At last, the Naval Merlin is back in the air


:ok: :ok: :ok:

[fuel2noise]

waivar. Saw it with my own eyes - fantastic!

[Tony Chambers]

great heli i have worked with the raf on many occasions cant fualt it at the moment. the downwash is a bit of a trouble though, nearly took out 2 gazelles in germany whilst approaching the hls.....oooops

[JAFCon]

With ref to Thomas Coupling, Merlin Cost £30-£40 Million Two Thirds of the cost is for the Equipment inside the Airframe.

Cost for Civil EH101 Three Years Ago was in the region of £13 and half Million, very good price for what you get in fact its the best Helicopter/Aircraft I've ever worked on.

[Cyclic Hotline]

What is the cost of a civil EH-101 today?

Does anyone know?

£13.5 million (in 2001, £'s) is an awful lot in dollars, compared to the competition.

Other than the Tokyo police, have any other civil EH-101's been delivered?

[[email protected]]

So let me get this right - the manufacturer already had a modified TR hub which was supplied to the Canadians and the Japanese but they chose not to fit or retro-fit them to the RN or RAF Merlins.

If this is true then they are directly responsible for the Culdrose accident.

Something similar happened following a fatal Lynx crash several years ago, again a TR malfunction (this time the drive shaft). Only after the event did it transpire that a known weakness in the bonding between the aluminium tube and the titanium forging was being gradually eradicated by replacing the TR shafts with modified ones. Unfortunatley for the crew involved, theirs was not due for change and failed catastrophically.

Automotive manufacturers have to recall faulty products (a consequence of Ford trying to ignore splitting fuel tanks and being sued monstrously I believe), should aviation not play by the same rules?

[[email protected]]

Jungly - from what's been said, it seems like a good machine for the RN role it was procured for but it still doesn't have a proper role in the SH environment - sure it's a shiny new helicopter but is it any good for the troops; who needs a BFT when you can test the soldiers by getting them to climb the ramp from a wet and muddy field?

The latest rumour is to re-role them to bolster the ailing Sea King fleet in the SAR role - well nobody could see that coming a mile off! But our Merlins are not Cormorants and for the price of the re-role we could probably rent some S61s instead.
As for SABR - it will turn out to be a very expensive and long winded series of committees, sub-committes and steering groups to arrive at the conclusion that we will buy Merlin/Cormorant which everyone knows is the only politically acceptable choice.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that a mix of long-range and short-range SAR aircraft is the sensible way forward (strangely the same ORBAT as we had with Wessex and Sea King) but the waters get very muddied with the persistent desire to close miltary bases and blob up at unsuitable locations eg Valley.
SAR helicopters are a very long way down the priority list for their airships - if it ain't warfighting it ain't important!

Never mind, in the next round of manpower reductions the Royal Air Force will be turned into the Royal Admin Force with a couple of token aircraft to go to airshows with so the SAR issue will fall to the MCA and Mr Bristow (go on giss-a- job)

[dangermouse]

The info I have is this

The Canadian/Jap/Italian/UK aircraft had effectively the same standards of T/R (any differences are insignificant in terms of strength etc) and all but the UK have decided that they are safe to fly with (ie keep on flying), which the airworthiness authorities have also decided, the civil aircraft never stopped and the Type Cert was not removed.

The UK MoD have single handedly taken a different tack and took the line that the all TRs in the UK must be to the latest standard to allow UK aircraft to return to flight, this is now being done.

This does not mean WHL or AG are culpable (as is always assumed) as ALL TR types are still airworthy.

Preaching from the same hymn sheet yet again, until the report is out what do we know.....

nothing firm

but a little bird says get ready to eat your words CRAB as the supposed cracks you were so keen about have nothing to do with the incident

PS anybody got news on the US pilot involved (ie his health now?)

[widgeon]

An article in todays Toronto Star says that IMP the civilian contractor who maintains the Canadian SAR fleet is using 22 hrs on maint time per flight hour . How does this compare to the UK experience ?.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1097358613891&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

[[email protected]]

Widgeon, you should probably ask this question on the military aircrew forum but I won't be surprised if the answer is the same as the Canadians are finding. Would anyone have bought the aircraft if the real maintenance figures were available? I suspect not at the same price! The Danish have Cormorant, it would be interesting to find out how they are getting along with it.
All the corporate bluff about it being a complex aircraft is another excuse from Westlands for making cr*p helicopters.
At least the British Military should have saved some money this year since the Merlins were grounded for so long - no flying hours = no maintenance.

[rjsquirrel]

Here is some interesting tripe. Remember, those guys are telling us that the awesome 55,000 hours of experience makes EH-101 a mature aircraft, a "combat proven" aircraft. Now they say that they need 22 maintenance hours per flight hour because:


"It was a new aircraft, and a new design, and there were several things that were not foreseen that happened early in service that gradually were corrected," Lt.-Col. Pierre Coulombe, project manager for the Cormorants, said in an interview.

Which way is it?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: widgeon

This information was taken from a report prepared by The United States Congressional Accounting Office (GAO). The report was issued to point out the major problems on the Apache Helicopter. The report was issued in 1990 and reflected the MMH/FH expended on the following aircraft during that time frame.

AH-1W Sea Cobra 15.0 MMH/FH
UH-1H Huey 16.3 MMH/FH
SH-2F Sea Sprite 30.2 MMH/FH
SH-3H Sea King 37.2 MMH/FH
CH-46 Sea Knight 18.5 MMH/FH
CH-53 Sea Stallion 39.1 MMH/FH
SH-60B Sea Hawk 21.0 MMH/FH

I was responsible for monitoring the introduction of tha AH-1J and the Bell 214 in Iran. I spent a month at the opoerating base and determined that each type of helicopter was consuming over 70 MMH/FH.

What's in a number?

:E :E

[delta3]

Labour as part of total cost

To put things in perspective, what percentage would labor costs be of total maintenance in these cases ?


delta3

[widgeon]

Thanks Lu , so the canadian sea king figures were not that bad then .
Is this all levels of maintenance up to and including component overhaul or just base level maint ?.

[rjsquirrel]

Mr. Zuckerman,

I think the case here is that your figures include everything for the aircraft system, and are global numbers.

The EH-101 figures of 22 hours per flight hour given are against the contracted promise of 6.8 hours per flight hour (I remember that from an older press story).

Based on those phoney promises, the Canadian maintenance was set up with 69 people to handle the fleet. The service had to hire 70% more maintenance workers (original planning number 69, now they are at 117 people). These numbers tell of a disaster in the works, and comparisons to other services with different methods of calculation will blur the message: The EH-101 is a real problem aircraft, and it has a long way to go to make it right.

[heedm]

I don't doubt that the paper only reported facts that it could substantiate, but we must put the statistics into context.

The last of the four squadrons went fully operational with the Cormorants just this summer. This means that there are still some fairly new to the machine techs.

There were some problems that resulted in out of sequence inspections and replacements. This increased maintenance hours and decreased flying hours.

There was a significant tail rotor incident in the UK that resulted in a fleet grounding for a period of time. The technicians all worked full days, but again the flying hours were kept down.

The numbers initially discussed were produced before any operational squadrons had stood up with Cormorants or EH101s. Doubting the numbers seems an obvious step.


It will be interesting to see how things progress. In a few more years, the MMH/FH should decrease, but to what extent? The only reason its an issue now is either because its a slow news day, or because someone sees an advantage in reporting apparently damaging news on this machine or company. No idea what that could be.

[Thomas coupling]

The MMH/FH will decrease for about another 2-3 years before they start to creep up again due to the a/c's age :oh: :ooh:

[Cyclic Hotline]

I am very interested in understanding the methodology of calculating the maintenance man-hours for these helicopters.

The hours I see quoted are so far removed from anything I have ever seen in commercial aviation, that they are beyond comprehension.

Does anyone have a definitive system that is being used? What is, and is not included in this count. How are man-hours attributed to a machine. What is included in the count? What level of management and indired labour is included in this total?

How can these hours be interpreted into a more realistic and comprehensible format. I think this would have to include the utilisation. Of course, there are always those who might consider that the numbers are skewed because the contractor has an interest in billing hours, as opposed to creating efficiencies. Likewise the level of crewing, may be more a function of the requirement to maintain high utilization capability, rather than the less demanding normal operational pace?

Anyone have any answers?

[Lu Zuckerman]

I prepared the Maintainability criteria document for the Agusta 129 and I was responsible for the same material on the Agusta portion of the EH-101. In the case of the A-129 the helicopter was already designed so there was no input into design modification to maximize the design for maintainability. As such the numbers that we calculated for the A-129 were quite high due to the lack of design for maintainability. This document was specifically for the Italian Army to show the ease of maintenance and for provisioning of manpower and spares. The department manager decreased all of the numbers in order to make it look good. I can only assume that when the helicopter went into service they had to increase their manpower and spares provisioning.

When I prepared the document for the EH-101 the same thing happened regarding the decreasing of the numbers. The manager used numbers from the ASH-3D that were not fully recognized as being truly representative of the actual helicopter MMH/FH. Here again there was a significant effect on the maintenance structure of the operators.

The US Army approaches it backwards. They do a bit of war gaming to determine the battle group strength necessary to repel an enemy force. From that they determine the number of attack helicopter groups and from that they determine the number of helicopters in each battle group. They then determine the availability or the helicopters in each group. In other words if they determine that if there are ten helicopters in each group they must have eight available for mission dispatch. This means 80% availability.

This availability figure is written into the contract and the R&M group at the contractor must extrapolate what the reliability and maintainability must be for the helicopter at the top level. From this they apportion the R&M characteristics for each system and they then determine the R&M characteristics for major system components and this is written into the contracts for the vendors.

Starting at the bottom each part and each subsystem as well as the systems must show compliance with the contractual figures in order to meet the availability requirements set down by the Army. In other words the Army provides a meaningless figure to the contractor and also provides the procedures to determine the necessary R&M figures. The contractor then using these criteria will start the big lie and impose these lies on the subcontractors who in turn state that they will meet these requirements. In this way when all of the parts are added into the system the contractor is guaranteed to meet the Army’s requirements.

To make matters worse eighteen months later the contractor must show reliability growth. Since at that time the design is frozen there is no possibility to change the design to improve it. So, the contractor refers to official databases and extracts better numbers for the various items showing the Army that they have in fact improved the design.

When the helicopter is fielded it performs poorly consuming parts at an alarming rate and using more maintenance personnel than originally required. In some cases the helicopter is so complex that the Army technicians can’t maintain it and contractors are brought into the mix. The Army just waits until the next meeting of congress and asks for a higher appropriation in order to meet their operational commitment.

Does this sound familiar to those of you that were in the military?


:E :E

To: Cyclic Hotline

The determination of MMH/FH on US Military contracts is stipulated to reflect only active tool time on the subject equipment. It does not include the time it takes to get the replacement part, the time it takes to get a special tool, the time it takes to get access equipment (check stands) or other items that do not directly relate to the repair procedure.

It does include the time to gain access, the time to locate the defect, the time it takes to isolate the defect, the time to remove the element, the time it takes to replace the element, the time it takes to determine the efficacy of the repair, the time to clean the area, the time it takes to secure the area (close the cowling or replace the access panel(s).

It is implied by the military organization that they will factor in all of the logistics elements related to the specific repair. However the calculations made by the contractor relative to MMH/FH are what the operator sees and it will appear that they can never meet these requirements. What the operator must look at are the availability figures specified by the contract as this figure more truly reflects what is happening. In most cases it take years to meet this figure if in fact it is ever met.

The UK uses these same procedures which were adapted in 1983. This document was extracted with minimal changes from the US standards and is reflected in Defense Standard 00-41 (PART 1) / Issue 1 MOD PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY.

I can’t say that the UK handles it any differently than they do in the US but it seems that the Merlin indicates that they do.

:E :E

[zdfwflyer]

A summary of estimated 2003 US Military Helicopters and Aircraft Operating Cost can be found on the DOD Comptroller web site.
It is VERY interesting that there has been no publication of 2004 or 2005 cost numbers.
You can draw your own conclusions on why they are keeping quiet about current cost numbers.

http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/rates/fy2003.html

[widgeon]

http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/4A256AE90015F69B4A256904001Dfcda

Interesting audit report 55 hrs / flh for the Seahawk .

[HeliEng]

Do we have any EH101/AgustaWestland Techy bods in here?

If so, could you please drop me a PM.

Cheers


Helieng



"Mad as a mooing fish!"

[Heliport]

Why not ask your question here so, if you get a response, we can all learn?


Heliport

[Straight Up Again]

Yeah, spit it out. There are several people who have experience at Wastelands here, current and ex (like me) employees.

And after all these forums are anonymous.

[Lu Zuckerman]

I set up and ran the Reliability and Maintainability program on the Agusta portion of the EH-101. Does that count?

:E :E

[ZH844]

Yes, current EH101 techy - ask away!

[ZH844]

Hey Straight Up!

How's the surf? Any plans to return to blighty and see us?

WILL talk soon my good man :ok:

844

[HeliEng]

Been asking at work, and still can't get an answer.

Is the EH101 airframe Metric or Imperial?

I understand that it can have either a Turbomeca or Rolls Royce engine fit. Turbomeca being metric, Rolls being sort of imperial, perhaps with a bit of Whit thrown in for good measure??!!!

Your help is greatly appreciated!!!


Cheers guys

[widgeon]

S76 also had allison or trublemaker.
The 105 was metric up to the engine which was C20 ( or C28) for LS.
Only strange things I recall were the some of the fuel lines that were imperial one end and metric the other .
Same would apply to the Bk117 with LTS and the D version of the AS350 not to mention the US coast guard Dolphins , EC135 Pratt version AB139 A109 and A119 which all have US engines in Euro airframes.

I guess the mechs must have to have extra large tool kits.
Do cannon plugs come in metric and imperial sizes ?.

[Straight Up Again]

Everything I ever had to do with the aircraft was metric, but I didn't get too far down into the nitty-gritty of attaching engines. Weights are KG, lengths are mm etc.

ZH-844 - "The lazy Toad"? I resemble that accusation! No plans to return at the moment, just became an Aussie citizen last week!

[ZH844]

Straight Up is correct - usually metric although engine parameters are given in both metric and imperial, for example the engine usage data is calculated using Nm and Lbxft....

[Cyclic Hotline]

I hate to tell anyone this, but this "mission" is done year round by every kind of helicopter already flying in North America. It may come as a shock to the marketing types, but the helicopters demonstrating these "superior" capabilities range from R-22's to S-64's and include everything in between. Hundreds of helicopters make trips like this every year in the course of their normal activities.

I can understand that this may appear challenging to non-flying, marketing types, or alternately to manufacturers who have absolutely no experience with helicopters, but really, is this newsworthy?

What is the current status of the 101? Is it still grounded in Canada? Is the UK fleet back to full operational status? Have you been forbidden to disclose anything?

The entire helicopter news side goes very quiet when your aircraft are sitting parked. No stories about how bad the competition is, how bad the aircraft it is replacing is, or how little the Customer making the selection knows?

So whats happening?


Merlin Mk3 Helicopter Completes First Transcontinental Self-Deployment

Cross-Country Flight Demonstrates Capability, Reliability for US101 Marine One Mission

OWEGO, NY, November 4, 2004 – Britain’s Royal Air Force has successfully self-deployed an EH101 Merlin Mk3 helicopter across the southern tier of the United States – from San Diego, CA, to Jacksonville, FL, demonstrating the helicopter’s superior capabilities and reliability. This event marks the first time an EH101 helicopter has visited the West coast, and the first time an EH101 helicopter has flown across America.

Home-based at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire, England, and operated by the Royal Air Force’s 28 (Army Cooperative) Squadron, the combat-proven EH101 Merlin is the platform on which the US101 medium-lift executive transport helicopter is based.

“During the past five weeks, this lone Mk.3 helicopter has flown approximately 5,000 miles, with virtually no support, in a variety of climates and on a demanding schedule with daily deadlines,” said RAF Wing Commander Andy Turner, commanding officer of 28 (AC) Squadron and leader of the transcontinental self-deployment demonstration. “During this time, we have not missed a single planned activity or event as the helicopter has maintained an availability rate of 100 percent.”

The RAF Merlin Mk3 has been in the United States since September 20, conducting operational testing at an undisclosed military base on the West Coast in preparation for a possible deployment to Iraq. Enroute to its point of embarkation back to the United Kingdom, the Merlin Mk3 conducted flight demonstrations in San Diego, Albuquerque, Amarillo and Fort Worth, TX, Jackson, MS, Jacksonville and Fort Walton Beach, FL, and New Orleans. For the flight home, the Merlin Mk3 was transported by an RAF C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft – just as it was when first brought to the United States earlier this fall.

Team US101 is offering the American-built US101 helicopter to the U.S. Navy to meet the service’s Presidential Helicopter Replacement (VXX) program needs. The Navy’s VXX award announcement is expected in December.

More than 200 companies in 41 states have been chosen to support Team US101 with key products and services necessary for the President’s new Marine One helicopter fleet. Other leading American companies on Team US101 include General Electric, ITT, Northrop Grumman, Kaman Aerospace and Palomar Products. During the course of the helicopter fleet’s operational service life, 90 percent of the total life cycle costs will flow to Team US101’s American suppliers, creating and sustaining thousands of jobs nationwide while building these new Marine One helicopters.

Team US101 is led by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego, which serves as the prime contractor and systems integrator for the American-built US101 aircraft, an American variant of AgustaWestland’s successful EH101 multimission helicopter. The US101 team collectively brings unmatched rotorcraft expertise and experience to this program: Lockheed Martin (prime contractor and systems integration), AgustaWestland (aircraft design) and Bell Helicopter (aircraft production), while General Electric will supply each helicopter with three, 2,500 shaft-horsepower CT7-8E engines.

[NickLappos]

Cyclic Hotline,

I wonder if the Lockheed and Agusta folks know how many helo drivers laughed over this release!

The typical flight in an S-76 or S-92 across the country requires a toothbrush, a gas credit card and a few charts. I flew in one day from Pittsburg to Leadville Colorado and on another occasion from LA to Cleveland. The typical coast to coast trip takes 2 RON's, and down the coast is a 1 day jaunt.

I guess we have to learn to call them "self-deployments!"

[heedm]

Slow news day for a local paper. EH101 touring press releases became old news five years ago.

http://www.whl.co.uk/eh101news/eh101news_11-99/nordic.html

http://www.whl.co.uk/eh101news/eh101news_11-99/canada.html

As far as the "first time an EH101 helicopter has visited the West coast", I flew one from Comox to Victoria and back (both on Vancouver Island...West Coast), and:

http://www.whl.co.uk/eh101news/eh101news_current/hot.html

Oh yeah, five Cormorants are stationed permanently on the West Coast as well. They were flown there from Italy.

I'm guessing this is just a local reporter and/or RAF crews not having all the information.

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

Eh- the EH-101 is nice enough, but I still prefer the S-92 chiefly because I have it on good authority that the American birdy is *much* safer, the veritable equivalent of a brand-new SUV with airbags and anti-lock brakes.

[NickLappos]

PPRUNE FAN#1,

Touche!

[Jack Carson]

More than 30 years ago a flight of HH-3's made a trans Atlantic flight without landing. 44 flight hours with no ground support. :O

[NickLappos]

I am not sure Lockheedand Agusta understand how much this press tour hurt them. The facts are well known to the Navy, who will be making the decision:

They visited the new "suppliers," dozens of them, who do not deliver any 101 parts now, and must start production and be brought up to qualification standards in months, and then their content must be tested on the real US-101, should it ever get built. A big risk, especally for presidential program!

Many of their suppliers are not even aviation providers, so their risk is higher. One supplier (an Indian Reservation!) makes harnesses for trucks, and will be taught to make aircraft wiring for the first time!

The "US-101" they chose is an RAF Merlin, with British crew, a fact lost on no reporter I talked to. "Where is the real US-101?" they all ask.

[Flypro]

'Combat proven EH101 Merlin' - So where, when and how has the Merlin become 'Combat Proven' I ask????
:confused: :confused:

[Visionary]

Correct me if I am wrong here Mr Lappos.

The EH-101 was indeed an RAF aircraft, it flew out on an RAF C-17 and was out there on an RAF trial.

The aircraft indeed flew from West Coast to East Coast. Maybe it is not a big thing to us guys in the States but maybe to the guys on the other side of the pond, who very rarely get out to the USA, who rarely get to fly in the USA and who rarely get an opportunity to do such flying it is a big thing.

Why not take it as it was, a positioning flight for an aircraft in order to meet the C-17 to get back to the UK. The fact that the aircraft did the trip over a couple of weeks and took the aircraft to CSAR units doesnt always mean that it is a sales push. The UK Squadron is the UK CSAR Sqn so why shouldnt they visit their compatriates in the USA? If the RAF guys had wanted to do it in a couple of days I am sure they could have, even the Brits have toothbrushes, Gas cards and a few charts.

The RN version was deployed in the Gulf if I remember rightly
Nick, you treat this site as an easy way to knock the US101, call it free advertising if you want.

Cyclic Hotline, obviously if the RAF are flying over here then I guess they are back to full flying status

[NickLappos]

Visionary,

You stand corrected.

It was a sales push, with perhaps 10 press releases and stops virtually everywhere. Were you asleep while it was being played?

Regarding the bragging about the "self deployment" (which is child's play in a normal helcopter), that was a quote from one of those press releases.

It was not a repositioning trip, visionary, it was a PR trip.

The free publicity works both ways, I think. That they chose to brag about the legendary trip makes them foolish enough to ge made fun of, I think.


Here is the publicity for the "repositioning" "self deployment":

Albuquerque, NM
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-18-2004/0002285114&EDATE=

Ft. Worth Texas:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/9975818.htm

Amarillo, TX:
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/102004/new_mediagot.shtml

Jackson Mississippi:

http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2463388&nav=2CSfSGIg

[Visionary]

Is the EH-101 not a "normal" Helicopter?

[Flypro]

Visionary,

I think you will find that all the Merlin did in the Gulf was a Surface Search or two. That hardly qualifies it as 'Combat Proven'!!

[Visionary]

Still was out there wasnt it? Was still subject to a threat, if you want to split hairs flypro then go for it

Nick, if you want to mock the RAF feel free Nick, shame they cant answer you back. The RAF have not done the trip before in a Merlin, so whats the issue?

Any chance for a pop Nick and you take it

[rjsquirrel]

EH-101 "Normal" helicopter? Nic is right.

The EH-101 has has 5 major accidents in its 55,000 hours, making its accident record worse than the R-22, and worse than any other military helicopter in European or US service.

It has also earned its reputation as a dog, requiring way to much maintenance. Notice how little time it is building each year? With a fleet of 90 aircraft, the fleet should be getting over 50,000 hours a year, not every 8 years. Each dog seems to be getting about 150 hours a year, which is 1/3 of what a "normal" helicopter gets. Crappy maintenance history, I think, and lots of groundings we do not here about.

Those "combat proven" aircraft were supported by aircraft in England working as parts bins:

London - 09 Apr 2004 "According to a story in today's Daily Telegraph newspaper, the RAF has been forced to cannibalise two Merlin HC.3s in order to keep two other aircraft operational in Bosnia."

Yep, combat proven - But what was proven, visionary?

[NickLappos]

Visionary,

Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Squirrel, pls PM me and give me your data, I think they only ("only!") lost 4.

Anybody out there confirm that?

[Visionary]

Didnt get Shot down did it?

[airborne_artist]

RAF Wing Commander Andy Turner, commanding officer of 28 (AC) Squadron and leader of the transcontinental self-deployment demonstration.

Very generous of the Wing Commander to volunteer himself for the jolly (sorry, task).

[Cyclic Hotline]

Visionary, I guess that my comments are questions on the point of the entire exercise. I am not questioning anything that the RAF are doing with this mission, simply the fact that it is being promoted as some kind of tremendous achievement and displays "superior" capability.

To suggest that the entire exercise is anything other than a marketing trip for the US-101 is simply disingenious. If you don't believe that, then check out the US-101 website. (http://www.teamus101.com/)

As I read the responses to this, I feel obligated to ask the next question. Is this self deployment, from beginning to end, being funded by unknowing British tax-payers, Agusta-Westland, or Team US101? I think that the response to that question might reveal more of the motivation for the exercise, than any other?

As Team US101 has never built a 101, let alone ever even owned one, how can they demonstrate the "superior" capabilities of the helicopter without getting one to demonstrate with?

I am also genuinely interested in the airworthiness status of the fleet. The fact that the RAF has one flying in the US, but the Canadian fleet is (reportedly) restricted to emergency missions only, is hardly representative of the fleet status. I am sure an official answer to this question would go a long way to answer my own questions regarding the "helicopter’s superior capabilities and reliability."

As a veteran of many of my own incredible "self-deployments", I think I have one even greater achievement. My trips were paid from beginning to end, with commercial contracts at the destination, and in many cases were not even limited to crossing the vast stretches of the North American continent, but across numerous continents in the same trip. Oh, and at the end of it all, I was expected to go to work and be hauling passengers as soon as I arrived on site.

Must run, I have two large self-deployments in progress, and need to work out the numbers for yet another one.

[Flypro]

Visionary.
It aint been anywhere near bullets, that's probably why it aint been shot down!!!!!

Can you imagine the damage one little bit of lead could cause as it goes through the plastic and into a v.high tech/hugely expensive computer - without which this helo can't fly!

[Thomas coupling]

visionary: by all means join the general forum, but offer us a little of your background before you wade in with both barrells. Nick has shown his cards from the outset...do him the same courtesy?

The ONLY people who defend the EH101 are those (non military) with a vested interest in them, because it is the biggest box of bombs the UK forces have ever had the misfortune to inherit...NO-ONE wants it, but there's too much riding on it to 'burn the project'.
How many other more promising projects have been put on hold or scrapped to keep the Merlin airborne???

The president would have to be stark raving mad to buy one!

[Jack Carson]

Nick,
There were 3 Prototypes damaged during development. (PP-2 rotor brake fire, PP-4 control rod failure, PP-7 harding land after some mechanical difficulty) In addition, I beleive the RAF lost one due to a rotor brake fire, the aircraft went in the water and the most recent mishap due to a tail rotor problem that restricted the fleet.

[NickLappos]

Jack,

That's five. I guess lost count ;)

That rotor brake fire was blamed on pilot error, I read, but he flew about 200 miles with it on. Were there any indicators in the cockpit? If not, was surely not pilot error?

[Jack Carson]

Marines were only required to count to 3.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Thomas coupling

visionary: by all means join the general forum, but offer us a little of your background before you wade in with both barrells. Nick has shown his cards from the outset...do him the same courtesy?

I made a lot of comments about the EH-101 and the fact that there were no catastrophic failures considered in the Safety Hazards Analysis (SHA) which was used to gain certification.

Several of the failures that have occurred on the Merlin and the Cormorant were originally considered in the SHA but were removed by the manager of the Product Support department. What did I get? A lot of vitriol from the members of this forum as well as a threat of a law suit by Agusta.

because it is the biggest box of bombs the UK forces have ever had the misfortune to inherit...

These bombs will continue to explode as the service hours build on this aircraft. The unfortunate thing is that these bombs could have been diffused during the design process.

:E :E

[NickLappos]

junglyAEO,


Thanks for that. The Navy were told by the AW fellows that virtually all those accidents were human error, the aircraft is actually quite blameless (at least that is what a high ranking Navy person close to the selection authorities told me).

Interestingly, the cause of the latest one at Culdrose is being withheld, it is said that the cause is known, but the report will wait until after the US selection.

[Cyclic Hotline]

rjsquirrel commented about the cannibalization of the Merlin. I must have missed this story at the time.

RAF strips new £34m helicopters for spares

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 09/04/2004)

The RAF has been forced to cannibalise two of its fleet of Merlin transport helicopters, each costing £34 million, to keep the only two on operations flying. The helicopters being used for spares are in a hangar at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire. The operational Merlins are based in Bosnia, defence sources said.

The problems with Merlin spares come in the week that a National Audit Office report complained there were not enough transport helicopters to ferry troops into operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. The reason for the lack of Merlin spares is that when the MoD embarked on the Merlin programme in the early 1990s, it decided to cut costs by not buying any spare parts, the sources said.

The RAF has only 18 operational Merlin helicopters
That decision was taken at the same time as the MoD procured eight SAS helicopters, which have never been used because they do not meet defence safety standards. The late Alan Clark was defence procurement minister at the time.

The Merlins have now been stopped from "inessential flying" by an accident last week in which a Royal Navy Merlin crashed. The crash is believed to be the result of a recurring problem with the half hub on the tail rotor, which keeps cracking.

Without spares both services have no way of keeping aircraft in the air. Both services and Westland, which produces the helicopter, are now pinning their hopes on it winning the prestigious American "VX programme" involving 500 helicopters. Twenty of the aircraft will be used to fly the US president and his entourage around. The Merlin is in competition with the Sikorski S92.

Tony Blair is expected to push the qualities of the Merlin next week when he meets President George W Bush at the White House. One source said: "In the meantime, the entire RAF Merlin programme is sublimated to supporting UK Plc in the US presidential helicopter programme.

"If Westland win it, then we will be able to reopen a line of spares that will be much cheaper. If we don't, then a whole load more Merlins are likely to be Christmas treed." "Christmas treed" is RAF jargon for the removal of various parts from a cannibalised aircraft in the same way that decorations are removed from a Christmas tree once the festive season is over.

The shortage of helicopter lifting capability was identified four years ago by an MoD study. But "work streams" that have been urgently identifying ways of saving more than £1 billion from the defence budget have recommended scrapping the RAF's Puma helicopters and the Royal Navy's Sea Kings, which make up the bulk of the helicopter transport fleet.

The RAF has 22 Merlin transport helicopters, of which 18 are operational and based at 28 Squadron in Benson. The Merlin is highly regarded by those who have flown it. They say it is an excellent aircraft. But the problem with the tail rotors combined with the lack of spares leaves it struggling to prove its worth.

The RAF Mk 3 variant is better regarded than the Royal Navy anti-submarine warfare Merlin Mk 1 which was originally costed at £3.6 billion for 44 aircraft, effectively £82 million per aircraft.

But it was five years late in entering service and then it was discovered that it could not use its sonar at night or in low visibility when the pilot was flying on instruments alone. The eventual cost of the programme was £4.65 billion, making the individual cost of each aircraft £106 million.

[Visionary]

There is more SPIN in here than a type 5 Twister

[Thomas coupling]

There is NO SPIN, it's all recorded fact sunny boy!
Work out the costs for yourself.
Read the crash reports.
SPEAK TO THE OPERATORS. :\

[Visionary]

Thomas, please dont patronise me with the "sunny boy", I was refering to Nick and his ability to turn any conversation into a sales pitch.

Just as a matter of interest Thomas, whos fault is the lack of supplies with the Mark 3 and the need to "Christmas Tree" aircraft? Looking at the post from Cyclic, its the British DoD procurement policy.

Let the best helicopter win, just lets hope its not a political decision and in fact, one based on merit.

[widgeon]

Not sure how much the british taxpayers are shelling out but .

http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/2004/ct20040825.html

they both have been awarded , 56 Million contracts for "risk reduction " Nick if you have any left over at the end of November let me know .



This is what happens when you lose a program

http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2004/10-October/10-Oct-2004/FBO-00691728.htm

[rjsquirrel]

vsionary,

Blaming the poor availability and stunning amount of broken parts on the MOD is a novel idea. The dog just breaks too many parts because it was badly designed! Look at the average time it builds per year - it spends all its time in the shop with the hood up (or do you say bonnet?)

Blaming the poor maintenance record on lack of spares is sort of like saying that a flat tire suffers from too little air, huh?

[John Eacott]

RJS,

Really? For all their faults, Westland are in a no win situation if the owner (MoD) cut costs by not buying spares, then have to rob other aircraft to keep operational machines going. What evidence have you that the fault is the aircraft design, rather than no spare parts for normal maintenance?

I had the opportunity to visit Westland at Yeovil a few months back, one of the issues that is being addressed is spares support, and the difference in MoD procurement policies and reality. Remember the problems with Lynx gearboxes, and lack of spares? When the spares supply line was thoroughly investigated, nearly 40 (yes 40!) Lynx MGB's were "found" having been lost in the supply chain of MoD :rolleyes: Yet at the time, Westland were being blamed for not keeping up the overhaul supply.

Rather like saying your Ferrari is a lemon and won't perform, because the dealer hasn't bothered to order spare parts to keep it maintained.

[Cyclic Hotline]

In answer to one of my own earlier questions.

Merlin Sales Tour - RAF site (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/limage_merlinusa.html)

[Visionary]

Two different tours.. Check dates

[rjsquirrel]

John Eacott,

I do not recall those Canadians complaining about short spares, they complained about too much maintenance, about 3 times more than the promises made by Agusta.

Also, the time accumulated by the whole fleet is very low, I happened to list the statements from the sales guys as they tallied up the flight time while bragging about the "experience" of the fleet, and noted that they were building up about 1200 hours per month for the whole fleet. This was over a 2 year period, and each statement as it grew from 30,000 to 55,000 was about 1200 hours per month. If they have 90 aircraft, that is about 14 hours per month per aircraft.

A normal military helicopter gets about 50 hours per month, so I would guess the "experience" they have is "bad" experience. Like the three times higher maintenance, they are building time at 1/3 the rate of the typical aircraft.

Didn't a Canadian person die when the hoist failed during a rescue and they left him out there? That wasn't caused by short spares.

I think it is plain old parts failure that makes it a dog, and the spares shortage is a way to hide the problem while they try to lure in more suckers.

[ZH844]

A couple times each week I enter the PPRUNE website to read about the latest news and gossip regarding our wonderful profession. I have always been impressed by what I have seen...until now. To come straight to the point...WHAT AN UTTER LOAD OF B*****KS I have read in this posting.

By the sounds of things all of you have designed, built, maintained and flown every EH101 ever constructed. You have all taken part in the THREE crash investigations and have taken the aircraft into a war zone!

For the record, PP2 was lost due to an uncommanded application of the rotor brake during flight causing a fire within the transdeck resulting in loss of control. Two Merlin Mk1 helicopters have been lost in service, one due to a rotorbrake issue - not the same as with PP2 whilst we wait to see about the other - I know the reason but this is not forum to table it.

I will ask Nick to report on the success of the S-92 after his company have built 140 production versions, flown for the same number of hours that the Merlin has and then explain that they have found no problems with either the aircraft or the maintenance procedure and support, I look forward to it!

To end, I have a vested interest in the EH101 hence my disgust at the 'fiction' that I have to read in this posting. There are some of us that know this aircraft so please continue posting c**p and I will enjoy correcting you and exposing your lack of knowledge!

:mad:

[rjsquirrel]

ZH844,

So what is the bull that you complain about? It didn't have 5 crashes, all the fault of the design? It does fly more than 14 hours a month on average? The Canadans don't say they spend 22 manhours per flight hour?

Where is the bull?

[Visionary]

Okay RJS, Nick

How many man hours per flying hour does the S-92 have? Would like to see data to back it up

[NickLappos]

visionary,
tell me who you are first, PM is acceptable. Hiding behind an anonymous username won't get you squat.