EC225

[stikker]

PRESS RELEASE

CHC TO LAUNCH NEXT GENERATION EUROCOPTER AIRCRAFT

Wednesday, June 20, 2001, Le Bourget, France : CHC Helicopter Corporation ("CHC") (TSE: FLY.A and FLY.B; NASDAQ: FLYA) is pleased to announce the signing of a contract for the acquisition of the first civilian EC 225 helicopter (delivery mid-2003) and a new AS 332 L2 Super Puma (delivery Q4 2002).

CHC President Sylvain Allard and Eurocopter Group President Jean-Francois Bigay signed the contract at the Paris Air Show today, making CHC the launch customer for the EC 225, the newest addition to the Super Puma family, and one of the most sophisticated heavy helicopters in the world.

With the EC 225, CHC will operate a helicopter with highly increased performance capabilities, thanks to a new main rotor with five blades, a reinforced main gear box, new engines and a new integrated piloting and display system. The EC 225 is capable of transporting 19 passengers more than 400 nautical miles, with the fuel reserves required by relevant aviation authorities. In a Search and Rescue (SAR) role, the EC 225 can rescue 21 personnel at sea and safely transport them to an offshore platform.

Over the last 10 years, CHC has expanded and enhanced its offshore services around the world to become an industry leader, and the dominant player in the North Sea, the world's largest offshore market. Offshore helicopter services account for two-thirds of CHC's operations. CHC is also a world leader in SAR, Repair and Overhaul and pilot training.

CHC Helicopter Corporation through its subsidiaries and investments is a leading provider of helicopter transportation services to the oil and gas industry, with a combined fleet of 312 light, medium and heavy aircraft operating in 21 countries, and with approximately 2,500 employees worldwide.

The Eurocopter fleet operated by CHC around the world is made up of 42 Super Pumas, 56 Ecureuils and 14 Dauphins – the largest civilian fleet of Eurocopter aircraft in the world.

Eurocopter is a wholly-owned subsidiary of EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company), one of the three largest aeronautics manufacturers in the world.

[MaxNg]

You would think that as CHC are the biggest civil operator they would get good service?
alas not so, and it will not improve until viable competition becomes available ( S92)

[stikker]

from flight inter@parisNew Super Puma launched

CHC Helicopter is to become the launch customer for the EC225, the newest addition to Eurocopter's Super Puma family. CHC will also take an AS332 L2 Super Puma as part of the deal.

CHC centres its operations on offshore oil operations, but also undertakes EMS and search and rescue missions.

[vertalop]

Marignane, July 29 , 2004

The EC 225, the most developed version of the Super Puma family of medium-sized twins (11-ton class) has just received its IFR Airworthiness Certificate in compliance with the latest version of the JAR 29 standard from the new European Airworthiness Security Agency (EASA).

This certification is initially applied to a flight envelope with a maximum altitude of 20,000 feet (6,000 m) and an operating envelope including temperatures between – 15C° and + 40C°. This envelope, which is already sufficient for aircraft operational use, will be extended
to –30C° and + 50C, and for flight in icing conditions by mid-2005.

The aircraft performed its maiden flight in November 2000 and has already flown passenger transport missions, in particular OFFSHORE and VIP, and public service missions like Search and Rescue (SAR).

This commercial aircraft has a takeoff weight of 11,000 kg; and a takeoff weight of 11,200 kg with sling capacity.

This new version, with its greatly improved performance, has already been ordered in a military livery by the French Air Force for use as a future combat SAR helicopter.

The principal characteristics of the EC 225 are its new main rotor system, reinforced main gear box (MGB), new engines, and a new integrated Flight Display System (FDS).

The addition of this proven new technology offers improved performance (speed, maneuverability), comfort (vibration, noise), and flight safety, and has already stirred the enthusiasm of all the crews who have flown this helicopter.

New Five-Bladed Main Rotor

The EC 225 uses the Spheriflex main rotor head, whose performances have already been proven on the SUPER PUMA L2 and EC 155. The Spheriflex technology, which is also used on the tail rotor head, further offers reduced operating and maintenance costs.

The main rotor is equipped with five blades designed with a very modern profile. The blades have a composite spar with parabolic blade tips with a downward dihedral profile. This five-blade configuration also gives the aircraft a particularly low vibration level. The main rotor diameter is 16.2 meters.

The rotors and tail unit may be equipped with an icing/anti-icing system for flight in extreme icing conditions.


New Main Gear Box (MGB)

The MGB of the EC 225 is reinforced to accommodate the more powerful engines and the aircraft's increased maximum weight. The casing and gears are made using ultra modern manufacturing materials and processes, which significantly improve the reliability of components. The lubricating system includes an emergency oil spraying sub-system, which goes much further than the JAR 29 requirements: 50 minutes operation demonstrated, for a requirement of 30 minutes.


New Engines

The EC 225 has two Turbomeca Makila 2A turboshaft engines.
This new engine employs a new airflow concept and materials; and has an emergency rating of 1800 kW (2448 hp-2413shp), i.e. 14% more than its previous version.
Each engine is an independent assembly comprising all the systems, equipment and accessories required for its operation. The engine modularity makes servicing and maintenance operations much easier.
A dual channel, duplex Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) controls the engines and offers a very high level of reliability. The power turbine is designed with a 'blade shedding' system ensuring engine integrity in case of overspeed.


New Integrated Display System

The EC 225 has an Advanced Helicopter Cockpit and Avionics System, which is designed to reduce pilot and crew workload with a 4-axis digital autopilot, displaying flight and sub-systems management information. This integration makes for more successful missions, by allowing the pilot and copilot to concentrate more on events outside the aircraft.

The Flight Display System (FDS) uses active-matrix liquid crystal displays (AMLCD) with four 6" x 8" multi-function screens, two 4“ x 5“ screens measuring aircraft parameters, and a 3’’ screen for the ISIS independent backup system.


Performance:

Maximum takeoff weight, internal 11,000 kg / 24,250 lb
Maximum takeoff weight, external 11 200 kg / 24,700 lb
Payload, internal 5,380 kg / 11,864 lb
Engine takeoff power 1, 566 kW
Maximum MGB power, 2 engines running 2, 600 kW
Maximum range, at maximum takeoff weight 783 nautical miles
Rapid cruising speed (9,300 kg / 20,502 lb) (3,000 ft / ISA + 20°C) 156 knots

In particular, the EC 225 is capable of:
- Transporting 19 passengers more than 400 Nm with the fuel supplies imposed by air traffic control authorities.
- Rescuing 21 people in the water, in very safe conditions, on the way to an offshore platform
- Rescuing 15 people in the water, 200 Nm from the coast, in very safe conditions.

20 aircraft from the EC 225 / EC 725 family have already been ordered and the total number of orders for the Super Puma / Cougar - EC 225 / EC family has risen to 682 aircraft.

[SASless]

Mover over Nick....sounds like some competition for that scaled down Super Frelon you are driving around now!

[NickLappos]

Sasless,

Yep, that's the competition. Read carefully, however! Only the IFR certificate meets the JAR, meaning the autopilot and displays. The rest of the aircraft was not qualified to meet the latest regs regarding its structure, but rather it meets the older DGAC requirements.

Here is the JAR website describing that the JAR type certificate for the aircraft (originally named the 332LP) was withdrawn:

http://www.jaa.nl/secured/Certification/Public%20Documents/JAA%20Projects/JAA%20Projects%20-%20Rotorcraft.pdf

The payload range of the S-92 is considerably greater than the 225, as is the cabin area, height and baggage space.

[vertalop]

Just asking to clarify information received.

Does the S92 Main Gearbox comply with the latest FAR/JAR 29? Has the gearbox been demonstrated to run dry for 30 minutes without significant damage? What is the pilot action on the 92 if there is complete loss of MGB oil pressure?

[g33]

Vertalop

Interesting question and very close to the heart of any pilot. I remember this topic came up on a thread a few months ago, but Nick didn't jump in (for once), so perhaps it doesn't!

Nick,

Would you like to post a comparison between the EC 225's and the S92's performance, size etc?

g33

[vertalop]

Nick,

I'm afraid you appear to have been misled.

The program director assures me that full drop tests were carried out and the EC225 structure and fuel tanks fully comply with the latest EASA JAR Part 29 Change 1 Regulations.

No 'Grandfather' rights of any sort have been applied during the certification.

vert

:ok:

[NickLappos]

vertalop, Sorry, but I believe the drop tests are a drop in the bucket (pardon!)

Is the EC 225 JAR Certified, or did they just do some tests? The paraphrase from the program director does not specify if a true airworthiness certificate from JAR was issued. As the JAR web site shows (by the fact that no JAR application was made), I believe the tests you refer to were partial, in-house ones, without JAR oversight. The difference is enormous, and only an airworthiness type certificate from JAR proves the point. I have seen EC actually give the JAR paragraphs to the DGAC and try to use that as evidence of "partial" JAR compliance, when a JAR member never saw nor approved the data, and major parts of the helicopter are as they were in 1980. Ask for the date and number of the airworthiness type certificate from JAR (which should also be posted on line, as it is a public document).

Imagine that the doctor you visit had no certificate on his wall, but instead told you that he had studied exactly as if he was in medical school.

These are a partial list of what real JAR compliance consists of, for all parts of the helicopter, not just those that were refurbished:

Flaw/Damage Tolerant Design
FAR/JAR No. 29.571, Amendment 29-28,10/27/89

Bird Strike Protection
FAR/JAR No. 29.631, Amendment 29-40, 8/08/96

Crash Resistant Fuel Systems
FAR/JAR No. 29.952, Amendment 29-35, 11/02/94

Improved Crashworthiness
FAR/JAR Nos 29.561, Amendment 29-38, 3/13/96

Dynamic Seat Testing (Passengers & Crew)
FAR/JAR No. 29.562, Amendment 29-41, 8/29/97

Turbine Burst Protection
FAR/JAR No. 29.901, Amendment 29-36, 11/2/95

Critical Parts Control
FAR/JAR No. 29.602, Amendment 29-45, 8/24/99

HIRF Protection
FAA proposed special condition, 7/12/99

Lightning Protection
FAR/JAR No. 1309 (h), Amendment 29-40, 5/10/96

[vertalop]

Yes Nick, FULLY CERTIFIED by EASA to JAR Part 29 Change 1 including all those items in your list. (EASA issued the type certificate, JAR 29 is the regulation is complies with.) :O

Also included is the 30 minute run dry main gearbox now required by JAR/FAR 29 that you did not mention.

Please can you confirm whether or not the S92 also has a true 30 minute run dry gearbox as I'm unclear on this? Is immediate pilot action required in the event of a loss of main gearbox pressure? Does the check-list say "Land Immediately"?

vert

[NickLappos]

vertalap,

Do you have the certificate number and issue date for that EC 225 airworthiness certification, which escaped the attention of the press? Since the S-92 received the EASA Transport Helicopter certificate #1 in June, I would guess theirs is #2.

And the S-92's oil protection system protected the transmission to the FAR/JAR with such aplomb that we shut the test down at 3 hours, not 30 minutes, with the system still running along (but admittedly pretty close to its end). That is 2 1/2 hours longer than required. The pilot must activate the system, but has several seconds to do so after clear indications, and the checklist does not say "land immediately."

a further note:

This quote came from the EC press release, Feb 13, 2004:

"Another asset of the EC 225 is that its meets virtually all the latest JAR 29 amendments, including the "flaw damage tolerance" requirements for the main helicopter components (rotor and fuselage). " [http://www.shephard.co.uk/Search.aspx?Action=-187126550&ID=4da113c5-cc77-442b-8fb3-f41ba7681ea8&Section=Rotorhub]

I guess that means it "virutually" met the JAR requirements! I believe it was greatly grandfathered, and met some/many/a few of the latest JAR requirements, but its certificate will tell the "certification basis" which will outline every paragraph of the regs that it truly meets.

[handysnaks]

We'll call that one to Nick then shall we?:p

[vertalop]

Thanks for that Nick. I will be able to see a copy of the EC225 Type Certification Data Sheet next week so may be able to give you the certification number then.

I don't think you should read too much into the wording of those press releases, there are some difficulties producing such things in a 'foreign' language (English). I am no expert on these things (besides I'm only a pilot!) and have never even seen an EC225 let alone the S92 but I'm sure that you have some non compliant items, which are accepted because they provide an equivalent level of safety. This is allowed for in the regulations. For example, the electronic engine instrument system may not comply with the exact wording of the regulation since having a 'green arc' painted on the screen is hardly practical. :8 (A layman's explanation written in front of the TV at home with no reference to the actual documents involved) I think this is what was probably meant by "virtually" in the EC press release you quote.

From memory, if pilot action is required "within several seconds" of a system failure, such as a MGB oil pressure loss, isn't that non compliant with Part 29?

I am sure both machines are a great advance on those previously available in the offshore market and I hope that we all get to reap the benefits of improved safety. Let's wait for the facts to be published and not "rubbish" to opposition based on some poorly worded press release.

vert

[SASless]

Score one for the Home Team!:ok:

[NickLappos]

vertalop,

The oil system, and the entire aircraft, meet FAR/JAR ammendment 47 (the latest). The FAA sat next to us as the transmission ran those 3 hours!


look for a private message, with some additional thoughts.

best,
Nick

[chopperman]

Nick,
Heard a story that there were some minor problems with baggage weights for the S92. Any truth to the rumour,and if so is it sorted?

Regards
Chopperman.

[NickLappos]

chopperman,
I honestly have heard nothing like that. Wouldn't know how it would be an issue, the baggage compartment is actually the entire ramp, which allows 1200 lbs structurally, unless a bizarre cabin loading has set the CG very aft. With pax, the seating is indescriminate, normally. The compartment is about 6 feet deep and 6 feet wide, and accessed by lowering the ramp, so everything is prsented quite nicely. The height is triangular, 6 feet at the forward end, tapering to about 2 feet at the rear of the ramp.

[HeliComparator]

Nick, is it not true that the only way the 92 got through the certification process regarding the 30 mins dry running was by using a manually activated valve that cuts off oil connections to outside the gearbox (cooler etc). The flight manual requires activation within 5 seconds, which is rushed in a modern multi-crew environment. Thus the oil remaining in the gearbox is hopefully not lost (assuming the leak isn't from the box itself). So the 92 cannot cope with total loss of gearbox lubricant? Is my take on that correct? Some have said that that appears to be a bit of a cheat on the certification requirements.

It does seem a bit hypocritical to crow about the fact that the 92 meets all the requirements of FAR29 (1999 version, wasn't it?) and that the 225 doesn't (which is true for a few small areas of the aircraft that have grandfather rights) when there is this question mark over how you got through certification (touch of patriotism by the FAA perhaps?).

By comparison, the 225, along with the 332 and I seem to remember the 330, have an automatic cut-off of external oil feeds following a leak, and the 225 now has genuine 30 minute + running following complete loss of gearbox oil (using a total-loss spray cooling system)

In my opinion this is not a particularly big deal for the 92, as there hasn't been much of a history of aircraft having to ditch due to loss of all gearbox oil, however your silence on this matter (following several "trigger" posts) makes we wonder what other glitches you might be keeping quiet about. It would be better to front up about this, as once the aircraft enters wide service, everyone will know anyway.

[Eurochopper]

I was lucky enough to get a flight in the EC225 prototype the other day. I had a big grin for days! Its very impressive and has a number of advantages from the pilot's point of view, over the 92 (which I have also been lucky enough to fly). However the 92 has advantages over the 225 in some areas as well. They are both good aircraft, though no aircraft is perfect. It seems a pity that Nick has to jump in and criticise the EC225 in its moment of glory. No-one did that when he posted certification.

Incidentally Nick, according to my calculations from looking at both flight manuals (as opposed to sales brochures!) the 225 has the longer range, though its true that the disposable payload is slightly less on the 225 - still enough to take 19 passengers and full fuel though.

In my opinion, 225 is faster and smoother and nicer to fly, whilst the 92 has a bigger baggage bay and slightly more cabin room (lots more cabin height, though you can't make use of that when seated) but rather small windows. So I guess it boils down to whether you are a pilot or a passenger! I know which one I would rather fly!

[NickLappos]

HeliComparator and Eurochopper,

First one thing, HeliComparitor - I do not post here to fool or to hide "glitches" as you state. If you doubt my veracity, it is your loss, frankly.

Fitness for the job is the customer's, nobody can dispute that. Your choice (assuming that you are a customer, and not an EC salesman) is what counts. Please chose, buy and operate as you wish. Have your opinions and debate as you wish! The marketplace is the best forum.

However, Compliance with the law is not subject to our opinion. The governments that we have pick experts, these experts tell the manufacturers what to do to make a new helicopter. Only they determine compliance.

The only measure of compliance is the Type Certificate, upon which neither sales guys not customers get a vote. The tests that the S-92 underwent were all passed, with new designs and new concepts in many cases, because the requirements are new, and revolutionary. The latest FAR/JAR/EASA regs are known, published in 2003 and the S-92 is certified to them. The gearbox meets the requirement, and in fact has six times the protection for its crews as the reg requires. (the shutoff valve is felt by several customers as better than the alternative, a collection of parts and valves and reservoirs that adds complexity, weight, maintenance and failure modes. ) I listed some of the other new requirements above, the actual number is enormous. Of the 1700+ , the facts are irrefutable:

The S-92 meets all, the Super Puma MKII meets 44% of them, and is allowed to ignore the remaining 56% because it is "grandfathered." This is exactly as if you could sell a brand new 1987 car as if it could compete with a 2004 model on its safety features.

There are hundreds of JAR paragraphs that the Super Puma MKII does not meet, because it is so old, and safety technology has changed so much. That is irrefutable, but acceptable to the authorities, and to the customers who buy it. It is not acceptable to the customers who decide to buy a newer, better product.

If the EC 225 salesmen say "fully JAR compliant", it is up to them to provide its certification basis, which lists (by JAR/FAR paragraph) what it meets and doesn't meet. It is also a matter of public record, as published by the certifying agency. It is my knowledge, until proven otherwise, that the 225 does not comply with the latest JAR/FAR.

Nick

PS The paper 225 has respectable performance, I agree. But, the empty weight of the EC 225 does not include the many safety features desired by the end customer. For example, crashworthy seats and the structure of the floor to support them. If you ask EC to sell you those seats (assuming your passengers ask for the latest protection, and assuming you are wise enough to know how to ask) then EC will tell you the aircraft grows by about 1000 lbs empty weight ( "crash-resistant seats can be fitted" says the EC press release. ) They will try to talk you out of them, because they haven't even designed them yet. Now once you have configured the seats that way, ask them to give you the choice on each other JAR paragraph, and add up the weight. Two S-92 customers told about the flying squad of EC salesmen that descended on them with all this bunk! This is proof of their grandfathering, since there is no 'option" under the new requirements, it must be part of the design. Let me know when you decide that the certificate means something.

[SASless]

Nick ....

Never try to teach a pig to sing! Sacre Bleu! Mon Sweet....give up! In your heart....you really know the 225 is the superior machine....after all...it is European! Thus...it just must be! The chaps on the far side of the Saltwater Divide (funny how salt water keeps ruining our relationship with these guys!)....just are not going to concede that something from over there....is inferior to something from overhere....at least not gracefully.

[Mikila1A]

Nick,

I have asked this on another thread and gotta no reply to date, so I will ask again here.

What is the expected date of "certification" allowing passengers (paying) to be carried on the S92 in Europe, Canada and The USA?

[NickLappos]

Mikila1A,

When you apply your home-grown definition of "certification" I know you have an agenda, and not a simple question. Just call a spade a spade, Makila. You don't want information, you want to set up some kind of a point. Just say that point and stop pussy-footing around.

[HeliComparator]

Nick, you said

"However, Compliance with the law is not subject to our opinion. The governments that we have pick experts, these experts tell the manufacturers what to do to make a new helicopter. Only they determine compliance."

So you don't have "politics" in the USA? There is no tendancy for US citizens to grant favour to good old US products? So some of these experts wouldn't just happened to have worked for the manufacturers before getting their government jobs (how else do you become an expert?) :O

Seriously, I don't think the US is any worse than any European country, but to think that these things are black and white is
naive.

So you're still not going to confirm or deny that the 92 will not run for 30 mins without some oil in the gearbox?

No, I thought not, better to stick to your "attack is the best form of defense" smokescreen and use lots of bold type!

By the way, were we talking about the L2?

For the record, the S92 has 1 level of "backup" function to cope with gearbox oil loss - the pilot activates a valve that cuts off external oil feeds and we hope that the leak was not from the gearbox itself. The 225 has 2 levels of backup - 1) an intrinsic shutoff of external oil feeds when gearbox oil level gets low (no, there are no valves to have failure modes) and 2), should we be unlucky enough to lose all gearbox oil from a leak to the box itself, a manual activation of a total loss cooling system that runs for 30 mins plus.

As I said before, I don't think this is a particularly big deal for the S92 - I'm sure it will have a long and safe operating life. But justifying that the 92 is better in all respects just because it complies with some beaurocratic rules is dangerous ground! And don't snipe at the enemy on their big day - looks like sour grapes

[Mikila1A]

Nick,

On the contrary, I have no agenda or reason to have one. It was / is a simple question. Why would you think such?

PM me please and we can surely discuss it, again I thought it a harmless question:confused: :confused:

sorry if for some reason i have offended you.

[NickLappos]

HeliComparitor,

What is black and white is what regulation basis the aircraft choses. That is what we are discussing, I think, and what we would like to know for the EC 225. The reason why I mention the 332 MKII is because the certification of the 225 is simply an amendment of the 332's certificate, in other words, the 225 is a 332, and except for the few differences, yet undefined, it is a MKII+

Perseverate on oil loss, it seems to help you leave the subject. Hyjack the thread if you wish, it seems to amuse you.

However, you have added nothing to our understanding of the cert basis of the 225, which is the subject of the thread.

[Mikila1A]

Sorry Nick.

Quess for some reason I have pee'd you off.

Again, in all sincerity, thought it was just a honest question!

Well, enough said about that I quess?

[simfly]

Interesting comments here from both sides of the pond... What really interests me though is what the OIL companies think. As I understand CHC are expecting some deliveries of the S-92 soon, i've heard that pilots from CHC Europe (Aberdeen) are due to head to Sikorsky soon to train on the 92, but do CHC have a contract yet for work with the 92? Also, the Shell offshore contract for central and southern North Sea is out for tender at the moment, annoucment I believe to be after Christmas, so the next few months may be vital for Eurocopter/Sikorsky.

[NickLappos]

OK Makila1 I will relent, text is awfully hard to decipher, and I guess I got a bit touchy, sorry!

The first aircraft is undergoing final cert of the customer peculiar equipment, and the crews are due to train literally any day. The training school is setting up shop for the first class this week (!) and the simulator ihas undergone its final FAA review.

The delivery will take place when all the items fall into line, within a few weeks I am sure.

simfly tells it as it is. Our customers will tell us all what they want, mostly by buying the products they value.

I can't comment on any individual customer (all this writing that I do is strictly as an individual, I cannot speak for any manufacturer, nor do I pretend to.)

[Mikila1A]

Nick,

No problem mate, this skin is pretty tough. If our little quip got me worked up I would have left this business many moons ago.

Thanks for the answer all the same, that was all I was looking for.


Cheers
.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

My last word on this thread - I know I will never get you to change your public opinion! You will be able to get the last word by replying, which should keep you happy!

Subject of the thread: "EC225 receives European IFR certification". Is it called "Which bits of the EC225 are certified to recent versions of JAR29"? No, so who actually hijacked the thread first? Your hijack was aimed at rubbishing the opposition for commercial reasons, mine aimed at redressing the balance 'cause I like to see fair play (no, I don't work for EC) . So we're even!

Not quite - I still didn't get you to verify my take on the gearbox lube system, but I guess your silence does that for you.

You are right that its black and white whether the aircraft is either fully certified to some recent version of JAR/FAR29 (S92) or only partially - well mostly actually (EC225). However does that necessarily mean that the S92 is safer? I would say not necessarily because are we sure that the latest standard of JAR/FAR29 is a higher standard in all respects than an earlier certification basis? Have look at the bird strike criteria - I am speaking from memory here but I think you will find that FAR29 calls for a 1kg bird whilst BCARs (British cert requirements) called for a 1.8 kg bird - the L2 met that years ago. (Could this be the only case where Americans are lighter than Europeans?!).

You have to look very carefully at the small print before buying a helicopter and anyway there's a lot more to safety than certification requirements.

Have a nice day now!

[NickLappos]

Helicomparitor,

You said, "I know I will never get you to change your public opinion! "

I do not opine, I state facts and ask for them from each manufacturer, you seek opinions, and judge them. In your continued perseveration about the S-92 oil system that FAA/JAR and EASA certify to the highest standard, you failed to discuss the sub-standard passenger crash protection of the baseline EC 225, which is an obvious non-compliance with the latest FAR/JAR/EASA, and clear sign of grandfathering (thus it is meerly an option, and not part of the base design). You fail to discuss bird strike protection, or turbine burst protection or any of the other several hundred paragraphs of FAR/JAR that are swept under the thick, musty carpet of opinion.

Airworthiness Certification of a helicopter is not subject to soft cloudy opinions. It is subject to a defining set of rules and tests, with dates, revisions and certainty. To some, including Government authorities, safety and progress are the amassing of facts, tests and solutions to old problems, Helicomparitor, not opinions.

Let me clarify the difference, "Helicomparitor will not publically change his opinion, regardless of the facts." That being said, you have every right to those opinions, and we have no rubber hoses to beat you into submission about this. It would be a dull pprune if we all posted Me Too! to everything.

[Spaced]

Hands up who else had to look up "opine" in the dictionary.
Nice word, well used Nick.

[vertalop]

Cetainly nothing "Grandfatherly" about the engine in the 225. It is new and complies 100% with the turbine burst requirements. It was tested to destruction and no debris escaped the engine casing.

I don't really understand that diagram on the S92 web-site which appears to show a burst turbine throwing shrapnel through the rotors and passenger cabin.

[NickLappos]

vertalop,

The Makila engine on the 225 is not new, it is a growth of the basic engine (this is not bad, it is good, as that engine is a reliable one, for sure!)

Like virtually all engines, it is designed for turbine blade retention, not disk retention. Blades weigh small fractions of a kilo, disks weigh several kilos. The "everything" that you saw retained were the light blade shreds, every engine has to do that.

To meet the current regs, and not be grandfathered, the aircraft has to maximize the safety of its design to allow fly home after the bursting of the engine turbine. These 1 to 2 Kg chunks literally shoot big holes in things, and when the engines are tightly clustered around the transmission, with the primary flight control rods between them, turbine bursts mean big problems. Perhaps you recall the dramatic footage of the L-1011 landing (cartwheeling into flames) at Soux City in the states years ago after the crew had to control the aircraft with the throttles (!!) and saved a large percentage of the passengers, this accident triggered the new rules for transport aircraft. This was proven a necessity for helos after an accident in the North Sea where the primary flight controls were cut after a turbine burst and the aircraft tumbled into the water.

The layout of components, redundant controls and passive shielding are methods of meeting this requirement. The purple ring on the S-92 shows the places where detailed shot-path analysis was performed, and how that area does not include the primary controls or servos. This was one of the reasons why that engine layout was selected, and also one of the reasons why grandfathering of old designs is necessary, since entirely changing the layout is impractical.

That being said, I do not know of any data to show that the EC 225 meets this turbine burst requirement. The type certificate data sheet will tell the story, by telling which paragraphs it meets and which it grandfathers.

[HeliComparator]

Oh dear, I said I wasn't going to come back on this thread but since the subject has changed, can I change my mind? Wow - was Nick pointing out that old proven reliable technology was actually a good thing safety-wise. Perhaps that's because the CT7-8 fitted to the 92 is an even older engine than the Makila!

The Makila 2A (as fitted to the 225) has turbine blade shedding to cope with otherwise unresolved overspeed - ie an overspeed that is not contained by the normal electronic overspeed shutdown at 120% N2 (as happened in the Norwegian accident Nick refers to). At 140% (from memory) the turbine blades are designed to all detach simultaneously and are contained within the engine. No more blades = no more turbine disc acceleration so the disc won't burst. Now what would you rather have, a turbine disc bursting and hoping that all that airframe reinforcement doesn't allow bits to hit the flight controls, rotor blades etc, or a system that intrinsically guarantees that the turbing can't overspeed to the point of disc destruction?

I have to say that I am not sure exactly what JAR FAR 29 says on this subject. Can anyone point to a web location that has the publications as I can never find them? However I am pretty sure that the Makila 2A is compliant. Some EC/TM person could confirm that?

If you don't change anything, you can fall back on grandfather rights, but once you change something, it has to be re-certified and hence meet the current requirements. If Sikorsky can get their FAA to grant certification to the 92's gearbox, I am sure that Turbomeca can do the same with the DGAC/EASA and their 2A (sorry, couldn't resist :D )

[NickLappos]

The concept for blade shedding as a way to avoid turbine bursts seems elegant (that's engineer speak for really cool.)

[212man]

Helicomparator JAR/FAR 29?

Well if you go to a relevant web site (maybe JAA.nl or FAA.gov, for example) you might find links to them. The JAA one even has a link to the EASA site, if a google search doesn't yield a result (which I think it might).

I think underfloor fuel tanks would be a grandfather right, would it not?

[Mars]

The document that contains methods of compliance for the subjects that have been discussed in this thread is AC 29-2C and can be found at http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/29E440234B4CC27586256E4300597DD7?OpenDocument

The pages of interest are: for the 'turbine burst' criteria FAR 29.903(c) at revision 29-36 (pages E - 13 to 28). for the 'gearbox run dry' criteria FAR29.927(c) at revisions 29-17 (pages E - 54 to 56) and 29-26 (pages E - 56 & 57)This text is a PDF file of 7MB.

Enjoy!

[212man]

I agree entirely with the advice to read AC29, and it is a must read for anyone with a passing interest in how their a/c was certificated. It explains the logic and practical aspects of testing, with tips and advice for the manufacturer. Shame there is no JAA equivelant, or is it deemd the AC is sufficient?

For more on engine certification look for JAR-E and FAR part 33 on the respective sites.

[HeliComparator]

Nick - nice to see you like something about the 225! It has some good ideas that Sikorsky would do well to steal (eg FLI), likewise EC with Sikorsky ideas, then we might get the perfect helicopter (plus lots of law suits :( )

212man - I think the underfloor fuel is grandfathered, however there is an interesting paper produced by someone at the UK CAA some time ago that made the point that it didn't make much difference whether the fuel was underfloor or outside - if it leaks and catches fire you will be in a pool of fire either way. Fuel, whilst still in tanks, tends not to burn much because it can't get enough oxygen.

[HughMartin]

I don't want to get bogged down in the detail of certification requirements as it is easy to start using petty detail to win points. I think it is more important to look at the global picture and make a judgement on whether the WHOLE product provides a better level of safety.

As far as the 225 and the 92 is concerned, this has to be a subjective opinion as safety can only be defined historically and neither the 225 nor the 92 has a track record as a whole product. They both use components from existing machines but until they have several thousand hours under their belts it will be impossible to make an accurate assessment.

Meeting a certification requirement is not the be all and end all. Certification requirements are always written in hindsight.

Having flown the L2 for the last 4 or so years, my gut feel is that Eurocopter has reached the end of the Puma development line. Don't get me wrong, the L2 is a great machine to fly but in my opinion it is working at its limit. The airframe is 25+ years old and there are engine and system issues which require close monitoring. The electronics are also not the most robust. The aircraft does however have good redundancy.

Operationally, the L2 does what is asked of it. Compared to the "L" the “L2” is a dream. It can carry 19 passengers most of the time with a huge amount of baggage/cargo (up to 1760 lbs/800 kgs). The 225 will do the same - but from the figures I have seen, not much more (if any). Unless baggage space is sacrificed for extra fuel tanks, its range is going to be less than that of the L2 / S92.

My main concern with the 225 is that the airframe and engines will struggle with the extra weight and power demands and serviceabilty and maintainability will be a problem.

As for Puma passenger appeal - there isn't any! In the 19 seat configuration, if it was a cattle float it would be deemed illegal on the grounds of animal cruelty.

I haven't had the opportunity to observe the S92 at close quarters. From my previous Sikorsky experiences, if I ever get to fly the 92, I suspect I would enjoy it better than the Eurocopter products I have been used to for the last 20+ years.

The cabin and cockpit has to be a winner. There is no comparison with the Puma sardine tin.

I cannot comment on the systems as I have no detailed knowledge apart from that which can be gleaned from the Sikorski web site.

Operationally, I do think that the S92 could have done with more fuel tankage. According to the figures I have seen, it can carry a full load of 19 passengers with normal baggage and full fuel. The L2/225 can only carry 16 pax (approx) with fuel fuel. Unfortunately, with a head wind of any significance, the range of both Eurocopter and Sikorsky is severely reduced. On the North Sea, this means that with a northerly wind of more than 15 - 20 knots, neither the S92 nor the L2 will be able to reach the the majority of the East Shetland Basin oilfields from Aberdeen. If the 225 gets sponson fuel tanks fitted (which will mean sacrificing baggage space) it might well make the difference. From what I understand, it will not be possible to fit extra fuel tankage to the S92 without loosing fixed passenger seats. Some may say that a crew is being spoilt by being able to carry full fuel and a full load but there are times when it is most frustrating when there is not a need to carry a full load of passengers but the spare weight capacity cannot be used by carrying more fuel. It will also mean that we will still be stuck with having to pick IFR alternates which are affected by the same weather pattern as our nominated destinations - not an ideal situation.

The big decider is going to be cost. At the end of the day, the seat/mile cost is going to determine who wins the race for the large helicopter market for the next twenty years. Eurocopter has had it good in the recent past. Maybe it is now Sikorsky’s turn. It will all be down to which government gives the best “opportunities” to allow their export price to be lower.



PS. I don't know why, Mr Moderator, but my post count below seems to have been reset back to 1. I don't think I have dreamt that I have posted on this forum before.

[NickLappos]

HughMartin,
I have to agree that only track rcord counts in the end, but the basis of the design is in the regs chosen to be met, and these things are quite powerful in setting the safety of the design.

Automotive examples include anti-lock brakes, air bags, anti-skid electronics or steel belted tires. There is no doubt that the technology of the features sets the baseline safety aspects. This does not make today's aircraft unfit, of course, just resets the value equation, I think.

The site I set up www.s-92heliport.com has a full set of slides with some systems descriptions and weights and perf. I don't know the stage lengths that you are using, or I could double check your figures.

Regarding belly fuel, there is much evidence that landing on your fuel tanks in a crash is probably not preferable (is that rocket science or what?) The heavy rubberized bags were tested in older helicopters as separate items, dropped without the belly metal structure, and without the pumps and lines and stuff. Nobody knows how the bent metal and sharp edges of a crash can tear the cells and spill the fuel, except that it happens in a fair percentage of accidents in aircraft equipped with otherwise "crashworthy" fuel cells. Because of this, new regs require that the tanks be dropped with the surrounding structure, or that they meet an even higher crash standard. Facing this new standard, the 92 had to put the fuel outside the cabin, where the cells are free to break away, and no sharp metal edges threaten them. In fact, they were tested with the representative sponson structure, to be sure they were unharmed in the drop. Also, the 92 has no pumps, no transfer lines and valves, and no pressurized fuel in the airframe, the engine pumps suck the fuel up. Much fewer leak opportunities. I have posted an .avi of it at (2.5 Megs):

www.s-92heliport.com/fueltest.avi

[HeliComparator]

HughMartin

I know what you mean about the L2 giving the impression that its hit the limit of development. The engines struggle and pop, the electronics require frequent "re-boots" and are generally quite glitchy, and I would have agreed with you on the 225 had I not actually flown it and seen what a huge jump up from the L2 it is.

The L2 was a transitional aircraft (ie transitioning to EFIS type cockpit) and the electronics of that age don't seem to be up to the job. However the 225 is all-new in that department, and whilst the engines are still Makila, they have addresses all the irritations of the 1A2, eg fadecs (no more popping), proportional bleed valve (no more kicking) with auto-offset scheduled on airspeed, automatic Nr+10 scheduled on airspeed, no need for NrILS, FLI which is Nr-aware.

The AFCS Upper mode and screen design was developed by the EC flight test department and it really feels like it is designed by pilots for pilots. Sorry Nick, but more so that the S92 - or maybe there's a difference between what US pilots and European pilots want?

But there's always a down side - it has the same LH accessory module as the L2 :{

I'm not sure where you get the 16 pax from - the 225's gross weight is 11000kg - up 1700kg from the L2. There is a healthy 4200kg disposable in N sea configuration with re-inforced floor and crashworthy seats, which is slight less than the 92 but because the 225 is faster than the 92 at the same fuel burn (figures taken from both flight manuals) on a long run it only loses about 100kg of payload to the 92 and still has enough for 19 with 11kg bags each at full fuel (2250kg).

As to cockpit & cabin size the S92 ain't no S61. When I flew the 92 I didn't get the impression of any more cockpit leg room over the L2, though it is a little wider. The 92 cabin looks a lot bigger than the L2 but that is mainly down to the increased height, which is of no practical value once you are seated. If you measure up you will find that the increased length of the cabin over the L2 is only about 3 inches (for the S61 its 3 feet) and although the width is up by 7 inches, this is largely offset by the fact that the window openings are high up on the 92, whereas on the 225 (which has enlarged windows over the L2), most outside passengers can put their elbows in the window recess. However as a pilot I am selfishly concerned about what its like to fly, and there the 225 wins by a mile (OK a subjective opinion I know, but I am not the only one to have flown both that thinks so)

You are right that practically speaking, reliability and operating costs are big factors but unfortunately at the moment, none of us knows how that will pan out.

Enjoy your S92 should you get to fly it!

Nick - I agree that stopping the fuel tanks rupturing is vital to survive a crash, but if the tanks rupture and there's a fire it doesn't make much difference whether the tanks are inside or outside - there will be burning fuel everywhere! I believe that EC have now done drop tests with the tanks inside a representative structure so that they can get certification to the lastest standards. Well done to Sikorsky for making it politically desirable for them to do that!

I think the Sikorsky concept of no booster pumps has to be a good crashworthy feature (though I'd rather not crash in the first place:D )

[NickLappos]

HeliComparitor,
Your premise starts with "If the tanks rupture" so natrually you see no difference. The tanks are more likely to rupture when encased in the belly of the aircraft, that's why they have been moved to safer locations in more modern designs. The strong bladder tanks away from the crash impact zone therefore don't rupture, unlike those trapped in twisted metal with pumps still pressurizing all those lines beneath the floor.

If you factor in the 1,000 lb increased empty weight of the crashworthy seats that are an "option" on the 225 I think you will find where those lost passengers went. Again, if you chose to compare, it might be a good idea to use aircraft that have similar equipment. The Oil Companies do it that way, I believe.

Regarding operating costs, you are right, nobody knows how it will pan out, except that the S-92 has a maintenance "power by the hour" program for the entire aircraft, so the operator does not have to risk those costs. And the numbers being offered beat the older aircraft by a prtty big margin, I am told.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

I can't help thinking that your statement that tanks are less likely to rupture if installed outside the aircraft is based on bias and not science. Let me ask you where you would rather be when a helicopter crash lands - sitting in the cabin or standing outside 10 feet away? Unless your sponson tanks can withstand impact from a rotor blade rotating at near flight speed, I can see no less liklihood of rupture for external tanks. Of course one could come up with scenarios that favour either option - it just depends on how you choose to crash!

Yup I've already agreed with you on the pumps!

If you read my post again you will see that the figures I was using are based on the strengthened floor and crashworthy seats option that oil companies are likely to require. With that kit, the 92 and 225 have very similar disposable loads - the 92 comes in a few hundred kilos ahead but burns more fuel, so that on a long run there's not much in it. You may be looking at old figures from a couple of years ago before the gross weight of the 225 was upped to 11 tonnes?

I believe EC also has PBH for the whole aircraft (at least all the dynamic components anyway) but that is only one factor. Getting new bits "for free" as part of PBH is only minor compensation for an aircraft that is always in the hangar, annoying clients and not generating revenue. Which one is best there, only time will tell!

[NickLappos]

HeliComparitor,

Your opinions on crash behavior are really interesting, I wonder if we should ignore the ground impact on all crash discussions? In your novel approach to crashing, the ground is an innocent bystander, and the rotor blades are the real culpret! Wow, and all this time we thought otherwise. Look how wrong we were to think it a bad idea to have your passengers bolted to the fuel cells under the floor, between the seats and the ground during a crash!! We had better just rewrite the book, based on the salesman school you went to and its groundbreaking work (pardon the pun, I had to, didn't I?) In layman's terms, the ground is what gets you in a crash, HeliComparitor. It is not the drop, it is the sudden stop! Those pesky cells in the belly of the helo hit the ground while trapped in a maze of fuel lines, pumps and structure which is being chewed up by the impact. Spin some words, make a story, but that is WHY the cells are placed otherwise on modern helicopters.

And I love the tossing off of a ""few hundred Kilograms" of payload in your "analysis" nice, very nice. Those are the missing passengers. The studies I have seen from customers say the aircraft have the same speeds and fuel flows, so the 225's payload is always less.

[Mars]

Oh no Nick, not the ultimate insult accusing HeliComparator of being a salesman!

[HeliComparator]

Nick - I thought you had got over your personal attack mood - obviously not!

Crashing - like I said, it depends on how you crash! Hitting the ground hard is certainly the problem, but whether or not the fuel tanks rupture was the issue we were discussing. Yes, having fuel tanks in a crumpled pile of twisted metal is a bad thing (though I probably already be dead by then) but so is a fuel tank/sponson breaking off , bouncing and being sliced into bits by the rotors -then you get nice fine droplets of fuel with plenty of air about to burn.

I'm sure you would agree that neither scenario is desirable, but which is better, who could say?

Those "modern helicopters" you talk about woudn't happen to be the S92 by any chance would they? Some self-fulfilling logic there!


Yes, the 225's payload is always less, but unless you are going for a near-full range trip that extra payload is no use in a 19 seat configuration - both aircraft can take 19 plus bags and a bit of freight. At full range, the difference becomes about 100kg but the 225 has slightly better range (by about 15nm). This is enough to make the difference between 19 pax and lots of baggage (92) or 19 pax and a reasonable amount, ~11kg (or 25lbs to you Nick) of baggage (225).

In other words the 92 does have better payload, but its only useful in the 19 seat configuration at extremes of range, say over 350nm

Do you think everyone else is getting bored with us trading minutiae? You seem determined to hijack this thread to continue promoting your product and trashing the opposition and with relatively few people in a position to argue you have a strong hand. Its a pity the French don't have a Nick equivalent - maybe I should ask for a job?

Since I have no vested interest other than the truth, and have to get up early for a flight tomorrow, I let you get on with it!

[HeliComparator]

Oh by the way Nick, a document has just fallen into my lap which reminds me that the S92's certified maximum baggage/cargo load is 700lbs. So you have all that payload but if the passengers have lots of baggage/freight, looks like they'll have to carry it on their laps! Maybe you should design a roof-rack?

Its also interesting that the S92 is certified for min. 2 pilots VFR whereas the 225 is certified for 1 pilot VFR. Is that because the 92 is more difficult to fly safely than the 225?

[HughMartin]

This thread is beginning to turn into a slagging match between Nick and Helicomparator (which seems somewhat of a misnomer as he/she does not truly compare).

I am a bit concerned about this alleged 700lb baggage/cargo limit. I had heard this sometime ago and, via a PM, Nick implied that the baggage bay limit was significantly higher. If it is true, it is not much more than the S76 baggage bay limit. Nick- can you clarify?

As to range/payload calculations, I hope the 225 has more accurate airspeed indications systems than those fitted to the L2 which constantly over-read in cruise flight by, I suspect at least 7-8%.

No one has yet compared Group/Cat A performance. Do the aircraft need 800 metres of runway to take off which is more than some fixed wing aircraft need?

I hope that anyone who has ordered 225's or 92's have included a performance guarantee in their contract with the supplier.

[cpt]

I believe you are a bit unfair helicomparator, and this thread tends to turn into a mad dogs fight....and when you are stating that eurocopter would need an nick lappos equivalent, there is no risk in that....with this company's arrogant and distant attitude towards the "common" public and users
Nick has been giving for long, a very precious contribution and informations to everyone on this forum, knowing his involvment in the S92 project, we cannot blame the sometimes commercialy oriented arguments.
This appart, beeing french myself, I regret the absence (or the too late intervention( of a 'french equivalent" of M.Nick Lappos on this forum, to talk a little bit more about EC helicopters.

[HeliComparator]

HughMartin

You are right - its a slagging match but not from my choice - I am only (over?) reacting to Nick's one-sidedness in the interests of balancing the thread. As I have said many times, both are good aircraft though neither perfect. Do you think I should shut up and let him have a free hand with his sales pitch?

The L2 overreads on airspeed because of the location of the static ports (on the pitot head) causes that error which, although reported in the flight manual, nevertheless has the potential to get pilots into trouble (been there done that!)

The 225 has reverted to the 332L location for the ports, presumably making the error the other way as it was in the 332 - a much safer situation.

Having (probably rightly) been given grief for battling on so long, I am not going to be the one to raise the issues of Group A performance and definitely not the one to mention the OEI OGE hover performance of the 92. However I think you will find that neither aircraft have finalised Group A/ Cat A performance supplements yet and until they do, both are a little restrictive - for example from memory I think the current S92 clear airfield takeoff distance is fixed at 3800' (1150 metres). That will I'm sure change in the fullness of time following more flight testing.

[NickLappos]

HeliComparitor,
No slogging here just facts, which must be applied when you toss out unschooled and biased opinions. If it seems like slogging, I apologize, but as Lenin said, "Facts are inconvenient things." I still have heard nothing from you on the certification basis of the 225, so I can surely assume it is grandfathered a great deal.

HughMartin,
The baggage of the S-92 is held in the aft compartment, accessed by the ramp, and it has about 140 cubic feet ( that is 4 cubic meters - an EC 225 could do a U-turn in there) and it holds 1,000 lbs under normal conditions. There is a shelf above the ramp that is good for 300 pounds, but the total for the compartment is 1,000 lbs. The ramp itself is good for 2,000 lbs, but the unrestrained baggage system uses the rear cabin bulkhead to hold the 1,000 lb cargo so that tiedowns are not needed, and load/unload cycles are literally "toss the bags in". The entire baggage load on the ramp is lowered to level with a hydraulic cylinder, and raised the same way, the ramp is about 1.8 meters by 2 meters in dimension. This 1,000 lb load allows normal CG for most cabin loads, although it might be that a bunch of Dallas Cowboys in the last few rows only, and a full baggage could be at the aft CG limit.

HughMartin, I hope this is enough to suit. What is the 332L2 have for baggage space and weight?

[vertalop]

I. General
1. Data Sheet No: EASA.R.002
2. Type / Variant or Model: EC 225 LP
3. Airworthiness Category: Large Rotorcraft
4. Type Certificate Holder: EUROCOPTER
Aéroport International Marseille - Provence
13725 MARIGNANE cedex
FRANCE
5. Manufacturer: As above
6. DGAC-F Application Date: 07 November 2000
7. EASA Certification Date: 27 July 2004
8. JAA Recommendation Date: TBA
II. Certification Basis
1. Airworthiness Requirements: JAR 29, Change 1 effective December 1st, 1999,
except for the following :
2. Reversions and Exemptions Granted :
• reversion to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.561(b)(3) Emergency landing conditions-general (Reference CRI C-01)
• partial reversions to FAR 29, Amendment 24 as follows:
- FAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure (Reference CRI C-03)
- FAR 29.785 Seat, berth, safety belts, and harnesses (Reference CRI D-01)
• exemptions from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.562 Emergency dynamic landing conditions (Reference CRI C-02)
- JAR 29.952(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) Fuel system crash resistance (Reference CRI E-01)
- JAR 29.955(b) Fuel transfer (Reference CRI E-05)
• partial exemption from JAR 29, Change 1 as follows:
- JAR 29.963(b) Fuel tanks: general; Puncture resistance (Reference CRI E-02)
3. Equivalent Safety Findings:
- JAR 29.173, 175 Static longitudinal Stability (Reference CRI B-03)
- JAR 29 Apdx B §IV IFR Static longitudinal Stability – Airspeed stability (Reference CRI
B-04)
- JAR 29.571 Fatigue evaluation of structure for changed metallic PSE (Reference CRI C-
04)
- JAR 29.807(c)(1) Passenger emergency exits other than side-of-fuselage (Reference
CRI D-02)
- JAR 29.813(a), 29.815 Emergency exit access - Main aisle width (Reference CRI D-03)
- JAR 29.923(a)(2) Rotor drive system and control mechanism tests (Reference CRI E-
03)
- JAR 29.1303(j) VNE aural warning (Reference CRI F-01)
- JAR 29.1545(b)(4) Airspeed indicators markings (Reference CRI G-01)
- JAR 29.1549(b) Powerplant instruments markings (Reference CRI G-02)
TCDS.R.002
Issue 01, 27 July 2004
Page 4 of 4
4. Special Conditions: Minimum in flight experience (Reference CRI B-01)
External loads, JAR 29.865 amdt. 2 (Reference CRI
D-06)
Protection from the effects of High Intensity Radiated
Field (Reference CRI F-02)
5. Environmental Standards including noise:
Noise.
Compliant with ICAO Annex 16, Volume 1, Part II, Chapter
8 and Appendix 4
Engine Emission.
Compliant with ICAO Annex 16 Volume 2, (Fuel Discharge).
III. Technical Characteristics and Operational Limitations
1. Type Design Definition: document ref. 332 A 89 2120, Issue F
2. Description: large twin-engine helicopter designed as a derivative
product of the former type certified model AS 332 L2
3. Equipment: As required by JAR 29 and referenced within approved
Flight Manual
4. Dimensions:
Fuselage Width 3.96m (13ft 00in)
Height 4.97m (16ft 30in)
Main Rotor 5 blades Diameter 16.20m (53ft 14in)
Tail Rotor 4 blades Diameter 3.15m (10ft 33in)
5. Engines: 2 Turboméca Makila 2A
EASA DS No: E.006
5.1 Installed Engine Limits: Refer to approved Flight Manual
5.2 Transmission Torque Limits: Refer to approved Flight Manual
6. Fluids (Fuel/Oil/Hydraulic/Additives):
6.1 Fuel JP-8 (F34), Jet A-1(F35)
6.2 Oil as approved in the Flight Manual for engine and
gearboxes
6.3 Hydraulic as approved in the Flight Manual
6.4 Additives as approved in the Flight Manual
7. Fluid Capacities:
7.1 Fuel 2588 l (684 US gals)
basic internal fuel tanks and sponsons
7.2 Oil engines 4,92 l
MGB 27 l
TCDS.R.002
Issue 01, 27 July 2004
Page 5 of 5
IGB 0,62 l
TGB 1,5 l
7.3 Hydraulic RH system 5,0 l
LH system 9,5 l
8. Airspeed Limits: Vne Power on 175 Kt up to 5.000ft density altitude
and 175kt – 3kt / 1.000ft above 5.000ft
Vne Power off Vne Power on limited to 150 Kt
see Flight Manual for other approved airspeed limits
9. Rotor Speed Limits:
Power on:
Maximum 275 rpm
Minimum 246 rpm
Min transient 220 rpm
Power off:
Max transient 310 rpm (20 sec)
Maximum 290 rpm
Minimum 246 rpm (IAS > 100Kt) 220 rpm ( IAS < 100Kt)
10. Maximum Operating Altitude and Temperature:
10.1 Altitude
Take-off and landing –2.000ft altitude pressure / + 2.000ft density
altitude
En route –2.000ft altitude pressure / + 10.000ft altitude
pressure
10.2 Temperature -15°C to ISA +25°C limited to + 40°C
11. Operating Limitations:
11.1 General Category A and B
VFR day and night
IFR day and night
12. Maximum Certified Weights: Take-off and landing 11,000kg (24,251lb)
13. Centre of Gravity: Refer to approved Flight Manual
14. Datum: 4.67m (183.85in) forward of main rotor centroid
15. Levelling Means: Levelling plate on right side of the fuselage and
graduated plate for plumb line on left side
16. Minimum Flight Crew: Two (2): Pilot and Co-pilot in IFR
One (1): Pilot in VFR
17. Maximum Passenger Seating Capacity: 25
18. Passenger Emergency Exits: one (1) door whose dimensions exceed those of Type II
exit + two (2) Type IV exits on each side
19. Maximum Baggage/Cargo Loads: the cabin floor is provided with the structural strength
required for a load of 800kg/m2 evenly distributed in
cargo configuration
20. Rotor Blade and Control Movement: For rigging information, refer to Maintenance manual
TCDS.R.002
Issue 01, 27 July 2004
Page 6 of 6
21. Auxiliary Power Unit: None as basic equipment
22. Wheels and Tyres:
Tyres: nose: 466 x 173-10
main: 615 x 225-10
Wheels: nose: Messier Bugatti C 20525 000
main: Messier Bugatti C 20147 200
IV. Operating and Service Instructions
1. Rotorcraft Flight Manual, Document No: EC 225LP Flight Manual, normal revision RN0,
04-20 approved by EASA on 27 July 2004 or
subsequent
approved issues
2. Maintenance Manual, Document No: Airworthiness Limitations as EC 225LP
Maintenance Servicing Recommendations,
Chapter 05.99, edition 2004.05.31, Rev. 000
approved by EASA on 27 July 2004 or
subsequent approved issues
EC 225LP Maintenance Programme as
- Maintenance Servicing Recommendations
(PRE),
- Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM)
3. Service Letters and Service Bulletins: As published by Eurocopter and approved by
EASA
4. Required Equipment:
• As per compliance with JAR 29 requirements and in accordance with the
original Type Design standard.
• Refer to approved Flight Manual and MMEL.
5. Master Minimum Equipment List: None
V. Notes
1. Eligible serial numbers: 2600 and subsequent of EC 225LP version.
2. The certified “optional” installations are each approved independently of the basic helicopter and
an approved Flight Manual Supplement is associated to each optional installation if necessary.
3. Cabin Interior and Seating Configurations must be approved.
___________END__________

[NickLappos]

vertalop,

Thanks, this Type Certificate data sheet (TCDS) is the document. Note the Part II, Basis of Certification, section 2, reversions and exemptions (those are the Grandfather clauses). Specifically defined grandfathered sections are those most difficult to put in because they involve large changes, usually not economically feasible, like the crashworthiness shown, where the primary structure cannot take the crash loads, but the entire aircraft would have to be redesigned to meet the new rule. Also true of .571 Flaw Tolerance, for similar reasons, and the fuel system (the subject of lots of gnashing between RotorComparitor and me, unfortunately for other ppruners).

OK, with facts, buyers can know what they are buying. That is all we can ask!

Congratulations to EC for this achievement!

Here is the FAA's web site library for all the TCDS on file with them:

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

[vertalop]

Nick,

I note that many of the reversions are to FAR 29, Amendment 24, which I believe was the certification basis for the S92, although some are older.

Can you post the same sheet for the S92 here so that we can compare?

Out of interest, is this what you were expecting when you made your original post? "Only the IFR certificate meets the JAR, meaning the autopilot and displays. The rest of the aircraft was not qualified to meet the latest regs regarding its structure, but rather it meets the older DGAC requirements." Or do you feel that statement was perhaps a little exaggerated in hindsight?

vert

[NickLappos]

vertalop asked - "I note that many of the reversions are to FAR 29, Amendment 24, which I believe was the certification basis for the S92, although some are older."

Nick sez - Nope, the S-92 is to amendment 47 (May 2001), which is the most current regulation, with NO grandfathering or exceptions. That link I provided was to allow you to find the sheets for all FAA aircraft, including S-92. Here is the specific S-92 TCDS link (note that this sheet is a bit out of date, the cert basis was extended to amendment 47 in June, as the baggage was increased to 1000 lbs) The sheet shows amendment 45:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/f51f70a6d416d6b386256ecb00660205/$FILE/R00024BO.pdf

The amendment 24 that the EC 225 grandfathers for most of its passenger safety features is the December 1984 regulation

vertalop asked "Out of interest, is this what you were expecting when you made your original post?....Or do you feel that statement was perhaps a little exaggerated in hindsight?"

Nick sez: Good question, it is exactly what I suspected, but not what the French or (RotorComparitor) said. The extensive grandfathering of the safety, crashworthiness and fuel system integrity is understandable, as they could not redesign these sections to meet the current requirements without redesigning the entire machine. Note the phrase in the middle near section III "2. Description: large twin-engine helicopter designed as a derivative product of the former type certified model AS 332 L2" This is the exact grandfather clause.

It would be a good exercise to look up the specific paragraphs to see what the shortfalls are. Here is the "historical FAR" which lists each paragraph and each amendment so you can read them and compare:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet Just click on the left margin by historical FAR, by part and select Part 29 to see the history of each paragraph.

[HughMartin]

Nick, to answer your question re baggage bay capacity, the L2 can carry 1760 lbs of baggage bay split between the main baggage and the two sponson compartments. Volume (at normal baggage density) would usually cause the aircraft to bulk out first at about 1000 lbs. For 19 passengers with lots of bags, 800lbs is about the maximum bags/cargo load normally required for North Sea flights.

Helicomparator, The IAS/CAS correction graph in the L2 Flight Manual significantly under-reports the real difference. At 140kts, the graph reports a 3 knot error. In my experience, it is nearer 8 - 10 knots.

[Mars]

Nick:

Is it possible to answer these implied questions (or give the latest position) for onshore and offshore performance?

Is there such a thing as performance gurantees?

(HeliComparator) Having (probably rightly) been given grief for battling on so long, I am not going to be the one to raise the issues of Group A performance and definitely not the one to mention the OEI OGE hover performance of the 92. However I think you will find that neither aircraft have finalised Group A/ Cat A performance supplements yet and until they do, both are a little restrictive - for example from memory I think the current S92 clear airfield takeoff distance is fixed at 3800' (1150 metres). That will I'm sure change in the fullness of time following more flight testing.(Hugh Martin) No one has yet compared Group/Cat A performance. Do the aircraft need 800 metres of runway to take off which is more than some fixed wing aircraft need?

I hope that anyone who has ordered 225's or 92's have included a performance guarantee in their contract with the supplier.

[NickLappos]

HughMartin,

The 800 lb number fits with the comments we get from customers. We settled on the 1000lbs by using the quick loading potential of using the back bulkhead as the "back stop" for the baggage, thus allowing the baggage to be properly restrained without tieing it down. The actual baggage area can hold much more (I have said 2,000 lbs in the past, but I should confirm that number).

The latest item from Helicomparitor about Cat A distances is actually accurate! (Ouch.) but only temporarily. The OEI performance of the 92 is excellent (2700HP for OEI helps) , but when we certified, we quickly ripped off a Cat A procedure that didn't take a long time to develop, the real one is coming and is quite respectable.

Mars,

Performance is a technical aspect that can be Guaranteed, but typically is not because performance from the major manufacturers is usually not a problem - nobody lasts long if they publish unachievable performance, since promises don't deliver the goods, in the end. If performance miseries are suffered, it is seldom the airframe (rotors and transmissions) that is the questionable item, it is the constancy of engine power.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

Its interesting that the current TCDS from EASA still limits the baggage weight to 700 lbs. When will that change? I know you think I have got a downer on the 92 but that isn't true. I hope that you do get up to 1000lbs otherwise that will be a serious problem for N Sea operators.

Having looked at the list of "non-conformities" for the 225's certification, I hardly think they could be considered to be the extensive grandfathering that you originally suggested. Yes it is non-compliant with the latest standards in a few paras, but that's a few out of many hundreds and all they mainly seem to be due to the crash resistance / fuel systems that we talked about earlier. Things like the flaw tolerance and turbine burst protection seem to be covered. So could I say that provided you don't crash, they are about as safe as each other?

Of course as I suggested earlier, creating certification standards and their compliance-with does not necessarily maximise safety in a particular role. Thinking about the crashworthy fuel system, and I'm afraid being rather North-Sea-centred, I can't think of any accidents here in the last 25 years where having a crashworthy fuel system would have made any difference (someone tell me if I'm wrong!). However I can think of several where evacuating the aircraft in/under water was a key factor in occupant survival (or not in some cases). Whilst both aircraft meet the legal requirements, the 92 has very small escape windows (much smaller than the current N Sea fleet) whilst the 225's windows are more than half as big again. My contention is therefore that this single factor negates the advantages of meeting full crashworthiness regs for aircraft operating over water for oil support (unless all passengers are supermodel waifs! :rolleyes: ).

HughMartin

Regarding your point about L2 air data errors, this is off topic but I believe the reason why you perceive the error to be so high is that the Area Nav will double any error when calculating the return groundspeed. I don't want to clog the thread with this so PM me if you want further explanation

[HeliComparator]

Nick

Based on accident data on the N Sea, YES! Is there any point in addressing safety issues which have not contributed to fatal accidents whilst ignoring those issues which exacerbate fatal accidents? This is a North-Sea-centric view I know, but then surely the oil & gas industry is one of your prime target customers?

Do you really believe that window exit size is not very important? - if so that's very sad and shows that you are out of touch with your (oil & gas) customers opinions. That will cost you sales.

Don't take it to heart so Nick, no-one who is important enough to spend 18 million dollars on a product has time to read this forum!

[212man]

I seem to recall (have read the reports but not immediately to hand) that one or two (or in fact rather more) injuries/fatalities in the Brent Spar and Comorant accidents were directly attributable to old seat design standards.

I think window size is probably close to the hearts of those pax who have had to egress under water too (above two accidents, plus the Claymore S-61 for example). Maybe that's why the 76 and 332 L1 have enlarged rear window nowadays!

[HeliComparator]

212man

The prime cause of both those accidents was crew error, which no amount of certification standards would have fixed (perhaps a bit harsh), however you are probably right that better seats etc would have helped and that is why I am confident that we will not see the 225 on the North Sea without the crashworthy floor and seat option - oil companies simply could not justify not-having this mod. This does not appear on the TCDS as its an option, but I believe it gives crash protection/energy absorbtion substantially the same as the JAR 29 requirements if you go for it.

Nick

By the way, (since you're being nasty to me again) any answer on the 700lbs baggage limit on the current EASA TCDS? Considering you are delivering to European customers within the next few months, (assuming you can sort out the production line delays) aren't you leaving it a bit late to sort this out?

[NickLappos]

HC,

The answer to the 700 lbs is above. The old number was replaced by the new 1,000 lb capacity, which is on the new, as yet unposted TCDS.

You asked,"European customers within the next few months, (assuming you can sort out the production line delays) aren't you leaving it a bit late to sort this out?"

Perhaps we could borrow that loaner 332L2 from you once Bond is finished with it, as I understand you are so late with the job of again retreading that old warhorse that they have missed a contract. So tell me again about "Late?"

212Man,

If you know if anyone who buys an "optional"crashworthiness feature, please just make sure it is certified by EASA to meet the newest regs, without exceptions on the TCDS. Otherwise there is no independant measure of the actual safety capability of the "option." Oh, and make sure it has really big windows, since HC might be afraid to fly in it, otherwise. You remember him, he thinks if an accident is caused by "pilot error", the occupants need not be protected.

[HeliComparator]

Nick

The 1000lbs is not on any new EASA TCDS because I got a copy straight from the horse's mouth 2 days ago. Assuming you do manage to push the loading to the limits of the CofG and get EASA to agree, will it be like the S76 where crews have to be issued with a programmable calculator to work out the CofG for each trip so that they don't exceed limits, or like the L & L2 where you just load up and go flying safe in the knowledge that Cof G is well within limits. I guess you were caught out with empty CofG after having to add that barn door horizontal stabiliser to try to fix the pitch stability problems that have plagued development.

"Perhaps we could borrow that loaner 332L2 from you once Bond
is finished with it"

I guess that's your way of admitting that there are production line delays at SK. You are determinded that I work for EC even though I have told you that I don't and its pretty obvious I'm a N Sea pilot. Sometimes people will just not be told!

You said of me "he thinks if an accident is caused by "pilot error", the occupants need not be protected". Of course they need to be protected but all the protection in the world is no use if they drown alive. Never mind, you can fix the problem by an addition to the limitation section of the flight manual that says "carriage of fat passengers, or passengers wearing bulky survival clothing, is prohibited"

Ridiculing the concept of large windows will not win you any favours with your customers (the oil companies) so I just hope for your sake they are not reading.

At least you are maintaining your integrity by not trying to deny that the 92's windows are significantly smaller than those fitted to current N Sea heavies - well done!

[NickLappos]

HC,

Those S-92 windows have been approved by all authorities and Unions.

[HeliComparator]

NL

There is no question about the windows being approved - of course they are. However just meeting the minimum legal requirements is not always good enough for your customers. I can only assume that EC are not only pleased, but absolutely delighted with your windows because they will be able to make sales against you on just that issue.

I've no idea whether any 225s are late - you'd have to ask someone at EC although why bother as you seem to know already.

Nick, this all started with some pretty wild statements from you when 225 certification was announced. Some of the things you said were:

Yep, that's the competition. Read carefully, however! Only the IFR certificate meets the JAR, meaning the autopilot and displays. The rest of the aircraft was not qualified to meet the latest regs regarding its structure, but rather it meets the older DGAC requirements.
That being said, I do not know of any data to show that the EC 225 meets this turbine burst requirement.
I still have heard nothing from you on the certification basis of the 225, so I can surely assume it is grandfathered a great deal.

Do you still stand by all of this or do you think you were a little hasty and possibly misled your awestruck audience? Being the highly respected hero of rotorheads, do you think you have any responsibility to ensure that your posts are unbiased and accurate or does commercial interest always override?

[212man]

"You said of me "he thinks if an accident is caused by "pilot error", the occupants need not be protected". Of course they need to be protected but all the protection in the world is no use if they drown alive. "



I thought most people were alive before they drowned; tends to define the whole concept?

I know they were pilot error: most accidents are (though the Claymore 61 was a MGB failure).

I can't see where there is confusion on this, clearly the 225 has a lot of much older main componants than the s-92 has, and these have been certified to an earlier standard, full stop (or period as the Americans would say). The 155 is in a similar boat; lots of 365 stuff in it (even crashworthy fuel tanks are an optional extra, and that's under the floor!)

Quibling over how long it takes to activate the back up gearbox lubrication, for instance, is missing the point; no actions have to be instant (okay, tail rotor failure in the hover, before anyone jumps on that point!). A double generator failure in may require immediate actions over and above the auto shed items, but still within a reasonable time frame. Even a fire drill should take a sensible period to execute, unless you are into shutting down the wrong engine.

It's a shame that this has degenerated to such a level on what seems to be a pretty clear cut topic. The 225 is basically old with new bits added, the 92 is basically new.

I have to say, though, that I far prefer the French concept of PFD/ND displays compared to the 92 and 139. I think by evolving from the basic Airbus displays with the 332 L2 through the 155/135 and the improved versions into the 225 they have got it right. The NH-90 is a step further again and that's superb.

[g33]

Both types have their pros and cons. We could get into a similar argument over the S76C+ and the EC 155.

Lets wait until next summer and see how the clients like each type here on the N Sea UK/Norwegian Sectors. After all the pilots have little say in this matter, it is the clients' beancounters who have the casting vote!

g33

[212man]

Well said!

Not much point comparing the 155B1 with the C+ though; no contest! (tongue in cheek before offence taken by someone)

[HeliComparator]

g33 - Well said, though this forum would be a bit dull without some irrational debate going on!

212man you said
It's a shame that this has degenerated to such a level on what seems to be a pretty clear cut topic. The 225 is basically old with new bits added, the 92 is basically new.

I agree except that I would change new to newish - remember the engines are CT7s which go back to before I was born, the the gearbox is modified black hawk and the head could be called old fashioned, but yes the fuselage is all-new whereas the 225 fuselage is basically L2.

I don't think there can be to much disagreement on the above, what got me going was Nick's implication that the 225 met virtually none of the new standards whilst the 92 met all (although the dry run one was passed only by using smoke and mirrors!). In fact, as we have seen from the TCDS, there are very few areas where the 225 doesn't meet the latest regs - those are probably insoluable with the current fuselage configuration.

Set against that, I think all pilots will be aware that to be the first to operate a new type is always risky. No matter how careful the manufacturer's boffins and certification authority are, a tiny mistake or oversight could be disasterous. (S76 spindles, EH101 tail rotors etc) That's why I would prefer to be in the first company to be operating the 225 rather than the 92 - the very fact that it is partly old tech reduces the risk! Nick will have a field day with that comment but its my opinion!

There's also the fact that, as you pointed out, the 225 screens are miles ahead of the 92, as are the autopilot upper modes etc. I had a big grin on my face after I flew it which is only just wearing off, whereas following flying the 92 my modest grin only lasted a few hours!

Although there has been considerable conflict on this thread, at least it has given the subject a good airing and I'm sure both Nick & I are man enough to take it!

[g33]

I wonder who will have the last say, HC or NL?

This thread could go on for years. I like flying all aircraft, especially bad ones as they are more of a challenge! I wonder which of these two I would like the best?

g33

[JimL]

But hasn't this been the most interesting discussion that we have had on PPRUNE for some time - the technical content has been excellent and, in view of its interactive nature (and the quality of protagonists), beats ends-up any article in an aviation magazine.

I for one wish it to continue until all the important elements have been aired; we still have not seen comparative examples of payload range or completed the discussion on offshore performance - and how it will be achieved.

Wouldn't we like to be enlightened on the (expected) provision of Category A procedures and find out whether, at last, we will get the total flexibility that will provide a continuum from helipad to clear area with variable Vtoss, configurable heights and distances.

HeliComparator and Nick have between them explored why the EC225 does not (and cannot) meet all of the requirements of the latest revision of FAR 29; but I for one would like to know what drove the decision for the size of the pop-out windows. I would also like to know why, if as HC says, there is an option for the reinforced floor and stroking seats, they have not been included in the EC 225 EASA TCDS (even as partial compliance). Will some operators not specify this option? Would that be acceptable to a regulator?

Also of interest to me (and I am sure the pilots of the North Sea and Canadian Eastern Seaboard) would be some detail on the ditching provision and what 'sea state' was applied to the testing regime; and if the helicopter cannot stay upright for the time it takes for the passengers to evacuate, will the evacuation be able to be completed in one breath-hold from the time that the helicopter inverts. Was there any testing of the evacuation procedures associated with the pop-out windows and can a large oil worker get out when wearing an integrated survival suit with a re-breather.

Of interest to the Norwegian pilots will be the sound levels in the cockpit and the comfort level in the Cabin. Have the vibration levels been reduced to an acceptable level and, whilst on the subject of vibration, will the Vibration Health Monitoring meet the requirements of the extant regulations.

If HeliComparator is, as he says, a North Sea pilot, where does he find the time to take part in this high energy, high technical level discussion; why is he conducting this examination and not a member of Eurocopter team? Does Sikorsky know (and appreciate) that Nick is worth 20% on their sales - is he adequately remunerated?

[g33]

JimL

I stand corrected.

Seconds out round 2, ding ding

g33

P.S. Nick, a genuine question because I don't know the answer and not because I am trying to wind you up again!

Why is the S92's birdstrike compliance based on an Equivalent Level of Safety in the EASA TCDS?

[NickLappos]

ppruners,

In all due respect to the point of view of Heli-non-Comparitor, please take care with anything he says about certification in general, or the certification details of any helicopter, especially a Sikorsky one!

g33,

We equivilent safety certified one component. The birdstrike certification must be done with tests, almost nothing else will do. When that TCDS was issued, we discovered that we had tested everything exposed on the aircraft to a fairtheewell, but we "forgot" the main rotor pitch links, which are about 1.5" in diameter, and made of solid titanium. It didn't matter that the bird wouldn't stand a chance against that rod, we had to do some pull tests that the FAA approved, in conjunction with loads measured when bird strikes were made on objects of the same diameter and got the equivilent safety approval. To clean that equivilence up, we started up the bird cannon and shot a pitch link about 2 months ago. This was approved on the last issue of the TCDS, which should be posted shortly with that equivilent safety removed.
Other than that one test, the original approval was gained by shooting everything, tail drive shaft covers, tail rotor pitch mechanism, rotor fairings, engine lips, main blade tips and tail rotors. The extensive comparison of test data to analysis was a real research project, and we learned a lot! The bird hits with the force of a 4 Kg sledge hammer at 80 knots, so the upper fairing and drive shaft covers are built as if they were ballistically tolerant.

Regarding window size, we sized ours by taking a Sikorsky engineer who weighs 300 lbs (21 stone - 136 Kg!!) and dressing him in a standard immersion suit, then having him crawl through the openings we proposed. The windows on the S-92 pass this test, and are all push out type. The films of this fellow popping out of the window are a sight to behold! Some rather large Norwegian Union guys also duplicated the test (probably because Heli-non-Comparitor had talked to them) and they were tickled pink with the S-92 windows, which is one of the many reasons why they will be looking out of them on their own S-92's very shortly!

[SASless]

Ah...the truth at last...never mind the window size...the pitch stability...hand held calculators ( made necessary because the FAA requires a Weight and Balance computation for each takeoff)...and all that....The Truth of this argument is the Bean Counters shall determine which aircraft is the winner....not the pilots, engineers, mechanics...sales types or PR spin masters.

Both machines are probably a pleasure to drive...but for me...I prefer the idea of driving one of Nick's homebuilts to a wrong way turning French built thing. I know the reputation of the Sikorsky machines and how well built they are....afterall...names like 55,56,58,61,64,76,53, 60, and now 92....are industry standards.

There must be a reason the large EC machines have not caught on over here.

[HeliComparator]

SASless

The bean counters will always win the day but in this case, I don't think anyone can tell which aircraft will be cheaper to operate. SK have come up with some pretty cheap PBH deals but not sure for how long they are guaranteed not to go up (excuse negative logic!) A number of oil companies are looking fairly closely at the other aspects - safety and ability to do the role, such as carrying a big drill bit that has to be fork-lifted into the aircraft (not sure how you could do that with the 92 - you can't get up to the airstair door and anyway your big lump would end up right at the front and upset the C of G). Nick, are people going for some sort of non-airstair door option?

Once you see beyond SK's excellent marketing hype, I don't think there's a clear cut winner.

The EC machines will never take off in a big way (excuse pun) in the USA in the same way that EC machines predominate in France. Something to do with patriotism, language barriers, and in some cases not realising that Europe even exists!

Nick

Are you going to answer my points about your rather bold initial statements or are you too embarrassed?

Regarding window sizes, would you like to post the window aperture sizes or should I - that way Rotorheads can try it at home on a piece of paper and judge for themselves whether your 300lbs engineer was 8 ft tall and/or had his bones removed, or whether he was just a normal burger-eating guy

JimL

You ask a few questions that I cannot answer as I don't work for EC so can't give you the "why"s however to answer a couple of your points, both aircraft's ditching certification is to sea state 6 (does anyone know what that means?).

Regarding crashworthy floors etc it is an option that some customers will not take. EC have sold several to VIP customers in the Middle East and I would doubt that they have taken that option. Not taking the option saves a lot of weight which would be a good thing in those temperatures. As it is an option, I wouldn't have thought it could feature on the TCDS which is concerned with the basic aircraft, not the optional extras. However I can't imagine oil companies not requiring it.

Regarding noise levels, my only contribution to that is that there seems to be an issue on the L2 with cockpit noise. I find when flying the L versus L2 that the noise levels seem to be the same, however after a long flight on the L2 my ears can be ringing. Its something to do with the 3 fans / forced cooling system for the CRT screens ( which use something like 500w of power). On the 225, I am glad to say that the LCD screens of course use a tiny fraction of the power and only 1 fan is fitted, and I think it only runs if you put on the cockpit ventilation.

We haven't talked about vibration levels yet - an extremely difficult thing to analyse scientifically as the vibration modes set up in an airframe have peaks and nulls according to where you measure. So I'll give it the subjective treatment!

The 92 has 4 blades and a number of anti-vibration generators that work by measuring local vibration and creating anti-phase vibrations to cancel out by means of a motor rotating an eccentric weight. The motor's speed/phase and the eccentricity of the weight is controlled to ensure the correct amplitude and phase. With this sytem turned off, the aircraft is pretty rough at speed. With it turned on its fine, although when I flew it some passengers were complaining about cabin vibration levels. Since then I think SK have added more generators and improved the system, but I suspect there would still be substantial variations in the vibration levels throughout the fuselage.

The 225 has 5 blades and a couple of anti-vibration generators. The principle is the same however the method is slightly different in that rather than having rotating weights, the 225's system uses actuators to move a weight around. EC do this because it has faster response to changes and of course the 225 like its predecessors has a rotor rpm that varies according to collective position (goes up as you raise the lever). It also has the automatic Nr+10 which automatically increases rotor speed by 10 rpm as the airspeed falls through 25 kts. With the system on, the aircraft is very smooth in the cockpit throughout the speed range (don't know anything about the cabin vibration level) and when it was turned off, there was a just-detectable increase in vibration when I was sitting in the right hand seat, but an undetectable change when I was sitting in the jump seat. EC say that the necessity for the generators is really only at medium speeds, say 90-110 kts where it gets a bit whoppy without them.

A 5 blade system does seem to be intrinsically smoother for some reason that only Nick could explain (but I'm sure won't, even though its on the S61!) so seems to be a more elegant solution rather than trying to beat the natural vibration of a 4-bladed system into submission.

When I flew both aircraft we were well below max weight, so which one turns out to be smoother in service is hard to say and will depend on other things such as ease of tracking/balancing etc. However until the verdict is announced, my money is on the 225 being smoother.

[g33]

Nick,

The Southern North Sea will be re-equipping with medium sized helicopters when some new contracts are issued by our clients.

Do you recommend the operators automatically go for the AB 139 as it is certified to the latest standards or go for the S76C+ because it is a well proven successful design?

g33

[NickLappos]

g33,

Good question! I recommend that they know what they are buying. The TCDS for each will tell the story, and no Sikorsky person will offer to repaint the S-76 in 2004 paint and call it a brand new design.

As proof, please look to my old posts on this subject in previous threads, and you will see that I have pointed out that I believe AB-139 might be the next example of a true "new"design. This should make it very attractive.

I do not believe the EC 225 to be unsuitable at all, it is a good helicopter, as is the S-61. The record of these machines, and the S-76, make them excellent candidates for you or anyone else. Look to the total package, of course!

Just beware when a press release says "in compliance with the latest version of the JAR 29 standard from the new European Airworthiness Security Agency (EASA)." That statement started this thread, and I think it has been found to be an awful overstatement. I personally think it was promulgated to decieve, or at least hide the true state of the grandfathering. It tries to tell you and me that there is no grandfathering on the aircraft.

This does not make the EC 225 unfit, in my humble opinion, but it does make their press people (and their marketing guys too) out to be folks to watch carefully. Very carefully.

[g33]

Nick,

I guess it all boils down to the question, do you want an evolutionary design or a revolutionary design? Grandfathering is not all bad, look at the 737. It is grandfathered up to the hilt but still a very effective and safe design.


As we all agree it is the client who will chose, not the operators. I wonder if they will do their homework?

I think lumping the EC 225 in with the S61 is a bit disingenuous. The EC 225's cabin is based on an old design, but the engines, drive train, rotors, avionics & AP are to the latest standard. Even if some parts of the EC 225 are grandfathered from the AS 332L2, decades separate the S61 and L2.

What we need is EC to provide an official spokesman and then you and their representative could wrestle in cyberspace!

How do you find time to do your day job as you seem to be fighting on several fronts (threads) and thats only on pprune!

g33

[NickLappos]

g33,
I really do try to be clear and ingenuous (as opposed to disingenuous!) The 225 is clearly a "newer" aircraft in many ways than an S-61, and those items that were updated are inclusive of that.

I do find it uncomfortable to be espousing and wouldn't really enjoy duking it out with an EC salesman (assuming HC is not one!) because I fear bending pprune over into a commercial vein. The technical comments I make are that, and I try to separate them from the opinions that I also hold.

I hope this thread is instructive for everyone, it was for me.

In any case, I always speak here as an individual, never as the spokesman for any company, and my thoughts here are strictly my own. Those who know me in person might vouch that I do try to call it as I see it, I think. For the record, I do not know of a bad helicopter - like sex, the worst one I ever experienced was pretty darn good!

[JimL]

Apropos the discussion about the cost of operating a 'modern designed' helicopter, at least one Major Oil Company is at present attempting to design a mathematical model to cost the effect on safety of the certification state of the aircraft. This model examines accident/incident records and attempts to predict which ones might have been prevented if a helicopter had been certificate to each of the latest standards.

Such models are, by definition, difficult to apply as the Heinrich Pyramid indicates for every one major accident there are: three to five less significant accidents seven to 10 incidents; and several hundred unreported occurrences - and the Heinrich taxonomy does not take into account abnormal behaviour (precursors to incidents which might be picked up by HOMP).

Each accident is also a sum of its constituent parts - some of which have been in play even before the aircraft takes off. Breaking the cause-and-effect chain at any link will of course prevent an accident - except in the case of a catastrophic failure (which might be seen as as (a predictable) failure of the certification system; interestingly, Vibration Health Monitoring is perceived as the device to prevent such catastrophic failures - even by some of the major manufacturers.)

It is clear that the examination of incidents/accidents also has to take account the perceived benefit of: the regulatory regime (regulatory oversight, qualification of the pilots, compliance with ICAO SARPs, performance requirements, SOPs etc); application of Safety Management Systems; quality based maintenance systems; Helicopter Operational Monitoring Procedures (HOMP) the addition of Vibration (VHM) and Usage (UMS) monitoring systems; the number of engines; the number of pilots; additional operational equipment such as ACAS, EGPWS etc.and when all of this fails crashworthiness above the certification standard; and survival equipment- all of which have to be included in the model, to be applied individually or in combinations (or in particular operational circumstances) to mitigate perceived hazards.

What is the bottom line for this exercise? When the unacceptable cost of a fatal accident rises above the cost of the application of some or all of the mitigating factors - the investment is worthwhile. (Which has been pointed out by others might be conditioned by society in the operational theatre.)

However, it is clear that the operational requirement is the first test for the customer - for it is that which will produce the short list of qualifying aircraft. In the case of the Southern North Sea, the AB139 might just be slightly too large and the competition could be narrowed to the S76 and the EC155. If that is the case it would be a pity as the certification basis and the installed power of the AB139 would have put it into a different class (but perhaps the sums will work out).

[NickLappos]

Jiml,

Your post is exactly on, the recording and understanding the pyramid of events that fortell an accident are one important (perhaps the most important) means of improving safety. Stats show that about 65 to 75% of all accidents are crew error in one form or another, and this will virtually zero that.

Regarding AB-139, the particular characteristics of that machine are not necessarily due to the regulations. Its extemely high OEI peformance is a design trait seleced by Agusta to meet a market segment's needs. I do think the awsome power margins will play havoc with its payload-range capabilities, because the extra power means much more fuel flow while in twin engine flight. It is up to the customers to decide what to buy, of course.

One switch that has not helped them is that the newest interpretations of JAR Ops has accepted small exposure windows on takeoff and landing, as long as the statistic probability of an engine failure is very small. For the S-92 we tossed out the -6 engine from the design because we thought the older JAR Ops would be in effect, calling for absolutely rock solid engine failure performance from rigs and small heliports. With the much smaller -6 engines, we would not have a very good rig OEI gross weight. We spent millions on the promise that JAR Ops would require hard OEI from rigs.

As ppruners might remember, I have advocated for the new softer OEI interpretations of JAR Ops (in spite of having poised the S-92 to meet it!) because it is actually correct, and less onerous on the operator. Thus the AB-139 might be over-powered for rig missions. Over-powered only in the way that extra power takes away some commercial advantage by absorbing some payload/range.

[212man]

"I have advocated for the new softer OEI interpretations of JAR Ops (in spite of having poised the S-92 to meet it!) because it is actually correct, and less onerous on the operator"

It's a pity that we can go on holiday in a twin jet that can climb on one engine at a phenomenal rate (well over 1000 ft/min), but because it might be onerous on the operators, we try to modify the rotary regulations that started with such good intentions. The OEI requirements as they stand are not exactly startling; 100 ft a minute barely registers on the gauge and it doesn't take much turbulence and overcontrolling to turn it into a descent.

To now say that "actually it's okay to have periods of up to 9 seconds within which it's anyones guess what will happen if an engine fails" is a shame, to say the least.

Oil companies aren't bothered by fuel consumption in the same way an airline is. Do you think 1200 lbs an hour versus 950 is going to hurt them? If it eats the range, add bigger tanks (preferably on the outside so as the meet the latest certification standards!)

We're flying helicopters for commercial air transport that cost the same as business jets , or even small airliners if you look at S-92/225/101, and yet using performance standards that you'd associate with a light piston twin costing a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

[NickLappos]

212man,

Each aspect has a cost, for helos, it is the lost payload that gets us, not the fuel cost. At 200 miles, it might be 2 or 3 pax, making the cost per seat mile for the whole machine too much. This is all speculation, however, I have not seen any payload range info to compare the several machines (the AB-139 site is particularly sparse on technical data, unless I am looking in the wrong spot).

Regarding the 9 seconds, I have posted perhaps 10 times that there is no reason to build engine quantities or power up, at the tremendous expense to the machine, so that engine failure is better protected than the other possible failure modes. The JAR logic is impeccable - with the JAR exposure times, the engine failure risk is as low as all the other risks. This is wise, I think.

The cost to the machine, in weight, operating cost and lost payload to have OEI hover is tremendous.

I only wish that pilots were as vocal for EGPWS, which would cure the 45% or so of accidents that are CFIT, as they were for full hover to hover OEI capability, which accounts for 0.0% of their accidents (in twins). Or for the ability to make a full instrument approach to a rig in zero-zero. Or for the ability to separate traffic in IFR as though it were VFR. Or for ........(you pick it).We are the product of conditioning since we were pups, where emergencies ment engine failures, and we practice them until we are purple. This sets an unconscious conditioning that we must break if we are to truly lower our accident rates.

[JimL]

I have no wish to hijack this thread but as Nick and 212man have opened the can, it might be appropriate to provide (my view of) the JAA policy on offshore performance.

When the 1995 version of JAR-OPS 3 was written in the early 90s it was decided that it would have to be in compliance with ICAO Annex 6 Part III; this required (even for Operations in Performance Class 2) the provision of deck-edge clearance and (for operations in a hostile environment) flyaway; which in effect - for the North Sea - was a zero exposure regime; existing operations were grandfathered until 2010.

Around the time of the implementation date of 1995, the discussion on offshore performance was centred on how to show compliance with zero exposure. Informed wisdom at that time was that this could only be achieved with Category A helideck procedures (as one of the requirements was to show the 15’ deck edge clearance). However, such procedures that were in existence (very few at that time) could only provide limited approach/take-off directions with a minimum deck size of 2D (shortly after that Sikorsky provided a S76C+ procedure with a minimum deck size of 1.5D).

With this in mind, working groups extensively explored the problem and decide to concentrate on a solution based upon the concept of ‘exposure time’ - Exposure time. The actual period during which the performance of the helicopter with the critical power unit inoperative in still air does not guarantee a safe forced landing or the safe continuation of the flight. (See also definition of maximum permitted exposure time)

Maximum permitted exposure time. A period, determined on the basis of the power unit failure rate recorded for the helicopter's engine type, during which the probability of a power unit failure can be discountedNot wishing to bore you with safety targets and the compliance procedures, let’s just say that the ‘safety target’ was based around a limited window of exposure (measured in seconds) and a reliability rate based upon 1 failure per 100,000 flight hours.

This was put forward and accepted by all interested parties in 1998 (NPA - 8) but, because of the unease shown by at least one major Authority, the concept was limited until 2010 and a number of statistical procedures were introduced to improve confidence in the methodology. JAR-OPS 3 was amended in 1999 as Revision 1.

One of the major problems with our industry is that our tools are extremely expensive to develop and produce and the launch of new products is rare. We are fortunate to be in one of those rare periods at the moment when exciting products are just about to hit the market. However it must not be forgotten that in 2010, operators will still be using the 332L, the S61 and early marks of the S76.

212man has said that it is a shame that we cannot reproduce the performance of the ETOPS twins that are now the backbone of the transatlantic fleet. None of us would disagree with that but it must be understood that we have in our hands the most flexible aviation tool that has ever been produced and the provision of that flexibility comes at a cost. One of the costs of that (expensive provision of) flexibility is the longevity of equipment; whatever (operational) regulations are specified, they apply to the whole population of helicopters - older helicopters could be protected (grandfathered) but this cannot be to the detriment of newer craft which are by definition safer and more expensive but not necessarily more productive (see the previous discussion on the provision of the crashworthy floor for the EC225).

Another trade-off is the installed power to provide: adequate OEI power in the cruise; fuel consumption to ensure adequate payload/range; and power to eliminate/reduce the exposure to an engine failure on take-off or landing. You will already know that provision of these conflicting features (simplistically) is a trade off between the last two - fuel burn and take-off /landing performance (the AB139 argument put forward by Nick).

Discussions in the JAA over the last couple of years have been concerned with what to do in 2010 when the exposure time concept is due to end. Perceived wisdom now has it that there may be a method of providing zero exposure without reverting to Category A procedures. It would appear that, at least for the later versions of the AS332, B412, S76, EC225, S92 and of course the AB139, zero exposure is possible with the provision of risk assessed take-off and landing procedures giving deck-edge clearance and, for those helidecks that are situated in a hostile environment, a limitation on drop down to avoid ditching. It has been observed that such performance is possible even in ISA nil wind conditions.

Using the inherent environmental conditions that obtain in the North Sea which appear to indicate that:the mean wind is in excess of 20kts;

the mean deck height is just below 100ft;

the mean temperature is 10ºC;

the mean pressure is 1011; and

a mean density altitude of -536ft.it can be shown that zero exposure is possible for most of the time without any payload penalty. Because the defining parameter for take-off mass with helideck performance is drop down, for operational theatres with a non-hostile environment (GOM) this does not (have to) come into play and take-off masses can also be slightly higher than they would have been.

Nick’s choice of the - CT7-8X for the S92 was clearly appropriate as it is unlikely that the dash 6 would have been able to provide zero exposure in 2010 - it also has allowed a growth in the operational weight of the S92 to 26,150lbs - not sure that would have been possible with the dash 6. The CT7-8C will also provide additional power margins that might be needed by future contracts yet to be specified. A similar tale exists for the AB139 but for once the (designed in) installed power appears to provide a growth path that we have rarely seen for new helicopters.

As was indicated in a previous post, the provision of regulations is not the bottom line; some customers have a duty of care that extends well beyond compliance with regulations. It has become increasingly clear that ‘standards’ are within the bailiwick of the customer and not the operator; it is those customers who will specify whether the certification, performance, operational equipment and staff training standards are adequate and, with the exception of certification, will ensure that they are raised if they are not!

[212man]

Nick,
I take your point entirely about the relative merits of other systems and welcome the efforts by Honeywell and Sikorsky, along with Eurocopter and the HTT concept, to develop these technologies.

What annoys me about the exposure time concept is its migration to the onshore environment (not yet but manufactures are pushing for it). I am not so concerned about the offshore environment because I think the deck edge exposure is genuinely very small and we all stand a fighting chance of getting away with it.

However, when confronted by large, hard obstacles with no escape route, during a take off, and the regulator/manufacturer is saying "oh they're within the exposure period" I'm less happy. Ditching or soft ground is one thing, hitting trees or buildings is another thing entirely. The passengers will not be aware of this fact!

I do understand your point Nick, though the airline accident rate is also predominently CFIT induced. The test would be would we be happy sending our kids on holiday every year in an airliner that may or may not climb away after take off if an engine fails? If not, then why would we expect the kids father and his passengers to do it daily?

Thanks Jim for the informed detail on JAA thinking.

[NickLappos]

Thanks to both of you for beginning a whole new thread's subject, a very worthy one! I think I know who JimL is, now, having perhaps had a very nice dinner at EHOC one year with him. Am I right, JimL?

The technology of helos and airplanes is markedly different here, 212man, and it is worth having a solid discourse on it.

Maube a Moderator could slip this into a new thread, and we can begin the discussion there.

[212man]

Sorry to have started a new topic; just a pet hate!

I'm sure you are probably correct in your guess Nick, the name and knowledge tend to lead to one person!

[simfly]

hmm, more interesting discussions back there...... As mentioned before, CHC about to get pilots trained on the S-92..... Bristow preparing to train pilots on the EC225..... Shell north sea contract being tendered for right now..... :sad:

[HeliComparator]

I seem to have been absent from this forum for a couple of days- I had to check into the local hospital to see what was wrong when I found myself in agreement with one of Nick's posts..........

I have always thought that far too much emphasis was placed on engine failure scenarios, both from aircraft design and crew training points of view. As Nick quite rightly says, most accidents are not caused by engine failures but by some other unanticipatable chain of disconnected circumstances that happen to come together at the wrong time (phew - long sentence!).

Unfortunately for Nick and myself, there is an argument (that I can almost go along with but not quite) that, whilst it is accepted that engine failures do not cause significant numbers of accidents, that is at least one source of accident that can be dealt with pretty robustly by technology / expenditure. Other mutifarious sources of accident are much harder or impossible to fix - so lets concentrate on the ones we can fix!

This opinion seems to be held by those who charter our aircraft, so regardless of what Nick or I think, it must be given credence. Here the S92 appears to score well as its installed single engine power to weight ratio is second only to the AB139. Assuming that modern aircraft's rotor systems are pretty much as efficient as each others, you would think this is a good measure of single engine performance.

But of course things are never quite as simple as that! If we are looking at stay-up-ability in the cruise on one engine, there is little to choose between the 92 and the 225 and, without rigorous analysis my inclination would be that the 92 wins here (ie higher % gross weight at high density altitude at Vy than the 225).

However performance in the OEI OGE hover is a different matter. Surprisingly the 92 is quite bad at this and at around 30 deg C nil wind the 225 has about 1000 lbs better payload than the 92 (which is getting close to zero payload in SAR configuration). For a while I couldn't work out be this could be - surely the 92's rotor system wasn't desparately inefficient, disc loadings are similar etc. Then it dawned on me that in the hover, its the plan view that determines drag to the rotor downwash. Whilst the 225 has the usual Super Puma mediocre sort of drag, the 92, with its flat topped fueslage (is it a discarded design by Shorts Belfast?) and huge sponson area must surely present massive drag to the downwash.

This is very significant to any civil SAR operators. Its rather embarrasing to fall into the sea during SAR training, and even though that engine failure is a pretty remote probability, civil SAR operators that I know limit training to safe single engine hover weights. On the 92 with its current engines that T4.5 limit somewhere just above absolute zero, you just couldn't safely SAR train in other than cold weather - not much use if you live in the Middle East, or even England's south coast on a nice day.

More relevant to the N Sea, this must have some knock-on effect on performance with the approach of the end to performance class 2 with exposure time offshore. During the critical part of an offshore takeoff at low speed before reaching Vtoss, there must be a substantial downwash component to the relative airflow and the 92 is likely to suffer from high drag to airflow from this direction. Just how significant this could be I'm not sure - have SK or EC done any flight testing or even modelling to see how they shape up to the new proposals?

We seem to have got off my favourite subject of windows somehow, but in case anyone was interested, the S92's windows are about 14.5" by 19" whilst the smallest of the 225's are 17.5" by 28". Not interested -well try measuring you shoulder width (hips for the ladies) and see if its more or less than 14.5" - if more then don't forget to twist round on your side before trying to get out of a 92 underwater!

[NickLappos]

HC does it again. For those who would like true data, and not an EC salesman's idea of how to measure 1,000 lbs, email me and I will provide same.

[diethelm]

"few hundred Kilos"

That is like five extra girls..........will they fit?

[HeliComparator]

Oh dear Nick you do seem obsessionally determined that all aspects of the 92 will be better than the 225 at any cost. If you could just give a little ground and say that some tiny bit of the 225 might be ever so slightly better than the 92 then your credibility would be so much higher! Out of interest, have you ever flown a 225, or even a 332L2? Or even touched one? If not, you should get out more and not spend so much time on this forum. Your products would be the better for it!

Why do you have to pass OEI OGE performance data via PMs - are you too embarrassed to post it publicly?

Your statement "As far as absent, nobody missed you" is I'm sure based on as much careful research and unbiased opinion as most of the rest of your posts on this thread. Between you and me I have received a certain amount of fan mail during this discourse. (thankyou John Nipple et al)

Oh and by the way, didn't you know that all French Eurocopter people are on holiday throughout the month of August and not interested in internet chat forums?

'course I could be Lu!!!!!

(maybe not)

[SawThe Light]

O.K. Enough already!

Who cares whether the airspeed indicator or the seat cushion or the wheels or the lead/lag damper has been certificated under some grandfather clause. The regulatory authorities are not simple!

If either manufacturer (EC or SK) was really concerned with the "grandfather" aspect of certification, and its affect/effect on airworthiness, shouldn't we expect/insist that such manufacturer would withdraw any "grandfather" basis certifications from its existing aircraft, thus rendering them non-airwothy? Could it be that all these protestations are really nothing more than "my sh$t is better than your sh$t"

It would seem that perhaps someone in SK (If we are to believe a current post) does not condone the principles of "grandfathering" when it comes to certification. Don't try to tell me that the 92 is a completely new design and doesn't embody anything from previously certificated helicopters.

If that isn't true, then O.K, who paid who to get this sleight of hand past the regulatory authorities, or is it a generally accepted method of certification.

Methinks that Nick doth protest too much. If there is a real safety issue with the "old rules", why not do something positive other than bleat about it when some other manufacturer improves on an older design. For Chri$ts sake, the S92 isn't a new "design", it's simply a variation of existing technology. (Ditto the EC 225)

Life's for living, get on with it!


STL

[NickLappos]

SawtheLight,

I can tell that you don't see the light. It is not that older aircraft are grandfathered, it is that progress must be made.

If you and others fail to see the improvements, they will no longer be made. If you fail to see the improvements, it is our fault for not having shown you the difference and the value. And it is the fault of those who say, irrationally, that there is no improvement in the new designs.

[JimL]

STL, you raise an interesting point and one that is not generally understood by the casual observer; it is not a question whether the regulatory authorities are simple or not (your judgement) but that regulations for certification and operations are differently applied.

Firstly certification (I have to say, not my forte):

If one were to examine FAR 27/29 one would be forgiven for assuming that any new helicopter (not new type) would be built to the standard that is seen. You will have observed from this thread that such an assumption would be false; the only way to establish the certification standard of the aircraft is to examine the TCDS (and as we have discovered, this might not tell the whole story as an individual aircraft might include a crashworthy floor, stroking seats and any number of STCs) - this information will be given in the C of A and the Flight Manual. Thus (simplistically) any change to the certification codes will only come into effect when a new type is certificated. (when the present round of new development has been completed, when will the next medium helicopter be produced - 2020?)

If one wanted to establish the certification status of any aircraft type for reasons of comparison, it would require a reconstruction of the certification code that existed at the time that the aircraft was awarded its type certificate - including any methods of compliance given in the AC. Why would anyone want to conduct such an academic exercise? Well I have already given you the answer to that in a previous post; at least one major oil company is producing a mathematical model to establish the safety benefits (and costs) of moving from old to newer technology on a number of their contracts. As the oil companies have various worthwhile causes competing for their budget, a shift to newer technology will have to be justified on a standard accounting basis. The certification status will be one of many elements that will have to be considered - for the GOM, the number of engines and pilots will also be part of that calculation.

I think that it has already been established without doubt that FAR 29 - from the revision status that obtained when the S92 was given its type certificate - will result in much safer aircraft. That is why Eurocopter has gone out of its way, and beyond that which is required for upgrading an existing type, to meet newer certification requirements. The discussion that we have seen on this thread has been a journey of exploration into some of these voluntary upgrades that have been applied - and very illuminating it has been. So you can see, no sleight of hand is required that’s the way the system works - could it be any other way?

I think it is quite clear that the S92 is a new civil type - using tried and tested components found to have been cost effective in previous designs. The EC255 is not a new civil type but EC has found it appropriate to apply the newest standards where it is technically feasible and economically justifiable.

Now for operations (of which I have a little knowledge):

When examining Annex 6 Part III, FAR 91, 135, JAR-OPS 3 etc. it is entirely clear what operational rules apply (well perhaps not that clear - for which I have to take some of the blame). Unless a rule is specifically directed at the date of the Individual C of A it will apply to all (aircraft, operator, pilots) who have to comply with the regulations.

Let’s take an example (and one which is coming gradually into play in this thread) FAR 29.1 establishes that the S92 has to be certificated in Category A; what does that mean? Well leaving aside any airworthiness elements (which are extremely important in themselves) Nick has indicated that it required a quick and simple Category A procedure to be incorporated into the Flight Manual. However, the fact that the aircraft has been certificated in Category A is only the entry price as far as ICAO and European regulations are concerned it is the operational code that establishes how the aircraft is to be operated.

All of those of you who operate offshore will know that Operations in Performance Class 1 to a helideck is not always possible (due to the size, the obstacles, the environment etc) - even though it might be hugely desirable. No Category A procedure can cope with all of the elements extant in offshore take-off and landing. The present European code permits (until 2010) operations in Performance Class 2 - with exposure. As Nick has pointed out in his last post ‘progress has to be made’; it is clear, even though operation in Performance Class 1 is not always possible, operations with zero exposure are possible using risk assessed procedures and data produced by the manufacturers from models validated with limited flight data - at very little extra cost in the provision of data and little or no cost in reduction of payload.

HC in one of his latest posts, quite clearly indicated that the data required to fly zero exposure procedures is closely related to the OEI OGE hover performance; other features such as the NR beep or the (automatic) NR+10 of the EC225 provide stored energy. The combination of these elements (and the use of appropriate take-off and landing procedures) by utilising vertical acceleration and stored energy will give zero exposure by ensuring deck-edge clearance and minimising drop down. The operational code (unless otherwise stated) can make that a requirement for all aircraft at any stage; all that is required is that stake holders agree to the required changes.

Even if such changes to the operational code are not made (which is unlikely), customers are likely to require such performance as part of their duty of care to their passengers and responsibility to their share-holders.

I disagree with STL's "O.K. Enough already" - let the debate continue.

[boomerangben]

I'm afraid that I haven't read all of this dick swinging contest, but it strikes me that if SK believe that EC have an unfair advantage in getting certification, then it is lawyers that should be doing the arguing. I guess that at the end of the day money and sales pitch will decide between the two.

What is important is which of the two aircraft is most stable in the hover half way up a mountian at night at the cloud base whilst winching someone off. Or can travel 100s of miles in to the ocean, do an IF decent to autohover in vitually no wind and not blow a life raft over. The rumours I hear is that a SK61 with Carson blades/TR etc would still be the preferable SAR aircraft.

[Mars]

I agree with you boomerangben - you haven't been reading this thread.

[SawThe Light]

Progress ? Debate ? Forgive me but it seems more like some sort of pi$$ing contest.

The bottom line is that the decisions will be made by bean-counters based on which manufacturer's marketing team provides the best fairy-tales regarding capabilities and DOC's.

However, I'm ever mindful that spirited debate in a forum such as this could somehow change the world so keep at it.

Can't wait till we get to the bit where "our paint scheme is better than theirs".


STL

[g33]

The whole point about a debate like this is that it does help shine a light into the claims that all helicopter manufacturers make about their products and help debunk their sales pitch.

Nick Lappos, although speaking ina private capacity, does help to make policy at Sikorsky and so his comments will reflect those of Sikorsky, even if only by chance. I attended a Shepherd Conference some years ago where Nick was speaking officially for Sikorsky, he is an impressive and knowledgeable salesman. He has pointed out that the cabin of the basic EC 225 is subject to grandfather rights, although the proposed optional crashworthy seats and floor will reduce this grandfathering. If think that some of his other points on the EC have been disproved.

HC has pointed out some flaws with the S92 such as performance issues and that the engines are grandfathered, but Nick seemed to think that is OK as it makes them reliable! Also the rotorhead looks quite Blackhawk like to me, but I may be wrong.

Both helicopters have their good and bad points.

If we overlook some of the bad tempered comments, this has been an illuminating debate and not merely a pissing contest. I feel we are now better placed to point out the faults in both machines to our clients.

JimL and 212 Man have made some good points on offshore performance, perhaps we should continue the debate along those lines if Sikorsky and EC are prepared to put performance data into the public domain.

[Mars]

At one stage Nick requested that the thread be split so that we could continue the discussion of offshore performance; as this has not been done, perhaps we can continue the discussion here by coaxing Nick, HeliComparator, 212man, JimL, G33 and any other interested pruner back into the debate. We might also encourage Eurobolkow into the fray as he appears to have an inside track with AgustaWestland.

It is not necessary for performance data to be put into the public domain - it is, in any case, unlikely to have been produced at this juncture. What might be a good first step is if Nick et al indicated the policy on what performance data/information will be available.

Are we for example to hear a view on the …provision of Category A procedures and find out whether, at last, we will get the total flexibility that will provide a continuum from helipad to clear area with variable Vtoss, configurable heights and distances.Will the manufacturers (Sikorsky, Eurocopter and Agusta) indicate how their products will be positioned to provide the zero exposure that appears to be a likely requirement by 2010 - and, in Norway and for a number of Oil Companies, required at the introduction of these new generation aircraft.

It is not clear to me that the debate is limited to the S92 and the EC225; as G33 has indicated, new contracts that will soon be awarded will take into consideration the relative merits of the S76C+, EC155 and the BA139. Even existing and benign operating environments are not immune from these discussions - as oil exploration moves into Deep Water (where most of the larger oil reserves appear to be), we will see the introduction of a number of these newer aircraft operating at the limit of their endurance (for example, the GOM, West Africa etc.). Will it be acceptable to expose these passengers to older technology and performance when survival and recovery might be substantially longer than for existing operations that are conducted close to the shore.

We have also heard a new buzz word PC2e - what exactly does that mean in the context of this discussion?

[NickLappos]

g33,

No aspect of the S-92 was in any way "grandfathered", including the engine, which was certified to the most current engine standards, as is the airframe. That assertion from HC escaped me if it did indeed appear the first time around. Much of what HC says escapes me, I admit.

Grandfathering is quite OK, but grandfathering and claiming otherwise is not. That is what started this thread.

Mars,

Let's start a new thread, and blow this pop stand.

I will post it now.

[Hippolite]

I have read the thread as it has developed.

I have flown the EC225 and the S-92. I like both for different reasons.

The MARKET and CUSTOMERS will decide which will become the dominant type in deepwater oil support. Right now, the market seems to be saying S-92.

S-92 sales so far:

PHI = 6
CHC =12
Cougar=1
Norsk (aka Bristow)=3
+ 2 corporate

EC225 sales so far

CHC =2
Bristow=2

(both CHC and Bristow sales were driven by the trade in of some AS332Ls which are going to EC for re furbish and the to the German Border Guard so essentially they were not real sales)

Reasons

S-92 = $16.5million purchase and around $1100 per hour PBH

EC225 = $ 20million and around $1900 per hour PBH

S-92 stand up cabin, baggage ramp with shelf (700lbs ramp 300lbs shelf)

EC225 no stand up cabin, small and difficult to access baggage bay.

Operators are selling to their customers. S-92 has better customer appeal. EC225 isn't bad just beyond its sell by date in terms of overall design. Some neat features but mated to an old Puma in reality.

The MARKET says that the world has moved on.

HH:cool:

[HeliComparator]

Hippolite

You are clearly correct in that the market is favouring the 92 - my only concern is that this choice is based mainly on SK's excellent marketing hype and the lack of any EC marketing hype, but not necessarily because the 92 is the best aircraft. By the way the price differential you quote seems high but of course is heavily influenced by exchange rates of the day. I make it more like $18.5 million for a 225 - but still more expensive than the 92 I agree. PBH rates are negotiable, though it would be difficult to get down to SK rates. Do you know for how long those rates are guaranteed not to go up?

Am I right in thinking you work for PHI? In which case any info on what the 92 is like to operate would be very interesting. ( Has it gone into service yet?)

HC

[rjsquirrel]

Hippolite,

Your list of sales is interesting! Has anyone actually bought a 225?

I heard that Turkministan bought two S-92's for transporting their VIP's. Word has it the French went ape, because the
Turkminis got out of two nearly new Super Pumas to buy the S-92's, and they really bad-mouthed the Pumas as "junk" that couldn't meet the French promises.

[widgeon]

On the PBH rates , does any one have it broken down by major components ? , is the majority of the difference in the Engines or the other components . What is the difference in the total DOC ( I realize that both are only estimates so far ).

( just looked on SIkorsky web site , all components except for MGB on condition (MGB 6,000 hrs TBO) Does that include the engines ?)

[Hippolite]

HeliComparator

Wrong assumption on who I work for so can't give you any in service reports I'm afraid. BOTH manufacturers have lots of marketing hype, they are both the same in that respect.

You are not quite accurate with your EC225 price because you haven't matched it feature for feature with the S-92.

Crashworthy Passenger Seats are standard on the S-92 but optional on the EC225 and require the military spec reinforced floor. Both are additional significant cost items.

If you want AC in your EC225 it is a $465,000 option but only $240,000 on the S-92.

All up, the EC 225 is $20m but I agree that the wealk$ has much to do with it and if the currency was the same, both aircraft would be close on purchase price. The PBH is another story though and EC's is considerably more than Sikorsky's even after factoring the Euro vs $ exchange.

EC are selling more 332L2s than they are EC225s which must show that the gains of the 225 over the 332L2 are not significant enough to justify the price difference.

Widgeon

PBH agreements vary widely in their composition. Most work in a similar way. Sikorsky call theirs a TAP which is a nose to tail and includes engines from GE (the cost of which Sikorsky add to their numbers to get the total TAP) It is around $1100.

Eurocopter have their PBH, then add Turbomeca's and then add something for the avionics which is set by the manufacturer.

rj squirrel

The only sales I know of were the CHC and Bristow ones which were generated by the trades I mentioned earlier. Each operator traded 5 332Ls for 2 EC225s almost even I understand.

HH



:cool: :cool:

[widgeon]

Thanks , I am sure a single contract would be preferable to 3 individual contracts , I thought Eurochopper were trying to go that way too at least in the US . Would be interesting to know how long the Sikorsky PBH rate is guaranteed for . Is it true for the big jets that the engines are not in most cases owned by the operators but leased from the manufacturers ? , would the same set up work for Helicopters ?.

[HeliComparator]

Hippolite - sorry for confusing you with someone else! I did take account of the crashworthy seat option, but not aircon, when I worked out the prices. Perhaps it depends on which salesman you talk to!

I believe that EC have sold 5 other 225's - 2 VIP format to some unknown buyer in the Middle East and 3 to Oman. Neither for oil support of course but at least they are sales.

Then of course there is the large order for the French military. I am told there is currently a 20 month lead time for delivery so they will not be going bust just yet!

I don't think there is a big price difference between the L2 and 225 if you exclude the crashworthy seat/floor - about US$2 million, which buys you a 1000kg increase in payload.

HC

[NorthSeaTiger]

When is the first EC225 due to arrive in ABZ ? I hear it is currently U/S in Norwich ?

[Banksman]

Its now in Aberdeen this afternoon wed 27 jul:ok:

[roundwego]

Stories are coming out that Bristows brand spanking new EC225 had a serious incident during the delivery flight as it pit stopped at Norwich. Rumour has it that at least two of the crew had to have lacerations treated.

Anyone got something more substantial or is this just the opposition trying to rubbish the aircraft?

[simfly]

I heard there was an incident of severe ground resonance, which would also explain what I saw it doing today. It arrived in Aberdeen on Wednesday so can't have been too serious an incident in Norwich....

[212man]

Unlikely to be the 'opposition' operator wise, as they will all be taking this aircraft at some point I think (CHC, BOH).

Surprised and sadened to hear this and look forward to hearing some explanatory info.

Fantastic piece of kit :ok:

[roundwego]

So it is probably true that a senior Bristow engineer who was walking around in the back while it was still taxing was injured by flying champagne bottles bought in France and had to get multiple stitches in his head. We will look forward to seeing the MOR summary :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Impress to inflate]

Heard a similar storey mid last week about "MEGA" ground resonance from a Bristows pilot. They dropped the AP then shut the a/c down in record time. Oooops :E

[EESDL]

Great looking aircraft.
Had a fairly close look over it last week whilst down at Bristows being 'beasted' by their Training School in prep for IRT next week.
Impressive bit of mmf plugged in between the tail boom and cabin!
From what I can recall, no one seemed too fussed about the incident - taxiing sops might need to be amended.
V Impressive cockpit - a quantum improvement for the 'office'. No matter how hard I looked - could not find the pie heater though!
Thanks guys, see you Tuesday.

[Wizzard]

EESDL,

Third screen from the left, thers's a little catch on the side: in there you'll find the microwave.

No more cold bacon butties:O

Wiz

[NickLappos]

Surely not ground resonance, possibly an autopilot mode that makes it shake on the ground (sensor issue? loose wire?)
Were it ground resonance, the cure takes much engineering time, were it a maintenance issue to the AP (cleanly stopped when the AP is turned off), the cure is sure and the aircraft moves on.

Rumors feed on the absence of facts, and assume the worst.

[EESDL]

Nick
Only the uninformed said that it may have been Ground Resonance........It is a rumour network!
The Bristow boys and girls contribute to this forum so I thought they would like the opportunity to quell this particular rumour.
The French Army have been using the aircraft without such a problem for quite a while now..............

[HughMartin]

But did JC's champagne survive??

[simfly]

The problem is something to do with the collective trim when in/near the fully down position, I'm sure someone will be able to explain in more detail. A/C starts to basically bounce up and down, and obviously the first time it happened it caused a few hearts to beat a bit faster..... Saw pilots giving it a shot the other day and thought the thing was gonna hit it's tail off the ground! I'm told by one of the pilots that the situation can be avoided if known about, and Eurocopter are looking at a fix.

[cyclic]

I think the collective trim feel trigger has to be kept pressed whilst on the ground to avoid an oscillation starting until a fix is found.

[MaxNg]

Is there any truth about the crew recieving head injuries, whispers are that one recieved 12 stitches, if this is true it raises some very interesting safety issues, When you look around the cockpit of the Puma you suddenly realise what is supposed to protect you would most likely injure you.

Like others have said,I hope that this is fixable and I look forwards to flying it soon.

However if they have just adapted a military cocpit for civil ops with no thought for crew protection during turbulance, resonance,disturbance from controlled flight then sometime down the line someone's going to get hurt, and it might not just be the crew at the front!!!

Whilst wearing a helmet would be a simple fix for such cockpit de- lethalisation, I and many others would'nt relish the thought of wearing one for the amount of hours that we currently fly. There maybe some other answer that would afford the same protection.

ATB

MaxNg

[Geoffersincornwall]

Had a fly of the 225 a couple of weeks back and at 6'4" I found no problems. Very impressive machine with lots of input from the pilot fraternity on layout and AP functionality just to get things right. Can't wait to find out how things work out in practice.

[jbrereton]

Had a similiar thing happen to me on the Lynx when it first appeared. Turned out to be a CAC problem. Scary the first time it happened everything was a complete blur.

[Hilife]

Some twenty or so years ago we had a CH47 that used to buck like a bronco all over the sky when the AFCS was selected on. Names were pulled out of a hat – from the juniors that is – for flight test crews and the appropriate dress was faded jeans, a chequered shirt and a Stetson. Boy did she used to go for it; a man has to pay good money to get a ride like that these days.

There were only two natural reactions to this problem whilst on board for the first time, you either laughed in fear or you shat yourself - and I don't recall seeing anybody laughing.

It took a while to resolve, but it my memory serves me correctly it turned out to be a loose earth strap on the AFCS stowage rack.

[SASless]

Hilife....was that tail number 034 at Phu Loi?

She would jump slap off the ground and then imitate a bucking horse until you pulled it off the ground and turned the SAS off. Throwing the red cover down on the SAS switch was just like opening the gate at the Rodeo. If you engaged it at a hover....she just bumped a touch and settled right down.

Early Chinooks had a real nasty Thrust Lever Bounce (Collective Bounce).....that was caused by weak magnetic brakes. A properly placed knee against the lever cured it.

[Hilife]

I’m afraid not SASless, she was one of Her Majesty’s finest assigned to the 240th Vertical Pursuit Ship School at RAF Odiham in England.

I think I knew a Phu Loi once but I do not recall seeing 034 tattooed on her arse, but then again it was dark and very late.

[212man]

Had a look at a 225 FLM today. Loved the after take off checks; very short, but not forgetting ' Pilot arm rests............As Required'

:ok:

[Ned-Air2Air]

Pardon the ignorance but is there a whole lot of difference between the L2 and the 225, if so what are they.

Thanks

Ned

[Hippolite]

Ned

The EC225 has the Makila 2A1 engine rather than the 1A2 of the L2. The 225 has FADEC with dual channel and as a backup it will mirror the good engine if both channels fail which of course will never happen according to EC.

The 225 has a 5 bladed main rotor for increased speed and reduced vibration...which is true, it is fast and smooth. The L2 only has 4 blades.

The EC has the Avionic Nouvelle cockpit while the L2 has a mix of glass flight instruments and analog engine instruments. The 225 cockpit is the best available in terms of integration and presentation. Its the best available on the market today, similar to the EC155 cockpit.

The airframe is the same as the L2 although I think the 225 has slightly more fuel capacity and sponson tanks as standard fit.

HH:cool:

[Wizzard]

"The L2 only has 4 blades"

That's all we need, thank you.

;)

[212man]

"The L2 only has 4 blades"


Yeah, like it has for the last 14 years. But hey, what's a blade between friends?

[Hippolite]

Thanks for the "corrections" Wizzard and 212 Man

I am truly humbled.

Anything substantive to add to Ned's request?

No...well shut up then.

HH

:cool:

[212man]

Hippolite,
that wasn't a dig at you (in fact it wasn't a dig at all, it was simply an off the cuff response to wizzard's comment)

I agree about the cockpit, though a significant improvement on the 155.

[Wizzard]

HH

Just one further thing to add: It don't half bounce when you forget to press the collective trigger!

ps Cheer up.

Wiz;)

[rjsquirrel]

A while back, someone posted a thread on a severe ground bounce or resonance or something on the new Bristow EC-225? Any report on injuries? Was that ever fixed?

[BHPS]

No damage to the aircraft although a slight injury to the person sitting in the jump seat. I suspect that there was also some washing done that night!

The aircraft is now flying regularly from Aberdeen.

[NorthSeaTiger]

I see they now have 2 EC225's at ABZ are they flying commercially or just training at the moment, every time I see it go past I think it's 365 with the noise it makes !!.

[NorthSeaTiger]

Hi,
Just wandering does the EC225 have a barbecue plate ?

[HeliComparator]

Yes, though I think its made of steel rather than the titanium of the L & L2

HC

[NorthSeaTiger]

Is the cabin door jettison system still as bad as ever ?

[HeliComparator]

Jealousy is so unbecoming........

[Jetboxer]

Does it leak when flying in rain / IMC, like the rest of the puma variants!

Hopefully, by now, Eurocopter have spoken to Citroen and got some tips on how to seal their windscreens, and keep the vehicle's occupants dry!

[Galapagos]

Have you ever flown a machine that doesn't leank... I haven't! From new to old, piston to heavy... all the same.

:{

[Brilliant Stuff]

For those who don't fly the only real Helicopter:D , what is a BBQ plate?

[nimbostratus]

It is (or so I'm told), the 'corrugated' titanium plate which attaches the base of the MRGB to the transmission deck. You'll find it somewhere between the race cart and the dog kennel; I hope that helps.

[Sailor Vee]

Not corrugated but perforated titanium plate, ever trying barbecueing on corrugated iron??:8 :confused:

Plus, NO, I've never flown a heli that didn't leak, if they don't leak coming from the factory, the vibration soon changes that!!:E

[NorthSeaTiger]

It's a large one piece titanium plate with "fingers" machined out of it. attatched to airframe and mgb, takes torsional loads and damps vibration.

[Brilliant Stuff]

Cheers for that.

[Mikila1A]

ok, finally got the plate pic up for you,

the gearbox sits on the plate, the plate in turn takes up the torisonial loads of the rotor system, the proper name is actually...Flexible mounting plate.


http://www.caaviation.com/forums/uploads/1125064606/gallery_15_30_179174.jpg

BTW, this is the plate off a 332L model, not a 225. 225.....yummy!!!!!:O :O

[Brilliant Stuff]

Thank you for the picture.

What do you use the bullets for?:confused:
Left on the AOG box.

[Woolf]

.... you gotta get that steak somehow! :p


Batteries???

[NorthSeaTiger]

They are not "Bullets" but spacers for the bolts which go between the airframe and BBQ plate.

[Brilliant Stuff]

they look like "Bullets" from here. Would have been a good rumour to spread.:p

Cheers for all the explanations.

Now I will go back to my medium Helicopter.

[Ikoyian]

NorthSea Tiger.... I liked bullets better, why did you spoil it. We could have had an interesting thread.....yawn:(

[Mikila1A]

We live in Newfoundland bye', they are bullets.

Usually do not have to go far to get one either, here is my puss about to carve this guy up for my lunch!

http://www.funmansion.com/images/moose_and_fluffy.jpg

[offtrack]

Just wondering how the noice level in the cockpit is, compared to the L2.

[Eurochopper]

'Twas a windy night in Aberdeen last night. 70kts at 2000', 60 degrees off final approach track. On the surface, gusting 10 - 50 kts 40 degrees off the runway. This direction causes severe turbulence below 1000' as the wind is coming over a 1000' hill only a mile or so upwind.

Various 737s etc were going around due to the wind and turbulence. The ones that landed sounded like they had nearly crashed.

A fine night for EC225 pilot training!

So I was pretty impressed to see that, despite being generally thrown around the cockpit and one the pilots having to go down the back as he felt sick, the localiser and glidepath remained absolutely in the middle at all times. This was either because Mr Eurocopter has painted purple lines on the screen where Loc and Glide should be, or because he has done a pretty fine job with the autopilot software. Hopefully its the latter!

You want to slow down from 130 to 80 at 500' - no problem, just turn the knob and it slows down with loc and glide still stationary in the middle. I have over 10,000hrs but if I had had to fly it manually, I very much doubt I would have been able to keep within limits - or even within full scale.

Yup, I am one impressed pilot!

EC

[Woolf]

Welcome to the 21st Century! :D

[Wizzard]

All you need now is 21st Century pay scales ;)


Wiz

[BHPS]

True, but that will only happen when we have a 21st century management culture who know how to talk to BALPA!

However, nice to hear that the EC225 does the biz especially in grotty weather.

[212man]

130-80; how about 165-30, and back without the needles budging? That's what we were showing pilots on the 155 4 years ago. Ask the Group Flight Safety manager about his flight into Lagos one evening, in a 155 a few years ago, for an 'ILS and autopilots' story!

Glad to hear it's doing well though

:ok:

[Eurochopper]

212 - The morning paper ran stories of trees falling down at the time we were flying so it was no ordinary night and that was the point of my post. Of course it will do 165-30 starting at 500' with the needles in the middle but on that wild night 130 was as fast as we wanted to go due to the turbulence - ie for physical comfort and the feeling that something might fall off if we went faster. When there is a 70kt crosswind (OK 50 lower down) slowing to 30kts would be a bad idea.

EC

[212man]

Sorry to be glib! I agree ECF certainly know their onions when it comes to autopilots.

[Galapagos]

Eurochopper...

Was the exactly the same thing on our side of the pond. Air Canada didn't even bother coming to town and many airplanes went back where they came from with their tail between their wings after missing... I forgot to mention that the RVR was around 2000' and 100' of vertical vis on top of it all!

Only difference is that I was flying the older version of your new toy... the AS332L with the crappy analog coupler... which just couldn't keep up with it so I basically had to try to do what your digital one did so well... and I have to say that everything stayed within limits... felt like a roller coaster but with great results!

The guys in the 92 flew a similar approach as you did... cause they have all the new bells and whistles that modern technology as too offer too!

Wish I was flying a nice 225 too... javascript:smilie(':{')

Just another day flying in the North Atlantic!

javascript:smilie(':ok:')

:ok: :ok:

[IHL]

Don't be too hard on the fixed wing guys ; they have to land and then stop-on the runway.

[Cdn driver]

Galapuss,


it is not flying "in the North Atlantic"

it is flying "above the North Atlantic"

your scary me man, reallllly scarying me
;) ;)

Had a chance to see the 225 up close and personal in ENZV, wow, the EC lads put on quite a show with it. And all that new funky stuff up front was impressive.

Smooth, fast, quiet, and lots of ponies!!!!!

[Galapagos]

Was that Newfienies.... I couldn't understand all that bla, bla, bla...

:p :} :confused:

[Chopper Jog]

EC225 Drivers,

I am about to go onto the EC225....Could anyone please provide me with some background information on the vertical oscillations the EC225 experienced at some stage and what Eurocopter's actions were to resolve this problem?

Cheers,

CJ

[HeliComparator]

CJ - I am sure it will be covered in your conversion course but in summary, the high lifiting power of the 5 blade head, the faster servos and the lack of damping on the collective channel could lead to a PIO situation (I hate that term because it implies its the pilot's fault, but never mind!) where an input to the collective when on the ground (lets say down) results in the airframe (and hence collective pivot) moving down whilst the inertia of the pilot in his sprung seat etc means his arm gets "left behind" so that he makes an involuntary input in the up direction, then the process repeats in the other sense and you get divergent oscillation.

It only occurs when the trim release is not pressed (something to do with the firmness of coupling between the pilot and the lever) so the moral is to always use the trim release when moving the collective on the ground. In fact its possible for the pilot to make an involuntary input to the collective without pressing the trim release, eg when taxying over a bump etc, so the rule we have is to either be pressing the trim release, or to be not gripping the collective at all. So remember it can't occur in flight and it won't occur if you are pressing the collective trim release.

Eurocopter have now modified the AFCS software so that on the ground, the system is monitoring for the phenomena and can put in an anti-phase input to the collective series actuator to prevent the effect from ever materialising. Bear in mind that in the 225, you engage the AFCS before first taxy and don't disengage it until you shut down.

If you do get it (because you didn't comply with the above), you just have to let go of the collective and it will stop instantly. However that can be easier said than done!

HC

[Senior Pilot]

This photo was posted on D & G General Aviation by Ovation: Bristow operating from Broome, Western Australia -

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff123/OvationGX2/PIC_0594.jpg

[exlatccatsa]

Would that be ex G ZZSO? from this thread?
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/336859-aberdeen-scotland-broome-australia.html

[P2bleed]

Yes the same one enjoying the sun and surf.

[turboshaft]

Interesting news: at one stage the AW101 appeared to be the shoe-in for this requirement.

From New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/NewsBreak/20080926173851/Article/index_html)

Ageing Nuris to make way for Cougars

The Royal Malaysian Air (RMAF) will replace its ageing fleet of Sikorsky S61-A4 Sea Kings, better known as the Nuri, with Eurocopter’s Cougar EC725.

Prime Minister and Defence Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced this today after a honour parade at Wisma Pertahanan at Jalan Padang Tembak.

The Eurocopter Cougar EC725 is one of four types that were shortlisted by RMAF. The other three were the Sikorsky S92, the Agusta Westland EH-101 Merlin and the Russian-made Mil Mi-17 Hip.

The manufacturers of these helicopters took part in an open international tender at the last Langkawi International Maritime and Air Show.

It has been reported that the government is allocating US$600 million (RM1.93 billion) to initially buy 12 of the new helicopters for service until 2050.

Eight units are planned for the RMAF for the Nuri replacement programme, while the remaining four would go to the army.

[SASless]

JimL,

I took this quote from your most informative post from below.....

Even if such changes to the operational code are not made (which is unlikely), customers are likely to require such performance as part of their duty of care to their passengers and responsibility to their share-holders.

It begs the following question in my feeble, alcohol ravaged mind....

How can your statement hold true re Gulf of Mexico Oil Support operations and the mindset extant we see down there? Are you forgetting about the GOM on purpose or did you really retain a UK CAA/JAA-JAR focus naturally with no conscious thought about the US FAA/GOM situation?

Sorry...that is two questions!

[500e]

EASA EAD 2011-0189-E: EUROCOPTER: AS 332 and EC 225 helicopters; Fuselage (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=4721)
Appear to be a reoccurring problem, are EC picking up the bill & down time :{

[gnow]

Normally on the EC 225 the Offest is on automatically in small angular increments and is a function of several parameters as sensed by the aircraft. There is also an OFS switch ithe sub panel where the pilot can manually engage the offset Reason why I am starting thread is to find out if the are operators that manually engage this OFS instead of automatically waiting for the aircraft to do it. I have experienced the POOP sound whiLe lifting off to the hover over the runway with a crosswind component from the left.

[FLI225]

I have experienced the POOP sound...

A little less roughage in your diet might help. ;)

[Laundryboy]

I have always thought it would be prudent to manually select the offsets, certainly in the North Sea, landing or taking off from turbulent decks. The view in Bristow was that pilots were so thick that they would leave the offsets on, and burn up all their fuel before they got home! I would think the answer now would be that it hasn't been a problem, so no need to bother. Yeah!

[Aser]

What is that "automatic offset" you are talking about... :confused:

Can anyone confirm that you can't really brake the wheels without one hyd. sys. ?

CHC EC225 makes controlled emergency landing on North Sea platform

Helihub RSS Feed (http://feeds2.feedburner.com/HelihubNews/) http://www.helihub.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ec225-chc-150x150.jpg Statoil (http://www.helihub.com/2012/01/13/chc-ec225-makes-controlled-emergency-landing-on-north-sea-platform/)

13 Jan, 12 A scheduled helicopter en route from the Deepsea Bergen drilling rig to Kristiansund made a controlled emergency landing on Åsgard B at 16.45 on Thursday afternoon.
The incident happened when the helicopter alarm system alerted the pilots of loss of pressure in the left hydraulic system.
After the landing, the helicopter came into motion due to lack of braking power on the wheels, but it was gradually stabilised.
The passengers were evacuated through the emergency exit. None of the people on board were physically injured in connection with the incident. The affected have been taken care of and accommodated on Åsgard B.
Two technicians have arrived on the platform and are now examining the helicopter to make it ready for service.
Statoil’s emergency preparedness organisation on Åsgard B and onshore was mobilised in connection with the incident.
There were 19 passengers and a crew of two on board the helicopter, a Eurocopter EC225, which is operated by CHC.
Both CHC and Statoil will implement separate investigations of the incident.
CHC EC225 makes controlled emergency landing on North Sea platform | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://www.helihub.com/2012/01/13/chc-ec225-makes-controlled-emergency-landing-on-north-sea-platform/)

Regards
Aser

[Lplates]

Hi all

You can force the bleed threshold to the offset value manually with the latchswitch on the sub panel if your unlucky and loose both APM's, as its these modules which calculate the open/close thresholds.

Lplates

[HeliComparator]

Lplates is absolutely correct, the primary reason for the manual offset button is for the case of double APM failure or triple air data failure, both of which are pretty unlikely.

If the OFS captions are showing on the VMS it makes no difference to manually press the OFS button. It might be appropriate to use manual OFS when landing offshore through turbine exhaust (Ninians etc) but personally I have never had to do that.

On the CHC event, the accumulator should hold hyd pressure for many applications of the wheel brakes and rotor brake. That it didn't could be explained by a few possibilities, such as:
The crew attempted to lower the undercarriage using the normal method;
The accumulator one-way valve was leaking badly;
The accumulator gas pressure was severely depleted.

At this stage I have no idea which if any of the above applied.

By the way, it was low level, not low pressure (never believe what you read in the press!). Low level detection causes ancillaries to be isolated in an attempt to contain the leak and preserve fluid for flight controls.

HC

[Torcher]

CHC incident

An even simpler reason would be a brake line fitting leak.
Park brake on (Offshore landing) would mean a permanent leak of the lefthand system until the low level switch cut off the "non critical" consumers. The accumulator would empty itself out the brakeline, and presto, you have a very interesting scenario on your hands. No brakes, no rotorbrake, and no AP hydraulics.


Torcher

[HeliComparator]

Yes, fair point!

[gnow]

Hi Ref the OFS question...in my company we do not use the manual OFS but we are considering using the manual OFS esp on runway departures where there is a crosswind. Passengers get frightened when the POP sound happens and in the 225 it is quite loud!

[gnow]

In another 225 question I wonder if all the operators use the check list in a challenge and resppnse manner for pre start, starts, taxi and ALL the checks. Rather a boring affair and I have been pestering my company to change to the "flow" method of doing prestarts, start and after start check. From Pre Taxi onwards, challenge and response. I got shot down on this issue many times!

[HeliComparator]

Gnow, the Bristow Aberdeen EC225 fleet has amassed about 40,000 hrs and, despite strong crosswinds being normal, we have never had a pop on takeoff. Perhaps it is to do with the ambient temperature, very rarely above 20C here!

When you get the pop, is OFS still showing, or is it after the heli has passed 35kts or so and no OFS showing. If the former, pressing the manual button will have no effect.

On checklist use, Bristow policy is that startup checks are carried out from memory, but everything from pre-taxi to after-landing is done C&R from the checklist. Shutdown checks are done from memory.

I don't see that C&R for startup is intrinsically very bad, but it is surely slow and what do you do for a ground run - do you have to have 2 pilots? I think with a flow method you are less likely to omit something. Reading from a checklist is no guarantee that items will not be missed, but to some extent leads to the perception that the pilot making the actions is absolved from having to think about it. I am sure there are arguments both ways.

[gnow]

Helicomparator,

I do agree with you about the flow method of starting. In the good old days when we were flying S61N and L2s we used the flow method. A few years ago the auditors (I was told by my management) would like us to use the challenge and response method. Yes..the challenge and response is slow, tedious and pilots tend to miss out items esp on a hot afternoon in 33 C and that is your third start of the day! I will still continue to crusade for the company to adopt the flow method.
On the POP sounds it actually happened over the runway with the wind from about the 8 o clock position. Maybe some setting could be wrong ...anyway thanks for the response.

[HeliComparator]

If the pop happens when you are effectively hovering with wind in 8 o'clock, unless there is something wrong with that particular airframe then using the OFS button will not achieve anything. Without wishing to sound facetious, maybe you should consider taking off into-wind!

Out of interest, which version of FADEC software do you have installed?

[gnow]

I think we are using V 12 software. At this time of the year we do get crosswind take off from the runway. The take off with 8 o clock wind was for hover taxi to back track. Since then we ground taxi and the problem has not reappeared

[HeliComparator]

Just interested in the software because v12 has a modified bleed valve law above 4000' density altitude. Depending on the elevation of your airfield and the pressure, with OAT in the mid to high 30s you are getting close to 4000'DA. Obviously in Aberdeen we never get near that so have not experienced it, but there is always the chance of a software issue eg around the transition zone at 4000'DA reducing the surge margin too much.

[gnow]

Thanks for that but our DA is around 2000ft. In fact the machines that I am flying are leased from Bristows.

[Wizzard]

CHC incident

An even simpler reason would be a brake line fitting leak

Spot on! A good guess or...?

[FADEC225]

can i do the emergency supply check （TRU3 CHECK)during the washing engine after offshore trip(both engine switch is idle)?there is NOT mention doing this check after start from flight manual. as you know it is save time and economy for company.looking for your reply.many thanks!

[Wizzard]

FADEC, not sure if it is possible to do the check whilst you are doing the wash run - with both engines at idle but...

...I would recommend that it is done before flight - or at least before the first flight of the day - to ensure that it is working following any maintenance done on the aircraft; it might be that the system was disturbed during work carried out on the aircraft and finding out it's not working when you really need it might have you wishing you spent the two minutes it takes to check it.

Wiz

[AlfonsoBonzo]

Is there not something about the TRU 3 being driven by hydraulics and the Nr needs to be above 78 before the hydraulics are working? So if you have both engines at idle then the Nr would be too low for the hydraulics, hence the Emergency Supply would not work.

Its been a while so I might be full of poo

[FLI225]

FADEC,

It's SUPP 12, Sect.4, Normal Procedures...First Flight.

[HeliComparator]

Yes, it is called for in the Supplement. If you tried to do it with engines at idle, rotor speed (and hence hydraulic pump speed) would be low and there might be insufficient LH hydraulic pressure to run the hydraulic motor, so it might fail the test.

[gnow]

I tend to agree with FADEC 225. Even if the TRU 3 is found to be unserviceable it is not a NO GO item ..meaning the flight will still have to proceed unless there are other valid reasons (snowing hard?). I had suggested this earlier on but the FM says it is before flight so the company just follow. In our case we do ther engine wash one at a time so the RRPM is always at 100% .

[HeliComparator]

Why do you think it is not a no-go item?

[212man]

Out of curiosity I checked the EASA MMEL listings but found only the cover pages! Where is the full MMEL now?

[drakkar]

I don't see the point making the engine wash at both engine idle, you lose the alternators at low RPM and you have to switch back to flight for 5 minutes drying time anyway.
For the hydro-alternator, it has to be tested before the first flight of the day and specially for offshore flight. It's a No Go. Don't expect to last on the battery more than 20 minutes in case of losing both TRU's, which was not unusual in hot countries before the modification of the exhaust.

[HeliComparator]

We wash with both engines at idle because we wash both engines simultaneously. Why not, it saves a little time? The battery is recharged during the drying run.

212, MMELs are produced by the manufacturer, EASA just approve them. The 225 MMEL can be found on EC's tech publication system TIPI.

[FADEC225]

thanks Wiz.some crew said that is indicate the same with normal check first flight.nothing different.i check flight manual.TR3 is connect to essential bus.maybe test is the same good result--indicate test normal.may i find on eurocopter technical support-T.I.P.I

[212man]

HC - other OEM's MMELS are there as, indeed, are the EC one's on the FAA site....

[gnow]

Another EC 225 discussion....
The AMC computed Vtoss is shown on the IAS column (eg 45 kts). If we decide to take a higher V1 than indicated eg when using a long runway departure in Performance Class 1 ops (maybe 40 ft / 60 kts h1 v1 TDP) from an airport with sufficient runway length, would it be better to beep the V toss to 70 kts (in this case) or to leave the V toss as indicating 45 kts? I personally like to keep the origional V toss rather than beeping to the new selected V toss as I will know at all times the exact take off safety speed. Any extra is a bonus and in "real bad time" I may even be able to convert the excess speed to height.

[HeliComparator]

gnow

We always try to nominate a Vtoss higher than the minimum for airfield takeoff (even if it means a backtrack) since 100'/min is not a very good rate of climb, especially if there happens to be a downdraft of 200'/min!

We then beep the Vtoss up to that nominated speed for various reasons - for a clear airfield takeoff so that it acts as a reminder to both pilots what the nominated Vtoss is, and for onshore helipad takeoff so that the autopilot knows what speed to go for if we go OEI before Vtoss.

But then it was me who asked EC for the ability to beep up Vtoss (it was not a feature of the original software version we had with our first deliveries) so maybe I am biased!

To comply with the Cat A procedure, you should not change the Vtoss in mid-stream from that which you based your takeoff decision point on. If you do, whilst it might work out OK, you are effectively making up your own procedure that has not been approved by any Authority. You would certainly invalidate any obstacle clearance calculations that you might have had to do since the graphs presume that the stated profile is followed.

HC

[gnow]

Helicomparator,
That was a good explanation. Another few cans of cyber beer on me!

[FADEC225]

how to get EC225 OEI platform landing weight?i can not find the table from flght manual? i think the operation safety?thanks

[FADEC225]

i am not sure when is switch on the HTG for TRU3?after start second engine or follow the OAT(below 17 degree)then press on.we all crews confuse on that case,hope good answer coming.

[FADEC225]

how to get EC225 OEI platform landing weight?i can not find the table from flght manual? i think the operation safety?thanks

[Colibri49]

FADEC225 After the first start of each day, after the hydraulic HTG is on, and after both engines are running, then we test the 3rd TRU. We don't consider the OAT for this test.

I agree that there does not seem to be a graph in the FM specifically for platform landings.

[JimL]

FADEC225,

Depending on the Operational Rules, the maximum mass for landing on a rig will be satisfaction of the PC2 requirements.

At the very least that will be the mass provided by the lesser of: maximum certificated take-off mass; compliance with Second Segment Climb Performance (from the clear area CAT A performance graphs); or the OEI en-route climb requirement (which is identical to PC1).

Even if your State's rules do not specify these limitations, the operator (pilot) might wish to apply them - they are not (usually) punitive.

Jim

[FADEC225]

when we have enter payload,we can find the vtoss indicator,we have the figure,is it necessary to change the figure for ourself operation?if we change what kind of effct to operation?many thanks

[JimL]

EC225,

See the answer given by HC in post #215.

Jim

[gnow]

Just like to compare notes ...our DPATO is V1 and 50 ft and DPBL is V1 at 40 ft above deck . DPATO looks fine but I have this feeling that the DPBL is a little too low and fast...Appendix 9 says that the DP is 40 ft above decl and Ground Speed of 10 kts. Wonder what the rest of the EC 225 operators have selected as their DPBL and DPATO.
How does your NHP call when approaching DPBL and DPATO? It sounds like a good mouthful when saying the whole thing at that critical moment of the flight path. Anyone calling these points "Decision Points"?

[HeliComparator]

At the very least that will be the mass provided by the lesser of: maximum certificated take-off mass; compliance with Second Segment Climb Performance (from the clear area CAT A performance graphs); or the OEI en-route climb requirement (which is identical to PC1).


Plus of course twin engine in ground effect hover, however for most helis this is not the limiting factor, the OEI performance at 1000' above the takeoff / landing point is. In Bristow we use out of ground effect hover, though again the 1000' performance is normally the limiting one.

FACEC225 we switch the HTG for TRU 3 after 1st engine start, just after we turn on the Aux Pump. However Refer to the RFM Supplement 12 which tells you to turn it on after second engine start, but it doesn't matter, either is OK. Turning it on after 1st engine start means it will be at the required temperature when you want to do the test of the TRU3 after second engine start even it if is very cold.

when we have enter payload,we can find the vtoss indicator,we have the figure,is it necessary to change the figure for ourself operation?if we change what kind of effct to operation?many thanks

In addition to my earlier post, just to say that you should not change the calculated Vtoss for offshore takeoff or landing, since it will tell you the earliest time you can start to raise the nose on an OEI takeoff or go-around (at indicated Vtoss - 10kts), and thus minimise height lost and maximise the chance of missing the sea!

Just like to compare notes ...our DPATO is V1 and 50 ft and DPBL is V1 at 40 ft above deck . DPATO looks fine but I have this feeling that the DPBL is a little too low and fast...Appendix 9 says that the DP is 40 ft above decl and Ground Speed of 10 kts. Wonder what the rest of the EC 225 operators have selected as their DPBL and DPATO.
How does your NHP call when approaching DPBL and DPATO? It sounds like a good mouthful when saying the whole thing at that critical moment of the flight path. Anyone calling these points "Decision Points"?

We don't specifically refer to DPATO but we raise the nose at V1 (calculated Vtoss - 10 kts) so the helicopter will start climbing as soon as possible. With an engine failure before V1 you will have to lose some height to achieve Vtoss, but at what point you pass DPATO is difficult to say because of the variations of wind, remaining dropdown, pilot technique etc. I am not sure that it matters - what matters is to try to reach Vtoss before you hit the sea! If you have not reached Vtoss but have to level off due to the proximity of the surface, it will then depend on whether you can accelerate in level flight, or if level flight is causing you to decelerate. If the former, you will fly away, if the latter, you need to make a decision to ditch, ie inflate the floats, warn the pax and the flare off the speed and plonk it down at as low a speed as you can manage.

For landing, there are 4 possible outcomes of having an engine failure on approach:

1) you fly a sucessful go-around
2) you land safely on the deck
3) you cannot sucessfully go-around and have to ditch
4) you hit the rig structure somewhere, probably below helideck level.

Outcomes 1 to 3 are all quite safe (normally you would only have to ditch if winds were fairly light, so the heli should remain upright)

Outcome 4 is probably fatal, this is the one you must avoid.

Therefore the landing decision point is when you can no longer go-around without hitting the structure (never mind if the go-around might result in a ditching). Between that decision point and arrival, there may be some exposure to outcome 4) above, but hopefully just a couple of seconds. When you reach DPBL I don't know and it cannot really be worked out because of the same variations of wind, structure obstacles, pilot technique etc - it doesn't matter! What matters is the decision whether to attempt a go-around or continue with the landing, and that is where outcome 4 must be considered the primary issue.

HC

[gnow]

HC,

I totally agree with you on the DPATO and DPBL. These figures can never be a single set of figures. However this would be one of the questions that auditors like to ask and it may look good to have the figures! Like I mentioned in my posrt I was trying to "compare notes" with other operators. I have read an oil company 's Aviation Services Standards and Best Practice and there were several pages on the calculating of the above points.

[gnow]

This happened to me today. At about 10 nm to the airport in the cruise, the ENG light illuminated, NR Fadec comes on in VMS and NR went to 103.8%. At the same time the AMC 1 failure occurs. On checking with the status page it says AMC 1 fail and FADEC 2 fail.
AMC 1 failed ..no problem, just reconfigure and use AMC 2.
FADEC 2 failure..a bit tricky here as the FADEC LIGHT was not on. I raised and lowered the collective slowly and and found that the NR remained at 103.8% so it is not a FADEC failure and no securing of the engines.
After landing when No 2 eng was retarded to IDLE the GOV light comes Flashing on.
Anyone has experienced this not in the book malfunction before?

[HeliComparator]

I have read an oil company 's Aviation Services Standards and Best Practice and there were several pages on the calculating of the above points.

I sometimes wonder why the oil companies bother to use aviation service providers - they are clearly so much better at flying helicopters than we are! Or to put it another way, someone who doesn't understand the issues had to write a checklist sheet with enough tick-boxes to satify their boss and so get their bonus!

[HeliComparator]

This happened to me today. At about 10 nm to the airport in the cruise, the ENG light illuminated, NR Fadec comes on in VMS and NR went to 103.8%. At the same time the AMC 1 failure occurs. On checking with the status page it says AMC 1 fail and FADEC 2 fail.
AMC 1 failed ..no problem, just reconfigure and use AMC 2.
FADEC 2 failure..a bit tricky here as the FADEC LIGHT was not on. I raised and lowered the collective slowly and and found that the NR remained at 103.8% so it is not a FADEC failure and no securing of the engines.
After landing when No 2 eng was retarded to IDLE the GOV light comes Flashing on.
Anyone has experienced this not in the book malfunction before?

This is an AMC failure, not a FADEC failure.

Important point: The pilot should never act on anything they see on the STATUS page, it is really only for advice to the technicians.

FADEC failure is only indicated by the FADEC caption on the VMS engine page and the red repeater light near the engine switch

When the AMC fails the Nr datum stops being received by the FADEC so it reverts to its own datum. Since the FADEC does not have access to the airspeed data, it cannot reduce Nr down to 100% at higher speeds, hence the 103.8% in the cruise. The only device that has ARINC data connection with the FADEC is the AMC, so with AMC failure the FADEC has to work in isolation, including using its own pressure and temperature sensors which are less accurate than the airframe sensors. Probably because of this the flashing Gov is triggered and stored, to be displayed on shutdown even if the triggering problem has been dealt with.

We find that, compared to the other boxes on the aircraft, the AMC is fairly unreliable. Whilst it may recover in your case following a reboot, it is likely to fail again soon and so the best course of action is to replace it.

HC

[gnow]

HC,
The No 2 Fadec was replaced and aircraft went back to service. In my case even after reconfiguration the to AMC 2 the Nr remained at 103.8%. In any case I will have to pay more attention to he AMC on this aircraft now. You are right ..the AMCs in our fleet also tend to give a bit of hiccups every now and then

[drakkar]

Gnow, as HC has written, it's probably an AMC problem.
below 60 Kts, the AMC computes NR then FADECs take over to keep NR at 100%.
If it happens again, try to press the NR/ILS. This switch commands the NR to be reduced at 97,8% via the AMC. The vibration level will be more comfortable and if you have control over the AMC, you can rule out one option.

Drakkar

[gnow]

In view of the recent ditching , I would like to compare notes again on the normal indicated transmission oil pressure. On the RFM it mentioned that Min Trans Oil Pressure is 0.4 bar.so it implies that anything above that figure is normal. However in the MGB drawings it says MP light comes on if the sensor senses a pressure of less than 3.7 bars. I have not seen many 225 flying with a MGB oil pressure of more than 3.7 bars on the MGB oil pressure gauge. I believe the MP light does not come on because the MGB oil pressure gauge taps its pressure after the oil has been splashed on the gearbox whereas the pressure switch for the MP light is just after the MP.
Any inputs on your indicated MGB oil pressure is appreciated

[HeliComparator]

Gnow, you are correct, the gauge measures the pressure at the far end of the oil galleries, whereas the MP pressure switch is at the inlet to the oil filter. Typically the indicated pressure will be 2.8 to 3.5 or so in flight. The indicated pressure when the MP light activates at 3.7 bar, is around 2.1 bar depending on oil temperature. Have a look at the relationship between MP and gauge pressure next time you shut down.

On the RFM it mentioned that Min Trans Oil Pressure is 0.4 bar.so it implies that anything above that figure is normal

No, it implies that anything below 0.4 is an emergency situation. Anything between 0.4 at the MGB.P switch and 3.7 at the MP switches is abnormal, and anything above 3.7 at the MP switch (roughly 2.1 bar at the gauge) is normal. However, if the pressure is normally indicating 3.5 bar, and one day it is suddenly indicating 2.2 bar, I would want to know why! Maybe an internally leaking solid pipe from the pumps etc due to cracks etc!

On our fleet, each day when we do the EPC we write down the oil temperatures and pressures for engines and gearbox (as well as cruise altitude and OAT) on a sheet that stays in the cockpit. So a pilot can look back to see what is "normal" for that particular aircraft.

HC

[clockman]

What are the Flight Manual OILP instructions for the EC225LP and which component, MGB or engine, is it please? Which was it in the 10may12 North Sea ditching? i note from HeliComparator below that you have pressure gauges too - on both MGB and engine?
I have found TCDS.R.002 Page 16 to 20 Issue 08, 20 January 2011, but it says nothing other than oil contents. Does Certification not check bearing life at oil pressures just below the OILP warning level? Does it merely presume no oil at all and therefore immediate shutdown, which is surely an extreme and unlikely situation during flight. A bearing failure may be costly since it could damage compressor and/or turbine blades and casings too, but what are the probability numbers associated with all this? Is a ditching better than trying to keep flying? Nope, because of the potential loss of life! See EASA 2007.C16.

[forwardassist]

Clockman, do your trolling elsewhere.

[clockman]

Email sent: Date 13may2012 Time 13h18

To FAA, EASA, CAA, at
FAA Certification Office <[email protected]>
EASA Certification Office <[email protected]>
EASA AD <[email protected]>
EASA Report <[email protected]>
CAA Info <[email protected]>

Re: Helicopter Bearings Certification

Please consider introducing a helicopter certification requirement that requires the continuing operation of a faulty drive train for one hour with an OILP warning, noting that for such an event to occur in flight, it is most unlikely that either oil level or oil pressure will have reduced to zero, and that the bearing will still have residual oil content for a short time too. Bearing design evaluation required of course, and longer gear train spray cooling time.

My request is triggered by the 10may2012 ditching of Eurocopter Super Puma EC225 into the North Sea, apparently because of an OILP warning, and that the return to Aberdeen from the Oil Rig was 150 nm total - so halfway is 75 nm, and he slowed to 80 kts, so one hour needed to get you on "land" from anywhere.

Thankyou to all twin engined helicopter pilots for supporting such thinking - I hope you have already asked of course!
jimq

[clockman]

Unfortunately, the Special Bulletin S2-2012 shown on the UK AAIB website, says they ditched because a warning lit.
jimq

[RotaryWingB2]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that the FLM says, if you have a MGB P caption and a EMLUBE caption 'Land immediately' or words to that effect.

To get this the aircraft down safely, and wthout any injuries is a incredible feat, and in NO way an over reaction by the crew.

[PlasticCabDriver]

That's right, the AAIB report says they ditched because "a warning lit". And not:


- WARN red light and aural gong
- MGB.P caption illuminating on the Central Warning Panel (CWP)
- CAUT amber light
- XMSN caption illuminating on the CWP
- M.P and S/B.P illuminated on the vehicle monitoring system (VMS)
- SHOT illuminated on the MGB control panel
- Zero indication on the main gearbox oil pressure gauge.
In addition, CHIP illuminated on the VMS and the MGB oil temperature started to increase.

Or

The crew activated the emergency lubrication system.
During the descent, the MGB EMLUB caption illuminated on the CWP, for which the associated procedure is to land immediately.

Guess the AAIB must have got it wrong.

[Epiphany]

Clockman is either intellectually challenged or a Troll. Either way ignoring his comments is probably the bst course of action.

[clockman]

1) I started with #236, to request a DESIGN FOR MUCH LONGER TIME when an OILP warning lit. I stick by that, but it seems my post has been misinterpreted as follows:
2) #237 was published AFTER the UK AAIB SB S2-2012 was available on 13mai2012.
3) #239 i certainly agree - they had a relatively SAFE ditching. Good piloting.
4) #240 provides the detail in the AAIB SB, in which the final item is that they ditched because a warning lit, and not because of a failure to fly.
5) #241 should think again please, for you are in the wrong game.

And thus #240 CONFIRMS the need for #236. Do you now agree?

Please all write to the OFFICIALS to say so - DEMAND DESIGN CHANGE, for YEARS have passed on this OFFICIALS FAILURE. :ugh:

jimq

[clockman]

Todays helicopter instructions count for what they are - coping with the current design, and shutdown with a REAL warning is necessary if the cost of doing so, is less than the cost of continung to get you home. And that MAIN ROTOR must not fail as it did on G-REDL on 1april2009.

ETOPS was introduced on Civil fixed wing twin engine cruisers, so that if one engine failed, the other would still get you home, across half the Atlantic if ncessary.

So, a twin engined helicopter has to have enough power to stay airborne, and there is not enough power if one is shutdown, so throttle the problem one back, and use an emergency rating on the good one.

You need oil to keep an engine or gearbox running at max rating, but throttling back saves a load of force on a bearing. There is only one Main Rotor, and therefore there is only one final gearbox drive - it must not fail. Throttling back on a helicopter Main Rotor is to reduce airspeed - there will be a balance of airspeed against time to failure without high oil pressure. This needs design assessment to provide aircrew with some helpful info.

And, if you think about your whole AIRCRAFT DESIGN before Certification in this situation, you can optimise it to reduce the probability of ditching further. The Super Puma has two main oil pumps and a single failure stopped them both. And then the backup glycol system (which is there to cool the gears not to lubricate them) showed a warning - the odds are stacking up now - how could that happen? We are in triple failure territory now, and such a series of failures should never have happened.

The design certification procedures are ...... good enough? Or not? At least the emergency glycol system on the Super Puma was created as a back up of sorts, so somebody was thinking, but at a low cost level, not at strategic design.

What DRIVES improved design? OPERATORS and PILOTS should be complaining too ........ the cost of a ditching is surely counted in big numbers, especially if lives are lost.
jimq

[Pittsextra]

Anything from that meeting today at Eurocopter in Aberdeen?

[Sikorsky]

Does any of you use NR ILS button after landing on rigs ? It seem to reduce the noise significantly and at the same time reduce ff from 370 to 330 kg/hr.

[HeliComparator]

We just do that onshore when rotors running picking up passengers etc. I think the slight worry would be that someone, one day, would take off from a rig with NrILS on. Less likely (for us with a long taxi to the runway), and less critical onshore.

[Wizzard]

Yep, we do it on and offshore.

We've put it in our pre-takeoff checklist to make sure the Nr is normal for departure

[gnow]

We use the Nr ILS both onshore and offshore but personally I always leave the Nr ILS off when I am on an unstable helideck. Nr ILS check is on the pre take off and after landing checks.

[Sikorsky]

Many thanx for the information :ok:

[HeliComparator]

Ah so as long as its on the checklist, there is no possibility of missing it on the 5th takeoff of the shuttle. Sorted.

[gnow]

It is not stated in the Flight Manual but I would like to compare notes as to how much TOT difference between No 1 and No 2 eng is considered acceptable. Recently I flew an aircraft with a 30 C difference between both engines with N1 equal and Torque about half % difference. It is not pleasant as this reduces the power margin available for take off and landing .

[HughMartin]

Hi Gnow

Are both engines passing the engine power check? If so, then there is no problem and you will get the required OEI performance. In my experience, the TOTs are normally fairly close. I don't think I have seen more than 20degrees difference. You will get a DIFF PWR warning if the TOT difference reaches 80degrees bit I am sure the EPC would flag up an out of spec engine before that.

I suspect the maintenance manual may have a figure above which maintenance action is required but as a mere pilot I have no knowledge of it.

[Camper Van Basten]

I've seen TOT differences like this on G/runs and airtests post maintenance, usually traced to a P2.4 or P3 pipe not seated/sealing correctly or a P3 pipe gasket that's been damaged during installation.