North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012 [Archive] - Page 4

Pittsextra

6th Feb 2013, 13:19

Some good colour from the transcript of Bristow Group Q3 earnings call yesterday, not looking good for the 225:-

Bill Chiles is President and CEO of Bristow and Mark Duncan is commercial VP the questions come from a variety of 3rd parties.

<Q - James D. Crandell>: Bill, can you go into a little bit more detail on the Super Pumas suspension in the North Sea, what is your understanding of where the investigation is? When could it be lifted? And secondly, can you talk a little bit in more granularity about the impact on the financials, from losing the full contracts, still getting most of the monthly charges by bringing in other aircraft to take their place?

<A - William E. Chiles>: Yeah, let me respond to the first part of the question, then I'm going to turn it over to Mark Duncan on the second part of your question. Eurocopter has recently said that they expect operations to resume late this spring. We're all being pretty measured about that. We have to be careful what we say because we're limited to what we can say by the regulators. We are working hard. We've had several meetings with our competitors, our customers and the flying public recently, and we feel pretty confident that we'll come up with an interim way to safely fly the helicopters pending possible redesign of the shaft that's cracking. We can't say that for sure. We are confident though that if the regulators require redesign of the shaft, which could take up to a year-and-a-half, we will find a way to safely fly these helicopters through a very rigorous inspection and increased control of our health, usage and monitoring system oversight. So we're looking at probably late spring, early summer that's now what we believe, that's what's in our numbers, internal numbers. So with that, I'll let Mark Duncan respond to how the customers are reacting.

<A - Mark B. Duncan>: Yes. Jim, it's Mark. The customer situation for Bristow, this is a major impact in the North Sea and a limited impact in some of our international operations. But it is a global problem. The customers are working with us very closely and supporting our ongoing efforts both to get the helicopter back in service, as Bill described, but also to continue to support us by continuing to pay some of the MSC charges. As we bring in additional aircraft into the market to supplement the lack of EC225 capacity, the supply-demand situation in that regard is providing higher rates for those replacement aircraft and you can see that reflected in the quarter's results and that will continue to be the case as we move forward through the next two quarters probably at least. Bristow's position to bring more capacity to the market as the year progresses and the S-92 order that we made allows us to start bringing aircraft in from the middle of this year all the way through until 2014, either to supplement and backfill for 225s or actually to provide additional revenue for us because the opportunities out there are significant regardless of the 225s being suspended or otherwise, so quite a positive outlook for us.

<Q - James D. Crandell>: Okay. And Mark, just to clarify, are no operators flying Super Pumas now anywhere in the world?

<A - Mark B. Duncan>: The 225 is one version of a Super Pumas, so the other versions of Super Pumas are being flown and those are some of the aircraft that we brought back into service. The 225s are - we estimate roughly 80 aircrafts are suspended worldwide. There are 225s being flown over land by many military and governments. And in the oil and gas business, we believe there are something like 17 225s being flown in Vietnam and China under the aviation authority. They'd have chosen not to follow the UK and Norway but the CAA's have actually suspended operations. So you're actually prevented from flying. Interestingly, the oil and gas customers that we have, the majority of them
being in a group called the OGP, which is the oil and gas producers' forum, they've adopted to follow the UK and Norwegian's CAA's restrictions whatever it is in the world, wherever they are flying over water.

HeliHenri

6th Feb 2013, 14:42

industry insider

Taking a few people on a factory tour with lunch in the delivery centre and a glass of red won't fix the problem. Its just a PR stunt.

That's a very important information !
In fact, you're saying that EC is doing nothing to fix the problem and to hide this reality, they're just buying with a bottle of wine, the silence of the representatives of the operators, offshore safety groups, unions and oil and gas companies. :rolleyes:
.

SASless

6th Feb 2013, 14:45

There would have to have some very pretty and available young Hostesses along with the Wine and Snacks to buy my vote I would think!:E

cyclic

6th Feb 2013, 17:33

EC225s are being contractually terminated. That means no more payments to operators. They will hurt as there is no provision in the sales contracts for any compensation from EC. 3 aircraft were terminated with effect from last Sunday at midnight by one client. That client is moving to S-92s.....whatever the colour.

and by driving the helicopter operators into the ground they will have achieved what? You seem to portray a very limited knowledge of business in that customers are your lifeblood but you also have to look after your suppliers at the same time - without them you have nothing. Maybe some companies are cancelling contracts, I really don't know, but I would think there is a lot of discussion going on to keep the wheels of industry turning.

I may have misinterpreted your tone, but you seem to think this is a somewhat clever move by the client involved? There has always been a lack of investment in the most critical part of oil and gas (getting the workforce to work and back) and it is now that this should be sorted so that a similar situation cannot occur again, not more crazy reductions in service forced by short sighted financial punishment of service providers. The aviation costs are such a miniscule part of the overall oil and gas budget and it is time that money is spent. No oil, no tax, no recovery - simples.

SASless

6th Feb 2013, 17:53

Refresh my memory....whenever did an Oil Company really care about any one Helicopter Operator? My recollection is they want cheap subservient Operators and after that they could really care less. If they did not....they would tie up with one good Operator and if additional equipment was needed for short term demand they would let their "sole provider" sub contract or find other ways to lease spike demand aircraft and crews.

Pittsextra

6th Feb 2013, 18:22

Or maybe the oil company just wants to have the service delivered to it that it has paid for??

industry insider

6th Feb 2013, 23:13

Cyclic

I may have misinterpreted your tone, but you seem to think this is a somewhat clever move by the client involved?

Yes, you did misinterpret. I am not trying to express an opinion, I am trying to show you that this is serious for the helicopter industry in that some clients are terminating EC225s. Other clients are paying a % where they are being given an alternative. I see this fom both sides.

In some cases, the helicopter operators are expecting it both ways, ie. to continue to be paid for the EC225s and to charge higher rates for the replacement product based on "demand" as per Mark Duncan's statement from Bristow during their Q3 earnings call.

to support us by continuing to pay some of the MSC charges. As we bring in additional aircraft into the market to supplement the lack of EC225 capacity, the supply-demand situation in that regard is providing higher rates for those replacement aircraft and you can see that reflected in the quarter's results

Where this happens, you will see clients doing what they can to mitigate their costs, fact.

You seem to portray a very limited knowledge of business in that customers are your lifeblood but you also have to look after your suppliers at the same time - without them you have nothing.

I disagree, no company will continue to pay for aircraft they cannot use AND for substitute aircraft. Looking after suppliers does not mean abandoning all sense of commercial reality.

The aviation costs are such a miniscule part of the overall oil and gas budget

I would never say this to a customer. There are much better ways to "sell" products and services. Any organisation must manage costs no matter how "miniscule".

Dry wretched thunder

12th Feb 2013, 11:37

Sixteen grounded Super Pumas to be 'back in air by the summer' | Aberdeen & North | News | STV (http://news.stv.tv/north/213665-a-dozen-grounded-super-pumas-to-be-back-in-air-by-the-summer/)

According to trusted Jim things in the North sea are quieter in Winter.....ohh really, not on any rig i ever worked on, what a tw*t:ugh:

SASless

12th Feb 2013, 13:07

I thought it was April the 225's were due back?

Colibri49

12th Feb 2013, 18:48

"My company is looking to S-92s and EC175s as the future fleet for our offshore support now, our plans now exclude the 225."

At the risk of being shot down in flames, I'm not indulging in customary S92 bashing; just pointing out that my source who is privy to meetings with senior helicopter managers and senior oil managers, recently got the clear message that the senior oil people don't want a world without the EC225.

Those who had no previous experience of their pax being carried long distance in the S92 are now better able to appreciate its limitations of range versus load capabilities, not to mention such factors as inordinate time spent running refuelling on helidecks.

To make matters worse for the S92, the latest models on order are hundreds of pounds heavier than the early ones, so that's another couple of pax left behind on long hauls. Now there there's not much benefit to be had from an S92 compared with the AS332L !

There was no suggestion of "get the EC225 back at any cost", but if a convincing safe interim solution can be found, there will be an ever-increasing demand to regain the marked advantages which it offers.

No doubt the passengers will have to be convinced as never before, but it would be unwise to write off the EC225, especially as there will eventually become available a re-engineered shaft.

SASless

12th Feb 2013, 19:15

Once the 92 is established on a Contract...having replaced the 225....how long will it take for the Customers to change back to the 225 without incurring costs that would make sticking with the 92 until the end of the contract?

Then...with the advantage of being on the contract...for those not in the North Sea Sectors...what costs would attend to changing aircraft for the new contract with the 92 already being on site and operating with the engineers, spares, and special equipment already in country?

I am sure Total and a few of the French Companies very much would prefer French machines but even they at some point have to consider costs I should think.

albatross

12th Feb 2013, 20:45

Colibri 49 what distances are you speaking of 225 vs 92?

Colibri49

12th Feb 2013, 21:36

Aberdeen to East Shetland basin destinations approx 250 NM plus another 100 NM or so to Bergen as diversion, when Shetland is unavailable due fog. This the EC225 does comfortably with a full 19 pax load in still air. The S92 can't even come close with a full load.

Round trips from Aberdeen to the southeast decks, like Fulmar 150 NM-ish each way and still enough fuel on return to Aberdeen to divert to Wick, Inverness, Dundee or Edinburgh depending on weather. No offshore refuel needed and 19 pax each way.

Aberdeen to well NW of Scatsta (60 + NM-ish past Scatsta), non-stop with 19 pax and straight back to ABZ with Edinburgh, Glasgow or Prestwick as alternates.

Aberdeen to 70?-ish west of Donegal full load, non-stop and same in reverse. I'm not at work so can't give precise figures, but these are the kind of trips I/we have done often and routinely. It's easy except when the weather is quite poor.

Speaking to our S92 drivers, I get the impression that with a full 19 pax the latest (heavy) S92s can't even manage three quarters of these distances.

The EC225 is near-miraculous in its capabilities and I think it is unlikely to be matched for many years yet. Of course I'm biased. Once someone has tasted chocolate, why would they want anything else? I yearn to fly it again, but that doesn't mean that I'm making up unrealistic scenarios in the foregoing paragraphs.

Pittsextra

13th Feb 2013, 17:03

Whats happening with the AAIB investigation into this?

In late November they suggested that:-

"On-going work, some of which is anticipated to extend into 2013, includes:

1 Dimensional analysis, fractography and metallographic examination of the bevel gear vertical shaft and MGB fitted to G-CHCN.

2 Tests on parent and welded material samples (coupons) to confirm the material properties of the 32CDV13 steel alloy, used by the manufacturer in the design of the component, and the material’s susceptibility to cracking from small features.

3 A flight load and vibration analysis programme to confirm the predicted loads in the weld region, and to establish if there is an area in the flight envelope where the bevel gear vertical shaft might operate at one of its natural frequencies.

4 Examination of a sample of shafts removed from EC225 LP helicopters and an analysis of oil removed from other EC225 LP helicopters operating out of Aberdeen."

Is the AAIB taking the lead on this or are they taking EC data?? As one can only imagine that EC covered all these items during their flight test program prior to the type being approved?

So the question is will this be the tail wagging the dog if the AAIB report once EC have decided what their issues are?

Surely it would be good for the industry and customer if it were the AAIB that were leading this test and giving direction to EC, which one can only assume they are not given the comments from EC on their expectations.

Lonewolf_50

13th Feb 2013, 17:13

Pittsextra

13th Feb 2013, 17:29

Pitts, while I am no EC advocate, I will suggest to you that it is in EC's interests to get to the bottom of this because they face a non trivial customer confidence problem. Their investigation, which will doubtless aid and abet the AIBB's efforts, has to be thorough and right or they don't solve their problem. As I see it, not solving their problem hurts them in the millions of dollars in revenue, or maybe tens of millions.

They are incentivized to get it right, and to show AIBB and the various regulating agencies how right they really are.

Totally agree and of course they have resource and a need to get it right, but then isn't that the case with any manufacturer suffering a hull loss from mechanical failure?

EC have clearly being briefing customers given the comments from Bristow last week and indeed on their own "Aberdeen" part of EC website - in fact they have made 2 such posts since the last AAIB interim report.

Its an interesting dynamic where the manufacturer is the one that tests and gives its findings to the investigating body. For the sake of rigour of process one would expect it to be driven by the AAIB (in this case) especially since EC have been shown to be lacking in many areas in this one.

If EC are able to suggest that 225's will be flying with additional restrictions come the Spring then it suggests that they know what the problems are, which are so far unreported by the AAIB.

Hence the tail wagging the dog comment.

Edited to add: the purpose of course for the AAIB to come to conclusion is exactly for the reason to stop the same accidents from happening again i.e. you loose an aircraft in May and again in October.

JohnDixson

13th Feb 2013, 20:39

Quote from Pitts:

"Surely it would be good for the industry and customer if it were the AAIB that were leading this test and giving direction to EC, which one can only assume they are not given the comments from EC on their expectations."

One of the remembered quotes from a John Wayne movie:

" That"ll be the day"

Whether it is the staff of the NTSB chasing the 787 battery problem or the AAIB chasing this one, those people are investigators, not design/ redesign engineers, nor are they experienced ground or flight test engineers. The talent to do the detailed technical analyses rests with the OEM, and in cases, the subs. The talent to formulate a corrective redesign rests with the OEM.

If I sound a bit firm on the subject, it stems from having been involved in just a few accident post mortems, and in every one, the " real work " split went as in the preceding paragraph. That is not a denigration of the AAIB or NTSB, but simply a recognition of the differing responsibilities. The media has certainly not got it yet.

Better make a correction: since my experience is with military and NTSB investigations, it would be incorrect to assert from my experience that the AAIB is in the same situation and acts similarly.

Pittsextra

14th Feb 2013, 07:43

John I'm sure you are right however as you rightly point out "The talent to formulate a corrective redesign rests with the OEM." The AAIB's role isn't to rebuild EC's 225 helicopter, its to report on the accident, or in the AAIB's own words:-

"It is responsible for the investigation of civil aircraft accidents and serious incidents within the United Kingdom. The AAIB is also frequently called upon to assist with military and overseas investigations. The Chief
Inspector of Air Accidents is responsible directly to the Secretary of State for Transport."

EC's work into a long term fix is there own business and can follow their own theories in that regard at will.

What surely must remain independant (which means AAIB or persons contracted by the AAIB) is the work done to validate the cause of the issues - otherwise for the obvious OEM's the AAIB becomes an irrelvance.

One might be minded to highlight the factors that allowed the 2nd accident in October because of guidance from the OEM to a batch of shafts. The OEM also guided the HUMS strategy which when you look at the available data from the May accident doesn't seem that smart.

The AAIB may not have permenant resources that would be effective across all specialities but independant resources do exist and to not engage and / or direct them with an eye to their own stated mission and frankly common sense is a failure of duty.

JohnDixson

14th Feb 2013, 10:12

Sorry, Pitts, must have been my misinterpretation of your other post, as we seem to be in agreement, especially with your remark about EC's application of the HUMS after the first event. Don't you guess that there was some serious internal review of that after the second event?

Some accidents/incidents appear to have very simple causal factors at the outset, only to turn into thorny technical investigations. This has the looks of one. The 53E swashplate failure in 1996 was another. Took six months or so, and SA had virtually all of the top US metallurgy people consulting on that bearing failure. The early meetings can shake one's confidence: you spend two hours reviewing all of the design and manufacturing methodologies, and at the end conclude what a waste of time that was, since you all just " proved " that the failure that did occur could not possibly have done so.

westhy

6th Mar 2013, 13:03

What is the latest news about the 225 situation ???

Pittsextra

6th Mar 2013, 19:43

What is the latest news about the 225 situation ???

A cynic might say....

AAIB will wait for EC to come to some conclusion so their report can conclude the same. EC meanwhile on huge PR with operators, who in turn play a more visible role in the safety group (more PR), ending with EC trying to get the CAA to agree to a regular HUMS monitoring so that they can get the type flying again until a full time fix is online.

The problem with the later is that unless you can effect HUMS downloads whilst away from base then the data from the accident helicopters does not really suit EC's cause in this regard.

That lights normal!

6th Mar 2013, 22:24

The problem with the later is that unless you can effect HUMS downloads whilst away from base then the data from the accident helicopters does not really suit EC's cause in this regard.

Also, if they do fly them without fixing the problem (HUMS, possible restrictions, lip service, etc).
And another ends up in the water, or worse, I'd suggest the model would be "finished".

chute packer

7th Mar 2013, 00:06

From 21/2.

UK CAA plays down chances of early return for grounded EC225s (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-caa-plays-down-chances-of-early-return-for-grounded-ec225s-382600/)

Eurocopter's hopes that its EC225 can make an early return to unrestricted overwater operations appear to be fading after the UK Civil Aviation Agency poured cold water on the airframer's plans.

The type has effectively been grounded in the UK and Norway since the October ditching of an EC225 operated by CHC Scotia, the second incident of its kind within six months. So far, Eurocopter has been unable to find a root cause for the cracks in a gearbox component that led to the accident.

Lutz Bertling, Eurocopter chief executive, said during a January media briefing that he expected to see relaxation of the CAA's restrictions in early spring on the back of temporary "safety barriers" proposed by the manufacturer.

However, the CAA says it will not remove its operational limitations until Eurocopter is able to demonstrate it has a permanent fix to the problem in place.

"Safety clearly has to take absolute priority, and the EC225 operating restrictions will not be lifted until we are absolutely convinced it is safe to do so," it says.

"We continue to work with all stakeholders, and are liaising closely with EASA in regard to airworthiness issues and any mechanical solutions put forward by the manufacturer."

Nonetheless, it says it may consider temporary fixes if the airframer identifies the root cause of the fracture to the helicopter's bevel gear vertical shaft.

Although Eurocopter is continuing its testing efforts on the component, the ultimate cause remains elusive. Derek Sharples, executive vice-president support and services, says: "We have performed a lot of investigations and a large number of possible causes have been eliminated, so we are a lot closer but we are yet to determine the cause or combination of causes."

The results of its third test campaign on the shaft are due at the end of February, it says.

Executives from the company, including chief technical officer Jean-Brice Dumont, attended a 14 February meeting in Cologne with EASA and national civil aviation regulators to begin the process of "aligning" their policies towards the EC225. However, no firm agreement was reached.

Sharples says he is "convinced" the aircraft is safe, but concedes work remains to be carried out to persuade other stakeholders. "There are 10,000 people who work offshore and we have to work diligently to convince all of them that the aircraft is safe and that we have their safety as the highest priority," he says.

Pittsextra

8th Mar 2013, 12:18

Eurocopter poaches BAE's Scott Hailstone for new comms role | PR & public relations news | PRWeek (http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1173849/eurocopter-poaches-baes-scott-hailstone-new-comms-role/)

....the pieces start falling into place...

Variable Load

8th Mar 2013, 19:28

Love the picture. It was obviously taken just as they gave him the news of his new assignment :E

thewhiterabbit

8th Mar 2013, 21:46

Eurocopter's first priority was not to return the Super Pumas to service, but to ‘regain confidence in the aircraft, company and solution’.

One would think that returning the EC225s to service with the problem fixed would be the best way to regain confidence int he company.

diginagain

9th Mar 2013, 06:06

While I can see the need to put out a statement that EC have appointed a new PR specialist specifically for the offshore sector, I fail to comprehend the need for the unconnected final paragraph in the article linked by Pittsextra. It is more commonly found in press articles from the other side of the pond, and looks like a distinct own-goal.

2papabravo

9th Mar 2013, 08:54

That is a terrible photo of the PR man for a press release!

I don't think he could muster anymore of a frown...although it probably sums up his emotion at the small mountain he is facing :)

riff_raff

10th Mar 2013, 01:00

....One would think that returning the EC225s to service with the problem fixed would be the best way to regain confidence int he company......While EC is likely getting lots of pressure from operators to get the EC225 MGB problem resolved quickly, the worst thing they could do is employ some band-aid fix to be expedient. If there were even a hint of a similar problem reoccurring, that would catastrophic for EC. The real danger for EC is customers losing confidence in the company at large, more than simply the EC225 product itself. The actual cost of the EC225 MGB repairs is something EC can afford, since it involves fewer than 150 total aircraft.

Hiring a savvy PR rep to focus on this problem is a smart move. The other thing I would suggest to EC is that they make the entire process transparent and public by issuing regular press releases detailing their efforts and progress. Keeping things as quiet as possible will only arouse public suspicion. The public is very forgiving of those who admit to making honest mistakes, and then make a good faith effort to correct them. But the public has no tolerance for those that attempt to hide or cover up their mistakes.

A good example is the recent problem Boeing faces with the 787 batteries. While there were no injuries/fatalities related to the problem, the financial impact to Boeing may be much greater than that to EC from the EC225 MGB issue. However, Boeing seems to be doing a good job so far with PR regarding the battery problems. I have seen a couple of detailed technical presentations they have voluntarily made public describing the situation. By doing so, they demonstrate they have nothing to hide. Hopefully, people will learn this lesson from history. Whether it was Nixon/Watergate, Ford/Pinto fires, Clinton/Lewinsky, Obama/Fast&Furious or Hillary/Benghazi, they only became scandals when it appeared there was an effort to cover things up.

Pittsextra

13th Mar 2013, 11:54

The 225 will be back in service soon

As Bravo says they are still trying to conclude the issues let alone effect a fix - which is reflected by the silence from the AAIB.

Given the HUMS trend data that has been published and the fact G-CHCN was on a 226nm trip at circa 140knt cruise how do you see operations pre-fix??

Edited to add : - and thats without reverting to any "Eurocopter say it will be OK and they are chock full of clever people so it really will be OK this time"

Grenville Fortescue

13th Mar 2013, 12:18

Out of interest - what is the longest that a widely used offshore helicopter has been grounded due to a manufacturer related fault?

rotor-rooter

13th Mar 2013, 17:17

Out of interest - what is the longest that a widely used offshore helicopter has been grounded due to a manufacturer related fault?

The Wessex - it NEVER flew again!

PANews

13th Mar 2013, 21:31

The latest I heard just as the Heli-Expo was dismantling was that they think they have identified the problem but it may be June before the fix is in place.

Lutz always spoke with passion - as if he believed in the product -was interesting and engaging and bearing in mind that English was not his prime language his diction was clear and concise. All you could hope for in a mouthpiece.

I think it is unlikely he is leaving any sinking ship, more like he is making another career move just like the one that brought him into EC in the first place. When he spoke last week he was not in any way a broken man and you do not get a CEOs job in Bombardier over night - the process that led us here undoubtedly started way before the January grounding.

SASless

13th Mar 2013, 22:34

What have the Bristow 225 Crews been doing for entertainment since the Grounding? Did BHL re-instate "Gardening Leave"?:E

industry insider

13th Mar 2013, 23:14

Bravo and Pitts

The 225 will indeed be back in service quite soon, 3 to 4 months probably. There is big operator pressure from one of them. EC also want it back in srervice. There will be no single fix. HUMS information will be used predictively. Downloads will be 3 hourly. There may have to be some other band aids applied. MCP may have a new datum in the VMD.

SASless

14th Mar 2013, 05:12

So is the problem going to be "fixed" or "solved/cured"?

helimutt

14th Mar 2013, 06:05

Sounds very much like a 'keep an eye on it and see how it goes' type of fix. Everyone happy to strap into a 225 again without a certain fault identified and recitifed?

bigglesbutler

14th Mar 2013, 06:29

What have the Bristow 225 Crews been doing for entertainment since the Grounding? Did BHL re-instate "Gardening Leave"?

I can happily confirm the bad old days have gone and all the 225 crews (ABZ), including brand new recruits who were yet to fly the line, are being kept on payroll and now converting to other types. So our new management are very definitely keen to keep everyone "on side" and work as a team, HURRAH. Not everything is perfect I admit but to keep paying salaries and keep people employed despite all this is really rather excellent in my mind.

As for getting back in the 225 I'll happily elbow my way to the front of the que to get in one, let me at it.

Si

oleary

14th Mar 2013, 07:03

Quote:
Out of interest - what is the longest that a widely used offshore helicopter has been grounded due to a manufacturer related fault? The Wessex - it NEVER flew again!

==========================

What utter nonsense!

Pittsextra

14th Mar 2013, 09:10

Bravo and Pitts

The 225 will indeed be back in service quite soon, 3 to 4 months probably. There is big operator pressure from one of them. EC also want it back in srervice. There will be no single fix. There may have to be some other band aids applied.

Giving these briefings that the EC225 will be in the air with whatever bandaids with operator pressure make EC less credible than briefing after the problems are quantified and co-ordinated with a published considered view from the AAIB.

HUMS... Downloads will be 3 hourly.

Why? Whats changed, given current SD's? Either nothing has changed in which case why brief a new 3 hour regime without revision to current safety directives? OR something has changed and the current SD's need updating....

Either way seems pretty grim to brief one thing (which one assumes the basis of which is to minimise risk) and yet allow SD's to reflect something else.

SASless

14th Mar 2013, 10:53

Biggles,

Is it loyalty to the Crews....or someone way up the food chain realizing the 225 is to be no more?:oh:

As to the "Gardening Leave"....that was a great policy if one valued "Time" over "Money". Getting half pay to go sailing for a few Months or to finish up one's Education was not an all together bad deal....as it was done on a volunteer basis first....then by edict. I never heard a single complaint from any who got sent to the Garden.

Pittsextra

14th Mar 2013, 12:42

TM, I think you miss my point.

Who said that the problems won't be quantified and coordinated with a published view from the AAIB and some CAA input?

I guess the typewriter at the AAIB has broken then because nothing from them and yet I see lots of this kind of thing:-

Grounded EC225s could return to use by April, Bertling says (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/grounded-ec225s-could-return-to-use-by-april-bertling-says-381451/)

In fact so much so it led to this:-

UK CAA plays down chances of early return for grounded EC225s (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-caa-plays-down-chances-of-early-return-for-grounded-ec225s-382600/)

I'm not sure that reflects a harmonious relationship between, EC, operators, AAIB, EASA and the CAA.

Edited to add:- actually harmony or otherwise is irrelevant to your point really. The last AAIB bulletin suggest these actions for 2013 :-

The investigation is currently seeking to confirm the material properties and the in-flight dynamic loads on the MGB and bevel gear vertical shaft. On-going work, some of which is anticipated to extend into 2013, includes:

- Dimensional analysis, fractography and metallographic examination of the bevel gear vertical shaft and MGB fitted to G-CHCN.
- Tests on parent and welded material samples (coupons) to confirm the material properties of the 32CDV13 steel alloy, used by the manufacturer in the design of the component, and the material’s susceptibility to cracking from small features.
- A flight load and vibration analysis programme to confirm the predicted loads in the weld region, and to establish if there is an area in the flight envelope where the bevel gear vertical shaft might operate at one of its natural frequencies.
- Examination of a sample of shafts removed from EC225 LP helicopters and an analysis of oil removed from other EC225 LP helicopters operating out of Aberdeen.

One might expect some tangable output from those items before ANY
suggest of going flying again, bandaids or none. Now I'm sure EC are going to be ahead of anyone else in terms of knowledge on these items but seems the CAA put them back in their box - was that just for ettiquette sake?

If not then at the moment with no suggestion over the cause of the issues one finds it hard to find a reason to fly, especially given the punting at a cause after the REDW accident. Thats just common sense isn't it?

Soave_Pilot

14th Mar 2013, 15:42

The Wessex - it NEVER flew again!
:=
How come it got retired in 2003 then?

Pittsextra

18th Mar 2013, 16:08

Continuing investigation into the failure of the bevel gear vertical shaft
Since the update published in AAIB Special Bulletin S7/2012 on 29 November 2012, the investigation has continued to review the material properties and the dynamic loads in the bevel gear vertical shaft.
The coupon testing undertaken by QinetiQ to confirm the material properties and the material’s susceptibility to cracking is nearing completion. An independent review of the fracture mechanics to establish why the shafts failed during normal operations is also being carried out. In order to ensure that the dynamic flight loads acting on the shaft are consistent with the design assumptions, the aircraft manufacturer is running a shaft, equipped with 32 strain gauges, through a series of dynamic tests.
The results of this activity will be reported in subsequent bulletins

Air Accidents Investigation: S2/2013 EC225 LP Super Puma, G-REDW G-CHCN (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s2_2013_ec225_lp_super_puma__g_redw_g_chcn.cfm)

Edited to add:- from the above AAIB statements can anyone give any colour on what would have been covered by flight test with regards to ensuring that dynamic flight loads are consistent with design assumptions?

Doesn't seem to me that anyone here is rushing to make any recommendations to patch it up and fly anytime soon.

EESDL

19th Mar 2013, 17:18

......and then there is the Eurocopter SIN declaring that the CPI/ADELT might not work as advertised if you press Transmit before actually ditching........would have been difficult to actually make that one up!

SASless

20th Mar 2013, 01:01

So.....what causes the crack to begin with?:uhoh:

If EC can hang their hat on such a "fix"....why can they not design a Shaft that does not crack?:rolleyes:

I just love the MCP-15%.....why not just limit the MCP to that number to begin with?:ugh:

Variable Load

20th Mar 2013, 02:31

It's not very re-assuring that ECF cannot identify the root cause, yet have total confidence that if a crack starts to propagate then a simple reduction in power provides total assurance for continued flight such that "land as soon as practicable" is appropriate.

Surely "land as soon as possible" would be more appropriate?

One more ditching (or worse) will surely be the final nail........?

Fingers crossed it doesn't happen :sad:

Rigging Pin

20th Mar 2013, 08:36

terminus mos are you implying the Aircraft will return whilst operating with normal MCP limitations?

From what I understood so far is Eurocopter would like to release the A/C with "extra close monitoring", flying at reduced MCP continuesly, de-mod version 12 software to avoid a certain Nr range and a fix for the MGB emlube issues.

But it will take ages for the 225 to come back if the CAA is only going to allow it back over the water with a real fix for the breaking shaft.

RP

212man

20th Mar 2013, 09:10

I just love the MCP-15%.....why not just limit the MCP to that number to begin with?

That seems a bit 'coarse' - surely MCP will be either TOT, N1 or Tq limited? The cracking can't be caused by all three parameters, or is there an altitude restriction in the SIN that means the a/c will be Tq limited anyway?

"land as soon as possible" is normally written "land or ditch as soon as possible"

I disagree - ditching would come under "Land Immediately." Land as soon as possible means "land at the nearest place where a safe landing can be made." A ditching may be safe - as it was in these two cases - but is not assured.

HeliComparator

20th Mar 2013, 09:54

EEDSL - I can see the point of designing the CPI like that, its so you can activate it in flight when carrying out an emergency over-land landing and not risk it pinging off at touchdown and smashing on a rock. The error is not in the design, but in the failure to let crews know about it!

HeliComparator

20th Mar 2013, 09:59

RP - I believe the current plan is to retain MCP, only reducing to 70% TQ if a crack is detected. EC are adamant that the cracking is not caused by MCP torque, merely that once cracked, reducing the torque slows the propagation rate. However the story does seem to change quite often!

212 - I think it means torque limited to its MCP value - 15%, so max 70% tq unless another parameter is more limiting, but that would be pretty hard to achieve even hot and high

212man

20th Mar 2013, 11:04

Thanks HC, I guess the Makilas operate a lot further from their design point than the arriels!

212man

20th Mar 2013, 12:23

I am sharing what I have learned at a high level from an operator briefing

Which presumably ECF were happy to have made public? It would be a shame for the information flow to operators and customers dry up through fear of public broadcast. Just a thought :ok:

SASless

20th Mar 2013, 13:15

reducing the torque slows the propagation rate.

Does the reduction in MCP "reduce" or "stop" the propagation of the cracking?

In about a half dozen posts....we have directly contradictory comments.

Am I the only one here that sees this 225 MGB problem being far more dangerous than EC is letting on?

Are we seeing Operators and EC conspiring to put the 225's back into Service without FIRST determining exactly what is causing the Failures....and THEN re-designing the MGB to ELIMINATE the problem and doing the necessary TESTING to CONFIRM/CERTIFY the CURE.....BEFORE putting the aircraft back into service?

Lonewolf_50

20th Mar 2013, 14:13

SASless, if a crack is detected, it sounds like one needs to overhaul the box, which isn't a cheap evolution.

I'd be surprised if the operators are too keen on that as the condition for return to overwater flights.

"We'll slow the crack propogation down" may also mean the bird is left on the rig for a few days while they sort out an overhaul/shaft replacement on the rig.

Bravo73

20th Mar 2013, 15:06

So, let me get this right. 'Supposedly', Eurocopter is saying that the shaft can still crack. But if/when it does, there will be a warning in the cockpit so that the pilots can slow down a bit and then land as soon as possible.

Really?

You really think that the CAA are going to go for this? That they are going to release to service an aircraft with a know fault of a major critical component?

And even if the CAA do go for it, do you think that the various unions are going to let their members get on an aircraft with this known fault?

And what about the pilots? Do they want to fly an aircraft with a gearbox with a shaft that is prone to shearing? I know that I don't.

Harry the Hun

20th Mar 2013, 18:54

SansAnhedral

20th Mar 2013, 19:00

So there is a procedure for the shaft, might it be wrong or right, who knows. What is done about the emergency lubrication system that failed as well, or at least indicated that it failed? Are there changes in the design of that system?

From AAIB Special Bulletin S2/2013 p6 (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s2_2013_ec225_lp_super_puma__g_redw_g_chcn.cfm):

The helicopter manufacturer is planning to introduce replacement pressure switches with lower thresholds and tighter tolerances, as well as improved maintenance procedures, that will provide the crew with an accurate indication of the status [of the EMLUB system] over the entire operating envelope of the helicopter.

Bravo73

20th Mar 2013, 19:52

What is done about the emergency lubrication system that failed as well, or at least indicated that it failed? Are there changes in the design of that system?

They (EC) reckon that they have fixed the problem with the EmLub system.

But it's still bit of a red herring. The EmLub is designed to work when there has been a total loss of oil (ie the case cracks). It's not going to help much when a) the gearbox is still full of oil and b) the main shaft has sheared in half and is thrashing around inside the casing, ie the situation with both REDW and CHCN.

Rigging Pin

20th Mar 2013, 20:27

Bravo 73 even though the MGB is still full of oil, with a shaft failure it doesn't lube the bits which need to be lubed so therefore using the Emlube will at least provide cooling of those critical items in the box so it should be of some help.

And as far as I am aware even though the shaft broke and therefore dropped down a little... it didn't trash the inside of the gearbox...
I stand to be corrected on that one though cause I haven't seen any of the gearboxes myself:E

RP

Bravo73

20th Mar 2013, 20:43

Bravo 73 even though the MGB is still full of oil, with a shaft failure it doesn't lube the bits which need to be lubed so therefore using the Emlube will at least provide cooling of those critical items in the box so it should be of some help.

Not when the EmLub system pressurises the gearbox, hence forcing out most of the remaining oil and glycol (onto the head of the passengers sitting underneath). :{

And as far as I am aware even though the shaft broke and therefore dropped down a little... it didn't trash the inside of the gearbox...
I stand to be corrected on that one though cause I haven't seen any of the gearboxes myself:E

RP

Are you aware of the principle of how a fluid coupling works? Then imagine what would happen to the unsupported broken shaft after 30 mins of flight (the limit for the EmLub system). :eek:

Harry the Hun

20th Mar 2013, 20:57

Bravo 73 even though the MGB is still full of oil, with a shaft failure it doesn't lube the bits which need to be lubed so therefore using the Emlube will at least provide cooling of those critical items in the box so it should be of some help.

Not when the EmLub system pressurises the gearbox, hence forcing out most of the remaining oil and glycol (onto the head of the passengers sitting underneath). :{

And as far as I am aware even though the shaft broke and therefore dropped down a little... it didn't trash the inside of the gearbox...
I stand to be corrected on that one though cause I haven't seen any of the gearboxes myself:E

RP

Are you aware of the principle of how a fluid coupling works? Then imagine what would happen to the unsupported broken shaft after 30 mins of flight (the limit for the EmLub system). :eek:

I am not, I guess. What do you have in mind?

riff_raff

21st Mar 2013, 02:39

They (EC) reckon that they have fixed the problem with the EmLub system.

But it's still bit of a red herring. The EmLub is designed to work when there has been a total loss of oil (ie the case cracks). It's not going to help much when a) the gearbox is still full of oil and b) the main shaft has sheared in half and is thrashing around inside the casing, ie the situation with both REDW and CHCN. Bravo73- Your point is mostly valid. The changes to the emergency lube system do not address the bevel shaft fracture issue. However, due to the location of the weld joint and the bevel gear shaft's bearing configuration (ie. two cylindrical roller bearings and one 4-point ball bearing) it is also unlikely that any shaft "flailing" would occur from a weld joint fracture. The driven end of the bevel gear shaft would be sufficiently constrained by a single cylindrical roller bearing and the 4-point ball bearing to prevent flailing. But it would not be sufficiently constrained to prevent gross misalignment of the bevel gear/pinion mesh, which would quickly result in catastrophic structural failure of the bevel gear teeth.

There is also the fundamental issue of what caused the fracture failures in the bevel shaft weld joint. Was it a design issue? Was it a material issue? Or was it a manufacturing process control issue?

While I have not seen detailed engineering documentation of the bevel shaft components or weldment, I have seen a cross section drawing of what appeared to be the EC225 MGB. The first thing I noted was that the bevel shaft EB weld joint appeared to be a simple butt joint. In this instance, a simple butt joint shaft weld would not have any fault tolerance in the event of a weld joint fracture. I would suggest that a more fault tolerant weld joint design would be a butt weld backed-up by a lap joint. Thus, even in the event of a complete fracture in the butt weld joint, the back-up lap joint would maintain alignment of the two halves of the shaft, and would allow the bevel gear mesh to continue functioning in some capacity.

Pittsextra

21st Mar 2013, 14:32

I believe the current plan is to retain MCP, only reducing to 70% TQ if a crack is detected. EC are adamant that the cracking is not caused by MCP torque, merely that once cracked, reducing the torque slows the propagation rate. However the story does seem to change quite often!

So why does this exist?

“
MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS TORQUE LIMITED TO 70% DURING LEVEL FLIGHTS AT IAS≥ 60 KTS ”

As for the view from TM that EC think corrosion is the issue. From G-REDW bulletin:-

The MGB was fitted to G-REDW on 18 March 2012, following overhaul at the helicopter manufacturer’s facility, where a new bevel gear vertical shaft (serial number M385) was fitted. This shaft failed in flight after approximately 167 flying hours.

Edited to add :- shows the mark of TM that in the spirt of open debate he has deleted all of his posts. No doubt makes the PR easier if the grunts are left in the dark?

Lonewolf_50

21st Mar 2013, 14:48

shows the mark of TM that in the spirt of open debate he has deleted all of his posts. No doubt makes the PR easier if the grunts are left in the dark?
Pitts, based on the interchange between TM and 212 man that I read yesterday, I am guessing that he may have re-assessed his posts here as "talking out of school." I think he made a decision (based on potential traceability) to return to a position of professional discretion.

People have jobs.

If they jeopardize them via a bit too much sharing on public forums, it can be costly.

I for one would not want to have goaded someone into professional "own goal" by demanding adherence to some the "spirit of open debate."

If you doubt me, you may wish to look up any number of folks in the last year or so who have run into trouble with their bosses over what they post on facebouk.

Wizzard

21st Mar 2013, 14:56

Pitts. see above and grow up!

TM indicated that he was about to withdraw from this thread for the reasons already discussed.

Pittsextra

21st Mar 2013, 15:22

I thought EC said they wanted to be transparent about all of this? Isn't that what the helicopter safety group is all about, or the YouTube clips, or the new PR guy.

But sure getting someone fired etc isn't cool so take my comment as an easy cheap shot.

In the meantime...how about a view on corrosion and MCP?

skadi

21st Mar 2013, 16:03

Problem with emlube system solved?

Incorrect specification caused EC225 emergency lube fault (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/incorrect-specification-caused-ec225-emergency-lube-fault-383682/)

skadi

HeliComparator

21st Mar 2013, 23:04

212 - FL100 near Malta in summer (ie hot) just hitting the engine limit so torque down by a couple of % ie MCP around 80% Q (though AP limiting it to around 78%) so it's hard to imagine flight conditions where you would get near to 70% Q - maybe equatorial at FL100?

Pitts, regarding the torque limits, I know its complex but do try to keep up! 70% Q now, because one needs to have a reasonable flight duration between HUMS downloads. Once the MOD 45 airborne alert is in place, no point in limiting torque until after a crack is detected. Hopefully not that often, after all we did manage nearly 100,000 hrs in the company and no cracks at all, so its not as if its going to be cracking every other flight! One needs to keep a sense of scale!

terminus mos

22nd Mar 2013, 00:09

Lonewolf and Wizzard. thank you. I do not work fior EC. I do work with a company that is very affected by the EC225 issue. I would love to be able to share all I know but I probably can't.

Bravo73

22nd Mar 2013, 00:21

Hmmm, any idea what happened to my post from about the 12th/13th March? It seems to have been disappeared... :suspect:

Senior Pilot

22nd Mar 2013, 00:40

Hmmm, any idea what happened to my post from about the 12th/13th March? It seems to have been disappeared... :suspect:

You made 4 posts on two other threads: they are still there. Nothing shows as being deleted on this thread; the last post of yours that was deleted was by you on the 8th February 2013 on another thread.

A bit early for dementia at your age ;)

Bravo73

22nd Mar 2013, 00:49

You made 4 posts on two other threads: they are still there. Nothing shows as being deleted on this thread; the last post of yours that was deleted was by you on the 8th February 2013 on another thread.

A bit early for dementia at your age ;)

Oops. You're right. My 'disappeared post' about the 225 (directed to terminal mouse) was actually in the 'Eurocopter CEO deserts the sinking ship' thread.

Doh. My bad. :O

PS How do you know how old I am? :confused:

Pittsextra

22nd Mar 2013, 09:19

Pitts, regarding the torque limits, I know its complex but do try to keep up! 70% Q now, because one needs to have a reasonable flight duration between HUMS downloads. Once the MOD 45 airborne alert is in place, no point in limiting torque until after a crack is detected. Hopefully not that often, after all we did manage nearly 100,000 hrs in the company and no cracks at all, so its not as if its going to be cracking every other flight! One needs to keep a sense of scale!

Of course all this makes perfect sense until you consider that its possible a MOD 45 alarm maybe alerting you to a problem that isn't related to the current issue.

Becoming complacent over MOD 45 alarms; that all is resolved by a reduce to 70% and finish the flight, is just a gamble - I grant you an educated gamble - but a gamble non-the-less.

I take the published data to read that its likely that the helicopter with the highest time shaft ended in the sea after 3845 hours or another after 167 hours.

How does that 100000 hour statistic help anyone now?

212man

22nd Mar 2013, 10:06

Just to confirm - MOD 45 is a specific sensor? I only as because m'arms as a whole is an ATA 45 system.

Pittsextra

22nd Mar 2013, 10:23

MOD-45 is used to monitor meshing of bevel gear. This relates:-

Air Accidents Investigation: S7/2012 - EC225 LP Super Puma, G-CHCN (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s7_2012___ec225_lp_super_puma__g_chcn.cfm)

HeliComparator

22nd Mar 2013, 15:47

Of course all this makes perfect sense until you consider that its possible a MOD 45 alarm maybe alerting you to a problem that isn't related to the current issue.

Becoming complacent over MOD 45 alarms; that all is resolved by a reduce to 70% and finish the flight, is just a gamble - I grant you an educated gamble - but a gamble non-the-less.

I take the published data to read that its likely that the helicopter with the highest time shaft ended in the sea after 3845 hours or another after 167 hours.

How does that 100000 hour statistic help anyone now?

If the MOD 45 is alerting you to another issue - so what, you didn't have that warning in the cockpit before anyway. Who said anyone would be complacent about MOD45 alarms? Anyway, it won't be "finish the flight" it will be "land as soon as practicable". According to EC (and of course we believe everything they say) the false alarm rate for MOD45 is very low - they have looked back at a lot of historic data.

A gamble - yes of course but so is expecting any helicopter's myriad of rotating bits to stay together for a flight. Certification rules are based on a gamble. If you don't want a gamble, stay in bed. Oh no, then you die of bed sores! Or choose gambling odds that are favourable!

The point about the 100000 hrs is that, although there have been 2 shaft cracks and one with very low hours, there has also been a hell of a lot of other flying with no shaft cracks. You are presuming the shaft cracked because it was "old and tired", maybe it cracked because there was something wrong with the manufacture or utlisation of it (we don't know at this point).

212 - yes the MOD45 is just the particular M'ARMS parameter for the vertical shaft and the one which gives the best warning of cracked shaft. Nothing to do with ATA45!

Pittsextra

22nd Mar 2013, 16:52

If the MOD 45 is alerting you to another issue - so what, you didn't have that warning in the cockpit before anyway.

Sure but previously when the MOD-45 alarm had pinged the red threshold - what do you do upon discovery? It didn't include flying until you had found out why you had the alarm.

By your logic ignorance is bliss and anything better than ignorance is licence to carry on regardless because "hey you didn't worry before!"

Who said anyone would be complacent about MOD45 alarms?

EC are by putting a MOD45 alert in cockpit because the only logic behind that decision is because of the assumption that every MOD-45 alarm is related to the current issue and it may not be.

The change from the current MOD-45 alarm (when its beyond a red threshold) is to check before flight yet and now it might be land as soon as practicable.

Thats an increased risk.

According to EC (and of course we believe everything they say) the false alarm rate for MOD45 is very low - they have looked back at a lot of historic data.

Even more reason not to continue flying if it alarms then....

Whilst this isn't all about liability who is going to want to be the one to sign that process off??

A gamble - yes of course but so is expecting any helicopter's myriad of rotating bits to stay together for a flight. Certification rules are based on a gamble. If you don't want a gamble, stay in bed. Oh no, then you die of bed sores! Or choose gambling odds that are favourable!

Really is that your attitude to flight safety? Maybe the the EC new PR guy might want to open his presentation in a softer tone!

Its one thing to give it the big one, be a big hero and telling everyone "if you want no risk stay in bed". Its easy to talk about safety (and now we have operators and a manufacturer in PR overdrive) but I suggest it would be a different tune if someone was made personally liable for any future disaster.

Perhaps reflect on the outcome of another North Sea accident and see how this band aid might be viewed...

The point about the 100000 hrs is that, although there have been 2 shaft cracks and one with very low hours, there has also been a hell of a lot of other flying with no shaft cracks. You are presuming the shaft cracked because it was "old and tired", maybe it cracked because there was something wrong with the manufacture or utlisation of it (we don't know at this point).

I don't presume anything. Its a fact that one shaft that failed was very low time and the other was almost certainly the highest time shaft on a 225. Given the time and resources that have been spent so far on this issue I'd say the 100k other hours haven't been relevant in coming to a conclusion.

What is actually quite frightening with the EC225 are the other elements of these ditchings and the associated failures, then in the next breath everyone is supposed to be totally cool with EC pushing the limit with a variety of band aids.

SASless

22nd Mar 2013, 17:06

HC,

So let me get this straight....you seem to have no great concern about flying with a cracked shaft in the 225 Gear Box.....would comfortably reduce MCP, and continue on to the nearest dry landing spot....all the while happily trusting EC's statement to you that the Power Reduction would stop any crack from getting worse.

How do you know the shaft is not broken and merely beginning to crack?

With the Shaft fully severed....any concerns the Warning you see in the Cockpit might be grossly understating the problem?

We don't care about False Warnings or Warnings that accurately report the beginning of a Crack....but how do we decide if the Shaft has FAILED?

Lonewolf_50

22nd Mar 2013, 17:50

Pittsextra

22nd Mar 2013, 18:18

Lonewolf - yes quite and REDL accident report shows what can follow chip detection warnings and oil pressure alarms.

If you start getting comfortable over looking alarms at some point you'll get bitten.

Currently HUMS is an early alert to something not being well. That is a good thing.

Having a mental state that starts getting comfortable or it no longer matters and you can fly on waiting for chip detection warnings and a low oil pressure alarm is madness.

skastdk

22nd Mar 2013, 19:14

Eurocopter identifies cause of bevel shaft crack in EC225 ditchings | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/23413#.UUytHltdbIZ)

DOUBLE BOGEY

22nd Mar 2013, 19:14

When the vertical shaft starts to crack, the MOD45 pickup will detect it after a defined length of propagation. Reducing the detection threshold to indicate earlier in the propagation a is reasonable. Once the threshold is reached there could be an indication in the cockpit.

At this stage everything is working inside the gearbox normally.

It makes sense to now reduce power, which EC have data to indicate, dramatically slows the propagation, and LAND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Which means land at the nearest suitable site, rig, platform or airport etc.

If the shaft fails (Are you listening SAS), the crew immediatley get 4 independent indications of total MGB oil px failure.

As an interim solution I would work this all day long.

PITTS - ditching a helicopter successfully requires optimum performance of a minimum number of safety systems. NS helicopters carry a myriad of systems to ensure the minimum number provide an optimum result. For EG the CPI has 5 backups in one form or another.

In both recent cases the outcome was optimum but not just because of EC225 provision, but decades of careful analysis following many ditchings worldwide. We seem to learn something from every single one. Especially how all the gear, crew, pax and the environment interact on each other. We are lucky in EASA land that our Authorities make sure that manufacturers and operators continue to apply what we learn.

It is for these reasons that reading your drivel on this post and others, childishly trashing many countless professionals in EC, the Operators and the Authorities literally boils my piss!!

DB

bigglesbutler

22nd Mar 2013, 19:49

With regard to "the Pitts":

http://images.mmorpg.com/images/avatars/please-do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg

I post this because from the moment you appeared you have been agressive, arogant and downright rude. You have no real idea, from your own admission, of what you are talking about other than regurgitating reports and seem to think you know it all because you can fly.

Si

P.S. I would get back in a 225 tomorrow if they gave me one, because I trust our engineers to know what they tell me, our trainers to know what they teach me and my own judgement on the aircraft.

Pittsextra

22nd Mar 2013, 21:05

So in summary DB are you saying the only trigger for the MOD45 alarm is this current problem?

It's all very good boiling your piss over criticism of the 225 etc but all you've done is talk around the issue. On top of slagging me off over not wanting a mate passenger in a helicopter with what are clearly serious issues until they are properly fixed. What's wrong with that?

terminus mos

22nd Mar 2013, 22:53

. Eurocopter identifies cause of bevel shaft crack in EC225 ditchings | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry (http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/23413#.UUytHltdbIZ)

The article doesn't say what the cause (s) are. Residual stress and corrosion.

Harry the Hun

22nd Mar 2013, 22:54

SASless, if I understand how this shaft works, your indication of failure looks to be the oil pressure dropping (possibly as a follow on to the "hey, it's cracking" indication) and that followed by chip detectors going off as bits of metal start to float about in the lubricating fluid?

Not really, broken shaft leads to zero oilpressure, hence no fluid circulation, hence no chip detection.

riff_raff

22nd Mar 2013, 23:56

....but how do we decide if the Shaft has FAILED?

SASless, if I understand how this shaft works, your indication of failure looks to be the oil pressure dropping (possibly as a follow on to the "hey, it's cracking" indication) and that followed by chip detectors going off as bits of metal start to float about in the lubricating fluid? Lonewolf_50-

The trick is to detect fractures before they have propagated sufficiently to cause a failure, and there are currently techniques available to do this with rotating components. However, these crack detection techniques require dedicated instrumentation and monitoring systems. In other words, the gearbox has to be designed to look for such an event.

The image below shows an example of how such a system might work. It uses a pair of radial displacement probes (probably something like a proximity sensor) and an angular encoder to monitor radial shaft deflection vs. angular shaft position. This technique will detect a transverse shaft fracture (like the one that occurred in the EC225 bevel shaft) much earlier than a lube oil chip detector will, since there is not much debris generated until the fracture has propagated substantially. However, even the technique shown will not readily detect a transverse fracture until it begins to "breathe". This means that the fracture must be significant enough to alter the structural stiffness characteristics of the shaft.

http://gasturbinespower.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/data/Journals/JETPEZ/926031/092502_1_f1.jpeg

Regards,
riff_raff

Lonewolf_50

24th Mar 2013, 13:24

Rif_raff:
Thanks, that was very enlightening. :ok:

HeliComparator

24th Mar 2013, 19:33

Rid-raff, surely the same thing is achieved with currently installed HUMS sensors? In either case, detection will only occur once the shaft starts to "breathe" as you put it. However your system introduces additional components inside the box, which could possibly have some impact on gearbox integrity, whereas HUMS is a purely non-invasive technique - ie nothing extra inside the gearbox.

riff_raff

26th Mar 2013, 03:14

HC-

First, let me admit that the only detailed knowledge I have of the EC225 MGB design in particular is that I have gleaned from the public domain. However, I am an engineer by trade with a fair amount of rotorcraft drivetrain design experience.

As for your question regarding the impact on MGB "integrity" resulting from adding non-contacting instrumentation such as shaft radial displacement probes or shaft angular position sensors, there would be no real impact on "integrity". These sensors are solid state devices, and are thus extremely reliable and rugged. However, I believe even the best current MGB HUMS typically only employ sensors for chip detection and vibration monitoring with regards to detecting structural failure of rotating components such as gears, bearings or shafts. And there is nothing similar to the approach I showed currently in widespread use.

The outputs of turboshaft engines commonly include a "torquemeter" that measures the speed and torque transmitted through the output shaft. The torquemeter often consists of a pair of angular position sensors (such as Hall effect devices) and trigger wheels at opposite ends of the output shaft, which measure the torsional deflection of the output shaft under load. The engine HUMS records the accumulated shaft rotations and torque moment applied during each such event.

Lastly, even the most basic MGB HUMS utilize instrumentation that would be considered "invasive". There are chip detectors in the lube oil return circuit, there are pressure and temp sensors in the lube oil pressure circuit, there is a differential pressure sensor in the lube oil filter housing, there is a level sensor in the lube oil reservoir, etc.

Regards,
riff_raff

212man

26th Mar 2013, 08:27

The outputs of turboshaft engines commonly include a "torquemeter" that measures the speed and torque transmitted through the output shaft. The torquemeter often consists of a pair of angular position sensors (such as Hall effect devices) and trigger wheels at opposite ends of the output shaft, which measure the torsional deflection of the output shaft under load. The engine HUMS records the accumulated shaft rotations and torque moment applied during each such event

Not sure if the EC225 uses the same system, but that exactly how the AS332 works - phonic wheels and hall effect.

HeliComparator

26th Mar 2013, 14:34

R-R, however on the EC / AS aircraft, the sensors you refer to for oil temp, pressure and chip are already there as part of the basic certification requirements. HUMS just piggy-backs onto them. The only extra sensors for HUMS are all mounted external to the gearbox.

With your scheme, for each shaft you need at least a pair of sensors in quadrature, probably more for multi-bearing shafts. Whereas for external vibe sensors, one can share a number of shaft/gears/bearings and/or more than 1 sensor can look at the same element to give corroboration. With the amazing "power" of signal averaging, current hums technology is pretty good at detecting the sort of shaft breathing you are referring to. Sorry but I remain unconvinced that proximity/position sensing is a better way to do it.

Lonewolf_50

26th Mar 2013, 14:37

HC, while we discuss ways of measuring shaft crack magnitude, I suspect that the reall issue for EC to resolve is the thing cracking in the first place. ;)
I do appreciate your points on adding parts and circuits and sensors inside the box regarding a risk of failure profile.

HeliComparator

26th Mar 2013, 19:00

HC, while we discuss ways of measuring shaft crack magnitude, I suspect that the real issue for EC to resolve is the thing cracking in the first place.

No argument from me on that one!

riff_raff

30th Mar 2013, 05:02

.....With your scheme, for each shaft you need at least a pair of sensors in quadrature, probably more for multi-bearing shafts. Whereas for external vibe sensors, one can share a number of shaft/gears/bearings and/or more than 1 sensor can look at the same element to give corroboration. With the amazing "power" of signal averaging, current hums technology is pretty good at detecting the sort of shaft breathing you are referring to. Sorry but I remain unconvinced that proximity/position sensing is a better way to do it..........HC- I agree that a single triax accelerometer mounted externally can monitor multiple sources of vibration (passing frequencies of bearing rolling elements, gear meshing frequencies, etc.) for abnormalities associated with spalling type failures. With sophisticated signal processing and accurate mapping of the gearbox's normal vibration signature, it is even possible to determine which component in the gearbox is having a problem. However, this vibration monitoring technique would not detect a transverse shaft fracture until the fracture propagation was significant enough to alter the structural stiffness of the shaft and produce a dynamic imbalance force.

It was not my intent to propose using the technique shown in that image as a fix for the EC225 MGB. I only meant to demonstrate that there are methods to monitor for such failures. As you correctly noted, it would be difficult to implement such a system for each rotating shaft in the MGB.

In practice, there is typically no monitoring for these types of failure modes. While it may seem illogical, especially given what occurred with the EC225 MGB bevel shaft, the reason for this is that such failure modes are not considered to be "credible" in a classic failure mode/effects analysis. In theory, these failures are prevented from occurring by a combination of careful design and analysis, use of special materials, tightly controlled manufacturing processes, special inspections, etc.

Regards,
riff_raff

msmfi

13th Apr 2013, 00:21

"Eurocopter Closing In On Gearbox Issue Solution"

From: Eurocopter Closing In On Gearbox Issue Solution | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ainalerts/2013-04-04/eurocopter-closing-gearbox-issue-solution)

detgnome

13th Apr 2013, 16:03

Anybody know what was going on at Abz this morning. Rumours of another gearbox issue....

Nf stable

13th Apr 2013, 16:32

Something with Brisow I hear, but all very quiet....

detgnome

15th Apr 2013, 18:37

All that I have been able to ascertain is something to do with gearbox, crack, 332L, Bristow and Australia.

Other than that, it's all very quiet.

albatross

15th Apr 2013, 18:43

Nothing like a good game of "Clue"!

SASless

16th Apr 2013, 02:01

332L.....not a 225?:eek:

Garfs

17th Apr 2013, 20:54

Apparently Aus was a false alarm. Dye marking rather than crack

HeliHenri

17th Apr 2013, 21:30

Garfs, you spoil SASless's day :E
.

SASless

18th Apr 2013, 01:32

If it had been the same problem in an L instead of a 225...it would have ruined EC's Day......mine doesn't get ruined in any case.

What I do take out of all the recent news is that the problem is not limited to a particular set of shafts as no mention has been made to enumerate the particular shafts in question....and the testing program seems designed to confirm the problem, identify the cause, and find a fix for it.....rather than just do a recall on particular Marks of shaft.

That would also tend to explain the length of time all this is taking.

Pittsextra

18th Apr 2013, 07:39

These guys sum up comments from the CEO:-

Eurocopter develops ?interim fix? for EC225 issue - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/eurocopter-develops-interim-fix-ec225-issue/)

You can read for yourselves but it really is confusing language.

For example:-

‘The final fix will include partial changes in the design of the shaft. It is not a very significant change – we can do it with the same raw material. The root cause is residual stresses from the manufacturing process combined with… other things. But the final fix is a slight change of the
design,’ Bertling said

Then he continues with:-

He noted that the crack was caused by unavoidable corrosion of the bevel gear shaft in combination with a ‘very specific’ set of circumstances, in a ‘worst of worst case scenario’.

If we have a "very specific" set of circumstances then isn't the fix best resolved with training? Surely if re-training or further education then its not "very specific" enough?

Whilst it might sound very fancy to have HUMS data available to the crew as they fly if they can isolate the cause to a specific set of circumstances then avoiding such circumstances has to be safer than simply making an assumption that HUMS alarms are now relating only to this issue.

bigglesbutler

18th Apr 2013, 08:06

I read Pitts post scratched my head and read the article and I think second time round it made sense, no offense meant Pitts.

That sounds positive and even my little knowledge of manufacturing processes gives me hope for a permanent fix. Lets get the software and sensors and get going again, I want to get back in the 225.

Si

Pittsextra

18th Apr 2013, 08:15

No offence taken.

If this is such a "very specific" set of circumstances and EC have identified that X, Y and Z together = crack then surely the easiest thing (prior to any redesign) to do is avoid X, Y and Z together??

My point being if you can't avoid it then its not "very specific" is it.

Edit to add: - Also having identified this issue - seemingly a few weeks ago - when will EASA (and others) modify the airworthiness directive to formalise any change in operation for those EC225's not currently grounded?

terminus mos

18th Apr 2013, 09:05

he article doesn't say what the cause (s) are. Residual stress and corrosion. You heard it here first on 22nd March!

Pittsextra

18th Apr 2013, 09:37

Yep...so like I said why wait to formalise this? EASA AD 2012-0087 came out what? 9 days after the 1st issue. So why wait 27days (and counting) to highlight these specific circumstances that presumably its advisable to avoid.

bigglesbutler

18th Apr 2013, 09:46

So why wait 27days (and counting) to highlight these specific circumstances that presumably its advisable to avoid.

Good question, Politics and public servants I would presume, I don't know how much the operators are involved at this stage but people need convincing. Don't forget the validation by the US university (Georgia Tech was it?) and that will take time for them to digest and understand.

In short I have no idea but the lack of information is more than slightly frustrating.

Si

terminus mos

18th Apr 2013, 09:51

I have no idea Pitts. I have nothing to do with EC, I am just a customer who pays the ultimate bills. But the cause(s) are residual stress caused by the welding process and other manufacturing processes and corrosion.

The short term fix will be additional HUMS data acquisition. It will activate a (probably temporary) cockpit warning. EOP will probably be reduce MCP by 15% and continue to land as soon as possible.

The new shaft will probably not be welded and if it does have a weld, it will be done at a lower temperature to reduce stress. New shafts are predicted to be available mid 2014.

Pittsextra

18th Apr 2013, 10:04

I feel for those in the thick of this. I'm sure the issues are all the things you sasy TM but when you have a CEO coming out with comments like ..."corrosion....and other things" and "very specific set of circumstances" it will be interesting to see how the story gets spun for the punters at the HSSG.

SASless

18th Apr 2013, 12:47

New shafts are predicted to be available mid 2014.

October 2012 till June 2014.....no big deal they say?:rolleyes:

Lonewolf_50

18th Apr 2013, 14:53

The root cause is residual stresses from the manufacturing process

Ok, if these stresses come from the welding process, can they be baked out, or do they need to change the process? (I relaize the answer to that may not be available from our readership. I am not as familiar with welding aviation steel alloys as I am simpler structures, and so am asking for informational purposes).

Is hydrogen embrittlement one of the issues here?
unavoidable corrosion of the bevel gear shaft
I am trying to parse the term "unavoidable corrosion" of a steel shaft. There a loads of ways to prevent corrosion. Hmmmm. :confused:

riff_raff

18th Apr 2013, 23:58

Ok, if these stresses come from the welding process, can they be baked out, or do they need to change the process? (I relaize the answer to that may not be available from our readership. I am not as familiar with welding aviation steel alloys as I am simpler structures, and so am asking for informational purposes).

Is hydrogen embrittlement one of the issues here? Lonewolf_50-

The EB weld is performed after carburize/temper of the bevel gear teeth, so it would be difficult to thermally stress relieve the weld HAZ without affecting the tooth case properties. However, it may be possible to perform some mechanical type of stress relief post welding using vibratory stress relief or controlled shot peening. If they are not already doing so, EC should use controlled preheating & postheating in their EB welding process. This will help minimize any residual stress in the weld HAZ created by asymmetrical heating/cooling around the weld circumference as the weld is being produced.

Like you, I was also puzzled by the article's comment about "unavoidable corrosion". I don't think hydrogen embrittlement is a concern since the EB welding is performed in a vacuum chamber. In modern aerospace manufacturing, there is no such thing as "unavoidable corrosion" when it comes to something like a flight critical component inside a rotorcraft transmission. First of all, there should not have been any corrosion present on the part after manufacturing since this would be cause for rejection. Second, if there were the potential for surface corrosion to occur during the component's service life it should theoretically not have produced a fracture failure. Flight critical components like this bevel gear should be included in the propulsion system fracture control plan, which would include a fracture analysis that takes into account the effect of surface flaws from corrosion. Either the author of the article misspoke, or maybe EC needs to take another look at their fracture control plan for this particular aircraft.

Ian Corrigible

22nd Apr 2013, 16:36

when you have a CEO coming out with comments like ..."corrosion....and other things" and "very specific set of circumstances" it will be interesting to see how the story gets spun for the punters at the HSSG.
Interestingly timed perspective from Boeing on root cause analysis:
It is possible we will never know the root cause. It is not uncommon not to have found the single root cause. So industry best practice is to look at all the potential causes and address all of them. (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/505455-faa-grounds-787s-86.html#post7806029)
I/C

DOUBLE BOGEY

22nd Apr 2013, 17:43

PITTS,

How are you now aware of of such a venerable collective as the HSSG???? What could you possibly understand of their functions and role in a situation such as this?

Now I know who/ what you really are your drivel is finally exposed for what it is worth. Bias, self interested rubbish.

Come clean.....if you dare! Or must I compromise my own INTSEC and finally "Out" you?

DB

gasax

22nd Apr 2013, 19:12

Really simple DB - tens of thousands of us are aware of the HSSG and its propaganda.

Its entire approach has been to try and tell the workforce that modern helicopters are much safer than of old - inspite of the accident figures clearly showing that is not the case.

Any organisation which is prepared to 'overlook' incident figures to spin a story that suites their needs, shnould be kept at very much more than arms length. Indeed if there were such a concept as 'natural justice' bad things would be happening to these masters of spin.

Pittsextra

22nd Apr 2013, 19:32

DB a lot of sudden angst.

I’m not sure it takes any detective work to follow the “venerable collective as the HSSG”… Its all over YouTube. Here is a link:-

StepChangeInSafety - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/StepChangeInSafety?feature=watch)

You can even watch the part where around minute 28:50 you can see how earnings transcript quotes from Bristow CEO re: the EC225’s return as the press filling column inches.

That’s what I call “spin”.

See it for yourself via this link.

Helicopter Safety Event - Q&A Panel led by Les Linklater - YouTube

When the CEO comes out and attributes at least part of the problem to “other things” if you do believe it is a valid quote can you be surprised by the reaction to it given the machine is in service?

Eurocopter develops ?interim fix? for EC225 issue - News - Shephard (http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/eurocopter-develops-interim-fix-ec225-issue/)

No doubt in the coming weeks there will be some formal reporting on this and then we will see. Good luck.

Offshorebear

14th May 2013, 16:59

Step Change latest ;

Eurocopter has recreated the conditions for cracks to occur in the main gearbox vertical shaft. The crack propagation rate has also been verified using bench testing on eight different main gearbox vertical shafts.
From Eurocopter perspectives, the most probable cause is a specific combination of factors, the main ones being a specific combination of residual stress and corrosion of the vertical shaft.

Will you guys be happy to fly them on the basis of that ?

bigglesbutler

14th May 2013, 17:18

My point of view has always been, I would rather fly the EC225 with one known problem, that we can monitor/manage, than the Tiger. That said the Tiger (AS332L) is a reliable old girl and we know her intimately, both flying and maintaining it, I just prefer the 225.

From an engineering point of view EC can now make the shaft fail on command, so they know the problem and can then design a fix. That gives me comfort that they have found the problem and also have had their data ratified by several outside agencies.

In short the answer to your question is, Yes I would be happy to fly the 225 with the remedial actions going on. That and I know our engineers will go above and beyond the EC directive to satisfy themselves the aircraft is serviceable. The only question is how long it will take to get them going again.

Si

Colibri49

14th May 2013, 17:35

YES, provided that all the stakeholders like the CAA, AAIB, QinetiQ and operators agree with EC's findings and proposals to allow continued flying.

riff_raff

14th May 2013, 20:05

Assuming the corrective actions proposed are implemented, I would have no problem being a passenger on this model aircraft. No aircraft design is perfectly safe, and every system of every aircraft presents some potential for failure, however remote that potential may be. The problems that present a real hazard are the ones that are unanticipated or unforeseen. A known potential failure mode that has been characterized through extensive analysis and testing, has been addressed with engineering and manufacturing process changes, and whose recurrence is now actively being monitored for in service, presents no unacceptable level of risk. At least in my humble opinion.

landeverywhere

18th May 2013, 12:41

EC225 grounding hits revenue and profit at Eurocopter (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ec225-grounding-hits-revenue-and-profit-at-eurocopter-386009/)

"However, a temporary fix to the issue could be delivered to operators within the next three to four weeks, according to a disclosure by one EC225 customer."

furthermore:

"ERA believes a permanent fix to the cracking issue afflicting the type's bevel gear vertical shaft may be nine to 12 months away, but highlights the proposed interim solution which involved cockpit warning lights linked to the helicopter's health-monitoring system. It anticipates receipt of these retrofit kits in the next "three to four weeks", it says. However, it notes: "It is unclear whether such a case will meet the requirements of certain companies and/or unions.""

Pittsextra

23rd May 2013, 08:23

Bristow Group reported its 2013 Q4 results yesterday and had the following statement on the 225:-

UPDATE ON EC225 OPERATIONS
Recently, Eurocopter, the manufacturer of the EC225 Super Puma aircraft, has indicated that they have determined the root causes of the gear shaft failure in the EC225, which are being reviewed by airworthiness authorities and independent third parties. The definitive solution to the problem will be a redesign of the gear shaft which could take more than a year to complete. However, interim solutions are under consideration, including minor aircraft modifications and new maintenance/operating procedures for mitigating shaft failure and enhancing early detection, which could result in Bristow's return to revenue service for the EC225 aircraft in the third quarter of our fiscal year 2014.
The current situation will continue until the necessary modifications are made to the EC225 fleet, the airworthiness regulators remove the operating restrictions, and we are confident that the interim modifications will allow us to operate the aircraft safely. Until then, this situation could have a material adverse effect on our future business, financial condition and results of operations.

I guess that means the "no commercial pressure" elements can be put to bed...

The conference call, which will no doubt have a lot of Q&A around the EC225 can be listened to at 1500hrs (UK) today (23rd May 2013) by dialling the following numbers:-

International +1 480 629 9771 (pin number is 4616121)
USA 877 941 9205 (same pin)

SASless

23rd May 2013, 11:42

All the while....the s-92 carries on.

I suppose those who lauded the 225 over the 92 might find this news to be a bit embarrassing.....or should anyway!

Fareastdriver

23rd May 2013, 12:43

SASless.
I hope for all the people who are going to fly in an S92 that you do not regret your words.

HeliHenri

23rd May 2013, 12:48

All the while, half of the 225/725 fleet continues to fly.
.

HeliComparator

23rd May 2013, 12:53

Unfortunate rather than embarrassing. The EC225 is a fantastic aircraft which unfortunately has a problem with one of its thousands of components - albeit an important one. The S92, although better these days, is of poor design in many areas and has a number of problems. Fortunately for the 92 none of these has been quite critical enough to ground the fleet, though it has come close.

So crow while you can SAS but history will show which is the better aircraft long term. And by the way, since you have flown neither of these aircraft and I have flown both, I am not sure your opinion is of value, based as it is only on nationalistic prejudice.

There, I bit, which is of course what you were hoping for.

Pittsextra

23rd May 2013, 13:03

And with this in mind:-

All the while, half of the 225/725 fleet continues to fly.

...allied to the "corrosion, residual stress, other things and very specific set of circumstances" highlighted over a month ago by Eurocopters out going CEO, one wonders on what basis this flying continues...

HeliComparator

23rd May 2013, 13:05

Not flying over hostile terrain.

Pittsextra

23rd May 2013, 13:07

sure but never the less.... if you can use known solutions to mitigate the risk why wouldn't you?

Edited to add:- by which I mean if EC can now break shafts at will and the CEO comments regarding "other things, specific set of circumstances" suggests that the breakage is beyond the shafts material properties and one of operation and/or specification of the type.

HeliComparator

23rd May 2013, 13:27

Because the solutions are not yet available.

Pittsextra

23rd May 2013, 13:31

Sorry HC I edited my post. If EC can break shafts at will then it also suggests that EC can avoid breaking shafts, or at least on demand. Therefore one might suggest that whatever they do to break them at will is something to avoid....?

SASless

23rd May 2013, 13:31

HC,

As I have flown neither....I have no axe to grind.

I did not have you in mind in particular....but since you leaped into the conversation....you do have to admit the significance of the problem AND the cure....has affected the 225 far worse than the 92.

You can carry on with your argument about the design superiority of the 225 over the 92 with someone from Sikorsky if you wish.

As to calling the 225 superior to the 92 is your opinion that does seem to be challenged by the current situation.

I understand your loyalty to the 225.....as you have a lot of personal involvement in that program with your employer....thus also some sensitivity to any criticism of the 225 and EC.

Neither EC or SK are without fault, just as the Certification Authorities are alsonot without fault.....and as to the 92....there was some Operator errors as well. So please don't try to trivialize the situation as you and the rest of us know it is a far more complex situation than your post would suggest.

HeliComparator

23rd May 2013, 13:36

Pittsextra
If EC can break shafts at will then it also suggests that EC can avoid breaking shafts, or at least on demand. Therefore one might suggest that whatever they do to break them at will is something to avoid....?

Yes but I don't think they mean on demand by operating technique, rather by the issues of pre-stress and corrosion or some other factors beyond pilot control. It's not that easy to break the shaft, we managed over 100,000 hrs without being able to do so.

SAS , if you want to take the line that the S92 is superior to the 225 simply because its not currently grounded, that is your prerogative but not a helpful one because by the same measure that means an R22 is equally superior to the EC225.

Pittsextra

23rd May 2013, 13:43

Yes HC i would agree with the comments around operation otherwise one would have expected some caution around that?? However it does seem rather odd that not a single other machine even displayed a cracked shaft beyond the accident machines, and perhaps it is in fact the specific nature that is causing the real issue.

If minute 15:21 to 17:00 is any indication (in the video below) then of course one might suggest that a specific version of FADEC, in specific conditions, would fall into the operation category, especially if it relates to this:-

EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2008-0007R3)

100K hours of which CHCN looks to have been the fleet leader at 3845hrs....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg-CY4DXHJ0

SASless

23rd May 2013, 13:46

Kind of takes you back to when the Norwegian S-61's were shucking Spindles but the UK machines were not. Ultimately it was found to be an operational issue.

HC, if you want to use Passengers Carried as the criteria.....you might be onto something....your Company Jet Rangers are carrying more passengers than the 225 fleet I bet.

henra

23rd May 2013, 18:22

As to calling the 225 superior to the 92 is your opinion that does seem to be challenged by the current situation.

Did I miss something and they managed to get the MGB to run 30 mins w/o oil?
Did I miss something and they managed to stop the the Gearbox Housing feet from cracking?
Did I miss something and they managed to get the Level of vibrations down to a reasonable level?
Did I miss something and the S-92 meanwhile achieves the same payload/range as the EC225?

(And I'm writing this not to denegrate the S-92, rather just to show how easy blunt bashing is)

I understand nationalistic pride (and I'm from neither Manufacturer's County) but does the S-92 really deserve this blind defending or is the denigration of the competing model simply because you know of all the shortcomings of your national manufacturer's product and you're looking for revenge?

I tried to keep out of this but your constant gleeful bashing really starts to get annoying even for the otherwise quiet reader... :ugh:

And now after having vented back to lurking...

SASless

23rd May 2013, 19:06

Blind defense?

Oh do tell us how you arrived at that conclusion?

In case you failed reading comprehension.....or just did not read what is posted.....back up a few posts on the same page and digest what I said.

Neither EC or SK are without fault, just as the Certification Authorities are also not without fault.....and as to the 92....there was some Operator errors as well.

henra

23rd May 2013, 19:44

Blind defense?

Oh do tell us how you arrived at that conclusion?

OK, you are insofar right as you did not directly defend it. You did it indirectly by talking down the competitor. Along the lines: "You know, our Gear Box Problems aren't as big, just look at how bad it is with the competitor".

Edit:

In case you failed reading comprehension.....or just did not read what is posted.....back up a few posts on the same page and digest what I said.

No, I didn't fail reading comprehension nor did I oversee that bit.
But I considered it rather a fig leaf to somewhat disguise your rather open bashing. I sometimes use this tactic myself, you know... :E
/Edit.

Even though I have absolutely no relation to EC or the 225 it reached the point where it became simply too much.
This is not youtube...

And from other Posts of you I know you can do better.

HeliComparator

23rd May 2013, 21:48

Yes, naughty SAS, get back in your box!

The Sultan

24th May 2013, 00:29

SAS

The only statistics that count are souls lost. In the OGP world do you know what the count is between the 235 and the 92 for mechanical failure? When you add that known critical faults were allowed to fly until a major casualty event no one can say the 92 is safer than the 235.

The Sultan

industry insider

24th May 2013, 02:12

212man

24th May 2013, 03:24

Sultan, is the EC 235 the EC225 with the new shaft?

If so, it must be heavy as it appears to added a tonne to the mass!

DOUBLE BOGEY

24th May 2013, 05:25

SASless, I have not flown the S92 but I am involved in the EC225. As you have flown neither I doubt you would have a scooby of which I am about to speak. The EC225 is a wolf in sheeps clothing. It has its issues, before the shaft event, like the same cabin as its Puma stable mates which of course one could make a good argument to say the S92 in this respect is better. The Bears certainly love the space.

However, the EC225 is a significant technological leap forward from the S92 or indeed any other machine flying currently. Incidently, the EC175 takes another leap forward again and I have had the good fortune to fly it too.

For those of us who have lived and operated with the EC225 we recognise the significant enhancements in safety and payload/range that the EC225 represents, and I say this in full knowledge that the poor old girl has thus far not cause any loss of life. I am fairly certain that such a statement cannot be said of any other helicopter in the air today.

The S92 is certailny a fine ship with some good qualities for sure, but make no mistake, it is not even in the same stable as the EC225. It is one generation at least behind it.

Your constant jingoistic jibes protray you as you are. Ill informed and ignorant of even the most basic facts. If I was able to give you just 15 minutes of time in the EC225 you would change your perspective forever.

You are backing the wrong horse from a technological perspective.

No doubt in regards to your private portfolio you are probably doing the right thing. Just don't try to hide behind your real motivation to those who know. Your opinions are poorly concieved and your arguments are thin reflections of a mind void of the advantages of facts.

DB

bigglesbutler

24th May 2013, 07:03

You are backing the wrong horse from a technological perspective.

But it is more than pure technology it is the way it is integrated and arranged to be at the immediate disposal of the pilot. Simply button pressing without having to shift around the cockpit or hit buttons in a specific order within three seconds of being asked to.

DB not having a go just expanding your point for those who have yet the pleasure to fly an EC225.

Si

Pittsextra

24th May 2013, 08:39

Well happily the button pressing seems set to resume very soon...although it seems nobody told Bristow, or maybe after the last time they back peddled enough??

(Dow Jones) - EC225 helicopters, widely used to transport personnel and equipment to offshore oil rigs around the world, are expected to resume service within a few weeks after being grounded for nearly eight months because of engine problems, although two of its major players are not in agreement on the calendar.

Most EC225 helicopters are capitalized since October 2012, after two helicopters were forced to land in the North Sea due to damage.

Canadian CHC Helicopter operates 30 helicopters and fixed said Thursday expect that the resumption of flights of EC225 is "a matter of weeks," according to the approval of regulators and customers.

Rival Bristow Group (BRS), however, does not expect that its ten EC225 to be allowed to fly again until the fourth quarter.

Eurocopter, a subsidiary of EADS, said in recent weeks the helicopter operators and their customers have discovered the cause of the incident last year. The group is working with regulators to temporary solutions and a new design of the gearbox of the helicopter, which, according to Bristow, could take more than a year.

"Eurocopter is confident that once the safety measures approved by the authorities, the first EC225 will resume full operation by the end of June [or] in mid-July 2013," said the manufacturer in a email.

-Doug Cameron, Dow Jones Newswires

Colibri49

24th May 2013, 09:08

When CHC resumes, or attempts to resume North Sea operations with the EC225, as they seem to be preparing for now, the question will almost certainly be raised as to why Bristow isn't following suit.

The CEO of Bristow has made it plain that he won't allow operations to resume until all the safety issues pertaining to the gearbox have been resolved and he's absolutely correct.

I'm not going to risk being the first to reveal that while an intelligent plan has been devised to allow the existing shaft to continue in service, there is still another matter which has to be properly addressed.

Bristow has never compromised on safety in my experience and I'm glad that Mr. Chiles is at the helm to continue that tradition. I've no doubt that shortly another little matter will become public knowledge and that it will most likely cause another delay.

terminus mos

24th May 2013, 13:31

Something new coming out about the EM Lub not "working under certain circumstances" I heard......even though it is supposed to be fixed.

skastdk

24th May 2013, 17:38

No. 2582-S-00
Revision 0 2013-05-24 Page 1/3
This document is available on the internet: www.eurocopter.com/techpub
SAFETY INFORMATION NOTICE
SUBJECT: GENERAL
EC225/EC725 Main Gearbox Technical Investigation Update, Proposed
Improved Safety Measures and EC225 Roadmap for the complete
Return-to-Service
AIRCRAFT
CONCERNED
Version(s)
Civil Military
EC225 LP
EC725 AP

Introduction
In 2012 two EC225 helicopters made controlled water landings in the North Sea. In both incidents, the bevel gear
shaft which drives the MGB oil pumps cracked and ruptured after several further flying hours. This rupture resulted
in loss of oil pressure necessary for the MGB lubrication and along with an indicated failure of the emergency
lubrication system (EMLUB) resulted in a checklist action to land immediately.
Subsequent to the two events, protective measures were approved by EASA to permit those helicopters fitted with
similar shafts to continue flying. These measures have been implemented by a number of operators representing
approximately 50% of the affected fleet. Since the second event, in October 2012, approximately 100
EC225/EC725 and some Super Puma helicopters with similar shafts have continued to fly and these helicopters
have flown approximately 20 000 flight hours without any crack incident.
The aim of this Safety Information Notice is to update you with more detail on the technical investigation of the
EC225/EC725 Main Gear Box (MGB) events. In addition, we will present some new safety measures and provide a
roadmap to facilitate a common baseline for planning purposes. For some EC225/EC725 operators that are
currently flying, these new measures will simplify the operation and support of their aircraft. They will also lift some
restrictions for the operators’ aircraft which are equipped with the Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS).
The EUROCOPTER technical investigation has now determined the root causes of the crack initiation and the
characteristics of the subsequent crack propagation. Further safety measures are now being proposed by
EUROCOPTER in order to support the aircraft currently in flight and to allow the suspended fleet to safely return to
flight, starting in June/July 2013. These safety measures and their implementation are described below.
In the longer term, all affected shafts in the EC225/EC725 fleet will be replaced by new shafts. These new shafts
will have a modified design to eliminate any risk of crack initiation.
For the attention of
No. 2582-S-00
Revision 0 2013-05-24 Page 2/3
This document is available on the internet: www.eurocopter.com/techpub
Technical Investigation
The technical investigation has identified a combination of three root causes of crack initiation:
- Active corrosion in localised areas of the shaft;
- Reduced fatigue strength due to residual stresses inherent in the welding process; and
- Reduced fatigue strength due to stress “hot spots”.
As a result of identifying these root causes, we are able to propose:
- Additional Safety measures designed to significantly reduce the risk of crack initiation.
- New Safety measures, easier to apply than the current ones which in the unlikely event that a crack is initiated
provide warning and prevent failure.
For those operators not flying, our recommendation is that these measures should be implemented as part of a
return to service safety case. These new safety measures are detailed below.
New Safety Measures
A number of new safety measures are being discussed with the regulatory authorities. These include:
- Introduction of a shaft cleaning procedure which removes the presence of mud generated by the wear of the
splines and thus the localised humid environment on the shaft, thereby significantly reducing the possibility of
active corrosion and the likelihood of crack initiation.
- Replacement of one of the main gearbox oil jet pipes to provide permanent shaft cleaning and improved splines
lubrication.
- Introduction of an ultrasonic non-destructive inspection (NDI) as an alternative to the current eddy current
procedure. This NDI procedure, significantly faster to apply compared to the Eddy Current NDI ensures that crack
initiation should be identified before flight. The periodicity of this inspection procedure is under discussion with the
authorities and is expected to be set to permit approximately 8-10 hours flight between inspections.
- Certification of a HUMS based in-flight shaft monitoring system. When fitted, this system will consist of an
on-board cockpit amber warning to signal in-flight if vibration levels that indicate the presence of a crack. In the
event of a warning, the aircraft will continue to safely operate for sufficient flight time to permit the pilot to return to
base or perform a normal landing. Although subject to approval by the authorities, we anticipate that a flight time
of two (2) hours will be allowed following the initiation of an in-flight warning.
The shaft cleaning maintenance procedure is expected to be available in June 2013. This procedure will require
draining the MGB but does not require any new or special tools, skills, parts or consumables.
The replacement oil jet is currently being procured and is expected to be available from June 2013.
The process for performing the ultrasonic NDI inspection will be published beginning of June 2013. EUROCOPTER
training for your ultrasonic NDI inspectors will commence from 10th June. Planning is currently underway.
EUROCOPTER is studying how best to meet operator needs for additional qualified resources for these
inspections. The ultrasonic NDI inspection will require a standard ultrasonic test set and endoscope available at
your facilities, along with specific probes which EUROCOPTER will provide.
Certification of the HUMS based in-flight shaft monitoring system is expected by beginning of June 2013. Parts
ordering and aircraft modification can commence from June 2013, when the Service Bulletin is expected to be
issued.
No. 2582-S-00
Revision 0 2013-05-24 Page 3/3
This document is available on the internet: www.eurocopter.com/techpub
For aircraft equipped with HUMS, our aim is that the on-board shaft monitoring will in itself be sufficient to enable
the authorities to lift the flight restrictions over hostile terrain. For aircraft not equipped with HUMS, our aim is that
the ultrasonic NDI procedure will become an alternative to the current eddy current procedure. The classification of
which safety measures are mandatory and which are recommended is currently under discussion with the
authorities.
New Shaft Definition
In addition to these additional safety measures, the long term solution to prevent crack recurrence is to redesign
the shaft.
The redesigned shaft is expected to be certified in 2014. Production will commence in parallel with the certification
process. Production will be increased to a maximum rate to permit fleet retrofit to commence from the third quarter
of 2014. All newly delivered aircraft will be fitted with the new shafts.
The retrofit of the shafts in-service is expected to be conducted during the scheduled MGB overhaul, meaning that
the safety measures will be in-place until then. We are working hard to decrease the retrofit lead times and we will
inform you regularly on the improvements made.
Additional Information
Whilst not key contributors to the ditching root causes, the investigation unearthed some additional issues and
associated solutions:
- The emergency lubrication (EMLUB) system operated correctly but indicated failure due to a wiring problem. As a
first step the wiring on all aircraft has now been corrected. Further improvements are now planned to enhance the
effectiveness of the system. It will mainly consist of a glycol pump improvement and more precise periodic
maintenance. Detailed information on the EMLUB modifications will be published in an ALERT SERVICE
BULLETIN and a Safety Information Notice next week.
- The crash position indicator operated as designed, but it was not described in the Flight Manual. An update to the
Flight Manual has been implemented.
Way Ahead
The EUROCOPTER investigation methodology (root cause analysis) is currently being validated by the
airworthiness authorities and verified by an independent specialist, Shainin Engineering. At the same time the crack
propagation investigation is being independently assessed by the Georgia Technology Research Institute (GTRI).
Current discussions with the airworthiness authorities lead us to conclude that all approvals and validations should
be completed by June 2013. In this case EUROCOPTER estimates that the first helicopters will be ready to
return-to-service by the end of June/July 2013.
This Safety Information Notice will be updated in the first half of June, in order to describe in details the new
measures, and to allow you to better understand how the measures are linked and how they can be used.

NRDK

24th May 2013, 17:52

:rolleyes:
:ok:
The crash position indicator operated as designed, but it was not described in the Flight Manual. An update to the
Flight Manual has been implemented.

Best bit in that whole report, probably the safest too.:}

terminus mos

29th May 2013, 00:47

As predicted.....

EASA AD No.: 2013-0113-E

The Emergency Lubrication (EMLUB) system of the helicopter was designed to
guarantee 30 minutes of continued safe flight in the event of total loss of the
dual oil lubrication system of the Main Gearbox (MGB).
Investigations on the EMLUB system have revealed an area of the flight
envelope in which the emergency lubrication Glycol pump’s performance is
different to that assumed during certification.
Consequently, even though the likelihood of using the EMLUB is extremely low
(no total loss of oil lubrication encountered on the Super Puma fleet), as the
continued safe flight of 30 minutes is not guaranteed in the whole flight
envelope, and pending a Eurocopter modification to the Glycol pump and
EMLUB pressure switches, an immediate landing or ditching is required as
soon as the EMLUB system is activated.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Eurocopter issued EC225
Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No 04A010 to provide updated
Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) emergency procedures.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires amendment of the RFM
emergency procedures section.

So now, the EC225 has lost its 30 minute "run dry" capability.

Pittsextra

29th May 2013, 10:18

do you think that it will make authorities look at the way the 30 min dry run demonstration is done?

SASless

29th May 2013, 13:15

More good news on the 225 design.....why only the sound of Crickets from the EC Lovers?

I am not knocking the Helicopter....just the lack of impartiality on those who love to criticize the 92 all the while bragging on the 225.

As I have said recently.....the Certifying Authority that approves the Type Certificate need to do a better job of things.

If one is to assert a "Run Dry" capability....it must be "Run Dry"....no liquids of any kind.....the worse case scenario and not some construct that affords the MGB a "Crutch" to meet the requirement.

Neither the 92 or the 225 would pass the test.....and probably never shall if an actual dry gearbox condition was the criteria.

500e

29th May 2013, 13:47

So it is possible for the crew to understand the HUMS as suggested if there is enough commercial pressure & corporate angst.
"For aircraft equipped with HUMS, our aim is that the on-board shaft monitoring will in itself be sufficient to enable the authorities to lift the flight restrictions over hostile terrain."

HeliComparator

29th May 2013, 13:48

SASA, I suppose its because we all knew there were some issues with the Emerg Lube, this is no surprise. Yes its frustrating that EC seem to have got this wrong in a number of ways, on the other hand at least they tried, unlike their opponents to tried to bull**** their way around it!

I am with you on the qualtiy of the certification process. Very slow, expensive and bureaucratic but with no guarantee of an airworthy helicopter at the end of it. Why bother?

You should however bear in mind that there is no requirement for "run dry" in the certification rules, merely continued operation after a major oil leak resulting in loss of all oil. Whilst you might think run dry is a good idea, for large helicopters heat dissipation is a big deal. To make the gearbox able to cope would almost certainly require big compromises in design in terms of weight, complexity and cost. If you bear in mind that in the entire history of the Super Puma family there has never been a total oil loss event, just how much extra complexity do you want to introduce to make it "dry run". You might find that in terms of overall safety, your requirement actually reduces safety taken in the context of dry run never actually being required. Anyway, surely it would be better to expend your energies ensuring that the heli doesn't lose all its oil in the first place?

500e - Yes, I think so. The plan is for a warning light and plain text message to illuminate showing the threshold value and the current value (greater than the threshold value presumably), perhaps with the time of detection or time elapsed since detection. There will be no judgement required, it will be "black and white".

Pittsextra

29th May 2013, 14:41

If you bear in mind that in the entire history of the Super Puma family there has never been a total oil loss event, just how much extra complexity do you want to introduce to make it "dry run".

How would G-REDL be viewed?

Pittsextra

29th May 2013, 17:28

You should however bear in mind that there is no requirement for "run dry" in the certification rules, merely continued operation after a major oil leak resulting in loss of all oil.

Not how AAIB reported last btw:-

Page 3 of their S2-2013 report...

" MGB certification requirements
The EC225 LP was certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) against the Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR) 29. The regulations require the helicopter to continue safe flight, at prescribed torque and main rotor speeds, for at least 30 minutes following the loss of the MGB lubrication system. This is met on the EC225 LP with an emergency lubrication system thatuses a mixture of glycol and water, called Hydrosafe 620, which cools and lubricates the MGB."

and doesn't CS29 state:-

"Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote [1 x 10-7 per FH], it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued after operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flight crew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant."

So what happens now?

Fareastdriver

29th May 2013, 17:57

There is no way ANY modern gearbox can run for thirty minutes without any lubricant. They might have done decades ago when they were built by Swindon Railway Works but not now.
Should you want to run it for thirty minutes you have got to put in an alternative lubrication system which as far as I can see the EMERLUB is as a good attempt as any. The design caters for both pressure failure and quantity failure and it has worked on both of the recent ditchings. The only problem was that the crew were told it wasn't working which is why they ditched. With a serviceable system both aircraft were likely to have made landfall and this whole scenario would not have arisen.

They did not ditch as a direct result of oil pressure failure.

You have a situation now where an aircraft is not permitted to fly because of a failure of an emergency system when other aircraft without any comparable system are deemed safe to continue.

The mistake was putting both pumps on the same driveshaft. They should have left the main pump on the LH Accessory drive as it is on the 330.

Tango123

29th May 2013, 18:11

There is no way ANY modern gearbox can run for thirty minutes without any lubricant. They might have done decades ago when they were built by Swindon Railway Works but not now.

AgustaWestland demonstrates 50 minute gearbox ?Run Dry? capability to EASA | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/03/05/agustawestland-demonstrates-50-minute-gearbox-run-dry-capability-to-easa/)

Some of the time is of course with lub, but for how long? I would say max 5-10 min.

JimL

29th May 2013, 18:51

HC; I am amazed at your change of stance. As SASLess said, there was a lot of (justified) uproar when the S92 did not show compliance with the rule.

A total loss of oil may not have happened with the 332 fleet (yet) but it did happen to the S92 - twice. Equally, the S92 has not had a main shaft fracture but there have been two with the EC225.

SASLess; as you well know, 'run dry' is a colloquial term for continuing to function after losing the oil in any one of the qualifying gearboxes. Showing compliance with an 'auxiliary cooling system' is well within the rules.

As you have both pointed out, the acceptance of a 'failure to show compliance' on one hand and a failure to 'demonstrate' compliance with a fitted system on the other, does not show the Certifying Authorities in a good light.

The bottom line, however, rests with the manufacturers who should have satisfied themselves about the efficacy of their systems before offering them, as compliant, to the Authorities.

The expertise is contained within the manufacturer's organisation, not in the Authority's.

SASless

29th May 2013, 20:52

The usage of the "colloquial 30 Minute Run Dry Capability" may very well have led to the fatalities in the Cougar Crash off Newfoundland....and the Industry, Operators, Builders, and Certifiers all need to settle the issue with finality and very accurately define what "Run Dry" capability a Gearbox actually has using the Worst Case Scenario....and not some contrived notion that shows a capability that is not always accurate.

Ian Corrigible

29th May 2013, 21:22

For anyone interested in the general topic of how OEMs justify these claims, Kawasaki Heavy Industries presented a paper on Upgrade of Loss of Lubricant Operation Capability for EC145T2 (BK117 D-2) Main Gearbox at last week's AHS Forum 69, bascially an explanation of the testing done to demonstrate a 30-minute dry-run capability. The paper should be available via the AHS online store (https://vtol.org/store/getProducts.cfm) shortly.

I/C

Pittsextra

29th May 2013, 21:48

BBC News - Unite union raises offshore helicopter return date fears (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-22707327)

Lonewolf_50

29th May 2013, 22:18

Fareastdriver, there is some work going on with superfinishing gears that may render your opinion moot. As I have only partial knowledge, I'll let it go at that.

HeliComparator

29th May 2013, 22:20

Pitts - I suppose you could say REDL was a total loss of oil event, but that was the least of the problem and of course no run dry capability would have made the slightest difference.

Jim - no change of stance from my perspective. My beef about the 92 was primarily about the deceit in pretending it was the safest helicopter ever built and fully compliant with the relevant version of FAR29 when in fact there was fudging going on. And a reluctance for the then programme manager to tell the whole story.

I was quite happy flying the 332L for many years. And of course a facet of the current 225 debacle is that our crews are now flying around in 332Ls again, with no pretence of 30 mins "run dry". They are unhappy because of the step backwards in automation, speed, comfort and range /payload but not for the lack of 30 mins dry run.

I see 30 mins run dry as a "nice-to-have", not the be all and end all. 30 mins at 80kts doesn't necessarily get you to somewhere dry to land. Better to avoid loss of oil in the first place, eg by well designed oil systems (and filter housings!)

212man

30th May 2013, 02:55

How would G-REDL be viewed?

With great sadness, and in no way shape or form connected to this discussion. What a crass comment :ugh::ugh:

SASless

30th May 2013, 04:52

As that accident was from a completely different MGB failure it is still relevant to the MGB issues confronting EC currently.

Public Opinion....especially that of the people who ride as passengers in the aircraft is influenced by all of these events and has to be considered when Operators consider all the issues surrounding which aircraft to buy, offer on contract, and invest very large sums of money to field.

500e

30th May 2013, 09:47

HC
Thanks for reply.
"500e - Yes, I think so. The plan is for a warning light and plain text message to illuminate showing the threshold value and the current value (greater than the threshold value presumably), perhaps with the time of detection or time elapsed since detection. There will be no judgement required, it will be "black and white".

18 months or so ago when I made the suggestion regarding some form of HUMS information for the crew & was told much to complicated for them to understand, now that it impinges on the bottom line of a multinational it would appear to be doable.

Pittsextra

30th May 2013, 10:01

...and in no way shape or form connected to this discussion

https://www.easa.europa.eu/safety-and-research/research-projects/docs/rotorcrafts/HELMGOP-Final_Study_Report_5-2011.pdf

From that report:-

7.4.1 Civil approach to certification of lubrication system

The testing of the lubrication system is explained in CS29.927 “Additional Tests” Part (c) which gives the requirement for 30 minutes continued operation after “perception by the flight crew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant”. However, this requirement may be “bypassed” if it is shown that such a failure is extremely remote, i.e. 1 x 10-7 per hour or better.

henra

30th May 2013, 10:07

Investigations on the EMLUB system have revealed an area of the flight
envelope in which the emergency lubrication Glycol pump’s performance is
different to that assumed during certification.

Would be interesting to know what the 'area of the flight envelope' is to better understand its probability and criticality.

HeliComparator

30th May 2013, 10:53

500e - I think the difference is that this refers only to one of the many (over a hundred) of HUMS parameters, and points to a now well understood and non-critical failure where the action will be something along the lines of "Land as soon as practicable, max flight time 2 hrs" (or maybe 3 hrs or whatever) so the risk associated with false alarms (which we are told will be very few, FLW!) is one of inconvenience rather than real hazard.

212man

30th May 2013, 12:17

From that report:-

7.4.1 Civil approach to certification of lubrication system

The testing of the lubrication system is explained in CS29.927 “Additional Tests” Part (c) which gives the requirement for 30 minutes continued operation after “perception by the flight crew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant”. However, this requirement may be “bypassed” if it is shown that such a failure is extremely remote, i.e. 1 x 10-7 per hour or better.

Thanks, I'm quite familiar with the certification standard, and the content of that report (and have seen G-REDL in its final state a number of times) but fail to see your point!

Pittsextra

30th May 2013, 12:44

Thats great 212. I'm not sure why there is some dramatics being brought into play here but still.

The comment was made (I think) that no super puma had suffered a leak resulting in the loss of oil...

As you will be aware that report in fact cites G-REDL under the title:-

"Table 15 - Accidents and incidents involving helicopters MGB lubrication systems (all catagories)" page 38 relates.

So I guess the various Doctors and a Professor thought it relvant enough to a specific report to EASA to include. Complain to them if you think otherwise.

Although one truely wonders with this whole story. Whilst one can clearly accept that any dry run capability would have had no impact on the outcome of G-REDL (where I don't believe there is a definative cause), that outcome was clearly undesirable.

Personally I don't think the failures with this type are extremely remote, however it does seem that many (and I have no idea what your own views are) seem to try and make the EC225/Super puma relationship more or less depending on the issue.

Ultimately (and sadly) I would agree nothing great can be takein either G-REDL or subsequent EC225 accidents. It is incredible just how many issues the latest events have shaken out and yet still there seems to be this underlying spin when really it might be better to be a little more open.

One might notice how the latest EC release plays to the 20K FH on the fleet since, etc, etc... Somehow I don't think it judges the mood at all well.

riff_raff

1st Jun 2013, 03:40

......- Introduction of a shaft cleaning procedure which removes the presence of mud generated by the wear of the splines and thus the localised humid environment on the shaft, thereby significantly reducing the possibility of active corrosion and the likelihood of crack initiation.
- Replacement of one of the main gearbox oil jet pipes to provide permanent shaft cleaning and improved splines lubrication.........skastdk-

Just got around to reading the Safety Notice from EC you posted, and the two bullet points shown above really caught my attention. If I read these statements correctly, EC is claiming that the corrosion problem resulted (at least in part) from moisture becoming trapped against the inner bevel shaft surface due to an accumulation of metallic debris created by fretting wear of the adjacent spline joint. Based on what I have seen from publicly available information regarding the design of the EC225 main rotor gearbox, these two comments brought up a couple issues.

First, while I don't have detailed knowledge of the EC225 MGB design, I do know that it is common engineering practice to utilize desiccant breather systems on rotorcraft transmissions. These breather systems are very effective at removing any moisture content within the air volume contained inside the transmission housing. If EC followed the common industry practice of utilizing a desiccant breather system on this MGB, then there should not be much possibility of humidity condensing into droplets and accumulating on the vertical inner bevel shaft surfaces during the cooling period occurring after shut-down. On the other hand, if EC does not use a desiccant breather system on this MGB design, I would ask why they chose not to.

Second, after reading the statement about the problem of spline debris (or "mud") accumulating on the inner surfaces of the bevel shaft, I went back and took a closer look at the cross-section drawing of the gearbox that someone on this thread posted. (http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o739/FBav/225-coupeBTP.jpg) And indeed, what I saw is that the design of the spline's lube oil flow had a serious flaw. While the oil feed into and through the spline joint is OK, the oil discharge location, to the inside of the bevel shaft, results in the debris-ladened oil flow being quickly slung back against the inner shaft surface due to windage and CF effects. The higher density of the metallic debris results in it separating out of the oil and eventually migrating to large radius, re-entrant features on the inner shaft surface where it becomes trapped. Ironically, there is this exact type of feature located directly at the weld joint.

Very interesting topic!

riff_raff

Pittsextra

7th Jun 2013, 06:53

Jake Molloy column: The return of Super Puma EC 225 - Jake Molloy - Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jake-molloy-column-return-super-1934838)

They couldn't make this harder work if they tried.

Given the RMT view one wonders why Eurocopter didn't feel for the mood before EC Aberdeen set out their press release with June/July timescales.

Whilst in the middle of all this is the HSSG and they last published "news" early May.

DOUBLE BOGEY

7th Jun 2013, 17:35

Pittsextra

7th Jun 2013, 18:52

Pitts, I have to tell you I and many others on Rotorheads are utterly sick of your snivelling sanctimonious remarks on this thread.

If you purport to be a real helicopter pilot you would be saddened by the situation which has affected not only a very large part of our industry, it's passengers but also a great flying machine that those of us who have been lucky enough to operate it, appreciate very much.

You have no idea of what you are talking about and like most nimrods that sound off on these threads, your caustic comments do nothing for the industry to which the proffessionals amongst us are part of.

The situation with the EC225 is complex and multi faceted but has been approached by Eurocopter in a wholly transparent manner. In fact Jake and a whole multitude of others were hosted at Marignane and given unrestricted access to all areas of production and the EC225 investigation team. No other aviation Company has ever done that.

Your parasitic addiction to trawling through anything you can to stick the knife in Eurocopters ribs disgusts me. Like all one dimensional empty vessels you make the most noise when rattled.

Do me, the dedicated EC225 pilots and most of all, our passengers a favour and sod off back to whatever hole you crawled out of. I am sick and tired of reading your rubbish on this thread. It does not add value. Comes across as utter self interest and insults the many proffessional people in the CAA, the AAIB, the HSSG, RMT, the Operators, the Oil Companies and Eurocopter who collectively have left no stone unturned in their pursuit of the causes and contributory factors to this complex problem.

If you take a moment to remove you head from your arse you might recognise, that whilst the EC225 has suffered some serious technical issues, it has to date, not harmed a single passenger or crew. This cannot be said for any other helicopter flying offshore today. Your remarks offend me mostly as they are forged in the bowels of utter ignorance. Bacteria are more informed than you.

You add nothing.

DB

Yeah very professional so after picking my way through the noise of your post maybe you can engage in a more normal way.

The communication around this has been frankly shocking, its both confused and un-coordinated. To give just some examples. You have had Bristow CEO give a timescale for back to service, later back tracked upon and then portrayed as media spin by HSSG.

You have Bristow and EADS give a conference calls (to the people that own the companies I might add - so having legal consequences) suggesting they could not give a timescale for being back in the air, then Eurocopter Aberdeen sends a press release with the June/July date (which was actually 1 day after the Bristow call).

Then CHC and Bristow can't agree when might be suitable and now you've got the RMT banging its drum. Oh and somewhere along the way EC's CEO left!

You have had a slow bleed of information over the issues of which there have been numerous and then we come to the real crux is the endless attempt to put this positive spin on everything.

In the early days it was you telling anyone who would listen Eurocopter know what they are doing, etc, etc and belittling anyone and everyone who dares to speak out.

I'm not interested in what button does what in an EC225, I'm not interested in you giving me a sales pitch. You know why I'm interested in this and as I said the current mood is not very well judged.

You are right I'm not a ATPL, EC225 qualified pilot but lets be honest anyone with an ability to read is able to see this situation is a shambles.

It seems to me that not one of the organisations can talk to the other organisations and co-ordinate and execute a plan. The CAA can't agree with EASA. The HSSG and RMT talk about better communication, yet you look at the HSSG website and it was last updated a month ago. The AAIB are obviously feeling a little on the back foot after reporting the "fix" of the first accident and then a 2nd one went in. Eurocopter can't communicate with its operators (thinking June/July date PR here) and have been put back in a box once by the CAA, and so it goes on.

Then to top it all you have pilots claiming everyone is being mean to the helicopter and talking rubbish when actually its you and other with similar views that are bending things. The first thing you all like to do is claim the EC225 is a Super Puma when you talk about hours flown; then you all like to forget its a Super Puma family when it comes to issues.

So is it a Super Puma or not?

In the end I couldn't care less if I offend you or not but I'm pretty confident that I've not threatened you or made continued childish remarks. You completely misjudge me because you have this loyalty to a machine. Of course I don't want bad things to happen to the people flying in a 225 or the 225 itself but it is a very interesting story and unfortunately the ignorance ball very much seems in EC's court at the moment.

Tell me how do you see things from here?

EESDL

7th Jun 2013, 19:02

Jake Molloy was correct. I was at the same presentation and can testify to the ignorance/naivety/arrogance of the oil and gas industry (and I don't mean O&G UK).
When Joe Bloggs reads about a Press Release describing part of the problem being due to corrosion - they then imagine a huge rusty gearbox - it is as simple as that!
unsurprising results of the survey but what about this......a proportion felt an increased confidence in helicopter travel - I would imagine due to the spotlight shining on the subject right now.
Molloy did sound quite comfortable listening to his own voice and he represents nothing more than the view of his union members. He has no experience in aircraft certification and ignored the fact that his very same members cause more concern amongst each other when they sit next to a rather large colleague on any type of helicopter which only offers 'push out' windows for escape.
So yes, 225 confidence is an issue but it is not the only issue. If only all NS helicopters experienced the same attention for what, after all, was an indication failure which led to 'Land immediately' directive. I do not fly the 225 but feel it will return as the 'safest' type to fly on after all that is said and done...............

henra

7th Jun 2013, 20:15

I am sick and tired of reading your rubbish on this thread. It does not add value. Comes across as utter self interest and insults the many proffessional people in the CAA, the AAIB, the HSSG, RMT, the Operators, the Oil Companies and Eurocopter...

My Guess: Journo fishing for bait, trying to generate his own story.
Simply make sure you don't feed him.

500e

7th Jun 2013, 20:18

Oil workers ?shaken? by Super Puma ditchings - Top stories - Scotsman.com (http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/oil-workers-shaken-by-super-puma-ditchings-1-2954076)
As read on VR

bigglesbutler

7th Jun 2013, 23:06

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

With regard to "the Pitts":

http://images.mmorpg.com/images/avatars/please-do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg

I typed a response to the Pitts but then I realised that would simply feed the delusions.

Si

DOUBLE BOGEY

8th Jun 2013, 01:33

Pitts,

The only good thing about your last post was that you completely copied mine. That gives everyone's second chance to read my dissitation on you!!

Your biggest gripe is seems to be the timing and flow of information. In fact communication. Your bio- data indicates you are PPLH. Therefore you should have learned some UK air law. You would therefore know that the AAIB has control of all information relating to any reportable incident or accident in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. You would know that all stakeholders involved are bound by law to conform to this simple protocol. As you singularly fail to appreciate this you are either not a qualified pilot, which makes you a liar, or you are a bit thick and cannot understand simple concepts.

Whatever. You do not seem to be able to string a few words together so your career as a journalist must also be circling the drain.

As proffessional pilots our number one concern is the safety and well being of our passengers. We want them to have as much information as they can take about our machines, procedures, training and especially when things go wrong. The offshore helicopter industry is the most regulated, transparent and scrutinised part of our industry and we not only welcome that, we are proud of it.

Your one dimensional comments, serving only to upset those most vulnerable in our industry, our passenger, are not the comments of an aviator. This is why you are vilified on this thread.

Now I know you are unable to help yourself and us by not posting your drivel. However, all I am asking is that as a Journalist you go elsewhere for a while and irritate someone else. As a parasite you should recognise when your host can no longer tolerate your presence.

The EC225 is already flying around the globe. It will fly again on the North Sea and much sooner than you think! Then we will be rid of you Pitts and the misery you try to peddle.

SASless

8th Jun 2013, 02:19

As proffessional pilots our number one concern is the safety and well being of our passengers.

There I wiz thinking it wuz what was sat on my Wallet stuffed with all those pounds of Quids!

I always assumed if I made it home safely....so did everyone else.

DOUBLE BOGEY

8th Jun 2013, 02:41

SAS, sitting on our fat wallets is likely to cause a slight twist in the lower lumbar region leading to acute spondylitis (or spinelessness) later in life. Like joining the management! Also you are clearly not a victim of the UKs stealth taxation policies. Wuz wallets iz not as fat az they wonce wuz.

Good to see you are still awake on the other side of the globe. As an ex S61 pilot, I am also greatly heartened by your efforts today to resist the opportunity to have a go at the poor old EC225. She needs a bit of a break!

If you are ever in Aberdeen come and have cold one with the opposition!!

DB

bigglesbutler

8th Jun 2013, 02:51

Imagine a 61 with the 225 avionics, engines and modern blades etc .............. now THAT would be a machine. LOL

Sorry thread creep.

Si

DOUBLE BOGEY

8th Jun 2013, 02:59

Biggles, for a little while back in the late 90s we nearly had one. I cannot remember to name of the project but SAS would probably know.

Pittsextra

8th Jun 2013, 07:02

DB.

You are thrashing and you are wrong.

Eurocopter Aberdeen released the mid June/ July date nothing to do with the AAIB. For example. Neither does it explain the information that has been released as I highlighted before.

Of course the helicopter will fly again and it will be safe when it does again I'm sure. However you are dangerous to try and dismiss a problem that has been a thorn of circa 8 months and counting. Sorry you just dismiss me because you are rude and arrogant to those without an EC225 poster on the wall or without an ATPL which might fit your view of a proper pilot... Yes there were threads about that not so long ago... Then it wasn't funny anymore after a crash.

Anyway let's not distract things from the points I asked before. You might think when someone talks nonsense you'd be able to answer the points but you can't. The next fight/battle is how Britow return to service with there mind on the zero accident pledge and how CHC deal..

Pittsextra

8th Jun 2013, 07:18

. You would therefore know that the AAIB has control of all information relating to any reportable incident or accident in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. You would know that all stakeholders involved are bound by law to conform to this simple protocol. As you singularly fail to appreciate this you are either not a qualified pilot, which makes you a liar, or you are a bit thick and cannot understand simple concepts

Remember this??

UK CAA plays down chances of early return for grounded EC225s (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-caa-plays-down-chances-of-early-return-for-grounded-ec225s-382600/)

industry insider

8th Jun 2013, 08:31

I bet that CHC will return the EC225 to service first, probably somewhere that it is not effectively grounded and where it is non hostile....Oz?

victor papa

8th Jun 2013, 09:44

Pitts, seeing that you now focus on chaotic comms and press releases from EC/operators/AAIB/CAA/or who ever you are blaming now, are you actually in a position with any of the companies and/organisations involved to have access to all the info released and shared in order to know what all was released when and by whom?

DOUBLE BOGEY

8th Jun 2013, 09:50

Pitts, I dismiss you because you are an irritating Troll.

You are spouting complete rubbish. You think you understand the subject but really you have no clue. Given you clear lack of aviation understanding I very much doubt whether you hold the PPLH you claim to hold.

You cannot even rant in clear English! I suspect you are not ICAO level 6 then!

Italian perhaps?

albatross

8th Jun 2013, 10:07

Now now everybody play nice.
Ranting and flaming will get us nowhere and makes us look silly.

Pittsextra

8th Jun 2013, 10:14

VP - no but you have the ability to read? So read that flight international story... Something everyone wanted to backtrack from later. Then the latest release from EC Aberdeen; do you call that well judged? Do you think the communication has been good overall??

DB - still thrashing. Do you have an opinion of your own or still only able to roll out the company PR??

DOUBLE BOGEY

8th Jun 2013, 10:26

Pitts, I am a pilot. I do not investigate incidents. The AAIB do that. I do not fix gearboxes. The manufacturer does that. I do not set aviation rules, limitations or policy. The regulator does that. I do not control the release of information. PR and lawyers do that. I get paid to fly. When the AAIB tell the CAA that the AC is cleared for unrestricted flight I fly!! My opinion simply does not matter. Neither does yours.

You are still an irritating Troll. Probably a Cad and a Bounder to boot!

Senior Pilot

8th Jun 2013, 10:30

Option 1: stop the personal abuse and get back on thread
Option 2: carry on and accept the resulting ban

The choice is yours, really :rolleyes:

212man

8th Jun 2013, 10:35

I like VP's thread.

Industry Insider is just proving that he is an Industry Insider.....;) As indeed I will be soon......

victor papa

8th Jun 2013, 16:15

I dont need to read articles in magazines and avoid them especially on the 225 situation. I much rather enjoy the official notices from the horses mouths.

Think it's clear by the lack of support for your argument that there are a lot of people who are actually involved and affected by this sad event who are not uninformed or who feels alienated by the process as it unfolded-that includes a lot of people who does not prefer the 225 yet are not biting at your statements.

Pittsextra

8th Jun 2013, 16:33

When the AAIB tell the CAA that the AC is cleared for unrestricted flight I fly!! My opinion simply does not matter. Neither does yours..

...err no your opinion does matter. If you fly the EC225 why don't you see your opinion as valid? No doubt there is feedback to be given? Just like the guy sat in the passenger seats has an opinion and needs convincing. The AAIB telling the CAA it looks OK this time, the CAA lifting limitations is only part of it. Hence my comments, which are far from nonsense.

Eurocopter Aberdeen produced the press release with the June/July date. I know because I spoke to the guy who then went on to write a story using the release as part if it. I did that because I didn't know if his story was real as only the day before on Bristows conference call they gave a Q4 timescale...

So communication has been lousy and when the RMT or HSSG talk of better communication - don't talk about it, just communicate, etc,etc.

One thing that can be overlooked here in amongst the technical chatter is guess what? Somebody actually has real money invested in these companies. Bristow, EADS - somebody owns these companies....

Pittsextra

8th Jun 2013, 16:44

I dont need to read articles in magazines and avoid them especially on the 225 situation. I much rather enjoy the official notices from the horses mouths.

Which is easier said than done when something said one day from a credible source gets completely denied or backtracked upon the following week/month (I.e the CEO of EADS getting slapped down by the CAA or the CEO of Bristow, his remarks get backtracked upon later).

I think one might class a CEO of a billion $ entity pretty official?

As for EASA, AAIB or CAA notices great I would agree if the other noise didn't exist. The problem comes when Eurocopter start briefing operators etc in private and then as said above things suddenly change. Like I said on the prior post you have Bristow talking Q4 on a Thursday and on Friday EC Aberdeen talking June/July with CHC in agreement.

In that situation it's hard to know what's going on.

DOUBLE BOGEY

8th Jun 2013, 17:03

SP I am banning myself for two weeks. I cannot bear any more of the Trolls drivel. Goodnight Vienna!!

DB

pilot and apprentice

8th Jun 2013, 18:03

Quote:
There is no way ANY modern gearbox can run for thirty minutes without any lubricant. They might have done decades ago when they were built by Swindon Railway Works but not now.
AgustaWestland demonstrates 50 minute gearbox ?Run Dry? capability to EASA | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/03/05/agustawestland-demonstrates-50-minute-gearbox-run-dry-capability-to-easa/)

Some of the time is of course with lub, but for how long? I would say max 5-10 min.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=7868145)

They state in the article that this result was achieved through engineering the distribution of residual oil. Nothing much has changed. Those of us who fly these aircraft (no I don't fly a 225 but I would happily go offshore in one tomorrow) realize that they are fallible and always will be.

Those that succumb to the hype and fear being perpetrated by the journalists, self-proclaimed experts, and anonymous pprune posters will need to grow up and take a hard look at where this fear is coming from.

Personally I would say, as has been alluded to on here but not stated that I have seen, that with an improved emlub sensing system, put it back to work. Others may disagree and they are entitled to. It is a robust design that will be made more robust through the scrutiny it is getting, not a flying disaster.

Tango123

8th Jun 2013, 20:38

In basic I agree with you, paa....., by the way I am pretty impressed by the AW MGB.

Why haven't anyone discussed the possibility of putting limitations on the 225 operations like: sea state, daylight ops over water only, water temp etc?

It sends out two different signals, but if I were a passenger, "afraid" of going on the 225 even with CAA removing restrictions, I would be easier talked into a daylight flight only sea state: lets say below 5 (WMO Sea State Code).

It would be an opportunity to get it flying again, building up passenger confidence, and that will take time no matter....

Just my opinion....

DOUBLE BOGEY

9th Jun 2013, 01:38

TANGO, in respect of your comment on day/ night operating limitations:

Whilst the current work on enhancing the HUMS and interim MGB modifications and NDT inspection protocols are specifically aimed at preventing another ditching, the EC225, modified with the Light Ground Speed mode (all O&G models), is capable of an emergency landing or ditching in zero/zero visibility. That is to say, in the dark with absolutely no visual references. Fully automatic capability. It can also do this in whiteout, brownout, blackout and at the bottom of an ILS.

Just so we are clear. NO OTHER HELICOPTER IN THE WORLD TODAY can do this.

The only variable remaining is the Sea State. The AS332 family has been operating for many years with over 4m flight hours. There have been several intentional and one unintentional ditching on the design over the years. Not one has rolled over!! No one has perished in a 332/225 ditching.

We have had one CFIT with loss of life. The Cormorant Alpha disaster. Eurocopters response to this was to design the most advanced AFCS in the world today with full flight envelope protection. With the AFCS deployed correctly, the EC225 will not allow the crew to fly into the ground or Sea. In fact,

Airspeed is protected
Altitude is protected
Vertical Speed envelope is protected
The free wheels are protected
NR is protected when OEI even uncoupled
Power is protected AEO even uncoupled
Flight path is protected by the Go-around
With TCAS 2 option fitted, if the crew fail to react to an airborne threat of collision, the AFCS will automatically couple up and fly the helicopter out of danger.

Neither Sikorsky or AW helicopters have such protections or a zero/zero landing capability.

If you are an EC225 pilot reading this and do not recognise any of the above, go to your employer and ask for more training or PM me and I will help.

Eurocopter has invested in, and deployed, 3 x EC225 Full Flight Simulators around the globe in recognition that these advanced systems are pointless if the crew are not properly trained. More simulators will follow. Crews can be exposed to scenarios in a safe training environment to help them exploit the maximum benefit from the safety systems that have been developed. To achieve this properly it is vital now, more than ever before, that simulators built for this purpose carry the OEM data pack so that simulator behaviour matches exactly aircraft behaviour. This is why Eurocopter build simulators themselves. It is not to exploit the training market. It is to enhance the training capability to support the product in service.

EC225 crews can now be better trained. More aware of their aircraft systems and most importantly, have a vast array of safety systems at their disposal to complete their mission.

If you are a passenger in Aberdeen and have any questions about the capabilities of the EC225 or are worried that what I have written is salesman BS PM me and I will happily demonstrate all I have written to you.

DB

bigglesbutler

9th Jun 2013, 01:43

If you are a passenger in Aberdeen and have any questions about the capabilities of the EC225 or are worried that what I have written is salesman BS PM me and I will happily demonstrate all I have written to you.

Or ask your aviation provider, there will be training captains, line pilots and chief pilots who can confirm what DB has said.

Si

DOUBLE BOGEY

9th Jun 2013, 02:01

Thank you Biggles.

May I also add, if you are an EC225 TRI/TRE and have not been afforded the time by your employer/ manager to see these protections OR fly a fully automatic approach/forced landing/ditching under Zero/Zero conditions in the simulator please feel free to PM me or contact me on +44 (0)7876 351133 and I will arrange this for you.

It is very important now that the EC225 training community gets connected and we are all able to teach and demonstrate the full capability of the EC225 as she comes back to service.

The EC225 is capable of very safely operating far beyond the operational limitations imposed by Regulation. This, in some cases, has inhibited the operator from training in these areas. However, if we are to recognise ALL the lessons that last years two ditchings can offer, surely our desire to fully appraise our crews of the full and complete capabilities available to them in an emergency is one of the most important.

I promise you that I will make every effort possible to assist any Instructor who may be trapped in the gap between legislative limitation and the EC225s operating capability.

DB

industry insider

9th Jun 2013, 04:36

(all O&G models), is capable of an emergency landing or ditching in zero/zero visibility. That is to say, in the dark with absolutely no visual references. Fully automatic capability. It can also do this in whiteout, brownout, blackout and at the bottom of an ILS.

Very interesting DB. How does it cope with the variability of the sea state during an "auto ditching"?

The fact is, no matter how clever it may be, my drilling department don't want to fly in it until it has a new shaft installed and has had at least 1 year of operation without a ditching...and the EMLUB is fully functional. There are other OGP companies (not all) who have the same view.

DOUBLE BOGEY

9th Jun 2013, 06:50

II understood just make sure you are not ignoring the the fact that every other offshore type has suffered fatalities, except the EC225.

To your ditching question. The Ec225 will establish into a zero Groundspeed hover at 30 feet automatically from the cruise by the pilots simply using trims. It then can descend vertically, in a geostationary descent, to the surface. After that a degree of luck needs to be on the crews side IF they are truly zero/zero visibility.

Ditching statistics are in the Pumas favour but we have to be realistic. There is always risk as there is to all other types.

Please remember you are gifted with a 30 min emlube system in the EC225. No other type except S61 has this. The 92 Newfoundland accident demonstrates the severe danger of attempting to continue runnin dry.

We forget that in both EC225 ditchings, the integrity of the warning systems, multiple in dependant indications, left both crews in no doubt as to the action they subsequently took which arguably saved the lives of all on board. This is in itself inherent safety. This is not the case in many of the other types flying.

The interim solution for the current shaft is robust, has redundancy in application and will prevent any future shaft failures in actual flight provided of course the AAIB and CAA agree with the details ofthe analysis. On paper it is bombproof.

There a thousands of issues like this affecting aircraft all over the world. I suspect you do not think twice about climbing on board an A380. It is a very poor day indeed when we all lose faith in the integrity of the AAIB and the Regulator. What do you then follow. rumour, gut instinct or hysteria.

We, the flight crew, trust the systems that are in place to keep us safe within the very best possible intentions. For that reason I fly the EC225 today, even with its restrictions.

I have the greatest respect for our offshore workers but I know most of them recognise the risks associated with offshore work and the helicopter flight is just one off them.

Your department should take some comfort, that should the route back to service be certified by EASA and CAA that for the time being, the EC225 Will be the safest helicopter on the North Sea.

There is no place in this industry for fear or scare mongering. It is far to technical to be treated with such one dimensional emotive responses.

II PM me and I will arrange some face time with you and your colleagues and we will happily show you any aspect of the EC225 as discussed.

Best Regards

Tango123

9th Jun 2013, 06:54

DB thanks for replying, but the fact is that there will be guys like ii, his colleagues and other passengers who really don't care about all the features, all the assurances from Eurocopter etc. It is what they feel that matters, not statistics, not a technical description, not guarantees not an analytic way of dealing with this. For most or may be all of these guys, the transportation to and from the rigs, is just a necessary evil.

The 225 needs to build up hours in the NS, before gaining the confidence it really deserves.

industry insider

9th Jun 2013, 07:43

DB, I have flown the 225 and I like it (not that many hours) but I do have thousands of hours in its 332L predecessors on the NS from the very earliest days of its introduction in April 1982, even when we had to fly it at 145 knots and do double North West Hutton flights with the daily MGB Chip lights.

The 225 is good aircraft, remains so and my company contracts it (albeit with a shrinking fleet which may soon shrink to zero).

Please remember you are gifted with a 30 min emlube system in the EC225. No other type except S61 has this.

I will have to disagree with you about EMLUB, it has not worked and even the latest AD from EASA says it probably won't work. In terms of land or ditch immediately, the 225 is now no different from the S-92.

My company also contracts the S-92. Right now, the S-92 has settled down somewhat, reliability has been good and our passengers feel safe in it. With the introduction of IDMGB, the S-92 will have an internal aux lube system.

Colibri49

9th Jun 2013, 08:26

"I will have to disagree with you about EMLUB, it has not worked and even the latest AD from EASA says it probably won't work." Wrong ! Out of date information.

Having attended the briefing at Bristow last Wednesday, it was explained to us that the EMLUBE has been receiving just as much investigative effort as the bevel gear shaft. There is only one final aspect about the system to be addressed.

In certain warm ambient atmospheric conditions which we seldom experience in the UK, the flow rate of glycol to certain parts of the gearbox is a bit lower than intended, although still plentiful. This is being resolved now by fitting a somewhat more powerful pump.

False warnings of emlube failure have been obviated and the system is now very well capable of meeting the original design requirements.

Eurocopter have everything to lose by being anything less than completely open/honest/up front. I would feel as safe flying the 225 now with the original shaft and the bomb-proof preventive and monitoring measures in place, as after the new design of shaft gets introduced.

The new design of shaft addresses the root cause of the cracking in such a comprehensive way that everyone involved should feel confident that they're flying in the safest helicopter ever to grace the North Sea.

henra

9th Jun 2013, 12:07

With the introduction of IDMGB, the S-92 will have an internal aux lube system.

Any indication as to when this IDMGB will be available? It has been announced since years now.
On the CH-148 SAC still seem to be fighting an uphill battle with the 30 mins.

terminus mos

9th Jun 2013, 12:26

Colibri

I think II is right...whatever Bristow may say

From the 2101-113E EASA AD issued May 28th 2013

. The Emergency Lubrication (EMLUB) system of the helicopter was designed to guarantee 30 minutes of continued safe flight in the event of total loss of the dual oil lubrication system of the Main Gearbox (MGB).
Investigations on the EMLUB system have revealed an area of the flight envelope in which the emergency lubrication Glycol pump’s performance is different to that assumed during certification.
Consequently, even though the likelihood of using the EMLUB is extremely low (no total loss of oil lubrication encountered on the Super Puma fleet), as the continued safe flight of 30 minutes is not guaranteed in the whole flight envelope, and pending a Eurocopter modification to the Glycol pump and EMLUB pressure switches, an immediate landing or ditching is required as soon as the EMLUB system is activated.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Eurocopter issued EC225 Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No 04A010 to provide updated Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) emergency procedures.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires amendment of the RFM emergency procedures section.

I for one don't care what Bristow think, they are just an operator with a commercial vested interest, this is the current EASA AD as far as I know.

Colibri49

9th Jun 2013, 17:49

It wasn't Bristow doing the presentation. It was a Eurocopter engineering expert and if he hasn't done so already, he'll shortly be giving the same talk at CHC and Bond.

"and pending a Eurocopter modification to the Glycol pump" seems to be the relevant bit from your quote above. He didn't allude to the pressure switches, which I take to imply from his statement that now only the pump needs to be stronger.

SASless

9th Jun 2013, 20:47

DB.....I guess the way you describe the 225 AFCS....it would be perfect to take for a Pub Run....it would buy every Round and take the Ugly Bird!:E

lowfat

9th Jun 2013, 21:08

What pump does the Emlube use? I thought it was p2 air from the the number 1 engine.

So no number 1 engine no emlube.

Or am I talking bollox?

Colibri49

9th Jun 2013, 21:22

There are pressure-sensing switches for both p2.4 pressure and glycol pressure, which means that there is a separate pump for the glycol.

DOUBLE BOGEY

9th Jun 2013, 23:27

Low fat. You are correct. It only uses air from the LH engine. If the engine is not running we Have no EMLUBESYSTEM capability BUT this is a multiple failure scenario that the system is not designed to accommodate.

Like I said it is the only aircraft flying that has an EMLUBESYSTEM.

The discovery during extensive testing that they pump may not deliver an optimum flow under certain conditions has led to EC issuing the ESB because there are EC225s currently operating around the globe.

My understanding is that new pumps will be fitted ASAP as part of the mod package to support the route back to service for those not operating.

SAS.......yes I think she probably would. In fact if Carling made a helicopter it would be a 225

DB

industry insider

10th Jun 2013, 10:40

Low fat. You are correct. It only uses air from the LH engine. If the engine is not running we Have no EMLUBESYSTEM capability BUT this is a multiple failure scenario that the system is not designed to accommodate.Then...

My understanding is that new pumps will be fitted ASAP as part of the mod package to support the route back to service for those not operating.

It only uses air ....but needs a new pump?

bigglesbutler

10th Jun 2013, 10:43

P2.4 air is used to spray (atomise?) the glycol into the gearbox but the pump takes it from its container to the spray mechanism.

Si

Fareastdriver

13th Jun 2013, 15:59

Purely as a matter of interest. When they were scrabbling around for helicopters after the 225s were grounded, did they look at resurrecting GBMCX from the hanger it was marooned in in Libya.

TTFD

13th Jun 2013, 17:04

did they look at resurrecting GBMCX from the hanger it was marooned in in Libya

Yes they did, flying at Aberdeen today.

CHC Scotia also flying an AS332L G-BKZE today as well.

Fareastdriver

28th Mar 2014, 08:46

Have tthe offshore unions advised all their members not to fly in Boeing 777s yet?

Laundryboy

28th Mar 2014, 17:29

That would be far too measured a response - 'ban all boeings' would be more likely.

Ian Corrigible

28th Mar 2014, 18:16

Have you checked Facebook?

http://i.imgur.com/1293fmK.jpg

I/C

John Eacott

5th Jul 2014, 09:12

Airbus Helicopters (http://news.stv.tv/north/281562-lawyers-say-airbus-formerly-eurocopter-accept-responsibility/) accept responsibility?

A helicopter firm has accepted responsibility for a ditching, according to lawyers acting for the 12 offshore workers injured in the 2012 incident.

The CHC-operated Super Puma EC225 was forced to land in the North Sea between Shetland and Orkney off Fair Isle.

Lawyers working for Irwin Mitchell have said manufacturer Airbus, formerly Eurocopter, accepts that it is “solely responsible for failures” leading to the crash.

An Irwin Mitchell spokesman said: “Lawyers at the firm have now received written confirmation from Airbus Helicopters stating that it accepts that it is solely responsible for the failures which led to the crew ditching the aircraft causing both physical and psychological injuries to those on board.”

The Super Puma was forced to ditch due to a failure in the gearbox lubrication system and a false warning in the emergency lubrication system.

The helicopter was flying from Aberdeen to the West Phoenix platform, west of Shetland when it ditched. Two crew were also on board the helicopter.

Jonathan Garcia, an ROV Pilot Technician on board when the helicopter ditched, said: "It has been a long wait for answers regarding the incident but, if any good is to come of it, it will be that steps are taken to improve offshore helicopter safety in the long term.

"Barely a day goes by when I do not think of the ditching. It was incredibly traumatic. Thankfully now that Airbus Helicopters has accepted responsibility, we should be able to start moving forward and receive the help and support we need to be able to move on with our lives.

“I hope that the aviation authorities and helicopter operators take the necessary steps to prevent anyone else going through what I have had to experience."

Jim Morris, a former RAF pilot and partner in Irwin Mitchell's Aviation Law team, added: “There have been a number of adverse incidents involving Super Puma helicopters in recent years. We now hope that the issues identified in the recent accident report are fully addressed as soon as possible to prevent any similar incidents in future.”