UK MP's to examine helicopter safety

[Ye Olde Pilot]

The move follows a loss of confidence from passengers flown to UK oil rigs.
An inquiry into offshore helicopter safety is to be carried out by MPs.

It follows the Super Puma crash off Shetland last month, in which four people died.

The transport select committee has confirmed it is to examine the crash, along with other North Sea helicopter incidents, as part of a wide-ranging investigation.

The committee chairman, Louise Ellman, said there is "worrying evidence" that the workforce has lost confidence.

It is expected that union representatives will be among those brought before the committee.

An investigation into the CHC-operated Super Puma AS332 L2 crash is ongoing.

Sarah Darnley, 45, of Elgin, Gary McCrossan, 59, from Inverness, Duncan Munro, 46, from Bishop Auckland, and George Allison, 57, from Winchester, lost their lives in the incident.

[Arm out the window]

Get some MPs on to it - that's bound to fix the problem...

[Fareastdriver]

That should be worth a few Attendance Allowances.

[hoodie]

If it is run anything like the manner in which that bl**dy Hodge woman runs the PAC, it'll be World Class grandstanding with various oil and rotary Industry executives arrogantly browbeaten and assumed guilty of some unspecified fault.

Mucho heat with very little light.

I hope I'm wrong. :hmm:

[terminus mos]

Why not?

The helicopter industry and the regulator have failed to innovate to improve safety, other than purchasing newer helicopters and apparently operating them with insufficient SOPS and Training. The OEMs and the regulators continue to allow operation of aircraft with a band aid applied to the MGB.

Before you blame the " bad nasty"oil companies, who is paying for the "new technology" helicopters which have yet to demonstrate a real improvement in safety?

[Camper Van Basten]

The OEMs and the regulators continue to allow operation of aircraft with a band aid applied to the MGB.

I don't really understand this recurring reference to the 225 MGB problem. It's an inspection that's carried out on a component that we've now learned is prone to failure. No different to any other component that gets inspected daily / weekly / annually ... whatever.

Is checking the S92 MGB mounting feet for cracks also a 'band aid' solution?

[IrishSarBoy]

just listened to the BBC radio programme 'more or less' which is all about statics. They examine the safety record with ref to a ten year study and it makes good listening, the bottom line was along the theme that there weren't enough accidents to draw statical conclusions from, but that every case should be examined on it's own merits. The podcast is still available, give it a listen and see what you think.

[satsuma]

CvB

Seeing as the inquiry is being set up as a result of loss of confidence in helicopters, I would have thought that cracking gearbox shafts and mounting feet would form a relevant part of it. Wouldn't you? They are quite important.

[Camper Van Basten]

Please feel free to quote the parts of my post which implied cracked MGB's were not relevant to the inquiry. I didn't even mention the inquiry.

[mtoroshanga]

That should be good for a lot of self-serving rubbish being talked by people without a clue who I wouldn't let take my dog for a walk!!!!

[satsuma]

CvB

I think you should have just stopped after your first four words. :hmm:

[Ainippe]

As posted before, it will probably be chaired by someone who knows nothing about aviation and a good little number for all the scroungers to get onto. Let the industry do this we always have and people like the CAA/FAA have managed pretty well so far.

[Fly_For_Fun]

Patricia Hodge would be perfect. Get the management and regulators squirming to get a safer industry I say. Corner cutting and poor management across the helicopter industry needs to come to an end.

[nomorehelosforme]

Surely the most experienced MP to be involved in an investigation, after all he had is own on Election Day!

[satsuma]

Patricia Hodge? Yes, maybe she could get Derek Jacobi or Dickie Attenborough to also sit on the committee. :confused:

[Peter-RB]

Mz Ellman (i thought Ellerman) is a red hot socialist:mad:, verging on a sort of female Quisling/communista:suspect:, she is a lover of the TV/paperatsi type sound bites.totally the wrong person to be looking into such problems that have had sad outcomes.

Air miles Andy is better qualified!!! :D

Peter RB
Lancashire

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Satsuma, CVB is absolutely correct.

He is challenging the use of the emotive "Band Aid" descriptor in reference to what are actually maintenance actions approved by the OEM, the Regulator and incorporated into the Continued Airworthiness Requirements.

It is you sir that does not understand!!

DB

[Camper Van Basten]

Thanks for the dig out DB, I was going to just let it slip because I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall here!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CVB no problem buddy.

What is a "Satsuma" anyways, is like a sort of fat tangerine??

DB

[satsuma]

You two carry on congratulating each other and everything will be ok. :rolleyes:

If emotive words are used by some, maybe it reflects a strength of feeling. The three modern aircraft of choice have had major technical problems, two with their gearboxes and one with its tail rotor. That's not reassuring to any passenger. The 225 is only just limping back into North Sea service, quicker with some operators than others, so to classify its gearbox issue merely as something that's prone to failure and should be checked like any other component is wholly missing the point of concern of those who have to endure that uncomfortable ride to a rig.

What would be reassuring would be that they know they'll be able to escape the cabin unhindered should an unfortunate event occur or that the pilots are capable of handling both the aircraft and its increasingly complex automatic pilot in all phases of flight, but that doesn't appear to universally be the case either, does it?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Satsuma, are you sarcastic or optimistic in your last post. The smiley at the end seems to be on the "fence"?

Seriously though if you do not understand the concept of "Continued Airworthiness" I would be glad to explain it to you. There are no Band-Aids in EASA Part-145.

The question hangs......what is a "Satsuma"?

DB

[satsuma]

It seems as though you can't make the distinction between Continuing Airworthiness and perceived airworthiness amongst your customers.

As you've descended into some strange, childlike form of nom-de-prune calling not once but twice, I'll bid you farewell.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Satsuma, you are correct. My fruity remarks are fatuous and childlike. Please accept my apology.

However, you have still missed CVBs point. Terminus Mo is a Helicopter Operator and not a passenger. He knows very well the underlying regulations and procedures that support a continuing airworthiness solution such as the EC225 MGB ASB. Referring to this as a "Band Aid" gives the passengers reading this thread the impression that the EC225 remains unsafe by inferring the very comprehensive, approved, continuing airworthiness procedures now in place are a somehow a "Bodge-job"!

TM is dong this because he has some personal issues with product placement. However, such blatant disrespect for the procedures and practices put in place by EASA, the Operators and the Manufactures does nobody, especially the passengers, any good.

CVB and all other responsible crews on this thread, including you, welcome any investigation that could represent an improvement in safety. He never suggested that reviewing the EASA procedures should be ruled out.

The Industry needs to deal in facts, where they exist, expert analysis where they do not exist and not the twaddle spouted by people who either simply do not understand OR have another agenda. That is why I and others are quick to correct these transgressions because it does not help to restore passengers confidence in any of the helicopters. Note CVB defended also the S92 ASBs in a ironic manner.

If a Passenger referred to the EC225 or S92 Continued Airworthiness procedures as "Band Aids" I would go to great lengths to explain the system so they would hopefully feel more confident that some intelligent activity takes place before these procedures are in place.

Aviators posting this twaddle should know better or at least recognise the damage they are doing to the wider reputation of helicopter passenger services.

DB

[ericferret]

I do not think anyone should write off a government revue.
The House of Commons Transport Committee chaired by Gwneth Dunwoody gave the CAA a real going over a few years ago. The report entitled "The Work of the Civil Aviation Authority" dug deep in to the failings of the CAA and the transition to EASA.
I remember watching a live session and to see the CAA big wigs squirming before a very well briefed committee was actually fine entertainment.
I would not have wanted to be there.
As and when this enquiry takes place it might well surprise everybody and I doubt it will be an easy ride for those in the dock!!!!!!!

[tu154]

Ericferret, it might have been entertaining, but as far as I can see has had no impact on the shambles that is the easa transition . Posturing, putting people on the spot, possibly a bit of grandstanding, but no effect in the real world.

[Boslandew]

I hold MP's in no particular regard but it is to be hoped that any enquiry by them would have access to all possible information and to all the involved parties. The various MP's committee's have made some fairly senior people squirm in recent times and forced some very inconvenient facts from them. Who knows, they might do so in this case. Leaving aside questions of MP's expenses, surely an argument for another day, could it do any harm?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

TU154 - why do you say the EASA transitioni a Shambles?

[terminus mos]

Bogey

I am not a helicopter operator. I will be delighted to see the EC225 returned to service when it has a new shaft and full airworthiness confidence is restored.

I maintain that the current situation is an interim band aid designed to put the aircraft back into service quickly to serve commercial needs.

If it was as robust as you suggest, there would be no need for a new re designed shaft and operations could continue with the new sludge preventing oil jet combined with monitoring and inspection gradually reducing with in service time.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

TM, please accept my apologies for closing you down in my earlier posts. Due to the detail and nature of your earlier posts I formed the impression you were a Pilot turned Manager who should know better than make inappropriate remarks about the Maintenance Safety System and regulations that underpin the Continuing Airworthiness Procedures in force.

therefore please understand - Full airworthiness confidence IS RESTORED.

It has been restored by the application of robust, regulated procedures of Continuing Airworthiness. This is the same system that underpins the safety of any airliner you fly in.

Go onto the EASA website and search for ADs (Airworthinees Directives). They exist for almost every aircraft flying. These are not "Band Aids" they are robust continuing airworthiness procedures.

The EC225 is by a long margin, the safest helicopter in offshore operations. If you do not believe this come to ABZ and I will show you why.

You are not correctly informed and that is why you personally have poor confidence. I can fix that but please stop referring to fully and exhaustive, highly regulated maintenance procedures as "Band Aids".

It makes people think you are an idiot or ignorant and the very fact that you are taking time to read all this **** on these forums tells me you are clearly in nether bracket.

DB

[Hughes500]

I hope the MP's grill our industry after all most of it is sh.t. Compare to the motor industry who will recall tens of thousands of vehicles if there is a hint of something wrong ( ask Toyota for example) what does are industry do, look at it every flight and it will be ok !! If they built the things properly in the first place we wouldn't have these problems.
I don't just mean the big stuff, my ac ( 300's and 500's)

5 alternators in 5 months
last year 4 starter motors in 3 months
Main rotor blades, not painted properly, erosion strips that are stuck on with airfix hobby glue. ( MD 500 and S 300 )
tail rotor blades that are made of such thin metal that pitch horns fail ( MD 500)
paint on US helicopter s that gives little corrosion protection

Lycoming piston engine s that are barely fit for purpose, if your car used £ 600 of engine oil a year over 15000 miles you would take it back

I could go on but I am going to the fridge for a beer

[cockney steve]

@ Hughes...I am a bit old and cynical...If all this certification and regulation was so thorough, there wouldn't be this level of failures, would there?

Another prime example ,is the propensity of newly rebuilt Lycosaurus engines tithrow a Jug...that is, the torque and lack of locking-wire on the base-nuts allows the cylinder to depart the crankcase....wtf? selective "security"

Again, the official torque on a main output Alternator-nut,is IMHO,way too low ,outside of a laboratory ,with clean, deburred, lubricated threads......I've seen a number of burnt terminal -posts that prove the point.....funnily -enough, you don't get the problem on Permit aircraft where experience and empirical knowledge are allowed to hold sway.

@DB I hate to cross swords with a professional such as yourself, but if all this stuff was so perfectly controlled and robust, there wouldn't be any need for all these AD's and procedures, would there?

The fact is, a large amount is to do with arse-covering and blame-shifting
Having said all that, Pax should always remember that the Aircrew have a vested interest in a safe flight ,as well...they will be first at the crash!!!!
I don't believe that ANY Aircrew would knowingly fly an inherently unsafe machine, but, as several groundings and A D's have proven, their faith in the regulators is sometimes misplaced.

*ducks incoming vitriol*

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 and Cockney Steve.

You raise some really interesting food for thought. I must admit I have always assumed that helicopters, by their very nature, have high degree of critical load path components. However, to over engineer them would make the design oe weight, unacceptable. Therefore they are designed for flight and safety is assured by regular servicing, overhaul and replacement.

The incidents you describe sound like "In Service Failures" which should be captured by the AMP "Monitoring the Effectivenees of the AMP" procedures and fed back to the Type Certificate holder for review action.

Such review action may include escalation of the components maintenance inspections, to capture failures, and/or reductions in service life. Or indeed highlight a Quality Control issues in the manufacture, storage or supply procedures.

Having said that, from the examples you post I can well understand your frustration. However, I just wanted to add balance, for the sake of the PAX reading this, that formal review procedures in the AMP are designed to monitor such events and stimulate change.

DB

[AnFI]

DB: "I have always assumed that helicopters, by their very nature, have high degree of critical load path components." Agree - inherently Simplex machines

[Hughes500]

DB
Well to give you an example I reported to the FAA that a set of tail rotor blades less than 1 year old were corroding under the paint in the pitch horn area where 5 other sets have had failures from the Oem manufacturer. They thanked me for the information and said they would investigate, well 8 months later I have heard diddly squat !
The oem in an e mal admitted that it had quality control issues, what do the FAA do, well it appears nothing :ugh::ugh:

[Brilliant Stuff]

Would more MORs be the way forward?

[mary meagher]

Hughes 500, as I am going to the US of A tomorrow to visit grandchildren, would you like me to pass on the name of a suitable lawyer? that's how they settle things over there. The FAA is unlikely to rattle the cage of a manufacturer; certainly the posturings of a parlimentary committee would have even less effect.

[Hughes500]

Mary

To be honest I can't be bothered to be honest it would only be more hassle but thanks for the offer. It is what I like about us pilots always trying to help each other

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 if your helicopter is in UK, maintained under EASA Part 145, them MOR to CAA voluntarily and follow the mandates in the aircrafts AMP.

If you really believe safety is compromised you are obliged to do this. The FAA is powerless when the aircraft is regulated under EASA.

DB

[AnFI]

In the case of cars, regulation made them safer but the free market made them reliable - and they are pretty damn reliable.

The market looks pretty powerful as an influence on which aircraft are chosen, the rationality is not necessarily right - powerful nonetheless.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

In terms of flight time I am approaching nearly 2 full years in the air in helicopters 24/7. In all this time I have one engine failure, two cockpit fires (one self induced), a few bulb failures, some indication failures.

I have never had, hydraulic, engine fire, MGB, AFCS, tail rotor, electrical.

I have flown 10 types in my career.

This experience is atypical.

Helicopters, properly maintained, are much more reliable than you are suggesting on this thread.

DB

[Hughes500]

DB

Mor's done etcetera but nothing gets done until someone dies or so it seems. The problem is the certification laws. Look at piston engines, we put up with engines that use almost as much oil as fuel, are twice as heavy as they need to be, slightly over speed it at 3200 rpm and it falls apart. Lets be honest if you took a Lycoming to Ford and said this is the best aerospace piston engine for you cars you wouldn't even get an interview. When was the last time you ever topped up a modern car engine with oil ? I bet never not very 4hours of operation !!!!!

[Savoia]

MP criticises ‘piecemeal’ approach to copter safety

An MP has criticised plans to hold five separate inquiries into North Sea helicopter safety as a “piecemeal” approach that will “do nothing” to allay offshore workers’ concerns.

Frank Doran stepped up his calls for the UK Government to order a judge-led public inquiry into the five helicopter incidents which have happened in the last four years.

It follows the refusal of former UK Transport Minister Simon Burns to discuss his demand until the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has completed its investigation next year.

Press and Journal - Article - MP criticises ?piecemeal? approach to copter safety (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/3428779/)

[Arrrj]

DB,

Hear hear sir.

Hughes 500,

Have you owned an expensive Porsche ? No ? One of the most expensive ones (Turbo) uses similar oil compared to a Lycoming ! For real, because it has a very similar design motor. (And no, I have not owned one either, but a mate has).

You may or may not know, but engine failures in Robbies that use these motors are a negligible (almost non-existent) cause of accidents. The Robbie site has a very interesting set of facts regarding this issue.

Small turbines are more prone to failure than a piston...properly maintained and not over stressed of course. There is plenty of data to support this.

All the best,
Arrrj

[OafOrfUxAche]

When was the last time you ever topped up a modern car engine with oil ? I bet never not very 4hours of operation !!!!!


Well if my car engine was subjected to the vibration levels of a helicopter, and I knew that an engine failure in my car could well lead to serious injury or death, I wouldn't mind topping it up every four hours.


To be honest I can't be bothered to be honest


Should we assume that everything you write is dishonest except where you write 'to be honest' twice?

[Hughes500]

Oaf

If the helicopters you fly vibrate that much you shouldnt be flying them
Arrj one of my customers is a Porsche dealer, he has assured me that if a customer was using a litre of oil every 300 miles they would be fitting a new engine !!!

[500e]

Arjj
Have owned 3 Porsches over the last 30 years & looked after a fair few more, never seen oil use like your friends, other than if it was shot usually from poor service real brutal use or high mileage, would suggest a changes of dealer.:sad:

Looking at the helicopter industry I feel that both the small user & the majors role over
& take the s**t that manufacturers dish out, both in price of parts & reliability of product in general.
Reading through threads we have rain ingress (a 1950 car problem) causing untold damage to electronics, the recall on cylinders (After market) as H500 says oil use, again a 1950 automotive problem, over rev past 3200 & the bill can be eye watering or worse. poor paint \corrosion, blade de lamination, erosion strips lifting in hours from new. doors that pop open. gear boxes, non delivery of spares, non delivery of product (Canada)
Would you like me to go on ?.
If the customer accepts the poor level of service that is the service we will get.