AW101 for long range offshore soon ?

[HeliHenri]

.

" AgustaWestland has opened discussions with European regulator EASA over obtaining civil certification for the triple-engined type.

As oilfields move further offshore, it sees a potential requirement for a crew-change helicopter offering longer range than either of the segment’s current stalwarts, the Eurocopter EC225 and Sikorsky S-92.

And, Griffin points out, although it is not marketed as such, the type shares a common cockpit architecture with the three members of AgustaWestland’s civil “helicopter family”, comprising the AW169, AW139 and AW189, with the latter two finding favour with the oil and gas segment.

It previously obtained civil certification for an earlier iteration of the helicopter, but a number of changes over that model – notably to the airframe, engines and avionics – mean that AgustaWestland must re-seek EASA approval.
“We are in discussions with EASA, but because they know the product there’s not a significant risk [to gaining certification],” says Griffin."

AgustaWestland pursues new AW101 sales avenues (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/agustawestland-pursues-new-aw101-sales-avenues-390592/)

.

[noooby]

Cha-Chiiiing!!! How much would an AW101 cost?? I shudder to think.

[henra]

Interesting!

Despite the surely solid price tag this may potentially be worthwile.
With its increased cabin width (2,5m iso 2,0m in the S-92) it could be possible to stuff 24 or 25 passengers into the back without tighter packing as today. That is about one third more pax. I don't think operating costs will be necessarily one third higher than an S-92.

That said the question is: Will the Oil Companies go for fewer bigger capacity Helos or rather for more EC-175/AW-189?
Those two will in some likelyhood be the Benchmarks and thus main contenders in the years to come.

[GoodGrief]

"more than 19 passengers" ring a bell?

The oil companies should get it for a small dollar. The R&D cost have been covered by the military (i.e. tax payers) :E

[Lonewolf_50]

Not conversant with oil platform ops ... is there a GW load limit issue on the offshore platforms that AW101 might run afoul of? (Strength of the point of landing, not of the helicopter).

Asking out of pure ignorance.

[Sloppy Link]

Servicing/serviceability.....ouch! Mil have not had an easy time, or at least the RAF haven't, wait and see how the RN get on with it (the trooping version not the ASW one).

[SASless]

Has the RAF copied their successful fielding of the Chinook in the 101 Program?

[Fareastdriver]

Think Asian Continental Shelf. Stretching from Viet Nam past China, Japan and through to the Kurile Islands. Scads and scads of oil and gas sometimes 250 miles offshore which is why the various nations have been arguing over various islands.

[FrustratedFormerFlie]

With Max AUW 15,600kg (c3500kg heavier than the S92?), there would likely be significant mods needed to most platform/rig helidecks to take AW 101 - and potentially prohibitively expensive mods to some of the marine vessel helideck structures if they wanted to take it

Of course anything with a BV 234 capable deck (22,000 kgs?) left over from the 1980s wuold be OK:D

[SASless]

The GOM is moving further offshore as well.....lots of new work coming up from the sounds of it.

[HeliHenri]

.
So, new work at long range around the world means new platforms and maybe these new platforms will have helidecks wider and more resistant to loads for heavier helicopters.
.

[JimL]

The EH101 already has approval for UK and Norwegian S61 decks based on a assessment done several years ago (the S92 and EC225 took advantage of the precedent for their approvals). This assessment was concerned with loading factors and not D Value!

Jim