EC155

[212man]

Have any of you flown the EC155? If so, can you spare the time to make a few comments about it. Better still, e-mail me any reports you can.

Thanks.

PS that's the 155 not the 135.

------------------

[eurocopter]

212 man - Did you recieve my e-mail re EC155?
I have a new account & not sure if all is well with it. If you need it re-sent let me know.

[212man]

Thanks EC, yes I did. Did you get mine? you're right there were afew problems, I think the net turned to a co.uk. Sorry it was so long.

I just saw some basic performance figures:OGE hover ceiling at MAUW and ISA +10:1500'! wow what a performer. Can't wait to try it in ISA +15-20.

------------------

[Jez]

Does anyone know of Eurocopter's efforts to manufacture an upgraded EC155?

I've heard that the EC155B is not performing up to specs.

Any comment from people flying the EC155 as I am dying to get my hands on one and give it a run.

Thanks

Jerry

[Old cynic]

Heard its to do with poor Cat A (Class 1) performance but know no more.

[212man]

It does perform to the specs, it just depends and how closely the specs were compared with the requirements in the first place.

The new 155B1 has the Arriel 2C2 which improves the OEI continuous power rating. This allows a higher Cat A weight when using the 60 kt Vtoss as the second segment is the limiting factor with the existing 2C1 with its current OEI Continuous power. Still need 580 m reject distance in still air, though.

[Heli-Ops]

212man

I heard that the 155s were not coming up to speed in Nigeria. Any truth to that.

Heli Ops

[212man]

I can't really comment on that. Suffice to say that the a/c performs as it says in the FLM, ECF have brought out the B1. Read into that what you will.

[Taff Missed]

My Nigerian contact tells me that they collect rain water in the cabin even more efficiently than the 212 - difficult to imagine but there you go. I don't miss it.:)

Taff

[SASless]

212man....

Have heard of some problems with the 155's at Shell/Warri-Port Harcourt....any truth to them?

How many windscreens have cracked while the aircraft have been setting on the ground shutdown?

How many windscreens or overhead screens have been lost to bird strikes?

Any delays in obtaining glue/cement/putty to reinstall broken windscreens?

How many incidents of wire locking being done improperly at the factory that resulted in significant risks to the aircraft? (for example....fenstrom hubs working lose and main gearbox drain plugs backing off)

Did the required reject areas play a major role in the Shell decision to move the helicopter operations to Osubi Airport?

How many radomes have been lost to bird strikes?

Does the sliding passenger door configuration interfere with simultaneous passenger and baggage loading....and how does that figure into overall elapsed time numbers as compared to comparable flights with the Bell 212?

Does the lack of air conditioning and the rapid heating of the cabin contribute to pilot fatique over long days without rest breaks?

How many Shell landing sites that met the criteria for Bell 212's remain in use by the 155?

How many unusual malfunctions have occurred that resulted in premature engine changes? Is it a fact, that anytime an engine goes to the max power setting OEI, when commanded to do so by the FADEC system, that engine must be removed and sent for an inspection at the factory?

Is the 155's "particle separater" system as effective as the 212? Any FOD problems being encountered during bush ops with the 155? Off airport or paved helipad landings present a problem as compared to the 212's the 155 is replacing?

Any incidents result in downtime to aircraft due to inexperienced (new to the aircraft) pilots making incorrect decisions during the analysis of malfunctions that could have been avoided by means of more intensive training or the use of simulators and/or procedure trainers? Is the complexity of the avionics suite presenting problems to timely execution of emergency drills by crews due to the amount of information being displayed during emergencies that could lead to a loss of situational awareness by the crew?

To the other readers.....some problems have been encountered...those who decided to replace the 212 with the 155 have presented those who have to operate and maintain the things with a handful of problems. That should be no reflection upon those now trying to make the program work.

Many of the problems are not untypical of the introduction of any new airframe and in this case may be strengthened by the operaton being located within Nigeria with all that brings on.

I'll bet some at Warri and Port Harcourt will say, over Ian Washer's favorite (Foster's beer ), that the Bell 412EP would have been the better choice.

[Av8r]

.......didn't think so.

A little too close to home boys?









:eek:

[SASless]

Now here is a good rumor!

Seems a 155 crew in Nigeria got ahead of themselves on the before takeoff checklist....cleared all around....pulled the ol' collective up under the sweaty armpit.....and of all things the Fadec governor system realized they were wanting to do a single engine takeoff.....determined max power on the good engine would be required....and very obediently provided the necessary input to the single engine that was not in the ground idle position.....and yes....in light of the factory requirement to return the engine to the factory for an inspection upon any duration of max power as selected by the Fadec....yet another AOG aircraft for an engine change.

Any truth to that rumor 212Man?

Me thinks these things are becoming very ....very expensive to operate. Heck...the 412EP....being so low tech....it would either hover or at least warn you of the impending disaster by physical signs before kidnapping your pocketbook!

[widgeon]

so they didnt notice the pretty coloured exceedence lines coming up on all the gauges then ?. Does the venerable 412 have an aural warning to remind you when you are beeing stupid ?.

[SASless]

Widgeon,

It was suggested those who selected the 155 considered the 412 so 'old tech" that they would not even attend a demo of a 412EP with four axis autopilot and all the goodies specified in the RFP.......but being old tech, the 412 does not have a Fadec system that automatically throws the remaining engine into warp speed when it senses the need.....and the resulting engine change that entails.

The 412 relies upon old tech pilots to determine how much power is applied and uses a rather novel concept....pilot's thumb and hand....to adjust power as required. There are times old tech methods are a better answer me thinks.

Imagine the cost and inconvenience that results from this....Fadec senses a need for wide open.,.does so at the speed light....and Eurocopters gets to inspect the engine while the operator is left doing an engine change in the field.

At least the trusty PT-6 doesn't have to be replaced every single time max intercontingency power is used.:)

[CTD]

I'm surprised the FADEC doesn't have some sort of AOG logic to inhibit OEI parameters on the ground. The 'old technology' 412 has it on the Royal Saudi version, which is FADEC (PT6,-T9) 4 axis, and nothing but 4 flat screens in the office.

[400 Hertz]

The EC155 has DECUs fitted, not FADECs. I'm sure that there would be some raised eyebrows wiring the DECUs into the gnd/flt logic.

Good luck with the mod.

[helmet fire]

SASless,

On your take off rumour:
I love my 212's but......I do love an engine system that works its effen guts out when I told it to, because I need to do it OEI. if I am coming in OEI and I want to use the power, stuff the ruddy engine. If that means it is occaisionaly over temped/sped/torqued through misshandling, so be it.
All of these things can be done to the twin pac, but unless you have an accurate ECM, it is unlikely that the pilot will pick up all the exceedences. Isnt that worse? But the issue here is misshandling isn't it - not engine systems?

Or, I have missed your point? :confused:

[SASless]

Helmet fire....alas yes...you did miss the point of my post....I have no problem the way the Fadec or Decu or whatever it is works....the problem I have currently is that upon it working as designed....the operator is confronted with a need for an engine change despite....key word ...despite no exceedence occuring. As I understand the procedure....no matter the temp..Q...Ng....the engine has to have an inspection. At least that is what was being put out by those in the know following an inflight problem involving a training captain as mitigation for the resulting engine change. The statement was made to suggest the engine change would have to be made no matter if any exceedence occured or not thus the engine change was no big deal.....and the TC was not on the hook for the engine change....though it seems there might have been an exceedence.

[helmet fire]

um....um...

I am still not really understanding your problem. I think perhaps it is because I have no knowledge of the EC-155 systems or there is some information I am missing in your arguement. Maybe you could expand on the background of the issue a bit more?

You state: "the problem I have currently is that upon it working as designed....the operator is confronted with a need for an engine change despite....key word ...despite no exceedence occuring"

But then you go on to infer that although "those in the know" have said that an engine change is standard with no exceedences, this particular incident "might have" involved an exceedence.

If the engine required a change due to the parameters of the incident as defined by the manual - what is wrong with that? Same same for just about every engine - when certain defined parameters are reached, change the engine. How does this differ from the 212? If the 212 worked as designed and I pulled up the collective with one engine at idle, I too could exceed parameters.

Are you saying that both engines were at "fully open" at the flight idle detent (not ground idle) and some sort of OEI training switch was inhibiting one of the engines from sharing the load and then the system allowed some sort of exceedence?

Sorry, but it makes little sense to an outsider thus far.


:cool:

[SICKorSKI]

HK Grounds Four New French-Made Rescue Helicopters
October 9, 2003 1:44am
Dow Jones Business NewsHONG KONG (AP)--Hong Kong's government has temporarily grounded four new French-made search-and-rescue helicopters after one developed a major mechanical failure - the latest in a series of problems with the aircraft.

The Government Flying Service started operating five of the US$10 million EC155 B1 helicopters about six months ago. They've since had several problems - including a fatal crash still under investigation.

The latest problem surfaced Monday, when an oil cooling fan disintegrated in one of the choppers' main gearbox while the craft was flying. It landed safely and no one was injured.

A door suddenly flew off one of the choppers while it was flying over Hong Kong's harbor on Aug. 3.

Another crashed into a hill near Hong Kong's airport on Aug. 27, killing the two crew members on board.

It was the first crash involving an EC155 series helicopter made by Eurocopter, based near Marseilles in southern France.

Hong Kong has taken the helicopters out of service while investigators, including an expert from manufacturer Eurocopter, try to determine what went wrong, said Len Leung, operations manager for the Government Flying Service.

Leung anticipates the helicopters will be back in service in a few days.

The crash caused the first fatalities for the Hong Kong Government Flying Service, which was established in 1993.

Eurocopter offices in France couldn't immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

[davidi]

Does anyone have knowledge or experience on the 155?
I hear reliability may be a problem in comparison to the 365 and that an organisation in the Middle East returned them?

[Droopy]

212man's the one to ask.

[212man]

Anything specific you want to know? Any particular reason?

btw it's an EC-155 not AS: AS designators stopped when Aerospatiale merged with MBB and became Eurocopter

PS. the bit about the Middle East is correct to a point; it was one not "them" and I think you may find they were outside the FLM operating envelope (limit is +40 C), unless they were doing a lot of night flying! So perhaps their gripes about performance were not entirely justified.

[widgeon]

must be nice to have enough money to buy an aircraft without reading the Flight Manual , it couldn't be that the salesman forgot to mention the temp limits could it ?. Are the any B2's delivered yet ? .

[davidi]

Thank you 212man. Just showing my age on AS/EC.
It would be to operate in Europe and UK and I don't know anyone with experience on the 155. My view is the 365 is well proven and reliable. I have heard less positive news on the 155, but only hearsay. I would prefer to move with technology, but maybe it needs a little longer to iron out the niggles? Any views on the varients? Would appreciate the weak points on the 155.

[Sandy Toad]

A Little Clarification!

When one orders an aircraft that is in development it is not possible to fly a production aircraft for evaluation or to have final performance figures. Those that were following the development of the EC155 will know that the Technical Specifications produced by Eurocopter went through several revisions. Not only did Basic Weight grow (as might be expected) but there was a significant erosion of performance shown in the graphs. Also the initial promised certification limit of +50c OAT was reduced to +40c OAT.

Whilst performance was a major concern with our aircraft, the prime reason it was returned was unreliability. One can fly when the Autopilot fails but when neither engine will start your VIP is stranded. When the electrical passenger steps fail regularly one is either limited to flying at 50kts or the Pilot has to attack and dismantle the steps - hardly compatible with VIP arrival and departures.

Given time many of our teething problems with the new aircraft may have been resolved. However we also had problems with systems/items that had functioned reliably on our 365s for years. Towards the end Eurocopter took our comments and complaints seriously and tried to address them, I believe this has helped subsequent purchasers but was too late for us.

Returning to the OAT Limitation comments. Certification flying to increase the OAT limit from the downgraded +40c was ongoing in America when we took delivery of our aircraft. We had been operating it for some 9 months before we reached the +40c limit and Eurocopter were aware we were operating beyond it. Certification proceeds slowly and being on a Government Register can have advantages.

I believe other operators have had their share of problems. We were told Eurocopter had to work with Bristow to find new Take Off Profiles for the Nigerian contract. Also via Turbomeca sources that, though never officially admitted, the engines delivered there were blueprinted to ensure maximum performance margins. Perhaps 212man can confirm the accuracy of this.

Despite all our problems, our EC155 was a very smooth, fast aircraft and often a joy to fly. I do not miss holding my breath everytime I pressed the Starter Buttons or tried to lift out of a landing site. Nor do I miss downloading all the Fault Codes after a flight only to find no one at Eurocopter knew what they meant!

Rumours suggest the projected EC155HP is no longer a runner, has anyone heard more?

[212man]

Sandy,
apologies if offence given by my comment; slightly flippant I admit. I agree entirely with your remarks, many of which sound very familiar!

Davidi,
there are two in the UK now, though not on the G reg, a B and a B1. I have some involvement so if you seriously wanted to talk about them I could probably put you in touch with relevant people ( I have flown their B but not 'on the job' so can't comment too much on it's day to day use). E-mail or PM if you like.

I'm reluctant to say too much about our aircraft as a. they are not our aircaft but a client, and b. it is innappropriate for me to do so.

Suffice to say it is a fantastic aircraft in many ways but with a surprising number of reliabilty problems, many associated with what should be proven 365 componants. The new electronic stuff is pretty reliable. Any engine that runs at up to 845 C in the cruise must be in line for problems too, I'd suggest. By definition, it won't have much in reserve for when one stops, either.

The B1 addresses many of the problems unearthed by various operators, many of whom could be mistaken for thinking they have been used as intensive flying trials units. It also has the expanded envelope and increased performance (drops Cat A weight at 28 C rather then 19.5).

I think the one 'proposed' (not officially) with the Ardiden (developed from the TM-333) is on the back burner, but the success or otherwise of the AB-139 will determine the future plans. Pity it didn't have the 333 from the word go.

A delight to fly, though, as any one who flies it will testify.

[Delta Julliet Golf]

Just found out recently that my company will use the EC-155B1 (for offshore) in the future.

What are the experiences with this aircraft?

DJG

[212man]

Will or May? Temperate or Tropical?

Dancopter are pretty happy with their's I understand.

[SASless]

How about you 212man.....you are the 155 Guru extant are you not?

[212man]

SASless, no I don't need an extant, I've got an FMS to tell me where I am......

[Delta Julliet Golf]

Well this works....fortunately I've downloaded the Tech Details from EuroCopter.

:cool:
DJG

[Nigel Osborn]

Could any of you 155 drivers tell me the pros & cons of the machine, especially the latest model.
If you don't like it, what machine of that size would you prefer.

Many thanks

[Giovanni Cento Nove]

Nigel,
We looked at the 155 for our operation which is probably completely different from yours of course and came up with the following:

Pro

Speed
Range
Quiet
Good visibility
Volume
Flat floor
Sliding rear doors
Huge luggage space
At the moment if you know where to look - cheap

Cons

Hover performance
OEI performance
Engine power degradation over time
CAT A vertical profile - none
Altitude performance
Empty weight
Air conditioning

I guess you have to assess your priorities.

The hover performance seems to be a trade with speed. Comes from tacking another blade on what was once a 4 blade rotor. MGW ISA OGE = 0.

OEI - see above. OEI MGW ISA +20 200fpm/80knots = 150 ft/nm???????? Curve of the earth even before your authorities have attacked it!

The Arriel 2C1/2 struggles to make power sometimes and you can be splitting hairs. Seems 350B3 operators can have similar problems. No doubt it will be addressed and nobody said when.

CAT A vertical profile. I am told it is a legacy from the 365 gear. It can't handle the increased gross weight by design. This seems plague a few designs that are growth variants. (A109 Power?)

We regularly operate and land at over 10,000'. Performance up there is pretty limited. They were slowly expanding the envelope and maybe it will go further and in fact the certification trials occurred in exactly the same area. I think it is a lot better now.

It is real easy to eat your payload with EEW increases. Check your figures closely. Don't know why in this day of micro electronics people fit radios out of a 747.

Air conditioning performance seems to be not as good as it could be and may never be.

In your patch if the question is Payload/Range/Speed, it may be worth looking at because some fairly impressive numbers can be achieved. 160 knots should be easy.

Price - if you were to look really hard you may find a deal. You just have to consider why!

If the Hover performance or CAT A vertical is not acceptable. The N3 is probably an option if you can find one of course.

[212man]

I think that's a pretty good sum up above. It's also very smooth which is a bonus for passengers and crews alike (though it does have a particularly harsh 5 per coming into land through about 25 kts). If you are a single pilot operation it is very well suited to that.

Has a good range on standard tanks: 1000 kg fuel with burn down to 290ish kg/hr at FL 80 and 160 kt TAS. SL gives about 340 kg/hr at 150-155 kt TAS.

The helipad profile does exist now, but is very limited. The current weights are a reflection of the need to maintain a 35 ft clearance from the ground during a continued take off, with TDP at 100ft, but climbing higher is not possible because of the vertical speed/undercarriage considerations during a rejected take off (currently it is possible to reach 1000 f/min if at max helipad weight and rejecting from 99 ft).

The 5th blade and fenestron are very hungry at low speeds, but once above 15-25 kts the scene changes quickly. If you depart heliports/runways then fly to a windy rig, no problem. If you want lots of confined area and hovering OGE ops, not so good.

A certain Danish operator uses the B1 offshore in the North Sea, and as far as I'm aware are very happy with it in that role.

Build quality is not what it might be which can result in frustrating unserviceabilities.

Currently has short service intervals for major checks and component changes, e.g. 600 hr check takes a couple of weeks and MGB is lifed at 1800 hrs at the moment. Awkward for a single or twin a/c, but busy, operation perhaps?

Rumour is that a B2 is round the corner, fitted with the TM Ardiden (a derivative of the TM-333)

Can't comment on the air-conditioning, unfortunately!

[tecpilot]

Encountered some airframe problems. Seems to be the "plastic" frame isn't so stable. After some flighthours, you can count with problems. Some inflight sliding doors losts and also engine cowlings separated in flight. :ugh:

Avionics and 4-axis AP are impressive, really good for single pilot ops.

[212man]

tecpilot,
not heard about the engine cowlings; any details?

I agree about the AP etc, superb. EC-225 even better.

[SASless]

Me thinks having to have a runway to operate helicopters says it all.....eh, 212man. Berger done with the runway yet?

[tecpilot]

212man,

check your PM.

[Nigel Osborn]

Thanks Guys.

There seems to be more cons for field ops than I expected. What other machine of same size or slightly bigger would you prefer?
Is EC doing anything about these problems?

[SASless]

Whilst roaming through the HAI floor last week.....overheard a conversation that reported Bristow Nigeria's Shell owned...OLOG operated EC-155's have now done over 200 engine replacements for all manner of causes. That makes one wonder more than a bit about the reasons.....maintenance, pilots, training procedures, or design problems?

Way back...the Bristow Nigeria S-76 fleet also was going through engines by the boatload until they discovered the engine wash water was very saline (hate to use the phrase saltwater here) and that was causing a wee problem for them.


Wonder if someone close to the situation can explain the situation?

[Ascend Charlie]

I heard of a Swiss gentleman who bought a new 155 and had an engine change within 2 weeks, just wasn't making the required power.

[Blackhawk9]

Have also heard that new S76 C+'s are only getting about 600hrs out of there Arriels, as I have said in other posts the french engines don't like hot climates , and the arriel 2 is pushed to the limit, Turbomeca are renouned for sending out engines from new or O/haul which fail on thermal load after a very short time, then try and get a responce from the French ; (But sir the engine was in spec when it left our workshop (with suitable french accent))

[Old Man Rotor]

When are you going to realise that the French Engine is a Hybrid and won’t do its full days work?

Start looking at the C47 or LTS for the 76, or the client base will start looking elsewhere.

Where I don’t quite know yet, but not at the French that’s for sure.

[212man]

First I heard that anyone Swiss had bought one?

[SASless]

212man....your profile says you drive 155's in Nigeria.....anything you can add to this discussion? Any sort of empirical data you can share.....for those of us that are operating 155's in hot offshore places....in the Gulf of Mexico we are being confronted by the same thing on the two 155's operating there.

What is causing the unusual number of engine changes? Shell is supposed to be the fleet leader in hours now....and in Nigeria...that means Bristow thus it would seem you might know something that could help the rest of us.

[212man]

SASless, if I could tell you what the problem with the Arriel 2 series is I think I'd be knocking on Turbomecca's door with a suggested consultancy fee!

I seriously doubt the 200 figure, but stand to be corrected.

I think it's well known that the Arriel 2 is working hard and is probably at the top end of it's development process. The 76 C+ has had similar tales of woe with power assurance figures too.

The reality is that 155/76 size helicopters probably need an engine in the TM Ardiden category (the derivitive of the TM-333). There is a gap in the market at present between Arriel size and PT-6 size and maybe it will fit it.

I take it from your comments that you are now in Texair, or was that the 'royal us' ?

[SASless]

Are the engines being replaced...sent off to Turbomeca...overhaulled and sent back....with hot end changes or something similar? Any identifiable issues that could help point other operators towards the paths of rightousness or is it simply a bad engineering decision by the builder to use that particular engine?

You are correct that the 76 using the same engine is encountering problems with the engine making TBO....which seems to confirm your observations.

You might be closer to that consultancy than you think....but not with Turbomeca.

[Mama Mangrove]

The Arriel 2 series engines fitted into any helicopter operating in hot climates seems to have a problem. Bristow have had to replace many engines in their EC155s in Nigeria, ACN have had to replace many engines in their S76C+s in Nigeria and Schreiner had to replace both engines in their 365N3 in Cameroon. I heard that the same problem exists/existed in Hong Kong and Macao - anybody working there care to comment? What about the machines in Dubai as well?

If only P&W could come up with an updated engine for the 76B, producing about the same power for a similar fuel burn to the Arriel 2 series, Sikorsky could ditch the problematic Arriel 2 series engines (though I'm sure Eurocopter will always go for a French engine over an American one :E )

[212man]

I would put money on Eurocopter putting the Ardiden into an EC-155B2 or 3 within 3-4 years. It will transform it.

Sasless, no point fishing from me I'm afraid; you won't get anything I consider confidential.

[SASless]

212man....last time I checked....OLOG/Bristow operates Shell owned 155's....you guys are mere caretakers of the equipment....thus no competitive advantage there in my view.

Certainly we would not want you to give out proprietary information....but the same information that would go into a MMIR or a government publication surely is not "confidential". We are talking about generic problems that all operators of a common aircraft type are having......ever sat in on a Technical briefing at the HAI for example....the manufacturers are very forthcoming about these kinds of things....and they are open to the public...no invite required...no entrance fee....just walk thru the door. I found the feedback given and received by the operators and manufacturer to be very helpful last week. Engine issues with the C+ was discussed....that led to the conversation about the 155 and its engine issues. No secrets at Sikorsky....why at your end?

Why do you appear reluctant to discuss straight forward technical issues? You are in a position to relate much the same kinds of information that Nick does for the S-92 and S-76, and would not reveal sensitive company information while doing so.

Or do I misunderstand your position?

[NickLappos]

SASless,

You have to accept that if the data is harmful to someone's position, it won't be given out, at least in some circles.

Best to assume it is bad enough to want to clam up.

[Collective Bias]

Mama M

P&W are doing it!

PW210S will power the S76D in 2008, with 1000-1100 SHP and lower or equal fuel burn as the Arriel.

Will it work, time will tell.



CB

[maxtork]

Gentleman,

I am not a guru on the Arriel 2C or 2S series engines but I can offer some explainations based on my experience with the 2B series which is very close.

When the engine is calibrated on the test cell they actually bend slightly the nozzel guide vanes. After a short time (within 700 hours or so from new) the NGV seems to open up just a bit which reduces power and makes the engine run cooler. Turbomeca has figured this out and changed the test cell criteria such that an engine with 700hrs does not fail a power check. Now the engines right off the test bench make a good bit more power and therefor run a touch hotter. Normally this is not an issue but if you are running in a high temp environment you could be pushing the T4.5 limits right from the start. The folks in the shop are given a range to shoot for when calibrating an engine and they have to guess at the type of environment you will be operating in so they can produce an engine that fits your needs. Unfortuantely until recently they were not getting much feedback from the field as to where their best guess was hitting. They have to use Kilowatts and T3 temperature in the cell where as on the aircraft with installation losses and corrections the numbers may change. The test cell guy doesn't know that so many KW and so much T3 is going to equal a certain amount of Tq margin and T4.5 margin in the aircraft. They are getting this info now so they should be able to set the engine up a little better in the future.

The Arriel 2 series in general is still a fairly young engine and of course has had it's growing pains. As was mentioned previously it is getting near it's upper power limits which creates some challenges. Another issue that has become a problem is premature engine removal. Since the engines are FADEC controlled some of the old school type maintenance staff would rather change an engine than troubleshoot to see where the problem really lies. I don't want to accuse anyone of this as most of the maintenance folks I have met are top notch but it does happen. I have seen several engines removed for indication problems and lack of troubleshooting. This situation as well is getting better but the damage to the statistics is probably already done.

I would be happy to unofficially try to answer any specific questions if I can but as I said I am not the Arriel 2S or 2C authority.

Best Regards,
MaxTork

[Capn Notarious]

So explain this to a non pilot.
Why then do they not install a bigger power output engine in the first instance or, issue an AD? that in places where temperatures are consistantly above a fixed point a different set of donkeys should be installed.
Note the smart use of a colloquialism, why go out more when the worthy pprune subscribers are so informative.
And don't just respond with the word MONEY for if the helicopter is on ground and not earning, it's costing money.

[maxtork]

Captain N

Unfortunately Money is the big factor here. Sikorsky and Eurocopter ask for an engine that makes XYZ power at XYZ temps and that is wht the engine guys have to provide. If this turns out to be not enough for some instances then so be it. It would be up to the airframer to certify a new engine in their aircraft just to meet the needs of the few operators who work in high temp areas. If they were to do so then it would make sense to put the same high output engines in all the airframes. This is very much what was mentioned earlier in this thread about the Ardiden engine which will be much more powerful than the current Arriel. Not to mention all this hot rodding we talk about in making more power from an engine has consequences too. More power means more stress on a gearbox and airframe which takes modification as well. It is very much like building a race car...bigger engine means stronger transmission and driveline then a rollcage for stiffness and so on....do you see the snowball getting bigger? As much as I hate to say it if you want a bigger snowball you better have a bigger pocket book.

MaxTork

[Capn Notarious]

Thank you Maxtork.

[Steve76]

Capt. Notarious,
Its not so much about the power but (as Mama Mangrove correctly stated...) its all related to the fuel burn.
If they could, they would probably fit the PT6 and be done with it. Canadian motors rock...

However, an S76 or a 155 are going to suffer a dramatically reduced range and be economically impractical. Hense the reason that the S76B model is largely a corperate machine these days. It has the fuel hungry engines.

The other issue is that big motors weigh more, cost more and can lift more. Larger motors will encourage the customer to ask for more payload and any advantage of the power surplus is soon absorbed in payload increase.

EG: The C model 76 has the 1S1 and has always been N1 and temp limited. The solution for this was the 2S1 engine in the C+. Better OEI and hot and high performance...
Does anyone know the operating specs of the C+?, the MAUW of the C model was 11700lbs. Any changes to that?

[SASless]

I dare say the EC-155 purchase by Shell was not based upon any kind of efficency study....quite the contrary. The Bell 412 that showed up at Redhill with all the fancy kit, buttons, knobs, and dials was not even looked at. That was a Shell decision....not a Bristow one.

The 155 was to replace the 212....but cannot carry the people and baggage the 212 does....one cannot load passengers and baggage simultaneously as you can on the 212.....the 155 requires much more "runway" to operate than does the 212. We even did a VIP run into a ball field because the 155 could not operate into the place.

The 155 is faster, smoother, has all the fancy kit....but is not the aircraft the 412 is for offshore or utility type flying.

Ask 212man about the new runway being built at Warri to replace the 212 site that has been used for ages so the 155 can legally operate out of the Shell IA. All of that is a function of engine power or the lack of....

[Musket33]

SASless

There is one big fact you have been over looking. The B212 was never operated to Cat A performance specs. The EC155B is required to meet Cat A. Granted this must be achieved using a much different takoff and landing profile. I loaded passengers just the other day at the same time. It just has to be from both sides of the A/c. Which the 212 can't do if someone is in a well seat. I think if they had the performance charts to operate to Cat B for the EC 155B you'd find it performs just as well as a B212.

[SASless]

Musket,

How do you load baggage and pax simultaneously on the 155...does not the cabin door slide back over the swinging baggage door?

Do you still have the restriction on opening the crew doors with the rotors turning at less than full chat?

Seems to me we used Cat A performance on the 212's although the profiles had been tinkered with to allow for operation from the pumpstations so long as we used the canals and rivers for rejected takeoffs. As you can relate...some of the reject areas were quite small and usually very rough....sometimes covered in Bananna Palms.

I never could see how "ditching" could be considered a "safe landing area".....anyone care to explain that to me? I was always led to understand the reject area had to be clear of obstacles, smooth, and firm enough to support the aircraft. I freely submit any sort of water does not meet that critieria.

Why would you operate the 155 Cat A only...and not the 212 fleet....has there been a change in the safety culture at Shell? When the 212 and the 155 were working side by side....was that the case....Cat A for the 155 and non-Cat A for the 212?

[Yarba]

Musket 33,

Surely the only requirement for 155 to operate Cat A is Shell, no? I thought Bell 212 was operated Cat A as well, just it has a shorter reject distance and having skids, can be operated off grass in rainy season Cat A (unlike 155, which rolls over when the wheels dig in to the mud.

Does the 155 operate Cat A from all the flow stations and offshore as well? If it's operating Cat A offshore how many passengers can it lift using helipad profile?

They do have performance charts to operate Cat B for 155. Your Operations Manual must specify what the DP is for Cat B or Class 2 operations (normally either Vtoss or Vy after which the national legislation will normally specify you must have Cat A performance. Normally the Cat A will be limited by something like the single engined performance en-route (normally something like...... must be able to maintain level flight on one engine at Vy at SE max continuous power). So all you have to do is go to the single engine performance graphs and work it out. If you fly 155 and 212, just go to the graphs and compare for yourself.

[Musket33]

SASless

Wow! Opened a can of worms here, so first things first.
A "Nigerian Cat A" is not the Cat A Bell helicopters describes in the approved Aircraft Operators Manual. As you'll notice the max takeoff weight is 10,200 lbs and goes down from there. I know for a fact your well aware of the little fiddle that was carried on for years to make the "Nigerian Cat A" acceptable. Perhaps you should talk to a Capt. McDonald who is no longer flying. He was one of the people who helped arrive at a compromise to develope the "Nigerian Cat A"

Yarba

Yes your right any wheeled aircraft will sink into the mud faster than a skid aircraft. Yes, your also right the B212 had a shorter reject distance than the EC155B. However, the B212 operated with a much lower max takeoff weight to met the Bell approve Cat A profiles.
As for Cat A and Cat B I understood that Class 1 and Class 2 refered to the type of reject area you were rejecting to. This would determine the amount of damage to passengers and aircraft if a reject were required. I understand these definitions come from the current JAR ops. Must admit I\'m not really up on the EU regulations so any specific reference would be greatly appreciated.

SASless

Your absolutely right if the passenger door is open it blocks the baggage door on that side of the aircraft. However, you only need to open one passenger door at a time. This leaves the other side baggage door free to be opened and use. Unlike the B212 which only has one baggage area door.

SASless and Yarba

Sorry, I\'m a little rusty on the 212, not having flown it for a few years. Looking under CAA approved supplements BHT-212-FMS-CAA-7 Section 1A-6-A Maximum GW is 10,000 pounds.

[HOSS 1]

Steve -

The 76B, C, C+, C++ and D are all 11.7klbs MGTOW per Sikorsky's data and press releases.

Added power just gives better high hot and Cat-A performance.

The 76C++ will be fitted with an inlet barrier filter (imagine a huge K&N filter and you'll be right on) which will supposedly significantly lower the mean time between unscheduled removals.

Hoss

[Steve76]

Cheers HOSS.
I understand the 212 to be the most capable OEI helicopter on the planet. Am I incorrect?

[Yarba]

Hi Musket,

I think you'll find that in reality there's no such thing as Nigerian Cat A. Cat A is based on ICAO Class 1 performance, which basically says that at any time after you start moving with passenegrs on board you can either reject safely, with no damage to anyting, or continue to fly, divert to a safe place to land and do so with no damage to anything. Cat B is basically ICAO Class 2 performance. Everything in Class 1 applies, except it is accepted that there is an acceptable degree of risk during the take off part of flight where, until you reach your defined 'decision point' (refer to my previous post), you may not be able to land safely. However, even if you can't land without damaging your helicopter you can't damage other people, either inside or outside the helicopter. This would mean that you could take off in your 155 on grass in the rainy season, but only class 2 and you have to be sure that when the aircraft digs in to the mud your passengers aren't damaged! :E

The best references are ICAO performance standards, and NCAR ops for Nigeria.

Hope that helps you. :ok:

[SASless]

Yarba....having more than a little bit of fondness for old Musket 33 there......I begin to wonder if he considers the skies of SE Asia a bit friendlier than Nigerian skies currently.

Right about now.....he will probably be sitting next to 212man as they study the bottoms of thier Gulder bottles wondering why they bother trying to educate the unwilling about the 155.

I am sure they are chuffed to be flogging around the claggy airspace of the delta region....happily twiddling knobs and punching buttons....getting confused over which screen is active....which nav mode is engaged....crosswords on their kneeboards....sweat dripping off their noses while their once crisply starched now sweat soaked white shirts portray their hairy chests for all to see. But.....as good as it is to have the toys....they fail to realize just how good the old 212 was....with the wonderful SFENA Stab system....12 different cockpit layouts in nine aircraft....and 37,000 hours on the airframe.

Some questions arose while reading 33's (ah memories of some real beer in that number) reponses. I do not recall a 10,200 number...I do remember a 11,200 number with a usual weight of about 10,800 being the usual weight.

The 212 had a well seat for two that converted to a baggage compartment if the tailboom would not hold all the trash...thus you had some flexibility in that regard. Both cabin doors slide back...thus the Gran Prix Nigerian pax loading system works fine. We had the Nigerian Air Quartermaster to control the mob in back...and do all the paperwork....leaving pilots to do the crossword and make radio calls....read checklists....brief...re-brief...de-brief...and chat with Martha.

I used to be able to rattle off all the briefs for the various profiles...but they got all complicated last time I was there....never could keep it straight whether it was Cat A, Group B, Class 1.....whatever and merely reverted to The Small One's....favorite call of "We're outta here!"

Basic premise of this response...Musket 33 is a dear chap...he is trying to defend the 155...it was a gallant try....he caught a lot of spears for 212man....beers for 33 on 212man's account are in order.

Am I forgiven, 33?

[Musket33]

SASless and Yarba

The B212 is a good old bird. Never did say it wasn't. The EC155 is also a good aircraft but a much different technic is required to manage it. It is not the perfect CAT A helicopter. There isn't any that I am aware of at the present or near future. I've never been in a B212 that could climb at 800 fpm, indicating 110 kts thru 3000 feet with 10 pacs and baggage. However, I would gladly trade some of this performance for an airconditioner or a window you could open.

SASless next time you plan on passing thru Las Vegas drop me an e-mail and I will buy the first beer. Will buy all the beers if you can show me you have a check-ride the next morning.

[212man]

SASless,
it all boils down to the old adage; you can't have your cake and eat it.

You want fast? Have fast but expect penalties at low speed. You want slow? Have slow but don't expect to get a very high Vne. You want good economy? have it but don't expect good OEI performance. You want good OEI performance? Have it but don't expect good fuel economy, and so it goes on.

I loved flying the 212 but I wouldn't swap the 155 now. Granted, it's not perfect, but no helicopter is.

If you read a bit more into what is and is not allowable, you will find water rejects are perfectly legal when operating to PC2 standards. In reality it was always going to be a likely outcome with the 212, too. You and I may not desire it; we'd all like to step out of our a/c on a tarmac strip rather than clamber out into a dinghy, but it IS legal.

PS I don't like Gulder and I don't have a hairy chest!

[SASless]

PC2 standards....sounds like the same logic that allows a Jetranger to be over the Gulf of Mexico in winter with a 40 knot wind blowing and the water temperature down around 50 degrees F......sea rolling about Sea State 4-5 or higher.....and pop-out floats that are certified to mill pond standard or slightly more. No exposure suits and the Coastguard running around the Port of New Orleans hunting terrs.

It may be legal.....but is it safe enough a standard when carrying SLF?

But that is a topic for another argument.

[212man]

You're right; another topic. The same one where advocating Cat A standards tends to generate flack!

[212man]

Rumour is this guy has 2 on order with a possible third....

http://flightinternational.com/Jobs/2005/08/30/1450470/Experienced+Helicopter+Pilot.html ;)

[SASless]

Requires the FAA License 212man....maybe our old friend can be convinced to come forth again out of Lost Wages and ply his trade once again. How could anyone give up Nigeria for a posh job on some nice yacht.....there ain't no Bush Bar to retire too and contemplate life.

[AngryPalmTreeDriver]

Hi Guys,

I keep hearing about "Lots" of EC155's working the offshore patch around the globe however I can only think of a few locations -

Nigeria (5 - 6)
Vietnam (2 - 3)
China (2)

Where are the rest ???

What about their reliability and performance - again hear of frequent engine changes especially during the early stages of operations in Nigeria BUT does anyone know the real facts on that or any other maint issues?

Curious to hear from those amongst you who have flown the 155 and the S76 and how they compare side by side.

[HeliEng]

APTD,

I do believe there are some operating from Scandinavia, I assume Norway.

[Aesir]

Dancopter operate 155´s in North sea.

[C of G]

ERA Helicopters can be added to the list as they operate two in the GOM at the moment.

[SASless]

Maybe one for ERA if the gear up landing rumour is correct.

[Helicopterhelp]

2 or 3 for COHC in China and 2 for Norwich. 2 in the Med on the back of boats and 4 or 5 operating in the UK

[Thomas coupling]

What are the icing limits for the EC155 (if any?)?

Thanks

[212man]

Schreiner have 2 in Holland, BHL will have 4 in the SNS; 2 Norwich and 2 den Helder by end of the year, I think.

TC, it doesn't have an icing clearance, yet.

[forget]

Joker's Wind posted this on the Fragrant Harbour Forum. It needs to be here also.
.............................

After 33 months of waiting, the accident report into the HK GFS EC155 crash of 26 August 2003 was finally made public.

The report can be downloaded at:

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/Accide...6_of_B-HRX.pdf

It's a large file (26 megs), but well worth the read.

My heart goes out to the two flight crew who perished in the crash. Having read the report thoroughly, it seems to me neither crew member was fully focused on the job that night, in that they seemed to be watching the clock quite closely.

Flight crew performing a task such as these gentlemen were, should NOT have to worry about receiving a bollocking if they don't meet certain time-related "performance pledges".

JW

[Pandalet]

working link (sortof):

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/Accident_Report_1-2006_of_B-HRX.pdf

[NickLappos]

No recommendation for an EGPWS, as if the device does not exist or that the device would not have prevented this accident!

Also, no call for 2-pilot operations! As if that would not help this case.

Also, no call for mandatory Mode C transponder operations at all times, as if that would not help this accident!

Some investigation!

[forget]

One thing jumped out at me from this report; and I agree, it’s not the best.

The Radalt could have saved the day here. A reasonable Decision Height, set after take off, could well have given a warning of unexpected terrain closure with time enough to go skywards.

Yet the Report says

……………………

1.6.4.5 Radio Altimeter System with AVAD (Automatic Voice Alert Device.)

Sine the AVAD was designed for over-water flight and had no look forward or predictive capability it was of limited use over land. (??)

1.12.1.

At the point of impact with gently rising terrain……….

………………

[Brian Abraham]

HELP Guys, Tried to download and keep getting a "bad encrypt dictionary" error message (whatever that means). Dont have any trouble with other PDF files from the cad.gov.hk site, just the EC155 report.
Blue Skies,
Brian

[212man]

I used the second link (no particular reason) and it worked fine with the standard right click and save target as.

What a terribly sad report, full of "what ifs". What if they had been 50 ft higher, or 200 m left of their track (like, over the road). Also, how close to the steep drop off to the coast they were: so near but so far.

I agree that an AVAD DH setting policy may have helped and of course EGPWS. However, what degree of fidelity would the EGPWS have to allow flight through the pass without warnings, even if clear of the ridge in question?

Despite the lack of DH setting, though, the pilot would have an indication of approaching ground as the altimeter tape on the PFD depicts the ground level as a brown base that would have been slowly rising to the datum point (also a similar brown base on the radalt display on the ND). I can only guess that in the conditions he would have been more occupied with looking out the window, rather than at his instruments, especially with AP holds engaged.

One or two comments (after a quick speed read) seem a bit crass:

"Survivable if seats and structure built to a higher spec?" I guess you could say that about all accidents!

"Attempted to shut the engines down" Really? You've just had an unexpected impact with terrain, at night in bad weather, which results in the blades disintegrating, and then in the subsequent 2.5 seconds as you tumble 100 ft down to the ground you calmly reach up and retard the fuel cut off lever, open the engine switch guard and turn the switch off, then pull the emergency electrical cut off ganbar! I doubt you could do all that while sitting on the ground, in daylight, having primed yourself to do it!! How about impact forces and objects (branches etc) penetrating the cockpit being the more likely answer?

I was also struck by the fact that theories were put forward as facts, such as "the pilot WAS subjected to confirmation bias". I'm sure NTSB/AAIB etc would have used expressions like "the pilot MAY have been ..."

Finally, it illustrates perfectly a statement that was in Flight International a year or so ago when they were reviewing the annual airline accidents for that year and discussing the fact that CFIT was still the major cause of accidents. It said that in almost all cases of CFIT, the CVR showed that the crew were experiencing a feeling of unease prior to impact. If in doubt, there is no doubt!:(

[Brian Abraham]

212man, thanks - fixed problem by getting rid of V6 and getting V7.

[ShyTorque]

Personally terribly sad about this accident. As an ex of that employ and as someone who knew the pilot, I can say I always had grave concerns about that so-called VFR route from its inception. Not a brilliant idea to put one over some of the steepest rising and highest bits of terrain in the area... At night it was just a black hill with a row of roadside lights up it. There would have been no back lighting to assess the cloud cover. Last time I was up there at night it was whilst flying an NVG SAR mission; even that wasn't easy.

[Brian Abraham]

What jumped out of the report for me was,
GFS had a quality system for the internal monitoring of standards within flight operations. (be there in 20 mins) There was no documented system for the proactive identification of hazards and systematic management of risk.
and
The pilot returned to work with a GFS colleague. In conversation during the journey the pilot expressed his growing concern in relation to the targets that had been set by the GFS.
Having made those feelings felt only shortly before the accident you can understand why he may have done what he did in terms of route selection, particularly if some comment had been made about his turn around previously. Also the report does not make clear that the crew KNEW it was a non emergency case.
I'm reminded of a crew where I worked being criticised by the head C & T'er when doing a annual SAR check for "wasting time" by doing a brief prior to stepping. Trip was also being used as a trainer for a back seater on his first trip. Cant please everybody it seems.
The report seems to want to hang it all on the pilot. (he screwed up despite all the training we gave him - CRM etc. Once again, as with the first quote, my humble opinion is that its time management started to attend CRM to understand the impact and effect their decisions can have.)
To quote Stanley Roscoe
The tenacious retention of ‘pilot error’ as an accident ‘cause factor’ by governmental agencies, equipment manufacturers and airline management, and even by pilot unions indirectly, is a subtle manifestation of the apparently natural human inclination to narrow the responsibility for tragic events that receive wide public attention. If the responsibility can be isolated to the momentary defection of a single individual, the captain in command, then other members of the aviation community remain untarnished. The unions briefly acknowledge the inescapable conclusion that pilots can make errors and thereby gain a few bargaining points with management for the future.
Everyone else, including other crew members, remains clean. The airline accepts the inevitable financial liability for losses but escapes blame for inadequate training programmes or procedural
indoctrination. Equipment manufacturers avoid product liability for faulty design,. Regulatory agencies are not criticised for approving an unsafe operation, failing to invoke obviously needed precautionary restrictions, or, worse yet, contributing directly by injudicious control or unsafe clearance authorisations. Only the pilot who made the ‘error’ and his family suffer, and their suffering may be assuaged by a liberal pension in exchange for his quiet early retirement – in the event that he was fortunate enough to survive the accident

There is a lot of truth in as well,
Career flying is an uptight, stressful occupation. Laymen have little conception of the pressures under which a professional works. His work is regulated to the point of absurdity by non flying management and federal officials who pretend to understand flying better than he does. He carries a thick book of rules so confusing even its authors can’t explain them. In effect, a committee of deskbound experts ride with him on every trip, instructing, admonishing, warning, watching – until there’s a problem. Then all fingers are pointed at him.
May God rest their souls.

[Delta Torque]

A very sad story.

There are clear elements of 'mission creep' in this organisation's op. Even at 1500, those guys would have only cleared the pass by a few hundred feet, and there is not a not of room to conduct a 180, right at the top of the pass, with rapidly rising high ground on either side.

We should all examine our daily/nightly ops and ensure that the mission does not grow beyond the capability of the crew or the aircraft...

On 'pledge'...is something lost in the translation there? Are they referring to the mission, or do they really mean 'pledge?'

[ShyTorque]

The response time of 20 minutes was a performance target set some years before. Unrealistic, considering that the pilot might actually be asleep when the call comes in (although he wasn't in this instance).

I was very surprised that wearing of flying helmets, rather than headsets, was not seen as a priority, especially as it was a night flight when ambient temperatures are lower and personal comfort shouldn't have been a major issue. Complacency a factor in personal survival issues?

[Shawn Coyle]

It should also be remembered that not all cultures are intent on making sure the blame is correctly placed. Some are intent in ensuring that blame is not placed on superiors, local nationals (when a foreigner may be a convenient scapegoat), etc.
I was involved in an investigation where several tourists were killed in a helicopter crash in foreign country. Despite strong evidence to the contrary which I produced, the board of enquiry concluded that the cause was one of the passengers shutting off the fuel...

[zalt]

Read up on ICAO - an accident report should not be allocating blame. Although some investigators do spend more time eliminating anything in their reports that may cause others to allocate blame.

[windbird44]

Any cue on the policy. Poor Head created poor tail. How to prevent the accident b4 it is happen. Why there is no way to take it away before it really drop into shtt.

[SayItIsntSo]

I suspect that there were a number of re-writes and edits before this version was published, hence the long delay. As I understand it not ‘everyone’ was pleased with the original findings.

Does anyone know which bits were required to be modified?

[212man]

That was a really useful contribution, Windbird! I look forward to many more enlightening and constructive inputs!:ugh:

[oldcatAU]

Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the flowers gone?
Girls have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young girls gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young girls gone?
Taken husbands every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the young men gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the young men gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the young men gone?
Gone for soldiers every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Gone to graveyards every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered with flowers every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?

[Speediwings]

Brain Abrham, you are right, the management of Gravity Flying School GFS had never thought of the risk until the so-called accident was happened. The management was shocked, but still they put all the responsibility to the poor pilot. Have they ever thought of the poor leadership which truly dragged the chopper and brought the aircrew to the God.

In fact, the mishap was sitting there for a long time, it was not the first working day of the pilot and the traps ( the reasons of this accident) were sitting there for years. Were they daydreaming before the mishap?

The CAD found out that the pilot swore the 20 minutes TOS policy on the way back to work. He did not do the flight planning, he and his crew did not wear helmets. He continued to swear the 20 minutes TOS rule. He did not select the less risky route to fly to the destination. He ignored the SOP (standard operation procedure) of flying in the wrong altitude and high speed. He ignore the repetitive reminder from the crewman at the back and attempted speedy flying. He placed the 20 min TOS with higher priority than his life.

If the headmaster and the deans of each faculty had done their jobs, this mishap would have not happened. Why the pilot had such a sub-standard EQ and IQ was able to pass the recruitment test, training, simulator training, CRM, human factor training, annual checks &....... Why the crewman could not use a stronger word to remind the pilot in order to keep his life. It was because of the poor culture running around in the school for years.

The culture of " I dont care, just do it", " No need to explain to me!", " are you going to argue with me now?" , and "The door is always open, (for kicking you out)" should be completely abolished.

[SayItIsntSo]

Speediwings,

You make it all sound so simple and obvious…but to just take up a few of your points.

” He did not do the flight planning, he and his crew did not wear helmets.”

1. From the GFS base to Cheung Chau is effectively just down the road…it is a case of out through the pass a touch left and it is straight ahead…there was not a hell of a lot more that they needed to do, and I am sure that this route had been done by this pilot many times before.

2. Surely wearing the helmet would not have prevented the accident. If management thought that my safety depended on me wearing a helmet I would suggest it is too dangerous to go. As pilot of a civilian registered helicopter conducting a passenger carrying flight it is, IMHO, my job to ensure that a helmet is not needed.

“He placed the 20 min TOS with higher priority than his life.”

Really? I don’t think so…you may think he did…but I doubt that thought he did.


“Why the pilot had such a sub-standard EQ and IQ was able to pass the recruitment test, training, simulator training, CRM, human factor training, annual checks &.......”

To make such a damming statement you must have had a very intimate personal knowledge of the pilot in question, however I am not sure that everyone who knew the pilot would agree with you, or appreciate your comments.

SIIS

[maxitorque2001]

Brain Abraham and Speedbird, I agree with you all. I belive you read the report in full - A great Salute to you.

SIIS, the report was written by the CAD, be open mind and stop focusing on personal stuff.

Be proactive for god's sake. What did the top men do to prevent this accident before it was happend. The god dmn.. accident will repeat itself.

[Joker's Wild]

SayItIsntSo

"1. From the GFS base to Cheung Chau is effectively just down the road…it is a case of out through the pass a touch left and it is straight ahead…there was not a hell of a lot more that they needed to do, and I am sure that this route had been done by this pilot many times before."

Actually, there WAS a hell of a lot more this poor crew needed to do that night, namely, stop dwelling on this ridiculous performance pledge that was obviously foremost in their minds.

What they WEREN'T doing, unfortunately, was looking right at Tung Chung Pass and seeing it for what it was, which was totally obscured in cloud. They had no business even considering attempting to navigate that pass that night and yet in spite of the obvious visual reality they faced, still elected to press on.

You state you are sure this pilot had flown this route many times before. You're probably quite right in that assessment. So why then, on that night and in what were very obvious poor weather conditions, did the pilot elect to press on? What pressure was he feeling or subjected to that would literally drive him and a fellow crewman to their deaths???

I'm not trying to make light of this, rather, understand why the accident report really did nothing to address, in any amount of detail, the organisational aspect relating to this accident. If you ask me, the accident report is just a little too tidy and confined in its scope.

JW

[SayItIsntSo]

Joker’s Wild,

“If you ask me, the accident report is just a little too tidy and confined in its scope”

Agreed…and perhaps it was this tidying up that took so long and why the report was not submitted in its original format.

“They had no business even considering attempting to navigate that pass that night and yet in spite of the obvious visual reality they faced, still elected to press on.”

I am not so sure that this is the case. Why would a fully qualified and experience crew choose the impossible if it was an “obvious visual reality”.

The alternative route to the destination when flown at 140 kts can’t be more than 3 or 4 minutes longer.

I can’t help feel that too much weight is being allocated to ‘the pledge’. As with many ‘pledges’ by Government Agencies they are targets, but not something to die for.

Was it a mistake to choose that route? Absolutely, self evident.

Was it the first mistake made by a GFS aircraft in this and its previous incarnation the RHKAAF when conducting a Medevac? No.

Will it be the last? No. All they can do is increase the time interval to the next incident.

The political implication of restricting their current level of support to the various Government Agencies would be unacceptable given their large budget and manpower levels.

[Trial Marcher]

:= Joker’s Wild,

“If you ask me, the accident report is just a little too tidy and confined in its scope”

Agreed…and perhaps it was this tidying up that took so long and why the report was not submitted in its original format.

“They had no business even considering attempting to navigate that pass that night and yet in spite of the obvious visual reality they faced, still elected to press on.”

I am not so sure that this is the case. Why would a fully qualified and experience crew choose the impossible if it was an “obvious visual reality”.

The alternative route to the destination when flown at 140 kts can’t be more than 3 or 4 minutes longer.

I can’t help feel that too much weight is being allocated to ‘the pledge’. As with many ‘pledges’ by Government Agencies they are targets, but not something to die for.

Was it a mistake to choose that route? Absolutely, self evident.

Was it the first mistake made by a GFS aircraft in this and its previous incarnation the RHKAAF when conducting a Medevac? No.

Will it be the last? No. All they can do is increase the time interval to the next incident.

The political implication of restricting their current level of support to the various Government Agencies would be unacceptable given their large budget and manpower levels.

Guys, please open your eyes on the Earth. Senior managments are responsible to the major accidents, not the poor chap in the front line.

If I were one of the senior guys, I would have resigned and donated all my grauity to the families of the poor scrape goat and the back sitter for inability managment, poor employee filtration, training, quality control and no preventive actions - which sadly caused two fatals.

Why given of this level of budget and power, the GFS cannot turn down some absurd call outs especially during the bad weather.

Why the accident report only pointing the finger to the poor front seat chap. Why in the accident report the managment is unbelievably "Clean" ? Should the CAD also share her part of fail to monitor GFS sucessfully.

[ShyTorque]

It could be said that the management should shoulder some of the blame. However, it should be remembered that the response time pledge had been put in place some years previously. It was introduced as a measure of the effectiveness of the unit. The possible implication of such a pledge was discussed at the time, however the management always stood firmly behind the decisions of a captain who elected not to meet the target - and therein lay the safeguard. Hopefully this will now be reviewed - it's tragic that it apparently played a part in an accident of the worst kind.

As for the so-called "VFR" route to CLK - it cannot ever be sensible to put a VFR route over the highest ground in the area. However, as far as I can tell, this was not primarily a GFS management issue, the routes were "given" to the unit as a 'fait accomplis', prior to the opening of the new airport.

However, the pilot could have taken another route around Lantau. No-one forced him to attempt to go over the top of the hill and no-one could have criticised him had he tried the route, made a controlled abort / turnaround and either returned to base or asked ATC for another route.

Harsh as it may seem (I know how sensitive an issue this is) but correct and safe judgement was perhaps clouded (no pun intended) by other issues at many levels. Every pilot faces such difficulties from time to time and usually it is easier to say yes and get on with it - knowing when to say "no" is the difficult part. The one thing I try to remember is self preservation - whatever else happens, the pilot is always in the crash.

[ReallyConfused]

We are currently looking at an EC155.

Has anyone got some real operating experience of this aircraft and what are the problems, if any?

[andTompkins]

It can't hover OGE at max gross ... does that count as a problem? :}

EC doesn't appear to be selling as many of those as they would hope. Seems the 365N3 is more popular these days.

[Flying Bull]

Hi andTompkins,

its only not hovering, if you jerk around on the controls and disturb the airflow ;-)

O.K., on MTOW it's much more comfy to take off and land with a little forward speed, nevertheless, its doing around 150 kts at MTOW (once airborne).

It's not such a bad machine, as many say. You can have a lot of fun flying it - more fun as with most other helicopters ;-)

Greetings Flying Bull
flying the EC155

[TomBola]

It requires about 8 zillion hours of servicing for every hour it flies, if you're in a hot country and don't have aircon, the forced ventilation is very poor, in a hot country it doesn't cruise as fast as FB says, and on a single engine at the temperatures we have in Nigeria it's performs about as well as a Nigerian bobsleigh team :}

[Flying Bull]

Hi TomBola,

don't know, how fast your maintainers work ;-)
Nigeria - very hot - I guess sandy as well, which will hurt the engines anyway.
But having an operator, giving you there an EC 155 without clima says all - doens't it?
Saving on the work place for the pilot - guess the operator is saving on other hands as well...

Greetings Flying Bull

I have some nice videos from EC155 flying - unfortunatly they are confidential, because they cover tactics we use with the bird
Just don't refuel to the top (if possible)

[TomBola]

FB,

The owner is actually Shell (you know, that little oil company) and all maintenance is carried out in accordance with the Eurocopter maintenance schedule.

Not a lot of dust. Except now during the Harmattan our climate is humid and tropical - though I'd guess we have fairly high air pollution levels. Maybe you don't fly your helicopters 4 or 5 hours a day like us?

[Flying Bull]

Hi TomBola,

well, I'm lucky, we fly in a more moderate climazone :-)

4 to 5 hrs - not always, but sometimes.
Last year i.e. the soccer world championchip and on tactical training weeks, our birds had more hours than that on a day - but not on a regular basis.
Beeing parked outside - sometimes even at minus degrees with rime all over the birds.

All that went without any problems.

But sometimes ours stay for weeks - from 15hrs/7day check to 15hrs/7day check only with ground runs or powerchecks. Reason is not the helicopter, but pairing of pilots on duty and the normal flying job - which is normally done with BK117s.
If no special tactical task are due or called for - only currency training is done on the EC.
_______________________

Shell - wasn't that the company, with the Brent Spar, which they wanted to dump in the sea, without cleaning the platform first?

There are lots of news from nigeria, where money saving from part of the big companies seems more important than safety an enviromental conditions.
I guess, it's important to keep the plattforms running - but if I read, that you don't have clima on your birds - they don't seem to think much their pilots - and passengers.
I bet, it would be much more comfy and less stressing having a clima - I see that in summer flying BK without or EC with.....

I was very sceptic about the 155 - until I got the rating.
O.K., there are some shortcomings, but show me an helicopter without.
I'm quite happy by now flying the EC 155. Very smooth flying and reduced workload, once you have understood all the systems to use.

And we're lucky, mostly we don't have to operate at MTOW :-)

A littte bit more to think about doing outside landings so that you won't hit the ground with the belly or the tail, than with skidded helicopters,
more feel needed, when heavy, because the bird has the tendency to descend, when starting to accelerate - while our BK's start to accelerate and climb at that point - but knowing about that helps avoinding to hit things in the path ;-)


Greetings Flying Bull

[Aesir]

What are the icing limits for the EC155 (if any?)?

The 155 does not have anti-ice on rotor etc.. so I would assume the RFM says "flight into known icing conditions is prohibited".

Not that I know for sure!

[cptjim]

Eurocopter has just introduced a new prototype of the EC155. It has a revolutionary new fixed rotor head which they say improves lift.

The new prototype is being tested in the North sea by DanCopter.

More news to come.

This ground breaking new design can be see by following the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFCsFTnW5y4

:D

[Whirlygig]

A very safe design; Eurocopter are to be applauded for their innovation.

Cheers

Whirls

[slowrotor]

Looks like they still have some work to get the tail rotor fixed.

To bad for Dave, they beat him with the first "absolutely rigid rotor";)

[212man]

Fascinating: it's common to see slowly moving blades (even going backwards) but I've never seen totally stationary ones.

For those wonderring why the blades start turning after kanding and then stop again before take off, it's because the landing and take off will be with the Nr switch set at HI, giving 360 rpm. On deck the switch will be set to NORM, giving 342 rpm and hence the movement.

[fkelly]

212man, you really must ask BSB to let you out more...

[ShyTorque]

Unfortunately these aircraft can only fly in 120 kts of wind or more and the range is limited to the length of the kitestring.

I think it's rather pointless to start the rotors after landing.

[Three Blades]

"I think it's rather pointless to start the rotors after landing."

...especially in reverse gear !

[widgeon]

Probably put it in reverse to get negative thrust to keep it stuck to the deck. I could not quite see if the fenestron also reversed direction . Must be some cunning way to de-couple MR and TR ( maybe somesort of freewheel on the TR output from the MGB ):)

[Heli-Ice]

The MGB oil, to thick!

[Dave_Jackson]

It's one-upmanship.

Sikorsky had the X-wing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-72)with four blades so Eurocopter had to do it with five blades.

[bladepitch]

i didnt know eurocoter got into the business of being stealthy. i can see the slogan.

"So quiet, you'd think she was turned off " :eek:

[trackdirect]

Could anyone provide me with a realistic figure for Cat A takeoff in the EC155B and B1.

What would be the useful load with full fuel in a Cat A profile??
Sealevel @ 30c would be fine....

[155 Man]

What basis are you starting from? VIP or utility machine? Clear area profile or helipad?
These figures are based on real aircraft and might give you some idea of performance.
EC155B MTOW clear area VToss 60kts, SL +30degC = 4540kg
EC155B1 MTOW clear area VToss 60kts, SL +30degC = 4800kg

1. VIP machine with floats, air con:
Basic weight 3200kg
2 crew @ 85kg = 170kg
Gives a payload of 160kg (155B) or 420kg (155B1) and over 3 hours endurance at cruise speed (approx 150kts indicated) to tanks dry.
2. Utility machine with floats, external life rafts:
Basic weight 3050kg
2 crew @85kg = 170kg
Gives a payload of 310kg (155B) or 570kg (155B1) and over 3 hours endurance at cruise speed (approx 150kts indicated) to tanks dry.

Loads more info on 155B1 performance etc at: http://www.eurocopter.com/site/docs_wsw/fichiers_communs/docs/TD_155B1.pdf

It's a really great pilots' machine, fantastic autopilot, super smooth ride and, if ours is anything to go by, very reliable.

Regards, 155 Man

[trackdirect]

Sorry 155man should have given a bit more info.

EMS (Air ambulance, No winch) so pretty light fitout I guess, no floats or shiny door handles required.

Heliport operations, so vertical climbout.
Rough crew estimates are 2 pilot @ 85kg each and 2 med crew @80kg each with max weight of med equipment 160kg.

I have seen the Eurocopter figures but I was really after real world experience, from my experience I have found that quite often the aircraft will not perform to the advertised EC figures on the graph!!!

Thanks for the info so far...

[212man]

Ground level Helipad Cat A gives about 3800 kg for the B at SL and 30 C. I think the B1 offers about 200 kg more - but 155man will have the graphs, I'm sure. I'd be surprised if an EMS a/c was that light, as you'd have gear in the back plus at least one extra crew, wouldn't you?

Not sure what you want to do with "real world figure" - you can't plan on them legally, and you certainly won't want to restrict these weights further. Assuming the relationship between training weights and real weight is correct, the aircraft performs as advertised during Cat A OEI work.

[Hippolite]

A small bird told me that the 155 is struggling in the SNS in light wind conditions...any truth?

[155 Man]

Track Direct
Ground Level Helipad figures for SL 30 deg C:
155B - MTOW 3800kg
155B1 - MTOW 4100kg

The Eurocopter website link I posted previously might give you enough info to work out a guestimate for an EMS machine basic weight. I don't know of any 155 EMS machines out there, but there might be some in the States. As 212 Man says, an EMS equipped machine will probably not be that light and I assume that an EMS operation will have to work to public transport performance standards so you have to go on the figures given in the Flight Manual Supplement.
The 155 is probably not the machine you need for EMS. The 145 on the other hand would be ideal I should think. Rear clam shell doors for stretcher loading, large, unobstructed cabin, skids for rough terrain landings and more grunt than the 155. That's the one I would be looking at.
Regards, 155 Man

[check]

Hippolite,

Yes

[trackdirect]

212man,
I'm not looking to overolad the aircraft beyond limits I am just well aware that the figures you get from the glossy brrochures don't often correspond to the actual performance you will get, thats why I was after the "real world figures"
Just hoping that this type might be suitable to load up full fuel and carry a useful load, unfortunately not many helicopters are built to do this these days!!:(
Thanks for your help.

[Apple11]

Does anyone know why the Tech Data sheet for the Ec 155 B1 does not list HOGE performance for weights above 4400kg (9,700lbs)?

It would apper that the aircraft has the engine performance to hover OGE above 4400kg. Is there a structural or transmission limit that is not mentioned?

Any answers from someone that flies a 155 B1 would be apreciated.

[RVDT]

Pick up a copy of Helicopter Aerodynamics and More Helicopter Aerodynamics by Ray Prouty. Read up on what affects hover performance.

Areas to look at - extra (same) blade over Dauphin, ideal A of A, L/D ratio etc etc. One way is good for hover (4 blade N3) the other is better for speed (5 blade 155). Download the Tech Data and compare the performance. The dynamics are very similar - Engines, MGB, Fenestron etc.

EC155 Cat A vertical procedure - NONE. Legacy undercarriage and structure.

[212man]

Not sure why - the RFM graphs certainly go to MGW.

EC155 Cat A vertical procedure - NONE. Legacy undercarriage and structure.

Not true - there is a vertical procedure.

[212man]

RVDT,
I've just downloaded the tech brochure, and it goes to 4920 kg too, so not sure where your question comes from?

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa50/S92ctc/155OGE.jpg

[Droopy]

So it can't hover OGE at max gross ISA?

[212man]

It could when it was a 'B' and the MTOM was 4800 kg! Although the Arriel 2C2 has more power (than the 2C1), it only makes a difference OEI - the same AEO transmission limits apply (as far as I know: not in currency anymore.)

[helimutt]

cos they're french? Or because they're relatively new, expensive and the 76's have been knocking about for years?
Or because they don't quite do what people want them to do?
Do they have that enhanced Class 2 performance thingy? I think there might just be a few more around in the next couple of years. It might just be that some offshore companies are looking to replace ageing fleet with them and there's a shortage? Who knows?
:E

[212man]

How do they compare to the S76? They're much better
They seem to have similiar spec, yet there are quite a few S76s aroundAsk that question again in 2028
Any ideas how the two compare?They're much better

I think that sums it up.......;)

[Bladecrack]

They're much better

212man,

Are you sure you will still say this when the 76D enters service? I don't know how the maintenance compares with the 155 but the 76D does seem to have certain advantages, RIPS being a major one.

BC

[212man]

Well, blade de-icing was much talked about as an option (the only aircraft in its class to have it) but I'm not sure it was ever produced. It would imply the design etc is there waiting for demand/competition. I'm sure a 155C with the TM Ardiden, de-icing and upgraded Thales avionics will give the 76D a run for its money!

[kiowa_58d]

Hello,
I am new to the forum and hope that someone here might be able to provide some assistance.

Does the EC155 have a performance chart that depicts airspeed for the onset of blade stall?

If so, and anyone has access to this chart, could you please contact me via email through the forum. I would like to have a copy of this chart for reference and I have burned up google looking for one. I also contacted Eurocopter USA but did not receive a response.

Thanks for your help.
Mark

[212man]

There is no such chart and I'm not sure how you imagine it would be used? Bear in mind that the Vne is 175 KIAS, and that the aircraft has been flown to 210 KIAS (and the rotor to 240 KIAS on a 365 test bed) so you will never get even remotely close to any form of blade stall when operating within the normal flight envelope.

[kiowa_58d]

212man,
Wasn't sure but hoping there might be. The HH-60 and the UH-60 both have one that I currently have a copy of. I wasn't looking to use the chart to predict the airspeed in straight and level flight but instead to determine what Vne would be at a 60 degree angle of bank.
mark

[Hovering Around]

Does any one has a SOP ( standard operating procedures ) Manual or something similar ?
I found out that the FM ( flight Manual ) from Eurocopter is very poor in detailed information such as , procedures , manuvers , training details .

[FalkoB]

@ EC-155 drivers

Is the EC 155 certified to fly in "known icing conditions" in the US ?
Is it working well, did you encounter any issues with it?

thanks for the input

[hands_on123]

According to this, it is "optional"

Eurocopter EC 155 Medium-Lift Twin Engine Helicopter - Aerospace Technology (http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/ec155/)

But i have yet to hear of any with an icing clearance, and the Eurocopter website doesn't mention anything about it.

[Ian Corrigible]

Windshield de-icing only. No RIPS/FIPS type blade de-ice.

From the FLM: "If unexpected icing conditions are encountered, fly out of the icing zone as quickly as possible."

I/C

[OvertHawk]

IC is correct.

No icing clearance, no blade de-icing, no engine anti-icing.

I believe it was discussed in the early stages of the development and production of the aircraft, but that it was dropped thereafter.

I'm not aware of any future plans to provide and anti-icing capability or icing clearance for the 155.

OH

[malabo]

You worried about a little ice in Michigan, on some dark frosty EMS call? We had one flying around Toronto and Newfoundland, so a few pilots around that have seen the torque creep up a little. Find the local Eurocopter CP and he can probably fill you in on how much you can get away with.

[Apple11]

Question for any 155 pilots out there. Is there a reason the altimeter seems to reset to STD after shut down? Seems like most aircraft I have flown, to include those with glass cokpits retain the last altimeter setting when you start up. Also, is it just me or is the knob to set QNH VERY sensitive, can be difficult to near impossible to dial in the correct setting during turbulence.

Thanks for any help.

[RVDT]

seems to reset to STD

Subject: Information regarding indication of the corrected barometric
value on the flight display.

information to the effect that the indication of the corrected barometric value
on the flight display (SMD 45, SMD 68) may occasionally switch back to the standard value. This
spontaneous switching may occur on ground or in flight.

recommends that:
– when the height data is read off on the flight display, a check of the setting of the
barometric correction value be made at the same time.
– before take off, the BARO knob be turned, even if the required QNH is being displayed.
– during AFCS operations in ALT A mode, the setting of the barometric correction value be
checked regularly.

[Ian Corrigible]

Airbus Helicopters introduces new range of mission options for the traditionally VIP-focused H155:

http://i.imgur.com/QS9HGBc.jpg

Airbus Helicopters selected for the partnership development of South Korea’s Light Civil and Light Armed Helicopters (http://www.airbushelicopters.com/website/en/press/Airbus-Helicopters-selected-for-the-partnership-development-of-South-Korea-s-Light-Civil-and-Light-Armed-Helicopters_1727.html)

Other bidders for this contract – which involves production of at least 200 units for the ROKA (http://aviationweek.com/defense/airbus-agustawestland-shortlisted-south-korean-helicopter-program) alone – included the AW169 'Dauphin killer' (shortlisted), S-76 and a new offering using Bell 430 drivetrain components. KAI itself reportedly (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/kai-to-develop-4.5t-civil-military-helicopter-401888/) foresees demand for 400 examples in South Korea, and a market for 600 overseas.

I/C

[choperman]

Hi Guys,

I keep hearing about "Lots" of EC155's working the offshore patch around the globe however I can only think of a few locations -

Nigeria (5 - 6)
Vietnam (2 - 3)
China (2)

Where are the rest ???

What about their reliability and performance - again hear of frequent engine changes especially during the early stages of operations in Nigeria BUT does anyone know the real facts on that or any other maint issues?

Curious to hear from those amongst you who have flown the 155 and the S76 and how they compare side by side.
Indonesia Air transport has 4 EC155B1....since 2007 and working well on offshore

[Flying Bull]

Indonesia Air transport has 4 EC155B1....since 2007 and working well on offshore

I know about EC155 flying in Japan and Germany (Police)
Offshore Europe i.e.
http://www.aircharterguide.com/Operator_Info/CHC+HELICOPTERS+NETHERLANDS-HELI-ONE/252/DEN+HELDER/262

[Self loading bear]

CHC PH-SHO I believe still Flying from Den Helder for NAM (Shell)
Heli Holland PH-EQU convertible VIP /offshore
DanCopter used to have 2 in Den Helder as well. Before being kick-off Shell contract.

Cheers SLB

[Noheliname]

CHC does not have any EC 155 anymore :-(
PH-SHO is operated by HeliHolland. Don't know if it is all ad hoc but it flies regularly out of EHKD. (Not sure who in CHC came up with the idea of selling this nice heli to a direct competitor... who now flies it to some of CHC's customers platforms!)
DanCopter still has some EC 155's but think the days are numbered. Probably going back to the lease company sooner rather than later.
NHV is flying EC 155's for Wintershall out of EHKD, but rumours has it that it will soon be replaced by the EC175...
Shame this lovely helicopter seems to be phased out. Great heli to fly if you respect the limitations in low wind conditions. Never been involved in an accident as far as I know :-)

[EESDL]

welcome to PPRUNE Noheliname but you might like to fact-check your closing statement - although I agree that 'facts' are sometimes the last thing you'll find here ;-)

[nowherespecial]

NHV still have a good few of them flying around the place on short term work. Cheap and fast is v popular in todays environment. That said, they are also trying to hand them back to the leasing companies as they have too many spare following the closing of their bases in Ivory Coast and Ghana.

[212man]

Never been involved in an accident as far as I know :-)

Apart from the GFS one that had a night CFIT (2 fatalities)......

[ericferret]

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=EC55

[Greeny9]

NHV still have a good few of them flying around the place on short term work. Cheap and fast is v popular in todays environment. That said, they are also trying to hand them back to the leasing companies as they have too many spare following the closing of their bases in Ivory Coast and Ghana.

Really? You'd best inform all the pilots and engineers working there :ugh:

[nowherespecial]

Not sure what you mean Greeny. Have NHV sacked all their Dauphin crew in the last 48 hours?

[Greeny9]

Not sure what you mean Greeny. Have NHV sacked all their Dauphin crew in the last 48 hours?

No, I mean the bases in Ivory Coast and Ghana are not closed!

[nowherespecial]

Interesting. Lots of expensive toys with no contracts to fly for. Lukoil closed their whole operation in IC and PHI picked up Ghana with the S92. Who are they flying for then?

[Greeny9]

Interesting. Lots of expensive toys with no contracts to fly for. Lukoil closed their whole operation in IC and PHI picked up Ghana with the S92. Who are they flying for then?
You are quite obviously out of touch with what is happening!
The whole world does not rotate around Lukoil and PHI!

[TIMTS]

It looks like I'll be flying an EC-155B shortly, but all the training manuals I can find are for the B1. I want to be as prepared as possible before the training starts, and I'm wondering what the main differences are between the B and the B1. Can I use the B1 manuals? Which parts should I avoid? Thanks.

[ec155mech]

You will be fine with the THM for the B1 and Training manual for the Arriel 2C1 2C1 from Turbomeca.

As torquestripe mentions the diff is mainly in the performance.

[212man]

B1 has a backup mode for FADEC failure which uses the opposite side engine to control the power, whereas in the B the engine just freezes at the last power setting. No other real differences not already mentioned.

[Flying Bull]

B1 has a backup mode for FADEC failure which uses the opposite side engine to control the power, whereas in the B the engine just freezes at the last power setting. No other real differences not already mentioned.

Not quite true - you have a BackUpSwitch on B

FADEC FAIL
Reminding light on cockpit overhead panel


Major governor Failure
NOTE
Metering unit frozen at fuel flow value upon failure.


1 - OEI rating ............................................ Select as required.

2 - NORMAL/BACKUP switch .................. BACKUP.

[212man]

Not quite true - you have a BackUpSwitch on B

FADEC FAIL
Reminding light on cockpit overhead panel


Major governor Failure
NOTE
Metering unit frozen at fuel flow value upon failure.


1 - OEI rating ............................................ Select as required.

2 - NORMAL/BACKUP switch .................. BACKUP.

Must be retrofitted since I flew them (2001-2006) - certainly wasn't in place then, although the switch was there.

[ec155mech]

unless it was a B you flew ;) to my knowledge there hasnt been any upgrades from B to B1 done on the 155 fleet.

[Flying Bull]

unless it was a B you flew ;) to my knowledge there hasnt been any upgrades from B to B1 done on the 155 fleet.
No upgrades from B to B1 - but Fadec-Switch works on our B-model ;-)

[212man]

unless it was a B you flew ;) to my knowledge there hasnt been any upgrades from B to B1 done on the 155 fleet.
Yes; they were B models - that was my point. But, it would appear that the FADEC back up has been made a retrofit option.