EC225
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meh, I started a post to respond to the Pitts but then I realised, you're probably an old soak with too much time on your hands. A legal background perhaps but a waste of space in aviation so MEH, go troll somewhere else with your flat cap, cocao and slippers.
I was about to respond to others but as usual Pitts ruins it so I'll not bother.
Si
I was about to respond to others but as usual Pitts ruins it so I'll not bother.
Si
BB - I've got more jobs in the 5 mins I've been posting here than anyone could have in tow lifetimes.
Anyway TM sums it up pretty well and so I don't spoil it for you - post away. I'll not comment again.
Go, go, go the field is clear....
Anyway TM sums it up pretty well and so I don't spoil it for you - post away. I'll not comment again.
Go, go, go the field is clear....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Terminus Mo! For a professional aviator your last post is a disgrace. You know there are many aircraft flying today with managed defects (term used loosely), that are mandated by SB/AD requirements. You also know that this is entirely normal in modern complex aviation.
You are starting to believe the bull**** spread by the unaware of an industry regulatory system we must trust and support......or the alternative is rumour, gossip and supposition.
SAS, for what it's worth I think you are correct. The S92 cabin is more attractive to the poor pax who fly the long routes.
This EC225 issue has been dissected, analysed and risk assessed by so many reputable agencies that I have no problem flying the EC225. In fact I flew it today. Did not even think about the shaft!!
We are aviators. The call comes in, we have the necessary approvals, licences and certificates and we respond and fly. Pure and simple. The rest is crew room bull**** best left to the SMEs paid to do their jobs. We are paid to do ours. Lets get on with it!!
DB
You are starting to believe the bull**** spread by the unaware of an industry regulatory system we must trust and support......or the alternative is rumour, gossip and supposition.
SAS, for what it's worth I think you are correct. The S92 cabin is more attractive to the poor pax who fly the long routes.
This EC225 issue has been dissected, analysed and risk assessed by so many reputable agencies that I have no problem flying the EC225. In fact I flew it today. Did not even think about the shaft!!
We are aviators. The call comes in, we have the necessary approvals, licences and certificates and we respond and fly. Pure and simple. The rest is crew room bull**** best left to the SMEs paid to do their jobs. We are paid to do ours. Lets get on with it!!
DB
.
Hello DB,
You're right and may I add that I've got friends who fly their 225 and 725 for heavy lift or real combat missions every day without any problem due to their aircraft.
On that thread, everybody is talking about grounding or RTF or "what is going to happen if the 225 returns to fly one day" like if all the fleet was not flying but the reality is that there are as many 225/725 flying that grounded.
And please don't answer as before "Not flying over hostile terrain" because first : a desert full of 4X4 Toyota with 50' machine gun is an hostile terrain if you're not in the car and second : failure don't wait to be over hostile terrain to happen and nothing happened in nearly 30 000 hrs at the present time.
I'm not saying that everything is perfect about this subject (far from it) but I would like you to remind that 225/725 are flying every day. That is the reality.
.
Hello DB,
You're right and may I add that I've got friends who fly their 225 and 725 for heavy lift or real combat missions every day without any problem due to their aircraft.
On that thread, everybody is talking about grounding or RTF or "what is going to happen if the 225 returns to fly one day" like if all the fleet was not flying but the reality is that there are as many 225/725 flying that grounded.
And please don't answer as before "Not flying over hostile terrain" because first : a desert full of 4X4 Toyota with 50' machine gun is an hostile terrain if you're not in the car and second : failure don't wait to be over hostile terrain to happen and nothing happened in nearly 30 000 hrs at the present time.
I'm not saying that everything is perfect about this subject (far from it) but I would like you to remind that 225/725 are flying every day. That is the reality.
.
Last edited by HeliHenri; 15th Jul 2013 at 15:31.
Good point, and it has to be asked "if the 225 had continued flying for oil and gas, would another one have ditched due to a failed shaft in the 9 months since they have been grounded?" And the answer, now that we know the cause, is almost certainly not.
The failure was put down to unforeseen stress on a threaded portion of the Blade Retention system.
Sikorsky figured out what the problem was...and made the necessary changes in the design to make the aircraft safe
Sikorsky figured out what the problem was...and made the necessary changes in the design to make the aircraft safe
Tie Wraps.
At that time the S76 was prohibited from using Shell decks.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 15th Jul 2013 at 19:08.
That was a very sad and tragic day. It was one of those events that mark one's Life in an indelible manner.
would another one have ditched due to a failed shaft in the 9 months since they have been grounded?" And the answer, now that we know the cause, is almost certainly not.
Let me put it another way to you.
The oil and gas environment probably brought something to light a lot earlier than it would have in other operating climes.
Be careful with what is painted on the inside of your goggles.
You Sir are the biased one and your response is B-ll-cks.
If you had attended the recent presentations by Eurocopter, based on the independent opinions of a slew of world-leading experts, you might not be so hasty in your conclusions and personalised criticisms.
They have got the whole matter sorted out, down to a "T" and with hindsight, Helicomparator is absolutely correct in his assertion.
I've had over 3000 hours in the best helicopter in its class, now and for years to come. I can hardly wait to get back into her and several colleagues now flying the S92 would jump at the chance to get back into proper 21st century technology.
If you had attended the recent presentations by Eurocopter, based on the independent opinions of a slew of world-leading experts, you might not be so hasty in your conclusions and personalised criticisms.
They have got the whole matter sorted out, down to a "T" and with hindsight, Helicomparator is absolutely correct in his assertion.
I've had over 3000 hours in the best helicopter in its class, now and for years to come. I can hardly wait to get back into her and several colleagues now flying the S92 would jump at the chance to get back into proper 21st century technology.
Odd that.....there seems to be a majority of two or three so vocal about the miracles of EC problem solving and design expertise....are there hundreds more merely lurking we hear nothing from?
I would swear some of you own Shares in EC or have some Shares in your Operator that might suffer as a result of any more bad news.
They say "Seeing" is "Believing" and I think the Jury is going to wait a bit before they pass judgement on this situation.
As well they might too.
Is that why Bristow is taking it so slow to join in the Amen Chorus? After all....they were accused not so long ago of letting commercial pressure affect Safety Decisions by not replacing a couple of Management Types that wandered off with visions of lush green pastures in their eyes.
I would swear some of you own Shares in EC or have some Shares in your Operator that might suffer as a result of any more bad news.
They say "Seeing" is "Believing" and I think the Jury is going to wait a bit before they pass judgement on this situation.
As well they might too.
Is that why Bristow is taking it so slow to join in the Amen Chorus? After all....they were accused not so long ago of letting commercial pressure affect Safety Decisions by not replacing a couple of Management Types that wandered off with visions of lush green pastures in their eyes.
Last edited by SASless; 15th Jul 2013 at 21:06.
I admire your optimism Sir and unfortunately have to disagree.
No SAS, I don't have any shares in EC, although rumour has it that you have shares in SKY! Bristow is doing well with or without the EC225 so there is no financial influence in my position. Can you say the same thing?
Last edited by HeliComparator; 15th Jul 2013 at 21:10.
Sorry....no Shares in United Technologies.....although they do build some great Elevators.....and Turbine Engines.
As far as I read -
1/ The material of the shaft was changed?
2/ Manufacturing anomalies have come to light?
3/ Corrosion was the initiating factor that pointed to the above?
4/ Fatigue cycles were not apparent factors
5/ How do you define the in service exposure to corrosion without visual inspection?
6/ Usage Monitoring will give you ~ 6 hours notice (based on 2 samples in service and one test sample)
7/
is a bold statement seeing that it has taken this long to figure out what happened.
30 years as an LAME on helicopters and 30 years flying them. Yes I have read the AD and the SIN.
I have some experience with "reading between the lines" of documents like this. Read very carefully.
As the saying goes "Who knew?"
1/ The material of the shaft was changed?
2/ Manufacturing anomalies have come to light?
3/ Corrosion was the initiating factor that pointed to the above?
4/ Fatigue cycles were not apparent factors
5/ How do you define the in service exposure to corrosion without visual inspection?
6/ Usage Monitoring will give you ~ 6 hours notice (based on 2 samples in service and one test sample)
7/
if the 225 had continued flying for oil and gas, would another one have ditched due to a failed shaft in the 9 months since they have been grounded?"
30 years as an LAME on helicopters and 30 years flying them. Yes I have read the AD and the SIN.
I have some experience with "reading between the lines" of documents like this. Read very carefully.
As the saying goes "Who knew?"
Last edited by RVDT; 15th Jul 2013 at 22:44.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB, I don't fly them now. But I do sign and pay the bills which pay your company which pays the wages. If Management is not satisfied, you will be flying your EC225 for pleasure, not hire and reward.
RVDT
1/ No, the material of the shaft wasn't changed on the 225. It was changed compared to the L and L2. But we have been operating with the "changed" material since the EC225's first inception in 2005. Well in fact the material wasn't changed, just the surface treatment I think.
2/ I did hear some mention of tooling marks, but was that ever actually confirmed in the various reports?
3/ Corrosion was the initiating factor, but not sure how it "points to the above"
4/ Surely it was a fatigue failure, brought on by cycles, but very prematurely due to the stress hotspots caused by the corrosion?
5/ Visual inspections were carried out and as far as I know, no other 225 was found to have a significantly corroded shaft
6/ Yes, although I think a lot more than 1 sample was tested to destruction in the lab.
7/ I say that because the primary trigger seems to have been corrosion, and (I think) it transpired that no other 225 had such corrosion. I don't see that the fact that it has taken a long time to figure out what happened makes my statement bold. Quite the reverse in fact. It would only have been bold if I had made it at the beginning of the process when the cause was not understood.
1/ No, the material of the shaft wasn't changed on the 225. It was changed compared to the L and L2. But we have been operating with the "changed" material since the EC225's first inception in 2005. Well in fact the material wasn't changed, just the surface treatment I think.
2/ I did hear some mention of tooling marks, but was that ever actually confirmed in the various reports?
3/ Corrosion was the initiating factor, but not sure how it "points to the above"
4/ Surely it was a fatigue failure, brought on by cycles, but very prematurely due to the stress hotspots caused by the corrosion?
5/ Visual inspections were carried out and as far as I know, no other 225 was found to have a significantly corroded shaft
6/ Yes, although I think a lot more than 1 sample was tested to destruction in the lab.
7/ I say that because the primary trigger seems to have been corrosion, and (I think) it transpired that no other 225 had such corrosion. I don't see that the fact that it has taken a long time to figure out what happened makes my statement bold. Quite the reverse in fact. It would only have been bold if I had made it at the beginning of the process when the cause was not understood.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 15th Jul 2013 at 22:57.
you will be flying your EC225 for pleasure, not hire and reward
Last edited by HeliComparator; 15th Jul 2013 at 22:58.
Bristow lost a lot of Shell business one time over a minor swimming pool incident as I recall. Oil Companies can be very fickle sometimes!
1/ The shaft technical issue on the 225 is fully understood.
2/ Crack Prevention is maximized (but not eliminated) by shaft cleaning and the new oil jets.
3/ Crack Detection is ensured by NDI inspections and/or M’ARMS in-flight monitoring.
4/ With the in flight Mod45 monitoring system, the pilot is informed at all times of the
shaft condition and can return to base or land.
5/ The probability to have a bevel gear crack not detected by M’ARMS or NDI,
leading to in-flight rupture and ditching is lower than 10 to the power 9 /FH, (1 per billion) which is more severe than the certification standards.
6/ With all the safety barriers implemented the shaft rupture risk is now eliminated
(but the risk to find a crack is not completely eliminated).
7/ The Emergency Lubrication System wiring discrepancy has been corrected. New
improvements are upcoming to restore the 30’ flight time in case of ‘total oil loss
2/ Crack Prevention is maximized (but not eliminated) by shaft cleaning and the new oil jets.
3/ Crack Detection is ensured by NDI inspections and/or M’ARMS in-flight monitoring.
4/ With the in flight Mod45 monitoring system, the pilot is informed at all times of the
shaft condition and can return to base or land.
5/ The probability to have a bevel gear crack not detected by M’ARMS or NDI,
leading to in-flight rupture and ditching is lower than 10 to the power 9 /FH, (1 per billion) which is more severe than the certification standards.
6/ With all the safety barriers implemented the shaft rupture risk is now eliminated
(but the risk to find a crack is not completely eliminated).
7/ The Emergency Lubrication System wiring discrepancy has been corrected. New
improvements are upcoming to restore the 30’ flight time in case of ‘total oil loss