EC225
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Pablo and drakkar, just as I posted in #496. I hope there is a software fix, we will not accept the EC225 back with operational limitations. Our staff are much happier with the S-92 which has been very reliable.
.
ERA returns EC225 to service :
" Era Group Inc. has returned two of its Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico to service, and plans to resume operations of two other EC225 helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico by the end of August, the company reported on Tuesday. "
http://www.verticalmag.com/news/arti...ers-to-service
.
ERA returns EC225 to service :
" Era Group Inc. has returned two of its Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico to service, and plans to resume operations of two other EC225 helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico by the end of August, the company reported on Tuesday. "
http://www.verticalmag.com/news/arti...ers-to-service
.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While for Bristows,
From Bristow's Press Release 30 June 2013:
The current situation will continue until the necessary modifications are made to the EC225 fleet and we are confident that the interim modifications will allow us to operate the aircraft safely, which could result in our return to revenue service for the EC225 aircraft in the third quarter of our fiscal year 2014.
The current situation will continue until the necessary modifications are made to the EC225 fleet and we are confident that the interim modifications will allow us to operate the aircraft safely, which could result in our return to revenue service for the EC225 aircraft in the third quarter of our fiscal year 2014.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone explain the cause of the differential between the return to service dates for the CHC and Bristow fleets?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some fairly oblique comments have been forthcoming. Let me put it another way, is there any significant difference in the maintenance regimes operated by CHC and Bristows or are they pretty much on a par?
If however the answer is that they are very similar, this still does not answer the matter of the discrepancy in the return to service dates.
If however the answer is that they are very similar, this still does not answer the matter of the discrepancy in the return to service dates.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
diginagain, Meaning they are simply holding off for PR reasons and not because they are undertaking additional exploration of the problem or employing additional technical precautions?
Bristow return
I don't think this is a result of any additional works been carried out at Bristow but more just giving themselves room to move. Unfortunately for Bristow their quarterly business reporting period is within days of EADS. As we know earlier in 2013 certain comments made from Bristow CEO seemed to suggest their view on return to service was different to the "reported to shareholders" view.
Obviously it's one thing to be casual with remarks to the press and another to have your words recorded on an earnings conference call with the people who own you. Which is important to remember - whilst operationally it might not figure at some point in the chain somebody has real money invested.
I think after the various backtracking in the early part of the year Bristow came up with the line which was "return to revenue service" by the end of 2013. Giving them time to bed system and process and allow them room in conversation to align and not seem to contradict Eurocopter.
One element which was very poorly managed by Eurocopter through the 225
issues was consistent communication. They would report one thing to (for instance) shareholders which was totally different to that being presented to the oil and gas industry and operators. Because there was nothing officially released by Eurocopter it was easy to see how rumour and misunderstanding could spread. For example one large US institution advising investors thought at one point ALL eurocopters worldwide were grounded!
Sadly for a while it demonstrated Eurocopters poor relation position in the EADS group. Clearly the recent accident isn't going to help matters re: clarity of the issues although the new 225news website is a big step although my only complaint is that should have been available as a single point of reference in Q1 2013.
Obviously it's one thing to be casual with remarks to the press and another to have your words recorded on an earnings conference call with the people who own you. Which is important to remember - whilst operationally it might not figure at some point in the chain somebody has real money invested.
I think after the various backtracking in the early part of the year Bristow came up with the line which was "return to revenue service" by the end of 2013. Giving them time to bed system and process and allow them room in conversation to align and not seem to contradict Eurocopter.
One element which was very poorly managed by Eurocopter through the 225
issues was consistent communication. They would report one thing to (for instance) shareholders which was totally different to that being presented to the oil and gas industry and operators. Because there was nothing officially released by Eurocopter it was easy to see how rumour and misunderstanding could spread. For example one large US institution advising investors thought at one point ALL eurocopters worldwide were grounded!
Sadly for a while it demonstrated Eurocopters poor relation position in the EADS group. Clearly the recent accident isn't going to help matters re: clarity of the issues although the new 225news website is a big step although my only complaint is that should have been available as a single point of reference in Q1 2013.
Sorry just to add:- the co-ordination with operators should have been managed better too because frankly you have a situation where despite Eurocopter suggesting the interim fix of 225 is valid you can see how it looks when one operator still isn't flying.. I have no idea on the differences at CHC and Bristow but you can see how it looks. Also there needs to be better co-ordination with Eurocopter and the AAIB because you currently have an odd situation where the manufacturer seems on one hand to have to be sensitive to it's place in the process - re: what it can or can't say whilst at the same time having huge engineering resource and providing a lead in terms of expertise and putting up solution - whilst we have had nothing from the AAIB still in conclusion to the 225.
This clarity and speed of accurate reporting is going to be even more important after events of yesterday.
This clarity and speed of accurate reporting is going to be even more important after events of yesterday.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra, can you please tell me the date and time of last comms between EC and industry and lets incl the L2 incident! Can you tell me what it was and entailed? I will give you a clue-got a email3 hrs ago! Lets see whether you even on the mailing list before we read your posts of no comms from EC and continuous accusations!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pittsextra-good morning! You figured out the email yet and no EC comms? I woke up to another email alerting me to go and read the latest................? I really hope after your statements you can tell us how EC communicate with the operatorsby telling us whether you got mails to and what they refer to.
Good morning to you VP.
I'm not sure what part of my post you think your emails from EC contradicts?
As I said the communication is inconsistent in 2013 you had a situation where Bristows Bill Chiles was on record with an earnings call whose remarks were dismissed as press spinning a story at a HSSG meeting. You had the CAA slap Eurocopter down after comments from their now ex-CEO. There was even a rediculous situation where operators had a document detailing the pathway for return to service whilst weeks later EADS/Eurocopter and Bristow executives going on record saying they could not comment on the return to service of the 225.
Now maybe if you spanner these things you get a smug feeling getting some forward detail but that misses the point on several levels.
Of course the masses (be that passengers, family, investors, owners, executives) don't need to know every last engineering detail but it helps if everyone can agree on the basics.
Anyway that's my view. What's yours? There was a view suggested by someone that they knew why CHC pushed to get their 225's but the post got deleted after the accident on Friday. Anyone that hasn't grasped the notion that the future of the 225 in this region is as much about good PR as it is solid engineering is oblivious. To that end I do feel the co-ordination between operators returning these things to service has been poor.
I'm not sure what part of my post you think your emails from EC contradicts?
As I said the communication is inconsistent in 2013 you had a situation where Bristows Bill Chiles was on record with an earnings call whose remarks were dismissed as press spinning a story at a HSSG meeting. You had the CAA slap Eurocopter down after comments from their now ex-CEO. There was even a rediculous situation where operators had a document detailing the pathway for return to service whilst weeks later EADS/Eurocopter and Bristow executives going on record saying they could not comment on the return to service of the 225.
Now maybe if you spanner these things you get a smug feeling getting some forward detail but that misses the point on several levels.
Of course the masses (be that passengers, family, investors, owners, executives) don't need to know every last engineering detail but it helps if everyone can agree on the basics.
Anyway that's my view. What's yours? There was a view suggested by someone that they knew why CHC pushed to get their 225's but the post got deleted after the accident on Friday. Anyone that hasn't grasped the notion that the future of the 225 in this region is as much about good PR as it is solid engineering is oblivious. To that end I do feel the co-ordination between operators returning these things to service has been poor.