EC-225 orders hot up
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour control has it that a Norwegian oil company using the S-92 has now decided not to have any more on its contract due to serviceability problems plus complaints from its staff over comfort and vibration. I've heard several stories of the seat known as the "sin bin" where passengers suffer from eyesight problems and/or dizziness after their flights.
Is that why there are suddenly a lot of EC225s being ordered? Not saying this company is going to use the EC225, but what else is there if they aren't happy with the S-92? I am also surprised that CHC only has one pax aircraft in the UK at the moment, unless their priority is to get the SAR ones on line as quickly as possible after their contract start in July.
As I say, all rumour.
Is that why there are suddenly a lot of EC225s being ordered? Not saying this company is going to use the EC225, but what else is there if they aren't happy with the S-92? I am also surprised that CHC only has one pax aircraft in the UK at the moment, unless their priority is to get the SAR ones on line as quickly as possible after their contract start in July.
As I say, all rumour.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who could guess where the rumors came from! I saw a French slide of S92 passengers screaming in the water and sharks all around, shown by the EC225 chief salesman to a group of Oil Safety folks at the previous HeliExpo. Considering that the Norwegians have now bought upwards of 10 S92's, those snide slurs can only come from one source.
Any facts out there to support the rumors??
From Rotorhub, a fact, not a rumor:
Ken Norie, President/CEO of VIH and Cougar, said the S-92 has won over his company with its steady reliability as a proven and popular aircraft.
"We selected the S-92 because of its reliability, increasing product maturity, and the economic value it represents in operation. Additionally our end-user customers like the space and comfort of the S-92 and Sikorsky's legacy of commitment to safety," Norie said.
Any facts out there to support the rumors??
From Rotorhub, a fact, not a rumor:
Ken Norie, President/CEO of VIH and Cougar, said the S-92 has won over his company with its steady reliability as a proven and popular aircraft.
"We selected the S-92 because of its reliability, increasing product maturity, and the economic value it represents in operation. Additionally our end-user customers like the space and comfort of the S-92 and Sikorsky's legacy of commitment to safety," Norie said.
zzzzzzz..>!!!..time to wake up...
Those SK salesmen get everywhere ;-) But perhaps a great marketing angle was lost there - I can just see it.... "Sk redefines offshore safety by introducing the S92 with shark-proof windows. Don't worry, should the sea come up to mess with the chopper, our extra small windows ensure that you don't do anything foolish like get out into the sea and ensure those pesky sharks can't get in! You can be sure to be able to drown in peace and in one piece!"
Its funny how you never hear the President of a helicopter company say "Gee these new $20million helicopters we bought are really crap. If I was a passenger I would never fly in one!". I wonder why?
We brits did have a guy called Gerald Ratner who said something like that (about a different product) and you can guess how long he lasted!
Hey Nick, is that a pair of rotor blades I see sticking out of your back. Oh no, its just a key going round and round...
Alright, back to my burrow now.....is that the time....z..zz...zzzzzzzzz
HC
S92 passengers screaming in the water and sharks all around
Its funny how you never hear the President of a helicopter company say "Gee these new $20million helicopters we bought are really crap. If I was a passenger I would never fly in one!". I wonder why?
We brits did have a guy called Gerald Ratner who said something like that (about a different product) and you can guess how long he lasted!
Hey Nick, is that a pair of rotor blades I see sticking out of your back. Oh no, its just a key going round and round...
Alright, back to my burrow now.....is that the time....z..zz...zzzzzzzzz
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 5th Mar 2007 at 21:45.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that the Norwegians have now bought upwards of 10 S92's, those snide slurs can only come from one source.
Interesting your comment on 10+ S92s in Norway. The CHC website states 5 for Norway, 3 for Denmark and 5 for UK (1 pax and 4 SAR). The Norsk website states 5 in service with them. Bristow has 5 on order for later this year. That makes 23 in service or on order.
Bristow currently have 5 EC225s plus one due very shortly. They have just ordered another 3 plus 8 more on options. CHC have 6 EC225s on order and have just ordered another 16. (Both taken from Rotorhub). I believe that Bond also have two on order. I haven't seen any recent big orders for the S92 (other than one for Cougar/VIH who don't operate this side of the Atlantic anyway), other than the 5 for Bristow which are due later this year.
So, that's 23 S92s (pax and SAR) against 41 EC225s for the European Offshore market. Almost 2:1 in favour of the EC225. So, what is it that makes the oil companies want EC225s in comparison to the S-92? Both CHC and Bristow offer both types and are obviously prepared to offer them to their prospective clients. There must be something that the clients do not like about the S92? I suspect operating costs if oil companies are anything to go by.
Comments Mr Lappos and HeliComparator (sensible replies please and keep your bitching comments to each other to yourselves).
Limpopo
Much as it pains me, I have to point out that your sums are not quite right. You have to bear in mind that orders for "Bristow" is not Bristow Europe, rather these days its Bristow Houston. I very much doubt that all or even most of the 11 new 225 orders are destined for Europe.
Regarding operating costs as far as I am aware the 225 is significantly more expensive both in terms of purchase cost and power-by-the-hour deals (depending on how good you are at negotiating!).
So why are they choosing the 225? Whilst there have been some introductory problems with the 225, my feeling is that the 92 has been much worse, though its difficult to prove that feeling. Certainly I hear the same rumours as you about the Norwegian passengers displease with it.
But perhaps its just the oil companies read Pprune?
HC
Much as it pains me, I have to point out that your sums are not quite right. You have to bear in mind that orders for "Bristow" is not Bristow Europe, rather these days its Bristow Houston. I very much doubt that all or even most of the 11 new 225 orders are destined for Europe.
Regarding operating costs as far as I am aware the 225 is significantly more expensive both in terms of purchase cost and power-by-the-hour deals (depending on how good you are at negotiating!).
So why are they choosing the 225? Whilst there have been some introductory problems with the 225, my feeling is that the 92 has been much worse, though its difficult to prove that feeling. Certainly I hear the same rumours as you about the Norwegian passengers displease with it.
But perhaps its just the oil companies read Pprune?
HC
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeliComparator
Many thanks for the update. I was working on what Rotorhub had on its site and assumed that the Bristow EC225s were for the North Sea. I guess the CHC EC225s may very well be for worldwide use as well then.
Still, it does seeem strange that if the EC225 is more expensive to buyand more expensive Power By The Hour, then why has there been this huge recent buy, rather than the cheaper (to buy and to run PBTH), bigger S92? There has to be something other than the costs I would think.
It would be interesting to get a view from someone who is connected with the oil industry for their views on each type.
Many thanks for the update. I was working on what Rotorhub had on its site and assumed that the Bristow EC225s were for the North Sea. I guess the CHC EC225s may very well be for worldwide use as well then.
Still, it does seeem strange that if the EC225 is more expensive to buyand more expensive Power By The Hour, then why has there been this huge recent buy, rather than the cheaper (to buy and to run PBTH), bigger S92? There has to be something other than the costs I would think.
It would be interesting to get a view from someone who is connected with the oil industry for their views on each type.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree that the expense to operate the 225 is somewhat higher (I do not know how much) and the purchase price is also higher. I believe that the total Oil Patch buys for the S92 are somewhere about 30 to 35 (I will look for authoritative numbers) since the exec market for this size machine is necessarily smaller.
Why are there any 225s sold when it is older, more expensive to buy, more expensive to operate and more cramped? Because the oil companies know that competition is good, and it is a good thing to ring Sikorsky's chimes a bit to remind them of that. And if the oil companies buy three S-92's for each 225 (a ratio which is perhaps where it is just now) that might be just enough to make Sikorsky work at peak customer kindness, and EC to work even harder at showing shark pictures of S-92's.
I do know that safety sells, and the 92's newer total design and qualification has struck a chord with the oil companies (I met them personally when the decisions were being made 3 years ago). The helicomparitor view of the lack of value of these design features is simply not shared by the oil companies or the unions, thus the 3 to 1 ratio. This does not mean that the 225 is a poor machine, far from it. Frankly, the same argument could be made for the pairing of the S76 (my helicopter!) against the 139, where the newer design has many features that are simply not possible to retrofit into the older design.
EC are not sitting idle. Rumors that the 225 debacle is causing a new program to make the NH-90 design as a civil alternative, with a new roomy fuselage, flaw tolerance, strong crashworthy fuselage, bird strike resistance, fly by wire, few life-limited components - all of these could be part of the new EC civil aircraft, and this will close that sales ratio the old fashioned way - better, newer, safer products.
Why are there any 225s sold when it is older, more expensive to buy, more expensive to operate and more cramped? Because the oil companies know that competition is good, and it is a good thing to ring Sikorsky's chimes a bit to remind them of that. And if the oil companies buy three S-92's for each 225 (a ratio which is perhaps where it is just now) that might be just enough to make Sikorsky work at peak customer kindness, and EC to work even harder at showing shark pictures of S-92's.
I do know that safety sells, and the 92's newer total design and qualification has struck a chord with the oil companies (I met them personally when the decisions were being made 3 years ago). The helicomparitor view of the lack of value of these design features is simply not shared by the oil companies or the unions, thus the 3 to 1 ratio. This does not mean that the 225 is a poor machine, far from it. Frankly, the same argument could be made for the pairing of the S76 (my helicopter!) against the 139, where the newer design has many features that are simply not possible to retrofit into the older design.
EC are not sitting idle. Rumors that the 225 debacle is causing a new program to make the NH-90 design as a civil alternative, with a new roomy fuselage, flaw tolerance, strong crashworthy fuselage, bird strike resistance, fly by wire, few life-limited components - all of these could be part of the new EC civil aircraft, and this will close that sales ratio the old fashioned way - better, newer, safer products.
Last edited by NickLappos; 6th Mar 2007 at 21:41.
I too am not totally sure of the reason why the oil companies seem to be favouring the 225 at the moment. Normally us cynical pilots would suspect that these decisions are made by people who don't really understand the technical issues but do understand the finances.
My suggestions are as follows. I know this will generate another agressive response from Nick - its a pity he can't just allow me to have my opinion, which is all it is, but to be fair to him he put a lot of effort into the project and who likes to see the culmination of a big chunk of their career criticised?
Sikorsky put its effort into complying with the letter of the version of JAR /FAR 29 that was current when the design was finalised - the primary differences between that version and previous ones of course being improvements that should increase safety. In many ways this a was commendable effort and certainly what the offshore market wanted.
However in my opinion they put all their effort into compliance with a document and slightly lost sight of making a "good helicopter" regardless of what the regulations required - ie allowed beurocracy to come before common sense. I would liken it on the flying side to having flight crew who comply with very comprehensive operational laws and regulations, but still fly into the ground crashing and burning.
When questioned, (in heaven) they said that there was nothing in the regulations that said you must not fly into the ground at high speed.
So, for example, the 92 has a commendable degree of fault tolerance on many of its critical parts as required by the new regs, but failed to have check valves where the output from the two main gearbox lubrication pumps joined, so that following a failure of one pump, the other pump was effectively taken out as well. There is no specific requirement for check valves in the regs, but the requirement is surely common sense and certainly fitted to the likes of the S76.
There are loads of other examples like this. So in summary whilst the aircraft complies with the letter of the design regs, in some other areas its design seems to lack common sense. This trickles down to make an aircraft that is not that easy to operate and has daft restrictions - my favourite one being the maximum speed for operating the windscreen wipers: 40kts. Pretty minor I agree but indicative of accepting pilot non-friendliness. Worse are the high vibration levels which whilst being uncomfortable for passengers at advertised cruise speeds, surely is bad for any airframe and its systems.
Despite the 225 being a jumped-up 332L2, its a different beast with the ability to carry 19 pax with baggage and full fuel on every trip (in UK temperatures), smooth cruise at 150kts average, very clever autopilot and EFIS system etc. That the oil companies realise this and even value it is surprising, but then I can't think of another reason why its favoured!
HC
My suggestions are as follows. I know this will generate another agressive response from Nick - its a pity he can't just allow me to have my opinion, which is all it is, but to be fair to him he put a lot of effort into the project and who likes to see the culmination of a big chunk of their career criticised?
Sikorsky put its effort into complying with the letter of the version of JAR /FAR 29 that was current when the design was finalised - the primary differences between that version and previous ones of course being improvements that should increase safety. In many ways this a was commendable effort and certainly what the offshore market wanted.
However in my opinion they put all their effort into compliance with a document and slightly lost sight of making a "good helicopter" regardless of what the regulations required - ie allowed beurocracy to come before common sense. I would liken it on the flying side to having flight crew who comply with very comprehensive operational laws and regulations, but still fly into the ground crashing and burning.
When questioned, (in heaven) they said that there was nothing in the regulations that said you must not fly into the ground at high speed.
So, for example, the 92 has a commendable degree of fault tolerance on many of its critical parts as required by the new regs, but failed to have check valves where the output from the two main gearbox lubrication pumps joined, so that following a failure of one pump, the other pump was effectively taken out as well. There is no specific requirement for check valves in the regs, but the requirement is surely common sense and certainly fitted to the likes of the S76.
There are loads of other examples like this. So in summary whilst the aircraft complies with the letter of the design regs, in some other areas its design seems to lack common sense. This trickles down to make an aircraft that is not that easy to operate and has daft restrictions - my favourite one being the maximum speed for operating the windscreen wipers: 40kts. Pretty minor I agree but indicative of accepting pilot non-friendliness. Worse are the high vibration levels which whilst being uncomfortable for passengers at advertised cruise speeds, surely is bad for any airframe and its systems.
Despite the 225 being a jumped-up 332L2, its a different beast with the ability to carry 19 pax with baggage and full fuel on every trip (in UK temperatures), smooth cruise at 150kts average, very clever autopilot and EFIS system etc. That the oil companies realise this and even value it is surprising, but then I can't think of another reason why its favoured!
HC
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 456 Likes
on
242 Posts
I suggest we use the "Harry Hill" method of sorting out this argument...... 
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 456 Likes
on
242 Posts
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh No! Helicomparator IS Dot Cotton 
Cheers
Whirls
...actually HC, I've met Harry Hill and he's not that tall and he's not fat so I'm not sure to which dimension you are referring
Cheers
Whirls
...actually HC, I've met Harry Hill and he's not that tall and he's not fat so I'm not sure to which dimension you are referring
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heli1,
You are quite right - fast delivery and a proven record are attractive.
helicomparitor has that fact-less disease again. That pump check valve lie is a perfect example, as he must know that the production S92 has such check valves. The S76 has them, of course, but it, too didn't when we first flew it - I was the Test Pilot who had to land when it proved itself back in 1977!
Those kinds of silly untruths seem to clog Helicomparitor's whole construct in this debate, and thus make it so hard to leave me to simply let him spout his opinion, as he asks. If your opinion is made up of "made-up facts" hc, your opinion is not worth very much.
And your confusion as to why the 225 sells so few is based on the fact that you have not visited the people who buy the 92, so you do not know that they, unlike you, value the more modern safety design. I wonder if you let your children drive cars without modern safety features like ABS and crashworthy doors, safety airbags and the like. I hope not.
You are quite right - fast delivery and a proven record are attractive.
helicomparitor has that fact-less disease again. That pump check valve lie is a perfect example, as he must know that the production S92 has such check valves. The S76 has them, of course, but it, too didn't when we first flew it - I was the Test Pilot who had to land when it proved itself back in 1977!
Those kinds of silly untruths seem to clog Helicomparitor's whole construct in this debate, and thus make it so hard to leave me to simply let him spout his opinion, as he asks. If your opinion is made up of "made-up facts" hc, your opinion is not worth very much.
And your confusion as to why the 225 sells so few is based on the fact that you have not visited the people who buy the 92, so you do not know that they, unlike you, value the more modern safety design. I wonder if you let your children drive cars without modern safety features like ABS and crashworthy doors, safety airbags and the like. I hope not.
Hi Nick
Err, surely the debate is why the 225 is selling so much?
I thought you would bite -what took so long? Regarding the pump check valves, following the near-ditching in Norway in the early days of the 92's operations, I was told by some guys from Sikorsky that the check valves had been omitted because "they hadn't considered that failure mode". Perhaps they were lying, though it seems unlikely. So I accept your criticisism that I don't actually know what I am talking about, I concede that my error might have been to believe what the Sikorsky guys said.
But actually you and I both know that my comment is correct - unless you have been away too long to remember?
Perhaps there has now been a mod to add the valves (I hope so) but at the time Sky were saying that was too difficult and their preferred solution was to fit the pumps with some anti-rotation device to stop them going into turbine mode.
HC
your confusion as to why the 225 sells so few
I thought you would bite -what took so long? Regarding the pump check valves, following the near-ditching in Norway in the early days of the 92's operations, I was told by some guys from Sikorsky that the check valves had been omitted because "they hadn't considered that failure mode". Perhaps they were lying, though it seems unlikely. So I accept your criticisism that I don't actually know what I am talking about, I concede that my error might have been to believe what the Sikorsky guys said.
But actually you and I both know that my comment is correct - unless you have been away too long to remember?
Perhaps there has now been a mod to add the valves (I hope so) but at the time Sky were saying that was too difficult and their preferred solution was to fit the pumps with some anti-rotation device to stop them going into turbine mode.
HC
Thread Starter
"that pump check valve lie is a perfect example, as he must know that the production S92 has such check valves"
Maybe Sikorsky took a lead from ECF and used the launch customers to do the pre-production test flying! That aircraft was very much a 'production' aircraft.
Nice to see my use of the word 'EC-225' in a thread has awakened the S-92/EC-225 bashing debate between HC/NL. Regardless of the relative merits and de-merits of the two (types- not individuals!) no one can say that an announcement for 24 civil sales of a heavy helicopter is insignificant.
Maybe Sikorsky took a lead from ECF and used the launch customers to do the pre-production test flying! That aircraft was very much a 'production' aircraft.
Nice to see my use of the word 'EC-225' in a thread has awakened the S-92/EC-225 bashing debate between HC/NL. Regardless of the relative merits and de-merits of the two (types- not individuals!) no one can say that an announcement for 24 civil sales of a heavy helicopter is insignificant.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S-92 & EC225, both good aircraft!
Why all this EC/SK bashing???? I think it fair to say that as far as the clients go (for Bristow anyway!) there is one major, Shell, who is happy that BOTH S-92 & EC225 are safe, very good aircraft for their requirements, and both as bad as each other at present for technical reliability! Shell certainly do a hell of a lot of research before giving the go ahead, and through the IAC, had put their faith in the S-92 via the agreement to use them in Shetland AFTER the EC225 had entered service with Bristow in Aberdeen. Selling either aircraft does not seem to be a problem, and as we see, some of the clients are happy to have both too, just that one is more appealing for one sector than the other. I've heard a lot of people saying that the perfect aircraft would be an S-92 fuselage with an EC225 cockpit and avionics! People on here seen to jump at the sound of others bashing one aircraft, but I'm sure there are just as many liking the same aircraft, this is just another Boeing v Airbus type campaign, again, both of which just go round in circles and have no valid conclusion.
both of which just go round in circles and have no valid conclusion.
So what you are saying is that lets all just say how fantastic all helicopters are as after all, they all fly so they must all be as good as each other.
How boring and uninformative that would be.
3000+ views can't be wrong - someone finds it interesting (or maybe amusing?)
HC
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes of course I'm saying all helicopters are fantastic, just like the chaps stuck on the Haewene Brim as they've had a good look at one whilst it's been stuck there since yesterday.
All I'm saying is that the 225's have had a lot of technical issues, the client has been very frustrated and the workforce offshore unhappy with the delays once they started flying, I'm sure it will be short lived though. I'm sure the S-92 will have it's problems when introduced to Shetland too. I've seen people having a go at one helicopter for it's technical issues, but think between the 2 types they've had equal amounts of problems, but the clients haven't seen any that are a real concern (yet...).
All I'm saying is that the 225's have had a lot of technical issues, the client has been very frustrated and the workforce offshore unhappy with the delays once they started flying, I'm sure it will be short lived though. I'm sure the S-92 will have it's problems when introduced to Shetland too. I've seen people having a go at one helicopter for it's technical issues, but think between the 2 types they've had equal amounts of problems, but the clients haven't seen any that are a real concern (yet...).