New CHC S-92
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AFRICA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Nick Lappos
It's really clear that for you eurocopter products are not good enough.
If the 225 is an old helicopter (upgrade of SA330 and AS332) what is your opinion about the Boeing 737 is it a new or old aircraft ?
If I follow your logic the 737 is still an old, old plane (it was designed in the 60's)
but as it is an american product, I am sure you will find a way to explain me that the 737 is a new and perfect plane....
It's really clear that for you eurocopter products are not good enough.
If the 225 is an old helicopter (upgrade of SA330 and AS332) what is your opinion about the Boeing 737 is it a new or old aircraft ?
If I follow your logic the 737 is still an old, old plane (it was designed in the 60's)
but as it is an american product, I am sure you will find a way to explain me that the 737 is a new and perfect plane....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 58
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Froggy,
I think that the issues Nick has are not with the quality or lack thereof of Eurocopter products, per se, rather that they are not the ONLY aircraft worth flying at the exclusion of all others, as per the opinion of others.
Neither the 225 nor the 92 are perfect, and as stated quite often, it is the client who decides what equipment goes onto the machines, not the helicopter company.
If a 92 in Aberdeen/Wherever does not have de-icing it is because when the contract was being thrashed out, it was decided then not to have it, because sometimes the oil companies are quite happy to have the machine on the ground for a week due to bad weather as the costs of those lost flights are often FAR less than the costs of having all that gear installed for the duration of a contract.
That does not make the 92 a crappy aircraft by comparison to the 225 that does have the gear installed, all it does is make it differently specced for the desired missions.
I have worked on a 76 in Nigeria that had snow blankets fitted to it! That did not make it a crappy aircraft, all it did was make it heavier. I have worked on offshore 61's that did and did not have AVAD installed and niether of them crashed because the crews flying them were aware of the different limitations and worked around them, as will the guys with no de-icing.
I think that the issues Nick has are not with the quality or lack thereof of Eurocopter products, per se, rather that they are not the ONLY aircraft worth flying at the exclusion of all others, as per the opinion of others.
Neither the 225 nor the 92 are perfect, and as stated quite often, it is the client who decides what equipment goes onto the machines, not the helicopter company.
If a 92 in Aberdeen/Wherever does not have de-icing it is because when the contract was being thrashed out, it was decided then not to have it, because sometimes the oil companies are quite happy to have the machine on the ground for a week due to bad weather as the costs of those lost flights are often FAR less than the costs of having all that gear installed for the duration of a contract.
That does not make the 92 a crappy aircraft by comparison to the 225 that does have the gear installed, all it does is make it differently specced for the desired missions.
I have worked on a 76 in Nigeria that had snow blankets fitted to it! That did not make it a crappy aircraft, all it did was make it heavier. I have worked on offshore 61's that did and did not have AVAD installed and niether of them crashed because the crews flying them were aware of the different limitations and worked around them, as will the guys with no de-icing.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: foot of a mountain
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly is the point of arguing the age of the original airframe design and using it as a tool to compare "modern" with so-called prehistoric and a tool for measuring safety? I refer to the argument of the 225 "only" being a 332.(Actually it get's worse if you have been to Marignane. The 332's start their life in the 330
jig to ensure exact eng/mgb etc mounting positions. It must be working as you never have to shim anything onto a 332 other than the bbq plate)
Isn't the S76C++/D just a prehistoric old 76 then, unsafe?
Isn't a 407 just a prehistoric Long Ranger, unsafe?
Is a B3+ Squirrel now also prehistoric and thus unsafe?
Where does that leave the B412, B430??????
I saw a program on Discovery about the Chinooks being upgraded to digital and all the bells. Funny that's happening with so many "newer" designs not passing the test flight stage and that in the land with the big budget?
jig to ensure exact eng/mgb etc mounting positions. It must be working as you never have to shim anything onto a 332 other than the bbq plate)Isn't the S76C++/D just a prehistoric old 76 then, unsafe?
Isn't a 407 just a prehistoric Long Ranger, unsafe?
Is a B3+ Squirrel now also prehistoric and thus unsafe?
Where does that leave the B412, B430??????
I saw a program on Discovery about the Chinooks being upgraded to digital and all the bells. Funny that's happening with so many "newer" designs not passing the test flight stage and that in the land with the big budget?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
froggy pilot and victor papa,
You rightly ask "So what's the point?" about the "new" 225 being, under its skin an old helicopter. You also ask, "So what does that make an S76, Chinook and 737"?
Answers:
1) "So what does New mean?" - The newer airframes that meet the latest regulations are safer, as defined by the national authorities. Like a car with anti-lock brakes and other safety features, these helos are simply better for you and your passengers. If you do not value these features, you help turn the manufacturers away from innovation and safety improvement. If you follow, sheep-like, the notion that a new name means a new helo, you help the salesmen blur the distinction, to the harm of future passengers and crews.
This is NOT a US vs Europe argument, even though you want to make it so. The real "new" helos meet the regs, plenty of truly New European helos are in the mix. In fact, helicomparitor has NEVER answered the what I think is my strongest barb - Eurocopter has put the fuselage strength and safety features into its truely new helos, in spite of hc's apologia that such technology is worthless.
2) "So what does that make an S76, Chinook and 737"? It makes them old helicopters, about as old as the 225, and therefore makes a competing new helicopter comparatively safer. It is a goose/gander argument, and not a "what can I do to slam that helicopter" argument, unlike hc's arguments that compare window size to how easily the engines fall through the cabin roof and land in the passenger's laps.
If YOU, the customers, do not support better, safer helos, the national authorities won't push as hard to improve them, and we all will find the same old LTE, post crash fire, crushed-cabin helos for our grandchildren. That is a crime, gentlemen.
You rightly ask "So what's the point?" about the "new" 225 being, under its skin an old helicopter. You also ask, "So what does that make an S76, Chinook and 737"?
Answers:
1) "So what does New mean?" - The newer airframes that meet the latest regulations are safer, as defined by the national authorities. Like a car with anti-lock brakes and other safety features, these helos are simply better for you and your passengers. If you do not value these features, you help turn the manufacturers away from innovation and safety improvement. If you follow, sheep-like, the notion that a new name means a new helo, you help the salesmen blur the distinction, to the harm of future passengers and crews.
This is NOT a US vs Europe argument, even though you want to make it so. The real "new" helos meet the regs, plenty of truly New European helos are in the mix. In fact, helicomparitor has NEVER answered the what I think is my strongest barb - Eurocopter has put the fuselage strength and safety features into its truely new helos, in spite of hc's apologia that such technology is worthless.
2) "So what does that make an S76, Chinook and 737"? It makes them old helicopters, about as old as the 225, and therefore makes a competing new helicopter comparatively safer. It is a goose/gander argument, and not a "what can I do to slam that helicopter" argument, unlike hc's arguments that compare window size to how easily the engines fall through the cabin roof and land in the passenger's laps.
If YOU, the customers, do not support better, safer helos, the national authorities won't push as hard to improve them, and we all will find the same old LTE, post crash fire, crushed-cabin helos for our grandchildren. That is a crime, gentlemen.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South US
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC: Good, thanks for asking. But it was good at Sikorsky too! It is interesting to have an operator's perspective of the helicopter world, broadens your view a bit. And it the work is a much faster pace.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
The FARs are just mimimas - vespel splines, TR blades and TR servo bearings come to mind. Isn't it up to the the manufacturer to develop improvements and sell them based on their actual benefit?
The FARs are just mimimas - vespel splines, TR blades and TR servo bearings come to mind. Isn't it up to the the manufacturer to develop improvements and sell them based on their actual benefit?
Nick
I totally agree that the newer standards for crashworthiness are a good thing - hence my comment that it was thanks to Sikorsky raising the bar that EC developed the crashworthy floor and seats for the 225. When the helicopter is built that is totally crashworthy and has a fantastic MMI and autopilot, I will be the first in the queue (to get our company to purchase - I am not that rich!). But that helicopter does not exist so it comes down to a choice between a heli that meets the latest crashworthy regs but has a poor MMI, vibrates etc, versus a really slick one that doesn't fully meet the latest regs in a few areas. I choose the latter, I guess you would choose the former.
As an aside, FAR/CS 29 is all very well but the whole certification process is a long way from perfect - for example the S92 will brag about its fault tolerant design, FAR29.561 fatigue evaluation etc but the reality is that its the S92 that has suffered fatigue cracking of the main transmission resulting in major loss of lubricant, not the EC225.
I prefer the actions to the words. Safety is of critical importance but you have to get the big picture. Fixating on a few details that happen to be in FAR29 latest version does not make for a safe helicopter.
HC
I totally agree that the newer standards for crashworthiness are a good thing - hence my comment that it was thanks to Sikorsky raising the bar that EC developed the crashworthy floor and seats for the 225. When the helicopter is built that is totally crashworthy and has a fantastic MMI and autopilot, I will be the first in the queue (to get our company to purchase - I am not that rich!). But that helicopter does not exist so it comes down to a choice between a heli that meets the latest crashworthy regs but has a poor MMI, vibrates etc, versus a really slick one that doesn't fully meet the latest regs in a few areas. I choose the latter, I guess you would choose the former.
As an aside, FAR/CS 29 is all very well but the whole certification process is a long way from perfect - for example the S92 will brag about its fault tolerant design, FAR29.561 fatigue evaluation etc but the reality is that its the S92 that has suffered fatigue cracking of the main transmission resulting in major loss of lubricant, not the EC225.
I prefer the actions to the words. Safety is of critical importance but you have to get the big picture. Fixating on a few details that happen to be in FAR29 latest version does not make for a safe helicopter.
HC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hc, at least now we are on the same page!
I agree with all you said, and I also saw the Airworthiness Directive issued fto Eurocopter for the EC-225 rotor head cracks, which I am sure are corrected by now, right?
This is not a mud slinging contest, aside from our entertainment value, there are those who watch us kick each other in the crotch that are actually looking for answers. I believe this is a technical argument and that the answers are technical.
I agree with all you said, and I also saw the Airworthiness Directive issued fto Eurocopter for the EC-225 rotor head cracks, which I am sure are corrected by now, right?
This is not a mud slinging contest, aside from our entertainment value, there are those who watch us kick each other in the crotch that are actually looking for answers. I believe this is a technical argument and that the answers are technical.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 56
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this keeps up it will be time for a "group hug"!!!!
Nick, HC...knock it off and get back in the ring, many of us have paid good money for these seats!
All good info lads, keep it up and remain professional as you both are a wealth of knowledge!
Nick, HC...knock it off and get back in the ring, many of us have paid good money for these seats!
All good info lads, keep it up and remain professional as you both are a wealth of knowledge!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helicomparitor said, "it was thanks to Sikorsky raising the bar that EC developed the crashworthy floor and seats for the 225."
Actually, that is only partly true. The somewhat strengthened floor and seats (still not JAR compliant) were introduced after Offshore Logistics rejected Bristow's request to buy the 225. This purchase request was made by Bristow (you?) even knowing full well that the seats, fuel cells, cabin strength, etc were not as safe as the modern standard. An impassioned French sales team descended on Lafayette HQ for Offshore Logistics, and put the full court press to have the sale go through. I have a copy of the powerpoint pitch they gave.
O Log rejected the sale, and the French then designed the new seats and floors.
So, yes, it was Sikorsky's better safety design that forced the French to design somewhat stronger seats, but Bristow was quite willing to just roll over and let their passengers sit in 30 year old design seats. It was O Log managemment that forced Bristow to buy the stronger seats.
The fight for better equipment is made harder when folks like you make apologies for sub-standard designs. Sub-standard means literally not meeting the current standard, see the reversions and exemptions on the Type Sheet for the EC225 to see what I mean.
Actually, that is only partly true. The somewhat strengthened floor and seats (still not JAR compliant) were introduced after Offshore Logistics rejected Bristow's request to buy the 225. This purchase request was made by Bristow (you?) even knowing full well that the seats, fuel cells, cabin strength, etc were not as safe as the modern standard. An impassioned French sales team descended on Lafayette HQ for Offshore Logistics, and put the full court press to have the sale go through. I have a copy of the powerpoint pitch they gave.
O Log rejected the sale, and the French then designed the new seats and floors.
So, yes, it was Sikorsky's better safety design that forced the French to design somewhat stronger seats, but Bristow was quite willing to just roll over and let their passengers sit in 30 year old design seats. It was O Log managemment that forced Bristow to buy the stronger seats.
The fight for better equipment is made harder when folks like you make apologies for sub-standard designs. Sub-standard means literally not meeting the current standard, see the reversions and exemptions on the Type Sheet for the EC225 to see what I mean.
Nick
I was getting pretty nervous when you apeared to be being nice to me in your last post - something was up! By the way, the "rotor head" AD was not for the rotor head itself, rather for the "beanie hat" mounting lugs which was prone to cracking (still not a good place to have cracks though!). Of course its fixed now but the point of all that is that one aircraft meets FAR29.561, the other doesn't (which according to you is a big deal) and yet both have cracks in important places (and I would say that the MGB is more important than the beanie hat).
Anyway, glad to see that your next post is as outrageous as normal as no, that is not true and we all know that you, as a major competitor, would not have access to what went on behind closed doors between OLOG and EC. At the time of the initial purchase of the 225s OLOG was not involved.
So I guess its back into our corners for round 173. Feels much better!
HC
I was getting pretty nervous when you apeared to be being nice to me in your last post - something was up! By the way, the "rotor head" AD was not for the rotor head itself, rather for the "beanie hat" mounting lugs which was prone to cracking (still not a good place to have cracks though!). Of course its fixed now but the point of all that is that one aircraft meets FAR29.561, the other doesn't (which according to you is a big deal) and yet both have cracks in important places (and I would say that the MGB is more important than the beanie hat).
Anyway, glad to see that your next post is as outrageous as normal as no, that is not true and we all know that you, as a major competitor, would not have access to what went on behind closed doors between OLOG and EC. At the time of the initial purchase of the 225s OLOG was not involved.
So I guess its back into our corners for round 173. Feels much better!
HC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC said, "you, as a major competitor, would not have access to what went on behind closed doors between OLOG and EC. At the time of the initial purchase of the 225s OLOG was not involved."
heliprocrastinator, who do you think corrected your mistaken year 2001 "study" that showed the payload of the S92 as 1300 lbs too low? Who do you think showed O Log the data to prove the true safety posture of the 225, which the French did their best to obscure (as you continue to do)?
The "initial" purchase decision was probably made by Bristow years earlier, as you say, but the actual sale was made only after O Log's approval, since by that time Bristow was owned by O Log. That O Log approval was ONLY granted when the French acquiesced and designed the stroking seats. No thanks to Bristow, or you.
heliprocrastinator, who do you think corrected your mistaken year 2001 "study" that showed the payload of the S92 as 1300 lbs too low? Who do you think showed O Log the data to prove the true safety posture of the 225, which the French did their best to obscure (as you continue to do)?
The "initial" purchase decision was probably made by Bristow years earlier, as you say, but the actual sale was made only after O Log's approval, since by that time Bristow was owned by O Log. That O Log approval was ONLY granted when the French acquiesced and designed the stroking seats. No thanks to Bristow, or you.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NickLappos said:
An impassioned French sales team descended on Lafayette HQ for Offshore Logistics, and put the full court press to have the sale go through. I have a copy of the powerpoint pitch they gave.
Nick
As a current VP Government Programs for an aerospace company do you not feel nervous about bragging about having copies in your previous job of what is no doubt proprietary data from a competitor?
I suspect OLOG/Bristow & Eurocopter will be pretty unahappy. No doubt Sikorsky will be pretty embarrassed and don't the Dept of Justice take a dim view of this sort of thing? Fines of 10% of turnover for anti-competative practices ring a bell. I seem to recall a few major ethical scandels at HP and particularly Boeing (in an air refuel contract) over the last few years over having data unethically.
I seem to remember OLOG have fired senior people to get their house in order in early 2005
An impassioned French sales team descended on Lafayette HQ for Offshore Logistics, and put the full court press to have the sale go through. I have a copy of the powerpoint pitch they gave.
Nick
As a current VP Government Programs for an aerospace company do you not feel nervous about bragging about having copies in your previous job of what is no doubt proprietary data from a competitor?
I suspect OLOG/Bristow & Eurocopter will be pretty unahappy. No doubt Sikorsky will be pretty embarrassed and don't the Dept of Justice take a dim view of this sort of thing? Fines of 10% of turnover for anti-competative practices ring a bell. I seem to recall a few major ethical scandels at HP and particularly Boeing (in an air refuel contract) over the last few years over having data unethically.
I seem to remember OLOG have fired senior people to get their house in order in early 2005
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sox6, I'd be more worried about how long it has taken hc to admit his part in attempting to keep safety out of helicopters!
The data I have is not proprietary, it is a public pitch.
The canvassing of various competitors is common practice, even you do it when you visit different car dealers. Do you think the French have a brochure that lays out the various deviations and regressions they have taken so that thier customers know the real status of their helicopters? I recall a press release where they announced the IFR cert in bold statement that it met "the latest JAR regulations" without explaining that the underlying helicopter did not!
BTW, did you ever wonder why you should believe anything that has been posted by a person who won't admit his name?
The data I have is not proprietary, it is a public pitch.
The canvassing of various competitors is common practice, even you do it when you visit different car dealers. Do you think the French have a brochure that lays out the various deviations and regressions they have taken so that thier customers know the real status of their helicopters? I recall a press release where they announced the IFR cert in bold statement that it met "the latest JAR regulations" without explaining that the underlying helicopter did not!
BTW, did you ever wonder why you should believe anything that has been posted by a person who won't admit his name?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Sikorsky put those big fat confidentiality statements on their own presentations for fun then?
And the 'the full court press' was just a download off the EC website and a bucket of escargot?
Do you have a brochure that lays out the various deviations and regressions your employeers have taken so that your customers know the real status of their aircraft?
Sadly knowing someones name does not mean they spreak the truth.
And the 'the full court press' was just a download off the EC website and a bucket of escargot?
Do you have a brochure that lays out the various deviations and regressions your employeers have taken so that your customers know the real status of their aircraft?
Sadly knowing someones name does not mean they spreak the truth.
As a current VP Government Programs for an aerospace company do you not feel nervous about bragging about having copies in your previous job of what is no doubt proprietary data from a competitor
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sox6 asked, " Do you have a brochure that lays out the various deviations and regressions your employeers have taken so that your customers know the real status of their aircraft?"
Gosh, sox6, you caught me!! OK, I confess, here are ALL the deviations and regressions that the S92 has taken with the latest FAR/JAR:
I can look up "inclusive" if you wish. The entire Type Cert Data Sheet is here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/7cd106795a8eee0086256f1f00693e71/$FILE/R00024BO.pdf
Gosh, sox6, you caught me!! OK, I confess, here are ALL the deviations and regressions that the S92 has taken with the latest FAR/JAR:
I can look up "inclusive" if you wish. The entire Type Cert Data Sheet is here:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/7cd106795a8eee0086256f1f00693e71/$FILE/R00024BO.pdf