New CHC S-92
The helicopter will be based at StatoilHydro's Oseberg field and is an addition to the contract awarded in June 2007, in which CHC agreed to provide two EC225 all-weather search and rescue helicopters. The 7.5 year contract term will commence in October 2008, with additional options for up to four years.
CHC currently operates one all-weather search and rescue Eurocopter AS332L1 for StatoilHydro's Oseberg field. The AS332L1 currently operating will continue to operate as part of this new agreement, until the new EC225 arrives in late 2009. At that time, CHC will operate a total of three all-weather search and rescue EC225s for StatoilHydro in Norway.
CHC currently operates one all-weather search and rescue Eurocopter AS332L1 for StatoilHydro's Oseberg field. The AS332L1 currently operating will continue to operate as part of this new agreement, until the new EC225 arrives in late 2009. At that time, CHC will operate a total of three all-weather search and rescue EC225s for StatoilHydro in Norway.
If not....then they cannot be "all weather" aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nbl, Sorry for the delay, somebody has to work around here!
You asked, "If you are flying along in a S92 and for whatever reason you lose all the oil in the MRGB can you continue to fly safely to somewhere or do you have to land immediately/ ditch."
If the leak occurs in any point external to the gearbox housing, the pilot can isolate the box and fly home for several hours. The oil level is monitored and a shutoff valve is provided.
If the box should develop a hole in it at any point above a few inches from the bottom, the case is the same, as the amount of residual oil needed to fly home is quite small and low in the box.
If the speculated leak is at the very bottom, the leak could drain the box, triggering the same warning, but it is possible that it could drain the box, forcing a need to land immediately.
I do not know if the 225 system relies on recirculation of its fluid, if so, it could be the same case, in that a bottom leak would cause loss of the secondary fluid as well. If the fluid is only sprayed and not recovered, however, this last case could be covered by the 225's design. I wonder if someone can answer that.
In terms of the uninformed speculation of certification of the 92's design, the type certificate of the S92 was issued based upon the design and testing as described, so those who do not possess FAR/JAR examiner ratings yet spout that the system does not meet FAR/JAR are simply off base. FAR/JAR authorities have fully approved the box, and the rest of the 92 design (as they have the AB-139 and several other truly new designs, and as they have specifically not approved the EC225's design to the latest standards.)
I must add that the protection for the EC225's intermediate and tail gear boxes as well as the 92's (and every other helicopter) are identical to this protection of the main GB, because of the same FAR/JAR. Leaks of the primary housing are not considered, and immediate landing is required in all those cases.
You asked, "If you are flying along in a S92 and for whatever reason you lose all the oil in the MRGB can you continue to fly safely to somewhere or do you have to land immediately/ ditch."
If the leak occurs in any point external to the gearbox housing, the pilot can isolate the box and fly home for several hours. The oil level is monitored and a shutoff valve is provided.
If the box should develop a hole in it at any point above a few inches from the bottom, the case is the same, as the amount of residual oil needed to fly home is quite small and low in the box.
If the speculated leak is at the very bottom, the leak could drain the box, triggering the same warning, but it is possible that it could drain the box, forcing a need to land immediately.
I do not know if the 225 system relies on recirculation of its fluid, if so, it could be the same case, in that a bottom leak would cause loss of the secondary fluid as well. If the fluid is only sprayed and not recovered, however, this last case could be covered by the 225's design. I wonder if someone can answer that.
In terms of the uninformed speculation of certification of the 92's design, the type certificate of the S92 was issued based upon the design and testing as described, so those who do not possess FAR/JAR examiner ratings yet spout that the system does not meet FAR/JAR are simply off base. FAR/JAR authorities have fully approved the box, and the rest of the 92 design (as they have the AB-139 and several other truly new designs, and as they have specifically not approved the EC225's design to the latest standards.)
I must add that the protection for the EC225's intermediate and tail gear boxes as well as the 92's (and every other helicopter) are identical to this protection of the main GB, because of the same FAR/JAR. Leaks of the primary housing are not considered, and immediate landing is required in all those cases.
Last edited by NickLappos; 17th Nov 2007 at 21:17.
Nick
The 225's emergency lube system is a total-loss system - ie when activated, the glycol (which is primarily for cooling rather than for lubrication) is continuously pumped from its holding tank and sprayed onto various hot areas in the gearbox. Whether it subsequenly leaks out or not makes no difference. The capacity of the tank is such that it takes around 50mins to empty, though the system is certified only for 30 mins of operation.
For the tail and intermediate gearboxes, there is no equivalent system but as the boxes are far less stressed than the MGB, continued flight at Vy for an indefinite time is authorised (RFM says "Land as soon as possible").
You said
Which, apart from not making sense, is technically correct! But only because you are out of date and have not realised that EASA do the certifying, not JAR. What was JAR29 is now the EASA document CS29. If you are implying that the European airworthiness authorities have not certified the 225's gearbox then you are really struggling! Do you really think that anyone will believe that?
As you know and I have said before, when a design is changed any possibility of grandfathering goes out of the window. The EC225 gearbox bears a passing resemblance to an AS332L one but is substantially modified to allow for the greatly increased power. As a result it had to meet the current certification requirements, which it does in a clear and unambiguous way.
The bottom line is that with a crack / hole in the bottom of the gearbox, the EC225 can fly for 30mins whereas the S92 cannot.
Even you have admitted that...
I'd give up now if I were you...
HC
The 225's emergency lube system is a total-loss system - ie when activated, the glycol (which is primarily for cooling rather than for lubrication) is continuously pumped from its holding tank and sprayed onto various hot areas in the gearbox. Whether it subsequenly leaks out or not makes no difference. The capacity of the tank is such that it takes around 50mins to empty, though the system is certified only for 30 mins of operation.
For the tail and intermediate gearboxes, there is no equivalent system but as the boxes are far less stressed than the MGB, continued flight at Vy for an indefinite time is authorised (RFM says "Land as soon as possible").
You said
FAR/JAR authorities have fully approved the box, and the rest of the 92 design (as they have the AB-139 and several other truly new designs, and as they have specifically not approved the EC225's design.)
As you know and I have said before, when a design is changed any possibility of grandfathering goes out of the window. The EC225 gearbox bears a passing resemblance to an AS332L one but is substantially modified to allow for the greatly increased power. As a result it had to meet the current certification requirements, which it does in a clear and unambiguous way.
The bottom line is that with a crack / hole in the bottom of the gearbox, the EC225 can fly for 30mins whereas the S92 cannot.
Even you have admitted that...
If the speculated leak is at the very bottom, the leak could drain the box, triggering the same warning, but it is possible that it could drain the box, forcing a need to land immediately.
HC
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I got this wrong in that the FAA has not certified the EC225? If so how have ERA got 8 on order? A US company I believe. The item below comes from the HAI website at http://www.rotor.com/Default.aspx?ta...ewsid905=56567
Era Helicopters, LLC signs for four additional EC225, Bringing its Total to Eight
Duxford, October 3, 2007 Helitech 2007-Era Helicopters, LLC (“Era”) of Lakes Charles, Louisiana, signed a contract for an additional four EC225 helicopters at Helitech on October 3 , bringing its total orders for this aircraft type to eight. Era is the first offshore oil and gas operator to have selected the EC225 for operations in the Gulf of Mexico, having signed its first Memorandum of Understanding for initially two EC225s at HeliExpo 2006.
Neill Osborne, Era’s President, commented, “We thoroughly reviewed the global supply and demand of heavy helicopters and the current fleet structure of our competitors. We selected the EC225 as our heavy helicopter of choice due to its superior versatility, advanced technology and greater payload/range for the demands of offshore oil exploration and production. The EC225 will play a pivotal role in our growth not only in the Gulf of Mexico but also as we expand into the international market. This order provides Era with strategic delivery positions in the coming years to meet the unprecedented demand for new technology helicopters in our market.”
Olivier Lambert, Eurocopter’s Senior Vice President Sales and Customer Relations, stated: Demand for new-generation helicopters by the oil and gas industry is at an all-time high. Since the EC225’s market launch, we have booked firm orders for a total of 51 aircraft with 18 options, of which 31 were sold in 2007 alone. We are very proud of Era’s confidence in our new product and appreciate the company’s forward planning to anticipate a further increase in demand. The six EC225s which are presently in service in the North Sea have clocked up an amazing 10,000 flight hours since the first one went into service only two years ago. Even more amazingly, this fleet has flown a total distance of 1.7 million miles, the equivalent of flying to the moon seven times. We are sure that this helicopter type will serve Era efficiently and reliably wherever they will be deployed, in the Gulf of Mexico and worldwide.”
The EC225 combines proven technologies derived from Eurocopter’s successful Super Puma/Cougar family with latest systems and enjoys high acceptance in the demanding offshore oil and gas market. The unrivalled safety features of the EC225, its strong economic productivity and the positive introduction into service in the offshore role have paved the way to remarkable sales success of this aircraft for the service of the oil and gas industry.
David Stepanek, Era’s Vice President of Business Development, remarked, “Era is a long-standing Eurocopter customer, operating a diverse fleet including the AS350 B2, BO105, EC120, AS350 BA, and the EC135 helicopters. We are continually pleased with Eurocopter’s innovative products and look forward to the addition of the EC225 as we expand our services to customers around the globe.”
Duxford, October 3, 2007 Helitech 2007-Era Helicopters, LLC (“Era”) of Lakes Charles, Louisiana, signed a contract for an additional four EC225 helicopters at Helitech on October 3 , bringing its total orders for this aircraft type to eight. Era is the first offshore oil and gas operator to have selected the EC225 for operations in the Gulf of Mexico, having signed its first Memorandum of Understanding for initially two EC225s at HeliExpo 2006.
Neill Osborne, Era’s President, commented, “We thoroughly reviewed the global supply and demand of heavy helicopters and the current fleet structure of our competitors. We selected the EC225 as our heavy helicopter of choice due to its superior versatility, advanced technology and greater payload/range for the demands of offshore oil exploration and production. The EC225 will play a pivotal role in our growth not only in the Gulf of Mexico but also as we expand into the international market. This order provides Era with strategic delivery positions in the coming years to meet the unprecedented demand for new technology helicopters in our market.”
Olivier Lambert, Eurocopter’s Senior Vice President Sales and Customer Relations, stated: Demand for new-generation helicopters by the oil and gas industry is at an all-time high. Since the EC225’s market launch, we have booked firm orders for a total of 51 aircraft with 18 options, of which 31 were sold in 2007 alone. We are very proud of Era’s confidence in our new product and appreciate the company’s forward planning to anticipate a further increase in demand. The six EC225s which are presently in service in the North Sea have clocked up an amazing 10,000 flight hours since the first one went into service only two years ago. Even more amazingly, this fleet has flown a total distance of 1.7 million miles, the equivalent of flying to the moon seven times. We are sure that this helicopter type will serve Era efficiently and reliably wherever they will be deployed, in the Gulf of Mexico and worldwide.”
The EC225 combines proven technologies derived from Eurocopter’s successful Super Puma/Cougar family with latest systems and enjoys high acceptance in the demanding offshore oil and gas market. The unrivalled safety features of the EC225, its strong economic productivity and the positive introduction into service in the offshore role have paved the way to remarkable sales success of this aircraft for the service of the oil and gas industry.
David Stepanek, Era’s Vice President of Business Development, remarked, “Era is a long-standing Eurocopter customer, operating a diverse fleet including the AS350 B2, BO105, EC120, AS350 BA, and the EC135 helicopters. We are continually pleased with Eurocopter’s innovative products and look forward to the addition of the EC225 as we expand our services to customers around the globe.”
Limpopo
Because the FAA's FAR29 and EASA's CS29 are nearly identical documents, there is no need for the FAA to certify the EC225, in the same way that EASA (or was it the JAA before them?) did not need to certify the S92. They just accepted their FAA opposite number's approval (which in the case of the S92 MGB was probably a mistake!).
I don't know precisely what the process would be, but its likely that the FAA would accept the EASA certification. They would perhaps only want to check that it met the operational rules applicable in the States.
Good for Neill and Dave for bringing some decent large twin helicopters into the Gulf at last!
HC
Because the FAA's FAR29 and EASA's CS29 are nearly identical documents, there is no need for the FAA to certify the EC225, in the same way that EASA (or was it the JAA before them?) did not need to certify the S92. They just accepted their FAA opposite number's approval (which in the case of the S92 MGB was probably a mistake!).
I don't know precisely what the process would be, but its likely that the FAA would accept the EASA certification. They would perhaps only want to check that it met the operational rules applicable in the States.
Good for Neill and Dave for bringing some decent large twin helicopters into the Gulf at last!
HC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has become like the painting of the Golden Gate Bridge, a never ending task.
The point that that has been made and proven:
The S92 is in the class of helicopters like the A-138 and the Bell 429 (shortly, one hopes) that meet the most current FAR/JAR regulations without equivocation or regression.
Since the EC225 takes numerous exceptions and regressions in the safety rules, the EC225 does not meet the latest FAR/JAR regulations. Certainly, the EC225 meets the older, less rigorous and less stringent regulations, and as a grandfathered helicopter, is still allowed to fly (as is the entire class of older machines).
The point that that has been made and proven:
The S92 is in the class of helicopters like the A-138 and the Bell 429 (shortly, one hopes) that meet the most current FAR/JAR regulations without equivocation or regression.
Since the EC225 takes numerous exceptions and regressions in the safety rules, the EC225 does not meet the latest FAR/JAR regulations. Certainly, the EC225 meets the older, less rigorous and less stringent regulations, and as a grandfathered helicopter, is still allowed to fly (as is the entire class of older machines).
Nick
is that whilst the S92 may have a piece of paper saying otherwise, signed by some misinformed/hoodwinked FAA guy, in fact it does not fully meet FAR29. The known area where it does not meet the FARs is in its ability to stay airborne with a single-point failure (crack in the MGB or other total loss of MGB lube) and this failure mode has already occured twice. A ditching was avoided on these events only through luck - the aircraft was very close to a landing site. Ditching in bad weather in the N Sea is likely to result in fatalities regardless of crashworthiness pedigree.
The 225 meets all the current FAR29 regs except for the few mentioned in the TCDS, most of which are related to crashworthiness.
Bearing in mind the demonstrated increased unreliability of the S92 critical technologies compared to the 225, and that crashworthiness only grants survivability in a narrow range of crash scenarios (those that would be fatal with the older standard but are not in the newer standard) and the poor escapability of the S92 cabin in the offshore role, its pretty clear that there is little to choose between them in overall safety, and I would prefer to be a passenger in a 225 because its a much smoother experience and yes, because it has realistically sized escape windows.
This is why ERA has decided to buy 225s instead of S92s, paying probably 3 million usd extra for the priviledge, and probably paying higher pbh as well. Do you think that they just wanted to throw some money away? Do you think they are stupid?
HC
The point that that has been made and proven:
The 225 meets all the current FAR29 regs except for the few mentioned in the TCDS, most of which are related to crashworthiness.
Bearing in mind the demonstrated increased unreliability of the S92 critical technologies compared to the 225, and that crashworthiness only grants survivability in a narrow range of crash scenarios (those that would be fatal with the older standard but are not in the newer standard) and the poor escapability of the S92 cabin in the offshore role, its pretty clear that there is little to choose between them in overall safety, and I would prefer to be a passenger in a 225 because its a much smoother experience and yes, because it has realistically sized escape windows.
This is why ERA has decided to buy 225s instead of S92s, paying probably 3 million usd extra for the priviledge, and probably paying higher pbh as well. Do you think that they just wanted to throw some money away? Do you think they are stupid?
HC
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ergonomics of the S92A
When the Commander of the S92A is discussing with the First Officer how to cope with a technical discrepancy such as total loss of oil pressure in the MGB, severe vibration caused by one of the anti-vibration "thingies", or discussing why severe vibration is causing total loss of real readability of the instruments, he is also wondering why his seat is no good ergonomically.
I fully believe that the S92 has the potential of becoming a good aircraft, popular with both pilots and passengers.
At this point in time, sadly this is not the case. The EC225 would most likely win a popularity contest if pilots in the North Sea were to cast their vote. Of course, who cares what a pilot feels like?
Regards, Olav
I fully believe that the S92 has the potential of becoming a good aircraft, popular with both pilots and passengers.
At this point in time, sadly this is not the case. The EC225 would most likely win a popularity contest if pilots in the North Sea were to cast their vote. Of course, who cares what a pilot feels like?
Regards, Olav
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I got this wrong in that the FAA has not certified the EC225? If so how have ERA got 8 on order?
there is no need for the FAA to certify the EC225, in the same way that EASA (or was it the JAA before them?) did not need to certify the S92...
I don't know precisely what the process would be, but its likely that the FAA would accept the EASA certification. They would perhaps only want to check that it met the operational rules applicable in the States.
I don't know precisely what the process would be, but its likely that the FAA would accept the EASA certification. They would perhaps only want to check that it met the operational rules applicable in the States.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick, thank you for your reply.
Maybe for an operator to answer:
How many warnings are there for loss of MBG oil.
Presumably you get a 'MGB PX' WARN' and or HIGH TEMP?
I assume you have no way of knowing where the oil is leaking from?
Do you use the 'isolate' switch' that Nick mentions and then monitor the oil px or temperature and hope they dont get worse.?
What warning light (lets hope not ) stipulates you must land immediately.?
Maybe for an operator to answer:
How many warnings are there for loss of MBG oil.
Presumably you get a 'MGB PX' WARN' and or HIGH TEMP?
I assume you have no way of knowing where the oil is leaking from?
Do you use the 'isolate' switch' that Nick mentions and then monitor the oil px or temperature and hope they dont get worse.?
What warning light (lets hope not ) stipulates you must land immediately.?
Nick, you posted that before. If its Golden Gate bridge syndrome (or Forth Road Bridge if you are Scottish) you are worrying about, could I suggest you cease being the initiator of it. I'm getting bored now, can't you think of something new and even more outrageous to mislead us with? And why not do it in bigger writing?
HC
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 18th Nov 2007 at 10:08.
Lutefisk
Thanks for explaining the details of the FAA acceptance to us. Although I maintain that there is no need (in the theoretical sense) for the FAA to validate the certification, of course they can choose to do so and if I were them I would do the same. Its a pity that JAA/EASA didn't do the same for the S92 - they would have declined to accept that it complied with 29.927.
HC
Thanks for explaining the details of the FAA acceptance to us. Although I maintain that there is no need (in the theoretical sense) for the FAA to validate the certification, of course they can choose to do so and if I were them I would do the same. Its a pity that JAA/EASA didn't do the same for the S92 - they would have declined to accept that it complied with 29.927.
HC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seats
he is also wondering why his seat is no good ergonomically.
EC225 sales
Lest anyone should be interested, I got some figures from EC:
Total sales (firm orders) to date for the EC225/725: 72 aircraft, of which 37 are for oil and gas support.
It seems that the S92 has more actual deliveries to date than the 225 (though not by a massive margin), but EC tells me that more than half of 2008's total 225 production will be delivered for oil and gas support, so they are catching up!
HC
Total sales (firm orders) to date for the EC225/725: 72 aircraft, of which 37 are for oil and gas support.
It seems that the S92 has more actual deliveries to date than the 225 (though not by a massive margin), but EC tells me that more than half of 2008's total 225 production will be delivered for oil and gas support, so they are catching up!
HC
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Norway
Age: 53
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High atmospheric pressure and the S-92
This morning the atmospheric pressure at our base was 1044 HP. This made all our 92`s go balistic by showing a climb or descent rate of 9999 feet pr minute. anyone out there who experienced the same?
ptcpuller
ptcpuller
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
Hello Shell Management,
CHC has taken delivery of its 3rd EC225 at Aberdeen. Our 225's will be slightly heavier due to the improved cabin soundproofing, the leather pax seat trim and the fact we have ACAS, EGPWS & marine VHF.
We can still carry 19 pax + bags to the East Shetland Basin with fuel fuel so the heavier weight is not an issue.
A great machine to fly.
CHC has taken delivery of its 3rd EC225 at Aberdeen. Our 225's will be slightly heavier due to the improved cabin soundproofing, the leather pax seat trim and the fact we have ACAS, EGPWS & marine VHF.
We can still carry 19 pax + bags to the East Shetland Basin with fuel fuel so the heavier weight is not an issue.
A great machine to fly.