EC225 Shortcomings
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC225 Shortcomings
The EC-225 is not a new aircraft, but is an upgrade of the 332 family, and it is said to have several things that aren't up to snuff, but no literature from EC will tell you that. Where can I find out what the aircraft falls short on?
I know it isn't as safe in a crash. In what way? What else is not right?
Thanks!
I know it isn't as safe in a crash. In what way? What else is not right?
Thanks!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC225
As far as I am aware the only into service issues have been a requirement to modify servo's and update VMS software to overcome a density/altitude limitaiton and some recurrent cracking in the tailboom on non-stress bearing structure. Both have been a bit of a pain operationally I believe but aside that its no worse than any new aircraft entry to service.
Pax & crews seem to like it. Oh, and its got nice big windows...
Pax & crews seem to like it. Oh, and its got nice big windows...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Oh! HUGE can of worms!
You'll find let's say "different opinions" here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=296933
Round 127 NL vs. HC? (I lost count)
You'll find let's say "different opinions" here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=296933
Round 127 NL vs. HC? (I lost count)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Violent Vertical Oscillations in EC 225, anyone hurt?
someone PM'd me this Airworthiness Directive, sounds scary:
http://www.bazl.admin.ch/lta_formula...06/2006410.pdf
What is the problem? Anybody hurt?
http://www.bazl.admin.ch/lta_formula...06/2006410.pdf
What is the problem? Anybody hurt?
On reading this thread, I noticed that once again someone appeared to have such an extreem opinion that I began to wonder where they were coming from.
It struck me that it would help everyone in their evaluation of the views expressed if the opinion giver declared any interest that they might have. Of course this is quite correctly, strictly an anonymous forum, but I don't think that it would betray ones identity.
For an example I am independant, but I do do work for Eurocopter on a specialist consultancy basis. However I have nothing whatsoever to do with the EC225.
Tigerfish
It struck me that it would help everyone in their evaluation of the views expressed if the opinion giver declared any interest that they might have. Of course this is quite correctly, strictly an anonymous forum, but I don't think that it would betray ones identity.
For an example I am independant, but I do do work for Eurocopter on a specialist consultancy basis. However I have nothing whatsoever to do with the EC225.
Tigerfish
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
225
I have flown the 332l and now fly the 332 L2. Next year I will be on the 225. All very nice aircraft and do the job. Of course we all want bigger cockpits, faster aircraft and unlimited power. We cannot have all these features and so settle for a middle ground. From what I see and pilots I talk to the S92 and the 225 are very nice aircraft with a few teething problems. I have flown many different types and they all have their problems. You will always get this with new aircraft and if the thought of these scare you. GO DRIVE A TRUCK.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. The only thing that is of interest is how the thread gets hijacked.
The CHC S92 thread has become a slag off the 225 thread, the EC225 10,000 hour thread
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=293611 became a Jayrow/BHA bashing thread etc etc
rjsquirrel's first words on this forum 5 years ago were:
"The speculating is terrific, but often self defeating. We "learn" what happened before we know what happened, then we carry that "knowledge" around as truth while the real cause is announced weeks later, and we ignore it."
Any of that going on here?
The CHC S92 thread has become a slag off the 225 thread, the EC225 10,000 hour thread
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=293611 became a Jayrow/BHA bashing thread etc etc
rjsquirrel's first words on this forum 5 years ago were:
"The speculating is terrific, but often self defeating. We "learn" what happened before we know what happened, then we carry that "knowledge" around as truth while the real cause is announced weeks later, and we ignore it."
Any of that going on here?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SZ
Age: 14
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I FEEL EC225 SHORTCOMING AS FOLLOW:
1 A LITTLE SMALL COCKPIT SPACE THAN AS332L
2.YOU SHOULD ADJUST HIGHER SEAT THEN YOU CAN HAVE GOOD VIEW TO THE FRONT OR RIG HELIDECK
3.ONLY GOUND START BY AC POWER.IF YOU USE DC GROUND POWER SOME EID PROBLEM WILL HAPPEN（jUST FINISH THE CONVERSION WITH DC START)
THAT IS .THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUOTE!
1 A LITTLE SMALL COCKPIT SPACE THAN AS332L
2.YOU SHOULD ADJUST HIGHER SEAT THEN YOU CAN HAVE GOOD VIEW TO THE FRONT OR RIG HELIDECK
3.ONLY GOUND START BY AC POWER.IF YOU USE DC GROUND POWER SOME EID PROBLEM WILL HAPPEN（jUST FINISH THE CONVERSION WITH DC START)
THAT IS .THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUOTE!
If you want to see the certification basis, see here:
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc...0Issue%203.pdf
http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/c/doc...0Issue%203.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What else is new?
The EC225 is in operational use as every other "new" helicopter I guess. Underpowered, overweight, lots of teething problems with "new technology".
As a footnote though. It CAN carry 2 tonns of payload 114 nautical miles farther than its older sister the L-2. That is even with all the bells and whistels attached. Aircondition units x 2, rotor deice system etc etc. The only problem being where to stow the luggage...But there is a "Luggage fix" on the way. Then again the cruise airspeed will suffer from the fix, and it is the same old story. gain some, loose some. As long as the big propeller sits on top, there are inherent issues with designing anything that is much better than anything else of the same basic layout.
As a footnote though. It CAN carry 2 tonns of payload 114 nautical miles farther than its older sister the L-2. That is even with all the bells and whistels attached. Aircondition units x 2, rotor deice system etc etc. The only problem being where to stow the luggage...But there is a "Luggage fix" on the way. Then again the cruise airspeed will suffer from the fix, and it is the same old story. gain some, loose some. As long as the big propeller sits on top, there are inherent issues with designing anything that is much better than anything else of the same basic layout.
Just a couple of points for information for EC225-COHC and Torcher.
Starting on external DC power - we never got that to work properly, until EC modified the flight manual procedure and now it does work fine, provided you comply with the 5 seconds mentioned. Basically its turn on DC power, wait 5 seconds, then turn on the battery. Have a look in RFM Section 4...
Luggage carrying: Can on occasion be a bit short on baggage space with 19 pax. The luggage pods (which are like the forward fuel pods but with luggage in instead of fuel) have surprisingly little impact on cruise speed, barely detectable and certainly no more than 2 kts. But have you seen the price?!!!
HC
Starting on external DC power - we never got that to work properly, until EC modified the flight manual procedure and now it does work fine, provided you comply with the 5 seconds mentioned. Basically its turn on DC power, wait 5 seconds, then turn on the battery. Have a look in RFM Section 4...
Luggage carrying: Can on occasion be a bit short on baggage space with 19 pax. The luggage pods (which are like the forward fuel pods but with luggage in instead of fuel) have surprisingly little impact on cruise speed, barely detectable and certainly no more than 2 kts. But have you seen the price?!!!
HC
Guest
Posts: n/a
In my personal opinion I would say that the location and the presentation of the AHRS switches are in the worst possible location . Directly underneath these switches you have the DG/MG for the compasses which you would use every time you approach a rig .... so if you push the wrong switches approaching the rig at night especially you'll have all the screens fail except the ISIS which its location makes no sense either . These switches aren't caged unlike the AVCS overhead why cage the AVCS and not the AHRS maybe HC could shed some light.
My guess would be that ECF never envisaged anyone touching that panel routinely, because - like other manufacturers - their TPs don't have civil operational experience! The EC-155 is the same.
By comparison, the S-92 doesn't even have an AHRS control panel.
By comparison, the S-92 doesn't even have an AHRS control panel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yeah that makes a lot of sense 212 , the military probably wouldn't be next or near that panel but there is an EC225 offshore fit now and it still doesn't address the problem .
I think its just something you have to watch out for .Just for the record I think the 225 is a pretty impressive bit of kit.
I think its just something you have to watch out for .Just for the record I think the 225 is a pretty impressive bit of kit.
GroundFlight - quite agree, its not a good location and totally illogical to have guards on the overhead switches for unimportant stuff (AVCS etc) but not for the AHRS on the console. In the early days I was PF on finals to rig at night (well dusk anyway), called for compasses to DG in finals checks and looked down to see that PNF had already turned off his AHRS and had his finger over my AHRS buttons. The only saving grace is that the AHRS buttons are not symmetrical, so whilst AHRS1 is just above DG1, the button just above DG2 is the COMP button which doesn't do anything in flight - my PNF had his finger on that button.
This has been passed to Eurocopter but in these sorts of things you win some and you lose some, that one I lost. I seem to recall that the L2 had guards on its AHRS on/off buttons but for some reason that was not copied on the 225
As usual, good cockpit practices can make up for this type of shortcoming and we are now more careful to check that the other pilot is going to press the right button! However, if this is the extent of the aircraft's shortcomings, its not doing too badly!
HC
This has been passed to Eurocopter but in these sorts of things you win some and you lose some, that one I lost. I seem to recall that the L2 had guards on its AHRS on/off buttons but for some reason that was not copied on the 225
As usual, good cockpit practices can make up for this type of shortcoming and we are now more careful to check that the other pilot is going to press the right button! However, if this is the extent of the aircraft's shortcomings, its not doing too badly!
HC
Whilst I think of it, I've just been checking the stats for the Aberdeen 225 fleet and it should hit 30,000hrs next week. Our first 225 G-ZZSA has almost 6000hrs and that equates to an average of just over 4 hours airborne time (probably nearer 5 hours running time) per day for every day of every year since we got it (4-and-a-bit years). I think that is not a bad service record!
HC
HC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks HC I'm glad to hear you agree and the issue has been put forward to EC and I couldn't agree more with cockpit management is the key .Impressive hours it's a tribute to EC, Bristow pilots and engineers especially the engineers, not the easiest Ac to work on I'm guessing
Last edited by Ground flight; 23rd Oct 2009 at 11:21.