North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
Bravo, dunno why you think I would know! I have not heard this rumour so if it is true, which I think is unlikely, said operator is almost certainly not BHL.
Don't forget that it is not just EC in the fray here, but AAIB, EASA and UK CAA. If you think they are all keeping this secret from you then I am afraid you are suffering from conspiracy-theory-itis!
VL - does CHC do CRM courses? Maybe they forgot to cover The Sniper - I'm OK, you're not OK. Ring any bells?
Don't forget that it is not just EC in the fray here, but AAIB, EASA and UK CAA. If you think they are all keeping this secret from you then I am afraid you are suffering from conspiracy-theory-itis!
VL - does CHC do CRM courses? Maybe they forgot to cover The Sniper - I'm OK, you're not OK. Ring any bells?
Last edited by HeliComparator; 22nd Nov 2012 at 23:10.
The AAIB are just a reporting body and will be guided by the CAA/EASA.
You are clearly not that familiar with the AAIB!
It's a pity this discussion is degenerating into ill-informed scaremongering.
Bottom line is that AAIB are in charge and they are the only body that controls the release of info relating to the accident. EASA, CAA and OEM are just resources to be used and (in the case of CAA) argued with.
I don't want to knock the AAIB but if the AAIB are the lead why do we have different treatment of the EC225 by the CAA and EASA? Since EASA released their AD 2012-0250-E the CAA release their SD-2012/005. In essense the CAA one is much simpler as it just continues to say:-
A specified operator must not conduct a public transport flight or a commercial air transport operation over a hostile environment with any AS332 or EC225 helicopter to which EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0250-E dated 21 November 2012 applies
Its logical that if the AAIB were the lead that these would be consistant?
In the case of the AAIB's final report into REDL you will see Safety recommendation 2009-051 in it it says (talking about an inspection of components of the MGB).... This inspection is in addition to that specified in EASA E-AD 2009-0087-E (which is perhaps odd because by publication date that had been superseeded by 99-E) and should be made mandatory with immediate effect by an additional EASA E-AD.
Then around 8 months after the AAIB publication you get 0129E which I mentioned before.
So really the AAIB are the lead? Did it really take 8 months to develop a process that is effectively saying "look harder"? Or do you perhaps think EC get involved with EASA and some lobbying took place??
Its a question and would be interesting to have an intelligent conversation around the process because it is sure that the one currently does not have safety at its core.
Currently the process seems to be carry on as ususal and then as we find issues the type gets more restricted. One thing that seems to be getting lost is that the first issue was highlighted in May so to suggest in late November that EC are flight testing isn't amazing.
A specified operator must not conduct a public transport flight or a commercial air transport operation over a hostile environment with any AS332 or EC225 helicopter to which EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0250-E dated 21 November 2012 applies
Its logical that if the AAIB were the lead that these would be consistant?
In the case of the AAIB's final report into REDL you will see Safety recommendation 2009-051 in it it says (talking about an inspection of components of the MGB).... This inspection is in addition to that specified in EASA E-AD 2009-0087-E (which is perhaps odd because by publication date that had been superseeded by 99-E) and should be made mandatory with immediate effect by an additional EASA E-AD.
Then around 8 months after the AAIB publication you get 0129E which I mentioned before.
So really the AAIB are the lead? Did it really take 8 months to develop a process that is effectively saying "look harder"? Or do you perhaps think EC get involved with EASA and some lobbying took place??
Its a question and would be interesting to have an intelligent conversation around the process because it is sure that the one currently does not have safety at its core.
Currently the process seems to be carry on as ususal and then as we find issues the type gets more restricted. One thing that seems to be getting lost is that the first issue was highlighted in May so to suggest in late November that EC are flight testing isn't amazing.
Pitts, the AAIB are in charge with respect to release of information about the accident. EASA is in charge of continuing airworthiness. UK CAA has an airworthiness department but I think only has a role to play for UK products. CAA Flight Ops has a role to play in those aircraft used for commercial air transport. They have gone against EASA and CAA Airworthiness dept by banning pax transport over hostile surface.
But EC and EASA don't regard N Sea oil & gas as the be all and end all of aviation. They have to consider the full spectrum of EC225 operators, some of whom might be private owners, or commercial aircraft not used for public transport. Hence it gets a bit complicated.
Yes the AD and EASB have evolved, but that is normal in the industry, these things often evolve as time progresses and new information becomes available. Perhaps you are a pilot not routinely used to looking at lower profile SBs & ADs?
What I find frustrating is the absence of, or drip feed of, info about the investigation, but that is down to AAIB's reluctance to release any info of which they are not certain. There is a culture of secrecy at AAIB until the final report is published. We normally consider this to be a "good thing" but in this case, it seems counter-productive.
Let's try to stick to technical argument and leave the conspiracy theories and berating of the parties for the tabloid newspapers!
But EC and EASA don't regard N Sea oil & gas as the be all and end all of aviation. They have to consider the full spectrum of EC225 operators, some of whom might be private owners, or commercial aircraft not used for public transport. Hence it gets a bit complicated.
Yes the AD and EASB have evolved, but that is normal in the industry, these things often evolve as time progresses and new information becomes available. Perhaps you are a pilot not routinely used to looking at lower profile SBs & ADs?
What I find frustrating is the absence of, or drip feed of, info about the investigation, but that is down to AAIB's reluctance to release any info of which they are not certain. There is a culture of secrecy at AAIB until the final report is published. We normally consider this to be a "good thing" but in this case, it seems counter-productive.
Let's try to stick to technical argument and leave the conspiracy theories and berating of the parties for the tabloid newspapers!
Last edited by HeliComparator; 23rd Nov 2012 at 07:18.
HC - why does questioning things make it either scaremongering or a consipiracy theory?
Agree but my comments are around the outcomes. As you say EASA are in charge of continuing airworthiness.
Why is this? I'm not seeking or suggesting something sensational, I'm just asking the question. Why is it different and do we think this is a good thing?
Or maybe these events have allowed a better view at the decision making processes. Something that you don't seem to be defending yet seem to be critical of me being critical of it.
Yes and so given the need for certainty (which I agree with) after the May accident and the focus on vertical shafts given AAIB are the lead what generated the flurry of AD's around certain part numbers? It wasn't off the back of anything from the AAIB as far as I can see.. What was the old poster? Don't assume.....check.
Edited to correct formatting
the AAIB are in charge with respect to release of information about the accident. EASA is in charge of continuing airworthiness. UK CAA has an airworthiness department but I think only has a role to play for UK products.
CAA Flight Ops has a role to play in those aircraft used for commercial air transport. They have gone against EASA and CAA Airworthiness dept by banning pax transport over hostile surface.
Why is this? I'm not seeking or suggesting something sensational, I'm just asking the question. Why is it different and do we think this is a good thing?
Yes the AD and EASB have evolved, but that is normal in the industry, these things often evolve as time progresses and new information becomes available. Perhaps you are a pilot not routinely used to looking at lower profile SBs & ADs?
What I find frustrating is the absence of, or drip feed of, info about the investigation, but that is down to AAIB's reluctance to release any info of which they are not certain.
Edited to correct formatting
Last edited by Pittsextra; 23rd Nov 2012 at 08:07.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo, dunno why you think I would know! I have not heard this rumour so if it is true, which I think is unlikely, said operator is almost certainly not BHL.
Last edited by cyclic; 23rd Nov 2012 at 08:11.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
PITTSEXTRA - It may help you to understand the flow of information thus - EC, CAA, and indeed CHC are all bound by confidentiality clauses and CANNOT release any information without the agreement of the AAIB. I beleive this is a requirement of UK Air legislation, as I found out to my detriment some months ago.
In the past I have been in agreement with your position, but only when a helicopter type has remained in operational service after a serious (fatal) incident. As I result of my previous mistakes I now know better that it is not conspiracy, it is not secrecy, it is the necessary process that needs to be followed.
"Variable Load" - Nice to hear from you again!!!
In the past I have been in agreement with your position, but only when a helicopter type has remained in operational service after a serious (fatal) incident. As I result of my previous mistakes I now know better that it is not conspiracy, it is not secrecy, it is the necessary process that needs to be followed.
"Variable Load" - Nice to hear from you again!!!
Pitts, EASA Airworthiness and CAA flight ops have different outcomes because they have different remits.
EASA are concerned with the fundamental airworthiness of aircraft. Airworthiness is the same regardless of the type of flying operation conducted. The same rules apply to private owners as to airlines. I don't think it is within EASA airworthiness' remit to for example ground an aircraft for commercial air transport but not for private flight.
CAA flight ops are all about use of the a/c for commercial air transport and they currently consider the risk of operating the 225 over hostile terrain with pax too great. But don't forget that the operators and our customers decided to stop 225 flights before CAA came out with their edict, so UK CAA is not the primary reason why we are not flying.
EASA are concerned with the fundamental airworthiness of aircraft. Airworthiness is the same regardless of the type of flying operation conducted. The same rules apply to private owners as to airlines. I don't think it is within EASA airworthiness' remit to for example ground an aircraft for commercial air transport but not for private flight.
CAA flight ops are all about use of the a/c for commercial air transport and they currently consider the risk of operating the 225 over hostile terrain with pax too great. But don't forget that the operators and our customers decided to stop 225 flights before CAA came out with their edict, so UK CAA is not the primary reason why we are not flying.
cyclic, if you are hinting at Bristow, the rumour is false, and so is the rumour that we were keen to keep flying after the accident. Quite the opposite in fact. Criticising operators based on an AAIB report is one thing. Doing so based on rumour and speculation (especially when it is untrue!) seems less meritorious.
Pitts, EASA Airworthiness and CAA flight ops have different outcomes because they have different remits.
EASA are concerned with the fundamental airworthiness of aircraft. Airworthiness is the same regardless of the type of flying operation conducted. The same rules apply to private owners as to airlines. I don't think it is within EASA airworthiness' remit to for example ground an aircraft for commercial air transport but not for private flight.
CAA flight ops are all about use of the a/c for commercial air transport and they currently consider the risk of operating the 225 over hostile terrain with pax too great.
EASA are concerned with the fundamental airworthiness of aircraft. Airworthiness is the same regardless of the type of flying operation conducted. The same rules apply to private owners as to airlines. I don't think it is within EASA airworthiness' remit to for example ground an aircraft for commercial air transport but not for private flight.
CAA flight ops are all about use of the a/c for commercial air transport and they currently consider the risk of operating the 225 over hostile terrain with pax too great.
But don't forget that the operators and our customers decided to stop 225 flights before CAA came out with their edict, so UK CAA is not the primary reason why we are not flying.
Hey no not at all, discussion is a good thing.
I just think it is pretty logical for there to be a common set of regulations around these things?
In this http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2012-0250-E
You have:-
"For EC 225 helicopters equipped with a serviceable M’ARMS system, and
operated over areas where emergency landing to ground is not possible
within 10 minutes at Vy, after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the
following actions:"....
And in this http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&i d=5304
you have:-
"A specified operator must not conduct a public transport flight or a commercial air transport operation over a hostile environment with any AS332 or EC225 helicopter to which EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0250-E dated 21 November 2012 applies. "
Totally get the fact that the North Sea isn't the be all and end all as far as EASA is concerned but then to be fair the CAA isn't just talking North Sea either..
Surely it would be better if all were aligned?
I just think it is pretty logical for there to be a common set of regulations around these things?
In this http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2012-0250-E
You have:-
"For EC 225 helicopters equipped with a serviceable M’ARMS system, and
operated over areas where emergency landing to ground is not possible
within 10 minutes at Vy, after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the
following actions:"....
And in this http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&i d=5304
you have:-
"A specified operator must not conduct a public transport flight or a commercial air transport operation over a hostile environment with any AS332 or EC225 helicopter to which EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0250-E dated 21 November 2012 applies. "
Totally get the fact that the North Sea isn't the be all and end all as far as EASA is concerned but then to be fair the CAA isn't just talking North Sea either..
Surely it would be better if all were aligned?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour quashed by HC. It's official as HC has said so. I think a job on the Leveson enquiry would be right up your street - in fact you haven't got anything else to do now anyway
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
PITTS - be careful with the way you hand out your admonishments!! My attitude to safety on the other thread you allude to is related directly to my willingness to comply with the rules and regulations.
I am not sure of your frame of reference, but in the highly regulated world of Offshore Operations and in this case, the NS, we seek to always be compliant as to do otherwise would cause us not to remain employed for very long!!! This is a really simple concept that I hope even you can understand.
Like I said on the other thread. The first step to safety is compliance with the rules and regulations applicable to you and your particular operation. Thinking you know better, or simply not knowing the rules is not an option.
If you ever get to hold a professional licence/pilot or engineer, and you earn your living from that licence, you will learn quickly that non-compliance is not an option if you want remain employed, or indeed out of prison!!!
The situation in this case is fluid and dynamic and will almost certainly change again, possible many times, before this crisis is over. Manufacturers and Operator's are keen to get the EC225 back flying, but only when all necessary measures have been taken to ensure the safety of our passengers.
To a degree we have to place our trust in the process, the people employed to manage the process and the overlying regulations that are there to help guide us all through it.
The resistance you are are encountering on this thread is a result of your lack of understanding of the EC225 and technological milestone it represents. For those us us lucky enough to fly it, we understand that the considerable safety improvements in the avionics, AFCS and warning systems have been developed with the same technical capability and ethos of the people who are working to fix the problem right now. We know they will hunt down the problem and fix it. But it will take time!!
DB
I am not sure of your frame of reference, but in the highly regulated world of Offshore Operations and in this case, the NS, we seek to always be compliant as to do otherwise would cause us not to remain employed for very long!!! This is a really simple concept that I hope even you can understand.
Like I said on the other thread. The first step to safety is compliance with the rules and regulations applicable to you and your particular operation. Thinking you know better, or simply not knowing the rules is not an option.
If you ever get to hold a professional licence/pilot or engineer, and you earn your living from that licence, you will learn quickly that non-compliance is not an option if you want remain employed, or indeed out of prison!!!
The situation in this case is fluid and dynamic and will almost certainly change again, possible many times, before this crisis is over. Manufacturers and Operator's are keen to get the EC225 back flying, but only when all necessary measures have been taken to ensure the safety of our passengers.
To a degree we have to place our trust in the process, the people employed to manage the process and the overlying regulations that are there to help guide us all through it.
The resistance you are are encountering on this thread is a result of your lack of understanding of the EC225 and technological milestone it represents. For those us us lucky enough to fly it, we understand that the considerable safety improvements in the avionics, AFCS and warning systems have been developed with the same technical capability and ethos of the people who are working to fix the problem right now. We know they will hunt down the problem and fix it. But it will take time!!
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 23rd Nov 2012 at 11:54.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pitts
THATS why I was asking, you were coming across so hard and from such a different angle to most of the rest of us I wanted to know your "Frame of reference". I don't need to worry now, thanks for answering.
Si
Originally Posted by DOUBLE BOGEY
I am not sure of your frame of reference, but in the highly regulated world of Offshore Operations and in this case, the NS, we seek to always be compliant as to do otherwise would cause us not to remain employed for very long!!! This is a really simple concept that I hope even you can understand.
Si
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB
Er, it's a bigPuma designed in the 1960s albeit with another blade, nice cockpit avionics and powerful engines. It is barely Part 29 compliant (with some grandfathering) and, as demonstrated by the shaft failures, probably has too much engine power delivered by the fadec for the rest of the dynamics. It's serviceability and availability rate is poor and while pilots like it, passengers don't.
I guess the concept of luck is subjective.
The resistance your are encountering on this thread is a result of your lack of understanding of the EC225 and technological milestone it represents. For those us us lucky enough to fly it, we understand that the considerable safety improvements in the avionics, AFCS and warning systems have been developed with the same technical capability and ethos of the people who are working to fix the problem right now. We know they will hunt down the problem and fix it. But it will take time!!
I guess the concept of luck is subjective.