North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only "stone cold tragedy" in this situation will be if the 225 starts flying again prior to:
1. The cause of the problem being identified;
2. A well thought out engineering solution being implemented; and,
3. The fix thoroughly tested and certified by relevant authorities.
Anything short of this will leave doubt in people’s minds and undermine the confidence passengers have in the aircraft.
If the 225 never flies again (I'm sure it will just using an extreme example to make my point) because an adequate solution is not found then far from a tragedy, this will be a huge win for offshore aviation safety.
1. The cause of the problem being identified;
2. A well thought out engineering solution being implemented; and,
3. The fix thoroughly tested and certified by relevant authorities.
Anything short of this will leave doubt in people’s minds and undermine the confidence passengers have in the aircraft.
If the 225 never flies again (I'm sure it will just using an extreme example to make my point) because an adequate solution is not found then far from a tragedy, this will be a huge win for offshore aviation safety.
So in the name of not creating attention or to be critical of a major manufactuer then we should bury heads and pretend all is well in the world?
It isn't speculation when one asks questions around published data and I think the only impressive skills on display is an ability to read whats there. Quite why thats childish, desperate to prove anything or pretending to know more I have no idea.
There is no need to explain how to read my missives but this forum does tend to decend quite quickly into a squabble, now i'm suddenly a banker WTF?! What because some Sherlock Holmes has waded through my past posts to see I live in NW3? No I'm not a banker, nor have I ever been a banker - I'm actually retired.
Rather than trying to discredit me how about returning to the thread and the EC225, where I see the mud slingers don't seem to have much constructive points to add, beyond we should trust Eurocopter because it is a very big company employing a lot of people with
impressive degrees from good universities... Old age pilot I think Lehman Brothers could have claimed the same.
It isn't speculation when one asks questions around published data and I think the only impressive skills on display is an ability to read whats there. Quite why thats childish, desperate to prove anything or pretending to know more I have no idea.
There is no need to explain how to read my missives but this forum does tend to decend quite quickly into a squabble, now i'm suddenly a banker WTF?! What because some Sherlock Holmes has waded through my past posts to see I live in NW3? No I'm not a banker, nor have I ever been a banker - I'm actually retired.
Rather than trying to discredit me how about returning to the thread and the EC225, where I see the mud slingers don't seem to have much constructive points to add, beyond we should trust Eurocopter because it is a very big company employing a lot of people with
impressive degrees from good universities... Old age pilot I think Lehman Brothers could have claimed the same.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
VARIABLE LOAD - To answer your question I have no commercial hours in the S92 so I have to concede to the point you make and my statement was based on the experience of others, but I undertsand the point you are making. The S92 is a fine ship and has many benefits to the Offshore Industry non the least of which is a great cabin.
My perspective on the 2 types is taken only in so far as I believe that the EC225 is leading the market at the moment with the safety innovations and the integration of avionics/flight display/AFCS to provide comprehensive flight envelope protection. I also believe that Sikorsky/AW will in time leapfrog the EC225 and produce something better from this perspective. It is just that at this moment, the EC225 leads the way.
At the risk of being fragged from all directions - it is also the case that there are a considerable number of people flying the EC255 that do not fully comprehend what it is actually capable of. This is a function of poor EC communication and a failure at certain cases for the correct information to migrate through the training process. This needs to be fixed not only for the EC225 but for any future helicopter with similar sophistication.
If, for instance, you do not fully comprehend the flight envelope protections built into the AFCS, it may cause the crew to de-couple right at the very moment that they need the AFCS the most. I am comfortable we have already seen this happen resulting in a highly undesirable result.
Unfortunatley, crews that are not fully aware of the complete capabilities of the AFCS and its integration with the other aircraft systems may inadvertantly make poor comparisons with other types, mistakenly believing that the EC225 sit in the same class....from a safety innovation perspective.
My perspective on the 2 types is taken only in so far as I believe that the EC225 is leading the market at the moment with the safety innovations and the integration of avionics/flight display/AFCS to provide comprehensive flight envelope protection. I also believe that Sikorsky/AW will in time leapfrog the EC225 and produce something better from this perspective. It is just that at this moment, the EC225 leads the way.
At the risk of being fragged from all directions - it is also the case that there are a considerable number of people flying the EC255 that do not fully comprehend what it is actually capable of. This is a function of poor EC communication and a failure at certain cases for the correct information to migrate through the training process. This needs to be fixed not only for the EC225 but for any future helicopter with similar sophistication.
If, for instance, you do not fully comprehend the flight envelope protections built into the AFCS, it may cause the crew to de-couple right at the very moment that they need the AFCS the most. I am comfortable we have already seen this happen resulting in a highly undesirable result.
Unfortunatley, crews that are not fully aware of the complete capabilities of the AFCS and its integration with the other aircraft systems may inadvertantly make poor comparisons with other types, mistakenly believing that the EC225 sit in the same class....from a safety innovation perspective.
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 5th Dec 2012 at 08:55.
HC....nice try of deflecting the question.
I am clearly on the record singing the praises of the Alouette III, Lama, BO-105, BK-117, and the Wessex.....granted the Wessex is of American origin but the others are all Non-US origin.
Again....you seek to go personal when you cannot defend your earlier position.
Like about post 53 in this thread....or thereabouts on page two....I think.
I repeat my last question:
I realise that, despite living in UK for some time, you are American through and through and think that only American helicopters are any good
Again....you seek to go personal when you cannot defend your earlier position.
Like about post 53 in this thread....or thereabouts on page two....I think.
If you bear in mind that the design of shaft has run for millions of flight hours in the 332L, L2 and 225 without problem (up until last year), then the concept must be OK. Some detail changed in the manufacturing process recently (different surface treatments etc) and that precipitated the problem for the Bond ditching. (Whether or not for this one, we don't yet know.). So I would say that since a small detail change caused the problem - albeit a pretty catastrophic problem - it is a small detail change to fix it.
HC....still think this is a minor hiccup?
Last edited by SASless; 5th Dec 2012 at 11:31.
SAS - so where did I say "minor hiccup"? I said the consequence of the problem was "pretty catastrophic" - not exactly a "minor hiccup" even bearing in mind the difficulty Americans have with English.
I can see that I shall have to explain the point I was making without using any long words, which as I have said several times before and since, is that the issue causing the fault is probably (we don't know yet) one minor change in manufacturing or operation of the shaft - one component out of the whole aircraft - and therefore probably a fairly straightforward to fix.
That said, since I made that post some time has passed and it is disappointing to see that little progress seems to have been made to determine the exact cause of the problem. Even if the fix is fairly straightforward, until the exact cause is known we can't progress towards it.
I can see that I shall have to explain the point I was making without using any long words, which as I have said several times before and since, is that the issue causing the fault is probably (we don't know yet) one minor change in manufacturing or operation of the shaft - one component out of the whole aircraft - and therefore probably a fairly straightforward to fix.
That said, since I made that post some time has passed and it is disappointing to see that little progress seems to have been made to determine the exact cause of the problem. Even if the fix is fairly straightforward, until the exact cause is known we can't progress towards it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
SAS - have you ever flown an EC225???
Your last post has slightly vexed me as I am morally and professionally inclined to support the incredible EC225 and do not like it when naughty boys trash it. Could I please ask you SAS, to be a little nicer about the EC225 so I do not feel like my head is going to explode when I read your next post!!!
Thanking you most kindly for your coinsideration of my Humble request.
It really is a nice helicopter, honest!!!
DB
Edited to be "nicer" to SAS after Albatross posted his plea for us to be more "Professional"
DB
Your last post has slightly vexed me as I am morally and professionally inclined to support the incredible EC225 and do not like it when naughty boys trash it. Could I please ask you SAS, to be a little nicer about the EC225 so I do not feel like my head is going to explode when I read your next post!!!
Thanking you most kindly for your coinsideration of my Humble request.
It really is a nice helicopter, honest!!!
DB
Edited to be "nicer" to SAS after Albatross posted his plea for us to be more "Professional"
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 5th Dec 2012 at 15:56.
SAS - cut the crap - have you ever flown an EC225???
If not shut up cos you do not know what you are talking about.
If you have, what exactly do you think is the safety advantage of the S92 over the EC225 (setting aside the current airworthiness issue) - which of course the S92 has had its fair share of??
Come on lets here some real facts instead of supposition!!
DB
If not shut up cos you do not know what you are talking about.
If you have, what exactly do you think is the safety advantage of the S92 over the EC225 (setting aside the current airworthiness issue) - which of course the S92 has had its fair share of??
Come on lets here some real facts instead of supposition!!
DB
What are the "real facts" DB
Hey Guys - Let's all play nice!
We are supposed to be professionals not a kindergarden playground with no teachers looking.
In the end no one will win and we'll look like idiots.
The thread seems to be going downhill faster than a greased crowbar and doesn't reflect well on us or the industry.
We all, I trust, want to see the 225 safely back in the air and the 92 to remain there also.
We are supposed to be professionals not a kindergarden playground with no teachers looking.
In the end no one will win and we'll look like idiots.
The thread seems to be going downhill faster than a greased crowbar and doesn't reflect well on us or the industry.
We all, I trust, want to see the 225 safely back in the air and the 92 to remain there also.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
ALBATROSS - I agree and well said. I have taken a cold shower and given myself a damned good thrashing then changed my reply to SAS to reflect more "professionally" how I feel about his posts. Thank you ALBATROSS for making me a better person!!
TARGA - I can confirm that there is no truth in that rumour. The situation remains as it was and is posted on the EC website. Testing continues but as yet the root cause of the shaft failures is not identfied.
The root cause of the EMLUB false failure warning has been identified and a fix is being determined.
DB
TARGA - I can confirm that there is no truth in that rumour. The situation remains as it was and is posted on the EC website. Testing continues but as yet the root cause of the shaft failures is not identfied.
The root cause of the EMLUB false failure warning has been identified and a fix is being determined.
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 5th Dec 2012 at 15:58.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A nice place
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riff Raff
Any thoughts on the seemingly random start/finish points between individual shafts of the weld in relation to the 2 large holes in the lower part of the shaft?
Any thoughts on the seemingly random start/finish points between individual shafts of the weld in relation to the 2 large holes in the lower part of the shaft?
Quote from DB
"ALBATROSS - I agree and well said. I have taken a cold shower and given myself a damned good thrashing then changed my reply to SAS to reflect more "professionally" how I feel about his posts. Thank you ALBATROSS for making me a better person!!"
"Your last post has slightly vexed me as I am morally and professionally inclined to support the incredible EC225 and do not like it when naughty boys trash it. Could I please ask you SAS, to be a little nicer about the EC225 so I do not feel like my head is going to explode when I read your next post!!!
Thanking you most kindly for your coinsideration of my Humble request.
It really is a nice helicopter, honest!!!"
Great Stuff DB - best laugh I've had all day!
Cheers Albatross.
"ALBATROSS - I agree and well said. I have taken a cold shower and given myself a damned good thrashing then changed my reply to SAS to reflect more "professionally" how I feel about his posts. Thank you ALBATROSS for making me a better person!!"
"Your last post has slightly vexed me as I am morally and professionally inclined to support the incredible EC225 and do not like it when naughty boys trash it. Could I please ask you SAS, to be a little nicer about the EC225 so I do not feel like my head is going to explode when I read your next post!!!
Thanking you most kindly for your coinsideration of my Humble request.
It really is a nice helicopter, honest!!!"
Great Stuff DB - best laugh I've had all day!
Cheers Albatross.
The root cause of the EMLUB false failure warning has been identified and a fix is being determined.
Very nice to see that a feature that should help the crew out won't be (hopefully?) making their jobs more difficult.
"I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable as a pilot or passenger in an airframe which is already unnecessarily heavy for the job and almost guaranteed to resume suffering cracks when pushed to work even harder."
I'm quoting myself here and alluding to the S92. But though I love the EC225 dearly, I must be realistic and confess that until the MGB shaft crack issue is convincingly resolved, I would rather fly the S92 which currently seems more reliable. The 332L would also do for me.
What I don't want to happen is that the EC225 returns to service with the emlube properly functional, the HUMS tweaked to monitor the shaft unerringly, but flights to be conducted at reduced cruising power and short intervals between HUMS downloads because EC hasn't come up with a clear answer and solution to the metallurgy problem.
That would be a "fudge" in my mind and I would not be willing to lie to questions raised by any passengers, by stating that I'm completely happy and comfortable with such a solution.
Given that any believable modification to the manufacturing of the shaft could take years (at 2-ish shafts being produced per month) before all defective shafts could be replaced, I presently can't see how I'll be flying the EC225 for at least another year.
Love may be blind, but I'm too old to let infatuation obscure common sense.
riff-raff. You rock ! Please keep educating us.
I'm quoting myself here and alluding to the S92. But though I love the EC225 dearly, I must be realistic and confess that until the MGB shaft crack issue is convincingly resolved, I would rather fly the S92 which currently seems more reliable. The 332L would also do for me.
What I don't want to happen is that the EC225 returns to service with the emlube properly functional, the HUMS tweaked to monitor the shaft unerringly, but flights to be conducted at reduced cruising power and short intervals between HUMS downloads because EC hasn't come up with a clear answer and solution to the metallurgy problem.
That would be a "fudge" in my mind and I would not be willing to lie to questions raised by any passengers, by stating that I'm completely happy and comfortable with such a solution.
Given that any believable modification to the manufacturing of the shaft could take years (at 2-ish shafts being produced per month) before all defective shafts could be replaced, I presently can't see how I'll be flying the EC225 for at least another year.
Love may be blind, but I'm too old to let infatuation obscure common sense.
riff-raff. You rock ! Please keep educating us.
Lonewolf, I would say that fixing the Emerg lube will not change things, it is the shaft that is the show stopper. 30 mins sounds good but is only 40 miles, and at the moment it has not yet been established whether the gbx is airworthy for 30 mins at Vy with the bottom bearing no longer supporting the shaft.
I think in the final analysis there will be a vibration/frequency that is destroying this shaft - which is not going to be an easy thing to fix because it will either mean changing the frequency or the affect of the current one on the affected shaft (usually by adding material so the natural frequency is changed). The problem is that it needs quite a bit of testing because not only do you need to validate you have fixed the issue but you may find the problem will just move to something else.
Even if that proves not to be the case and the shaft is failing for another reason questions should be asked around the initial assumptions prior to bringing the EC225 to market, the level of initial testing and the change controls around introduction into service different versions of FADEC software. Perhaps they were many and well documented, although in such a situation it is then not that difficult to revert to the previous versions that worked.
Regardless, there are a lot of red flags here and actually I don't think the shaft is the major one long term. The issue in my mind is that there doesn't seem to be a great deal of transparency around what exactly this EC225 is and there is a trend toward moving to rely on HUMS.
That would be fine if the data captured was well shared and the initial assumptions made around collected data from Eurocopter were well understood. However it is surprising to find Eurocopter revise down the thresholds by such a degree, which you wouldn’t expect with a history of valid data to cross reference against which it understood. It would also be interesting to come to a conclusion around exactly what drives the “learned” values and if they contain user definable parameters. I’m not sure simply assuming a failure is (for example) a 6 sigma event and sticking the threshold there is really good enough.
From the AAIB published data there is little point having Amber or Red thresholds because once the vibrations start to trend beyond the usual mean values they never recover. In fact worse the trends continue to a value that equals component failure in a timeframe that is so short (for practical purposes) you are unable to continue without servicing the affected part.
I would suggest that the initial thoughts around the workings of the HUMS system are that EC imagined an Amber alert would be a point of discussion with the operator about the ability to continue flying, whilst a Red alert was a"no go". From the data presented you have around 4 hours from thef irst Amber trigger until component failure. Which was even apparent from the May accident and yet I’d question the advice/decisions made with regard to the continued operations given the data available, even at that time.
If there is more background and information available then I do not believe it has been made available publically or even to stakeholders in this. Beyond the HUMS data Eurocopter have given persistent public direction to the 250K hours statistic (including to the helicopter safety group which they themselves are now reflecting) which is terrible because not only is it irrelevant, it becomes deception when there is specific relevant information around the shaft that is failing (i.e. the no shaft having more than 4000 flight hours statistic).
There is a lot of interesting debate around this incident and it would be disappointing to have that stifled. I take the point around vested interests but for people to even suggest that they would rather stay quiet because it affects their pay is quite incredible.
Edited to add - it would be interesting to see how the military operators of the EC725 are affected by these events.
Even if that proves not to be the case and the shaft is failing for another reason questions should be asked around the initial assumptions prior to bringing the EC225 to market, the level of initial testing and the change controls around introduction into service different versions of FADEC software. Perhaps they were many and well documented, although in such a situation it is then not that difficult to revert to the previous versions that worked.
Regardless, there are a lot of red flags here and actually I don't think the shaft is the major one long term. The issue in my mind is that there doesn't seem to be a great deal of transparency around what exactly this EC225 is and there is a trend toward moving to rely on HUMS.
That would be fine if the data captured was well shared and the initial assumptions made around collected data from Eurocopter were well understood. However it is surprising to find Eurocopter revise down the thresholds by such a degree, which you wouldn’t expect with a history of valid data to cross reference against which it understood. It would also be interesting to come to a conclusion around exactly what drives the “learned” values and if they contain user definable parameters. I’m not sure simply assuming a failure is (for example) a 6 sigma event and sticking the threshold there is really good enough.
From the AAIB published data there is little point having Amber or Red thresholds because once the vibrations start to trend beyond the usual mean values they never recover. In fact worse the trends continue to a value that equals component failure in a timeframe that is so short (for practical purposes) you are unable to continue without servicing the affected part.
I would suggest that the initial thoughts around the workings of the HUMS system are that EC imagined an Amber alert would be a point of discussion with the operator about the ability to continue flying, whilst a Red alert was a"no go". From the data presented you have around 4 hours from thef irst Amber trigger until component failure. Which was even apparent from the May accident and yet I’d question the advice/decisions made with regard to the continued operations given the data available, even at that time.
If there is more background and information available then I do not believe it has been made available publically or even to stakeholders in this. Beyond the HUMS data Eurocopter have given persistent public direction to the 250K hours statistic (including to the helicopter safety group which they themselves are now reflecting) which is terrible because not only is it irrelevant, it becomes deception when there is specific relevant information around the shaft that is failing (i.e. the no shaft having more than 4000 flight hours statistic).
There is a lot of interesting debate around this incident and it would be disappointing to have that stifled. I take the point around vested interests but for people to even suggest that they would rather stay quiet because it affects their pay is quite incredible.
Edited to add - it would be interesting to see how the military operators of the EC725 are affected by these events.
Last edited by Pittsextra; 6th Dec 2012 at 09:14.
Pitts
"I take the point around vested interests but for people to even suggest that they would rather stay quiet because it affects their pay is quite incredible."
I take exception to your uninformed statement and I'm reluctant to enter into any exchanges with you due to your generally unfortunate way of presenting your points, but I'll deign to pass you a fact of which you are probably unaware.
Nobody has implied that their pilot jobs and pay are under threat because the EC225 is effectively grounded. Not only are managers in at least two of the heli operators assuring pilots that redundancies aren't being contemplated, but also they are actively recruiting pilots in their dozens as we speak. In the case of one operator, flying training scholarships are being offered.
I don't like the "cut of your jib" Sir. As so often in life, it isn't necessarily so much what is being stated, but how it is presented. Try making your submissions in non-confrontational tones such as used by riff-raff, if you want to be more welcome.
"I take the point around vested interests but for people to even suggest that they would rather stay quiet because it affects their pay is quite incredible."
I take exception to your uninformed statement and I'm reluctant to enter into any exchanges with you due to your generally unfortunate way of presenting your points, but I'll deign to pass you a fact of which you are probably unaware.
Nobody has implied that their pilot jobs and pay are under threat because the EC225 is effectively grounded. Not only are managers in at least two of the heli operators assuring pilots that redundancies aren't being contemplated, but also they are actively recruiting pilots in their dozens as we speak. In the case of one operator, flying training scholarships are being offered.
I don't like the "cut of your jib" Sir. As so often in life, it isn't necessarily so much what is being stated, but how it is presented. Try making your submissions in non-confrontational tones such as used by riff-raff, if you want to be more welcome.
PITTS - The point is many of us here do have a VESTED INTEREST. To some of us it is our livelihoods, to others it is their method of transport to and from work. To the rest of you it amounts to rubbernecking and speculation. There is none so dangerous as he who has nothing to lose.
You seem to have taken one sentence of mine out of context.