North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
What have the Bristow 225 Crews been doing for entertainment since the Grounding? Did BHL re-instate "Gardening Leave"?
Bravo and Pitts
The 225 will indeed be back in service quite soon, 3 to 4 months probably. There is big operator pressure from one of them. EC also want it back in srervice. There will be no single fix. HUMS information will be used predictively. Downloads will be 3 hourly. There may have to be some other band aids applied. MCP may have a new datum in the VMD.
The 225 will indeed be back in service quite soon, 3 to 4 months probably. There is big operator pressure from one of them. EC also want it back in srervice. There will be no single fix. HUMS information will be used predictively. Downloads will be 3 hourly. There may have to be some other band aids applied. MCP may have a new datum in the VMD.
So is the problem going to be "fixed" or "solved/cured"?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
What have the Bristow 225 Crews been doing for entertainment since the Grounding? Did BHL re-instate "Gardening Leave"?
As for getting back in the 225 I'll happily elbow my way to the front of the que to get in one, let me at it.
Si
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Out of interest - what is the longest that a widely used offshore helicopter has been grounded due to a manufacturer related fault? The Wessex - it NEVER flew again!
==========================
What utter nonsense!
Out of interest - what is the longest that a widely used offshore helicopter has been grounded due to a manufacturer related fault? The Wessex - it NEVER flew again!
==========================
What utter nonsense!
Bravo and Pitts
The 225 will indeed be back in service quite soon, 3 to 4 months probably. There is big operator pressure from one of them. EC also want it back in srervice. There will be no single fix. There may have to be some other band aids applied.
The 225 will indeed be back in service quite soon, 3 to 4 months probably. There is big operator pressure from one of them. EC also want it back in srervice. There will be no single fix. There may have to be some other band aids applied.
HUMS... Downloads will be 3 hourly.
Either way seems pretty grim to brief one thing (which one assumes the basis of which is to minimise risk) and yet allow SD's to reflect something else.
Biggles,
Is it loyalty to the Crews....or someone way up the food chain realizing the 225 is to be no more?
As to the "Gardening Leave"....that was a great policy if one valued "Time" over "Money". Getting half pay to go sailing for a few Months or to finish up one's Education was not an all together bad deal....as it was done on a volunteer basis first....then by edict. I never heard a single complaint from any who got sent to the Garden.
Is it loyalty to the Crews....or someone way up the food chain realizing the 225 is to be no more?
As to the "Gardening Leave"....that was a great policy if one valued "Time" over "Money". Getting half pay to go sailing for a few Months or to finish up one's Education was not an all together bad deal....as it was done on a volunteer basis first....then by edict. I never heard a single complaint from any who got sent to the Garden.
TM, I think you miss my point.
I guess the typewriter at the AAIB has broken then because nothing from them and yet I see lots of this kind of thing:-
Grounded EC225s could return to use by April, Bertling says
In fact so much so it led to this:-
UK CAA plays down chances of early return for grounded EC225s
I'm not sure that reflects a harmonious relationship between, EC, operators, AAIB, EASA and the CAA.
Edited to add:- actually harmony or otherwise is irrelevant to your point really. The last AAIB bulletin suggest these actions for 2013 :-
- Dimensional analysis, fractography and metallographic examination of the bevel gear vertical shaft and MGB fitted to G-CHCN.
- Tests on parent and welded material samples (coupons) to confirm the material properties of the 32CDV13 steel alloy, used by the manufacturer in the design of the component, and the material’s susceptibility to cracking from small features.
- A flight load and vibration analysis programme to confirm the predicted loads in the weld region, and to establish if there is an area in the flight envelope where the bevel gear vertical shaft might operate at one of its natural frequencies.
- Examination of a sample of shafts removed from EC225 LP helicopters and an analysis of oil removed from other EC225 LP helicopters operating out of Aberdeen.
One might expect some tangable output from those items before ANY
suggest of going flying again, bandaids or none. Now I'm sure EC are going to be ahead of anyone else in terms of knowledge on these items but seems the CAA put them back in their box - was that just for ettiquette sake?
If not then at the moment with no suggestion over the cause of the issues one finds it hard to find a reason to fly, especially given the punting at a cause after the REDW accident. Thats just common sense isn't it?
Who said that the problems won't be quantified and coordinated with a published view from the AAIB and some CAA input?
Grounded EC225s could return to use by April, Bertling says
In fact so much so it led to this:-
UK CAA plays down chances of early return for grounded EC225s
I'm not sure that reflects a harmonious relationship between, EC, operators, AAIB, EASA and the CAA.
Edited to add:- actually harmony or otherwise is irrelevant to your point really. The last AAIB bulletin suggest these actions for 2013 :-
The investigation is currently seeking to confirm the material properties and the in-flight dynamic loads on the MGB and bevel gear vertical shaft. On-going work, some of which is anticipated to extend into 2013, includes:
- Dimensional analysis, fractography and metallographic examination of the bevel gear vertical shaft and MGB fitted to G-CHCN.
- Tests on parent and welded material samples (coupons) to confirm the material properties of the 32CDV13 steel alloy, used by the manufacturer in the design of the component, and the material’s susceptibility to cracking from small features.
- A flight load and vibration analysis programme to confirm the predicted loads in the weld region, and to establish if there is an area in the flight envelope where the bevel gear vertical shaft might operate at one of its natural frequencies.
- Examination of a sample of shafts removed from EC225 LP helicopters and an analysis of oil removed from other EC225 LP helicopters operating out of Aberdeen.
One might expect some tangable output from those items before ANY
suggest of going flying again, bandaids or none. Now I'm sure EC are going to be ahead of anyone else in terms of knowledge on these items but seems the CAA put them back in their box - was that just for ettiquette sake?
If not then at the moment with no suggestion over the cause of the issues one finds it hard to find a reason to fly, especially given the punting at a cause after the REDW accident. Thats just common sense isn't it?
Last edited by Pittsextra; 14th Mar 2013 at 12:56.
Continuing investigation into the failure of the bevel gear vertical shaft
Since the update published in AAIB Special Bulletin S7/2012 on 29 November 2012, the investigation has continued to review the material properties and the dynamic loads in the bevel gear vertical shaft.
The coupon testing undertaken by QinetiQ to confirm the material properties and the material’s susceptibility to cracking is nearing completion. An independent review of the fracture mechanics to establish why the shafts failed during normal operations is also being carried out. In order to ensure that the dynamic flight loads acting on the shaft are consistent with the design assumptions, the aircraft manufacturer is running a shaft, equipped with 32 strain gauges, through a series of dynamic tests.
The results of this activity will be reported in subsequent bulletins
Air Accidents Investigation: S2/2013 EC225 LP Super Puma, G-REDW G-CHCN
Edited to add:- from the above AAIB statements can anyone give any colour on what would have been covered by flight test with regards to ensuring that dynamic flight loads are consistent with design assumptions?
Doesn't seem to me that anyone here is rushing to make any recommendations to patch it up and fly anytime soon.
Since the update published in AAIB Special Bulletin S7/2012 on 29 November 2012, the investigation has continued to review the material properties and the dynamic loads in the bevel gear vertical shaft.
The coupon testing undertaken by QinetiQ to confirm the material properties and the material’s susceptibility to cracking is nearing completion. An independent review of the fracture mechanics to establish why the shafts failed during normal operations is also being carried out. In order to ensure that the dynamic flight loads acting on the shaft are consistent with the design assumptions, the aircraft manufacturer is running a shaft, equipped with 32 strain gauges, through a series of dynamic tests.
The results of this activity will be reported in subsequent bulletins
Air Accidents Investigation: S2/2013 EC225 LP Super Puma, G-REDW G-CHCN
Edited to add:- from the above AAIB statements can anyone give any colour on what would have been covered by flight test with regards to ensuring that dynamic flight loads are consistent with design assumptions?
Doesn't seem to me that anyone here is rushing to make any recommendations to patch it up and fly anytime soon.
......and then there is the Eurocopter SIN declaring that the CPI/ADELT might not work as advertised if you press Transmit before actually ditching........would have been difficult to actually make that one up!
So.....what causes the crack to begin with?
If EC can hang their hat on such a "fix"....why can they not design a Shaft that does not crack?
I just love the MCP-15%.....why not just limit the MCP to that number to begin with?
If EC can hang their hat on such a "fix"....why can they not design a Shaft that does not crack?
I just love the MCP-15%.....why not just limit the MCP to that number to begin with?
It's not very re-assuring that ECF cannot identify the root cause, yet have total confidence that if a crack starts to propagate then a simple reduction in power provides total assurance for continued flight such that "land as soon as practicable" is appropriate.
Surely "land as soon as possible" would be more appropriate?
One more ditching (or worse) will surely be the final nail........?
Fingers crossed it doesn't happen
Surely "land as soon as possible" would be more appropriate?
One more ditching (or worse) will surely be the final nail........?
Fingers crossed it doesn't happen
terminus mos are you implying the Aircraft will return whilst operating with normal MCP limitations?
From what I understood so far is Eurocopter would like to release the A/C with "extra close monitoring", flying at reduced MCP continuesly, de-mod version 12 software to avoid a certain Nr range and a fix for the MGB emlube issues.
But it will take ages for the 225 to come back if the CAA is only going to allow it back over the water with a real fix for the breaking shaft.
RP
From what I understood so far is Eurocopter would like to release the A/C with "extra close monitoring", flying at reduced MCP continuesly, de-mod version 12 software to avoid a certain Nr range and a fix for the MGB emlube issues.
But it will take ages for the 225 to come back if the CAA is only going to allow it back over the water with a real fix for the breaking shaft.
RP
I just love the MCP-15%.....why not just limit the MCP to that number to begin with?
"land as soon as possible" is normally written "land or ditch as soon as possible"
EEDSL - I can see the point of designing the CPI like that, its so you can activate it in flight when carrying out an emergency over-land landing and not risk it pinging off at touchdown and smashing on a rock. The error is not in the design, but in the failure to let crews know about it!
RP - I believe the current plan is to retain MCP, only reducing to 70% TQ if a crack is detected. EC are adamant that the cracking is not caused by MCP torque, merely that once cracked, reducing the torque slows the propagation rate. However the story does seem to change quite often!
212 - I think it means torque limited to its MCP value - 15%, so max 70% tq unless another parameter is more limiting, but that would be pretty hard to achieve even hot and high
212 - I think it means torque limited to its MCP value - 15%, so max 70% tq unless another parameter is more limiting, but that would be pretty hard to achieve even hot and high
Thanks HC, I guess the Makilas operate a lot further from their design point than the arriels!
I am sharing what I have learned at a high level from an operator briefing
