North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
HC, what a shame you have become a Rotorhead's character that is pilloried in public like Shell Management.
Perhaps it is even sadder that you don't realise it is happening. Your response was so very predicable, despite your undoubted ability to provide a more reasoned and balanced one.
Perhaps it is even sadder that you don't realise it is happening. Your response was so very predicable, despite your undoubted ability to provide a more reasoned and balanced one.
Or maybe I just have a sense of humour and don't take myself too seriously?
Last edited by Variable Load; 24th Oct 2012 at 10:09.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC news is reporting that the pilots ditch because they thought the MGB had failed.
BBC News - Ditched Super Puma pilots 'feared gearbox problem'
fats
BBC News - Ditched Super Puma pilots 'feared gearbox problem'
fats
The comment above on cost of boat charter lead me to think about who is actually responsible for recovering the aircraft.
The operator, the insurance company or the AAIB.
Normally once an aircraft has had an accident it becomes the property of the insurance company I base this on having recovered a couple for insurance companies.
If the beast is going to be scrap does an insurance company want to spend a couple of days boat charter £100,000?
Just curious as to the process.
The operator, the insurance company or the AAIB.
Normally once an aircraft has had an accident it becomes the property of the insurance company I base this on having recovered a couple for insurance companies.
If the beast is going to be scrap does an insurance company want to spend a couple of days boat charter £100,000?
Just curious as to the process.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Under there.
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 flights on a 139 I believe. Seems to be the bel-air that was working for them after G-REDW ditched.
Hearing word that there are N3s on their way up from Bond's bases down south.
Also a 155 from Dancopter (not sure who it will be flying for).
Hearing word that there are N3s on their way up from Bond's bases down south.
Also a 155 from Dancopter (not sure who it will be flying for).
I was at a Eurocopter presentation last week and we were told that a 225 gearbox had a 30 min run dry capability. It had been proven by running a geabox drained of oil for 58 minutes, past the 45 minute running time required to prove the 30 minutes. This run dry capability has been banded around enough recently but is the 225 actually certified to be able to use that capability?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a part of the certification requirements, what Eurocopter has done to pass this is to install a emergency lubrication system that lubricates and cool the MGB in case of full run dry situation
And when the MGB lubrication fails and the emergency lubrication system fails(or indication of working system fails) you would like to land while still in control
And when the MGB lubrication fails and the emergency lubrication system fails(or indication of working system fails) you would like to land while still in control
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The system has never been tested as a whole:
The emergency lubrication system was certificated by the EuropeanAviationSafetyAgency(EASA). Certification included a test on a ground rig in which the oil was drained from a MGB and bleed air and Hydrosafe 620 were sprayed into the gearbox. The test demonstrated that there was no significant damage to the MGB after over 30 minutes of operation. Although the emergency lubrication sub-systems were tested individually, no test was carried out on the complete system, either on a test rig or installed on the helicopter type.
from the G-REDW AAIB report
The emergency lubrication system was certificated by the EuropeanAviationSafetyAgency(EASA). Certification included a test on a ground rig in which the oil was drained from a MGB and bleed air and Hydrosafe 620 were sprayed into the gearbox. The test demonstrated that there was no significant damage to the MGB after over 30 minutes of operation. Although the emergency lubrication sub-systems were tested individually, no test was carried out on the complete system, either on a test rig or installed on the helicopter type.
from the G-REDW AAIB report
Not familiar with the geography, but just how far were they from the nearest possible dry landing area? Not talking instrument approach, offshore you can chop and drop until you see water. From reading the AAIB report, if this case were similar ( how sad would that be: Bond sinking a perfectly good 30 mil helicopter and nobody learning a lesson) for a "land immediate" they would have required a failure of the EMERG cooling system, otherwise stopwatch it 30 min and consider options. I don't fly the EC225 or L2, so if this sounds ingnorant (in the literal sense) go ahead and say so.
Malabo,
So you are saying you would elect to continue flying with a gearbox with no certified run dry time and a failure of the emergency lube, to the nearest land 14 or so miles away on the assumption that you have the exact same problem as a previous ditching because of a report you have read? Brave man!
So you are saying you would elect to continue flying with a gearbox with no certified run dry time and a failure of the emergency lube, to the nearest land 14 or so miles away on the assumption that you have the exact same problem as a previous ditching because of a report you have read? Brave man!
If the EMERG Lube was working, then yes I would drive the 14nm (thanks for that figure) or 7 minutes to a dry feet landing. If it was not working then I'd likely ditch on a flat sea, or maybe still drive 7 minutes if night and sea state 6 because I am not a brave man.
After the Bond incident recently, I cannot believe there would be any question that the EMERG Lube would absolutely work. No self-respecting operator, airworthiness authority or OEM would have taken the chance to dispatch without ensuring it works.
The Bond 225 had a short history of telltales that were discounted until the incident. Did the CHC one have the same? We can wait for the AAIB report, unlike other countries they are accurate, thorough, and eventually publish their findings.
After the Bond incident recently, I cannot believe there would be any question that the EMERG Lube would absolutely work. No self-respecting operator, airworthiness authority or OEM would have taken the chance to dispatch without ensuring it works.
The Bond 225 had a short history of telltales that were discounted until the incident. Did the CHC one have the same? We can wait for the AAIB report, unlike other countries they are accurate, thorough, and eventually publish their findings.
Last edited by malabo; 24th Oct 2012 at 20:04.
So, an exact copy of the REDW ditching it seems. As far as I can make out from the report, the HUMS system detected the problem before the incident flight, but CHC did not look at the data - they were not required to do so, but best practice...
Whilst this might put CHC in a difficult place, it at least means that for the rest of us, we can be confident that HUMS, when rigorously utilised, can prevent a recurrence.
For the record, Bristow downloads the HUMS data at each return to base, and an aircraft is in not despatched until the HUMS data has been checked and found to be "green". That process takes less than 5 minutes.
Going to get some stick from VL now...
Whilst this might put CHC in a difficult place, it at least means that for the rest of us, we can be confident that HUMS, when rigorously utilised, can prevent a recurrence.
For the record, Bristow downloads the HUMS data at each return to base, and an aircraft is in not despatched until the HUMS data has been checked and found to be "green". That process takes less than 5 minutes.
Going to get some stick from VL now...
Last edited by HeliComparator; 24th Oct 2012 at 20:34.