North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,735
Likes: 21
From: Used to be God's own County
UK CAA say no to This type carrying out AOC work over hostile environment TFN
Last edited by EESDL; 25th October 2012 at 17:17.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
A specified operator must not conduct a public transport flight or a commercial air transport operation in accordance with JAR-OPS 3 over a hostile environment with any AS332 or EC225 helicopter to which European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0225-E dated 25 October 2012 applies.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
HC....tell us again how the EC products are so vastly superior to the 92.
And before I get blitzed I was a high time pilot on both Sikorsky and As332L's
Last edited by TipCap; 25th October 2012 at 17:31.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
SAS
I think the nation that gave us solid rocket boosters that go 'pop' should at least avoid sticking their necks out quite so far.
You know the old saying, what goes around comes around. Crow now if you want but beware of having to eat crow pie sometime later.
G.
You know the old saying, what goes around comes around. Crow now if you want but beware of having to eat crow pie sometime later.
G.
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 57
From: UK
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Sorry, I've not understood properly so clarification would be appreciated but - did I read in the previous pages that Eurocopter are now saying that with regard to the 225 vibration (HUMS or whatever it is called these days) analysis must be conducted after every flight as Bristow (apparently) already do?
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 252
Likes: 5
From: Norwich
Aircraft with the affected Drive Shafts, which include 225, and some L2's and even 332's are subject to varying levels of scrutiny.
332's can fly for 6 hours between HUMS checks
L2's 4.5Hours
225's Just 3 hours between checks
So effectively after every flight. But even if allowed 6 hours flying, why wouldn't you do it after every flight???
In addition, the CAA have just effectively banned flights on these aircraft types (fitted with the suspect part) from flying over a Hostile Environment.
Lets hope for the benefit of the whole North Sea industry that we sort this issue out quickly, safely and permanently
332's can fly for 6 hours between HUMS checks
L2's 4.5Hours
225's Just 3 hours between checks
So effectively after every flight. But even if allowed 6 hours flying, why wouldn't you do it after every flight???
In addition, the CAA have just effectively banned flights on these aircraft types (fitted with the suspect part) from flying over a Hostile Environment.
Lets hope for the benefit of the whole North Sea industry that we sort this issue out quickly, safely and permanently
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Geoffers....twas not I crowing about the 225 back when Brother Lappos and HC were arguing the various merits of the two aircraft.
As you rightly say....what goes around....comes around.
I anticipate the same folks that were so critical of the 92...rightly so in a lot of regards....should also rightly hold EC and the 225 to the EXACT same standards they did of the 92.
The key difference between the two situations is the 92 was a new design and being fielded without a long history of good service to allow for generating a historical data base for comparison purposes, encountered some very unforeseen problems, and seems now to have overcome its initial problems.
The 225 on the other hand....did just the opposite....used legacy engineering based upon a well proven design and just recently has encountered some very severe problems that are the result of tinkering with a basically sound design (in most regards) despite having some adverse design issues.
I just like to see some fair play when it comes to discussing the relative merits of two very different designs....each has its strong points and each has its not so strong points.
As you rightly say....what goes around....comes around.
I anticipate the same folks that were so critical of the 92...rightly so in a lot of regards....should also rightly hold EC and the 225 to the EXACT same standards they did of the 92.
The key difference between the two situations is the 92 was a new design and being fielded without a long history of good service to allow for generating a historical data base for comparison purposes, encountered some very unforeseen problems, and seems now to have overcome its initial problems.
The 225 on the other hand....did just the opposite....used legacy engineering based upon a well proven design and just recently has encountered some very severe problems that are the result of tinkering with a basically sound design (in most regards) despite having some adverse design issues.
I just like to see some fair play when it comes to discussing the relative merits of two very different designs....each has its strong points and each has its not so strong points.
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 50
From: Aberdeen
HC....tell us again how the EC products are so vastly superior to the 92.
Everyone else - SAS loves to throw bait at me and if I didn't bite on it, I would be depriving the old chap of his only pleasure in life, so I just have to do it because I am such a nice chap and hate to see a grown man sobbing...
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,105
Likes: 50
From: Aberdeen
Remember you passengers are reading this forum (probably) so best avoiding comments like the above.
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
From: In the cold
With regard to the frequency of HUMS downloads...EC allow up to 25 hours without data. I presume this will now be reduced to, as mentioned before, somewhere in the region of 3/4 hours/between flights
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
From: Terminal 5
Where are EASA and the DGAC?
So the UK CAA have unilaterally grounded NS Puma's. Shouldn't this action have come from Cologne, EASA HQ?
Are EASA scared of upsetting Eurocopter or possibly the French DGAC? So prevaricate and choose to do nothing more than rehash an old AD!
At times like these you want strong leadership from the authorites and congratulations to the UK CAA for taking the lead.
Are EASA scared of upsetting Eurocopter or possibly the French DGAC? So prevaricate and choose to do nothing more than rehash an old AD!
At times like these you want strong leadership from the authorites and congratulations to the UK CAA for taking the lead.
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
From: UK
HC, this is true but one of our 332 family accidents was fatal. It wasn't just the passengers that were killed, some were our colleagues. There still isn't a positive conclusion from this accident that was MGB related. Just because it didn't happen at Bristow doesn't mean that it isn't very much still in our minds, particularly in the light of recent events. At the time, EC were very keen to lay as much blame as possible with the operator to protect their reputation - ironic doesn't even get close.