North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
Whats happening with the AAIB investigation into this?
In late November they suggested that:-
"On-going work, some of which is anticipated to extend into 2013, includes:
1 Dimensional analysis, fractography and metallographic examination of the bevel gear vertical shaft and MGB fitted to G-CHCN.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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."
Is the AAIB taking the lead on this or are they taking EC data?? As one can only imagine that EC covered all these items during their flight test program prior to the type being approved?
So the question is will this be the tail wagging the dog if the AAIB report once EC have decided what their issues are?
Surely it would be good for the industry and customer if it were the AAIB that were leading this test and giving direction to EC, which one can only assume they are not given the comments from EC on their expectations.
In late November they suggested that:-
"On-going work, some of which is anticipated to extend into 2013, includes:
1 Dimensional analysis, fractography and metallographic examination of the bevel gear vertical shaft and MGB fitted to G-CHCN.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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."
Is the AAIB taking the lead on this or are they taking EC data?? As one can only imagine that EC covered all these items during their flight test program prior to the type being approved?
So the question is will this be the tail wagging the dog if the AAIB report once EC have decided what their issues are?
Surely it would be good for the industry and customer if it were the AAIB that were leading this test and giving direction to EC, which one can only assume they are not given the comments from EC on their expectations.
Pitts, while I am no EC advocate, I will suggest to you that it is in EC's interests to get to the bottom of this because they face a non trivial customer confidence problem. Their investigation, which will doubtless aid and abet the AIBB's efforts, has to be thorough and right or they don't solve their problem. As I see it, not solving their problem hurts them in the millions of dollars in revenue, or maybe tens of millions.
They are incentivized to get it right, and to show AIBB and the various regulating agencies how right they really are.
They are incentivized to get it right, and to show AIBB and the various regulating agencies how right they really are.
Pitts, while I am no EC advocate, I will suggest to you that it is in EC's interests to get to the bottom of this because they face a non trivial customer confidence problem. Their investigation, which will doubtless aid and abet the AIBB's efforts, has to be thorough and right or they don't solve their problem. As I see it, not solving their problem hurts them in the millions of dollars in revenue, or maybe tens of millions.
They are incentivized to get it right, and to show AIBB and the various regulating agencies how right they really are.
They are incentivized to get it right, and to show AIBB and the various regulating agencies how right they really are.
EC have clearly being briefing customers given the comments from Bristow last week and indeed on their own "Aberdeen" part of EC website - in fact they have made 2 such posts since the last AAIB interim report.
Its an interesting dynamic where the manufacturer is the one that tests and gives its findings to the investigating body. For the sake of rigour of process one would expect it to be driven by the AAIB (in this case) especially since EC have been shown to be lacking in many areas in this one.
If EC are able to suggest that 225's will be flying with additional restrictions come the Spring then it suggests that they know what the problems are, which are so far unreported by the AAIB.
Hence the tail wagging the dog comment.
Edited to add: the purpose of course for the AAIB to come to conclusion is exactly for the reason to stop the same accidents from happening again i.e. you loose an aircraft in May and again in October.
Last edited by Pittsextra; 13th Feb 2013 at 17:37.
Maybe, Maybe Not
Quote from Pitts:
"Surely it would be good for the industry and customer if it were the AAIB that were leading this test and giving direction to EC, which one can only assume they are not given the comments from EC on their expectations."
One of the remembered quotes from a John Wayne movie:
" That"ll be the day"
Whether it is the staff of the NTSB chasing the 787 battery problem or the AAIB chasing this one, those people are investigators, not design/ redesign engineers, nor are they experienced ground or flight test engineers. The talent to do the detailed technical analyses rests with the OEM, and in cases, the subs. The talent to formulate a corrective redesign rests with the OEM.
If I sound a bit firm on the subject, it stems from having been involved in just a few accident post mortems, and in every one, the " real work " split went as in the preceding paragraph. That is not a denigration of the AAIB or NTSB, but simply a recognition of the differing responsibilities. The media has certainly not got it yet.
Better make a correction: since my experience is with military and NTSB investigations, it would be incorrect to assert from my experience that the AAIB is in the same situation and acts similarly.
"Surely it would be good for the industry and customer if it were the AAIB that were leading this test and giving direction to EC, which one can only assume they are not given the comments from EC on their expectations."
One of the remembered quotes from a John Wayne movie:
" That"ll be the day"
Whether it is the staff of the NTSB chasing the 787 battery problem or the AAIB chasing this one, those people are investigators, not design/ redesign engineers, nor are they experienced ground or flight test engineers. The talent to do the detailed technical analyses rests with the OEM, and in cases, the subs. The talent to formulate a corrective redesign rests with the OEM.
If I sound a bit firm on the subject, it stems from having been involved in just a few accident post mortems, and in every one, the " real work " split went as in the preceding paragraph. That is not a denigration of the AAIB or NTSB, but simply a recognition of the differing responsibilities. The media has certainly not got it yet.
Better make a correction: since my experience is with military and NTSB investigations, it would be incorrect to assert from my experience that the AAIB is in the same situation and acts similarly.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 14th Feb 2013 at 01:44.
John I'm sure you are right however as you rightly point out "The talent to formulate a corrective redesign rests with the OEM." The AAIB's role isn't to rebuild EC's 225 helicopter, its to report on the accident, or in the AAIB's own words:-
"It is responsible for the investigation of civil aircraft accidents and serious incidents within the United Kingdom. The AAIB is also frequently called upon to assist with military and overseas investigations. The Chief
Inspector of Air Accidents is responsible directly to the Secretary of State for Transport."
EC's work into a long term fix is there own business and can follow their own theories in that regard at will.
What surely must remain independant (which means AAIB or persons contracted by the AAIB) is the work done to validate the cause of the issues - otherwise for the obvious OEM's the AAIB becomes an irrelvance.
One might be minded to highlight the factors that allowed the 2nd accident in October because of guidance from the OEM to a batch of shafts. The OEM also guided the HUMS strategy which when you look at the available data from the May accident doesn't seem that smart.
The AAIB may not have permenant resources that would be effective across all specialities but independant resources do exist and to not engage and / or direct them with an eye to their own stated mission and frankly common sense is a failure of duty.
Inspector of Air Accidents is responsible directly to the Secretary of State for Transport."
EC's work into a long term fix is there own business and can follow their own theories in that regard at will.
What surely must remain independant (which means AAIB or persons contracted by the AAIB) is the work done to validate the cause of the issues - otherwise for the obvious OEM's the AAIB becomes an irrelvance.
One might be minded to highlight the factors that allowed the 2nd accident in October because of guidance from the OEM to a batch of shafts. The OEM also guided the HUMS strategy which when you look at the available data from the May accident doesn't seem that smart.
The AAIB may not have permenant resources that would be effective across all specialities but independant resources do exist and to not engage and / or direct them with an eye to their own stated mission and frankly common sense is a failure of duty.
Oops
Sorry, Pitts, must have been my misinterpretation of your other post, as we seem to be in agreement, especially with your remark about EC's application of the HUMS after the first event. Don't you guess that there was some serious internal review of that after the second event?
Some accidents/incidents appear to have very simple causal factors at the outset, only to turn into thorny technical investigations. This has the looks of one. The 53E swashplate failure in 1996 was another. Took six months or so, and SA had virtually all of the top US metallurgy people consulting on that bearing failure. The early meetings can shake one's confidence: you spend two hours reviewing all of the design and manufacturing methodologies, and at the end conclude what a waste of time that was, since you all just " proved " that the failure that did occur could not possibly have done so.
Some accidents/incidents appear to have very simple causal factors at the outset, only to turn into thorny technical investigations. This has the looks of one. The 53E swashplate failure in 1996 was another. Took six months or so, and SA had virtually all of the top US metallurgy people consulting on that bearing failure. The early meetings can shake one's confidence: you spend two hours reviewing all of the design and manufacturing methodologies, and at the end conclude what a waste of time that was, since you all just " proved " that the failure that did occur could not possibly have done so.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 14th Feb 2013 at 10:14. Reason: Wrong word
What is the latest news about the 225 situation ???
AAIB will wait for EC to come to some conclusion so their report can conclude the same. EC meanwhile on huge PR with operators, who in turn play a more visible role in the safety group (more PR), ending with EC trying to get the CAA to agree to a regular HUMS monitoring so that they can get the type flying again until a full time fix is online.
The problem with the later is that unless you can effect HUMS downloads whilst away from base then the data from the accident helicopters does not really suit EC's cause in this regard.
Clairvoyant
The problem with the later is that unless you can effect HUMS downloads whilst away from base then the data from the accident helicopters does not really suit EC's cause in this regard.
And another ends up in the water, or worse, I'd suggest the model would be "finished".
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From 21/2.
UK CAA plays down chances of early return for grounded EC225s
Eurocopter's hopes that its EC225 can make an early return to unrestricted overwater operations appear to be fading after the UK Civil Aviation Agency poured cold water on the airframer's plans.
The type has effectively been grounded in the UK and Norway since the October ditching of an EC225 operated by CHC Scotia, the second incident of its kind within six months. So far, Eurocopter has been unable to find a root cause for the cracks in a gearbox component that led to the accident.
Lutz Bertling, Eurocopter chief executive, said during a January media briefing that he expected to see relaxation of the CAA's restrictions in early spring on the back of temporary "safety barriers" proposed by the manufacturer.
However, the CAA says it will not remove its operational limitations until Eurocopter is able to demonstrate it has a permanent fix to the problem in place.
"Safety clearly has to take absolute priority, and the EC225 operating restrictions will not be lifted until we are absolutely convinced it is safe to do so," it says.
"We continue to work with all stakeholders, and are liaising closely with EASA in regard to airworthiness issues and any mechanical solutions put forward by the manufacturer."
Nonetheless, it says it may consider temporary fixes if the airframer identifies the root cause of the fracture to the helicopter's bevel gear vertical shaft.
Although Eurocopter is continuing its testing efforts on the component, the ultimate cause remains elusive. Derek Sharples, executive vice-president support and services, says: "We have performed a lot of investigations and a large number of possible causes have been eliminated, so we are a lot closer but we are yet to determine the cause or combination of causes."
The results of its third test campaign on the shaft are due at the end of February, it says.
Executives from the company, including chief technical officer Jean-Brice Dumont, attended a 14 February meeting in Cologne with EASA and national civil aviation regulators to begin the process of "aligning" their policies towards the EC225. However, no firm agreement was reached.
Sharples says he is "convinced" the aircraft is safe, but concedes work remains to be carried out to persuade other stakeholders. "There are 10,000 people who work offshore and we have to work diligently to convince all of them that the aircraft is safe and that we have their safety as the highest priority," he says.
UK CAA plays down chances of early return for grounded EC225s
Eurocopter's hopes that its EC225 can make an early return to unrestricted overwater operations appear to be fading after the UK Civil Aviation Agency poured cold water on the airframer's plans.
The type has effectively been grounded in the UK and Norway since the October ditching of an EC225 operated by CHC Scotia, the second incident of its kind within six months. So far, Eurocopter has been unable to find a root cause for the cracks in a gearbox component that led to the accident.
Lutz Bertling, Eurocopter chief executive, said during a January media briefing that he expected to see relaxation of the CAA's restrictions in early spring on the back of temporary "safety barriers" proposed by the manufacturer.
However, the CAA says it will not remove its operational limitations until Eurocopter is able to demonstrate it has a permanent fix to the problem in place.
"Safety clearly has to take absolute priority, and the EC225 operating restrictions will not be lifted until we are absolutely convinced it is safe to do so," it says.
"We continue to work with all stakeholders, and are liaising closely with EASA in regard to airworthiness issues and any mechanical solutions put forward by the manufacturer."
Nonetheless, it says it may consider temporary fixes if the airframer identifies the root cause of the fracture to the helicopter's bevel gear vertical shaft.
Although Eurocopter is continuing its testing efforts on the component, the ultimate cause remains elusive. Derek Sharples, executive vice-president support and services, says: "We have performed a lot of investigations and a large number of possible causes have been eliminated, so we are a lot closer but we are yet to determine the cause or combination of causes."
The results of its third test campaign on the shaft are due at the end of February, it says.
Executives from the company, including chief technical officer Jean-Brice Dumont, attended a 14 February meeting in Cologne with EASA and national civil aviation regulators to begin the process of "aligning" their policies towards the EC225. However, no firm agreement was reached.
Sharples says he is "convinced" the aircraft is safe, but concedes work remains to be carried out to persuade other stakeholders. "There are 10,000 people who work offshore and we have to work diligently to convince all of them that the aircraft is safe and that we have their safety as the highest priority," he says.
Great sense of priorities.
Eurocopter's first priority was not to return the Super Pumas to service, but to ‘regain confidence in the aircraft, company and solution’.
One would think that returning the EC225s to service with the problem fixed would be the best way to regain confidence int he company.
One would think that returning the EC225s to service with the problem fixed would be the best way to regain confidence int he company.
While I can see the need to put out a statement that EC have appointed a new PR specialist specifically for the offshore sector, I fail to comprehend the need for the unconnected final paragraph in the article linked by Pittsextra. It is more commonly found in press articles from the other side of the pond, and looks like a distinct own-goal.
Last edited by diginagain; 9th Mar 2013 at 06:08.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a terrible photo of the PR man for a press release!
I don't think he could muster anymore of a frown...although it probably sums up his emotion at the small mountain he is facing
I don't think he could muster anymore of a frown...although it probably sums up his emotion at the small mountain he is facing
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....One would think that returning the EC225s to service with the problem fixed would be the best way to regain confidence int he company......
Hiring a savvy PR rep to focus on this problem is a smart move. The other thing I would suggest to EC is that they make the entire process transparent and public by issuing regular press releases detailing their efforts and progress. Keeping things as quiet as possible will only arouse public suspicion. The public is very forgiving of those who admit to making honest mistakes, and then make a good faith effort to correct them. But the public has no tolerance for those that attempt to hide or cover up their mistakes.
A good example is the recent problem Boeing faces with the 787 batteries. While there were no injuries/fatalities related to the problem, the financial impact to Boeing may be much greater than that to EC from the EC225 MGB issue. However, Boeing seems to be doing a good job so far with PR regarding the battery problems. I have seen a couple of detailed technical presentations they have voluntarily made public describing the situation. By doing so, they demonstrate they have nothing to hide. Hopefully, people will learn this lesson from history. Whether it was Nixon/Watergate, Ford/Pinto fires, Clinton/Lewinsky, Obama/Fast&Furious or Hillary/Benghazi, they only became scandals when it appeared there was an effort to cover things up.
The 225 will be back in service soon
Given the HUMS trend data that has been published and the fact G-CHCN was on a 226nm trip at circa 140knt cruise how do you see operations pre-fix??
Edited to add : - and thats without reverting to any "Eurocopter say it will be OK and they are chock full of clever people so it really will be OK this time"
Last edited by Pittsextra; 13th Mar 2013 at 11:57.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: All over the place
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest - what is the longest that a widely used offshore helicopter has been grounded due to a manufacturer related fault?
The latest I heard just as the Heli-Expo was dismantling was that they think they have identified the problem but it may be June before the fix is in place.
Lutz always spoke with passion - as if he believed in the product -was interesting and engaging and bearing in mind that English was not his prime language his diction was clear and concise. All you could hope for in a mouthpiece.
I think it is unlikely he is leaving any sinking ship, more like he is making another career move just like the one that brought him into EC in the first place. When he spoke last week he was not in any way a broken man and you do not get a CEOs job in Bombardier over night - the process that led us here undoubtedly started way before the January grounding.
Lutz always spoke with passion - as if he believed in the product -was interesting and engaging and bearing in mind that English was not his prime language his diction was clear and concise. All you could hope for in a mouthpiece.
I think it is unlikely he is leaving any sinking ship, more like he is making another career move just like the one that brought him into EC in the first place. When he spoke last week he was not in any way a broken man and you do not get a CEOs job in Bombardier over night - the process that led us here undoubtedly started way before the January grounding.