Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016

Old 2nd May 2016, 09:07
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A nice place
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by dipperm0 View Post
Hope the picture I posted in post 275 is clear for you.

What can be said from this picture is that on the norwegian crash picture neither the head of the pin, with two flat cuts nor the two safety pins are visible.

The question then is why ?

Gone as a result of the MGB explosion : possible
Gone as a result of a maintenance flaw : possible

Just one thing: the pin are tight fit, with no play in the vertical (lift) axis, they are not rotating parts, thus, I think that a lack of safety pin would not be noticed by a vibration monitoring system.
From the picture of the rod end I have Iím not convinced that the Pin/Washer/Safety pins are missing.
Pablo332 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 09:34
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Posts: 358
What is the status of the RAF's new (ish) Puma 2?

Tigerfish
tigerfish is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 09:42
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 57
Posts: 34
Puma 2

Originally Posted by tigerfish View Post
What is the status of the RAF's new (ish) Puma 2?

Tigerfish
😂 New !... 50 yr old sa330 variant.
BTC8183 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 09:58
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Somewhere very sunny !
Age: 48
Posts: 309
MoodyMan, I'm afraid that information isn't in the public forum outside OPEC countries for obvious reason, oil and gas companies don't like to publish the costs of commissioning new oil fields. My data comes from a very senior oil company executive who told me the extraordinary cost are incurred in this part of the world, mostly down to the distances involved, very high labour costs and remoteness of the fields as well as lack of infrastructure in the new fields being developed.
Impress to inflate is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 10:48
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 58
Posts: 37
The UK is one of the highest production cost areas in the world, and when you talk about cost per bbl, obviously mature fields with low production, this rate increases. There are huge differences in costs, field by field.

This page does not include UK, but shows breakeven price which includes oil producer government spending which is highly reliant on oil, UK is not.

This page gives cost of producing and production per day.

I think there is a lot of truth in both what SLF3 says and Mitchaa, and this is really not the place to be debating this, but in my opinion to have a successful and continuing North Sea everyone needs to work together to make it sustainable for as long as possible to protect jobs.

I have been working offshore since early eighties, but my last chopper flight was over 2 years ago, and I flew mainly in the Puma family from Mk1 to EC225, and my son now flies in the 225 (which is a huge worry for me). However, the pilots on here are spending much more time in them than the workforce (and therefore more at risk).

There have been huge safety improvements on the platforms in my time, and a lot of effort now goes on asset integrity, and detection and shutdown systems, safety case, MAH prevention etc, but in recent years we have been losing people in helicopter accidents, at an alarming rate. Even the ditchings, we got lucky with the weather conditions. I don't think it's only North Sea where we have been losing people in helicopters.

Since Friday my thoughts have been with the families of those lost, and for the lost, I can only remember that joyous feeling when you see land in the inbound flight and are so looking forward to seeing the family again. I hoped their end would be sudden, but sadly it seems they maybe had an awful last 10 seconds.

With the grounding, please lets hope we have spare capacity on other types, and we don't stretch the other types and those that fly them to the limit also.
thelearner is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 11:05
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,603
CHC sending 139's to ABZ to cover shortfall. Rumour has it anyway. Wonder if they'll be asking any of the recently made redundant workforce to help.
helimutt is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 11:43
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Posts: 358
BTC8183 Agreed that the original airframe is very old, - but I'm sure you know that in recent years they were all reworked using much more recent engines and transmissions etc etc. So to all intents & purposes they are much more akin to the EC225. They are now a totally different aircraft from the old SA330.
Accumulation of flight hours will be much less than the commercial variants, but the type of manoeuvres will create more strain I suspect.
I am interested because a member of my family flies in one regularly.
Tigerfish
tigerfish is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 12:32
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 57
Posts: 34
Puma HC2.

Originally Posted by tigerfish View Post
BTC8183 Agreed that the original airframe is very old, - but I'm sure you know that in recent years they were all reworked using much more recent engines and transmissions etc etc. So to all intents & purposes they are much more akin to the EC225. They are now a totally different aircraft from the old SA330.
Accumulation of flight hours will be much less than the commercial variants, but the type of manoeuvres will create more strain I suspect.
I am interested because a member of my family flies in one regularly.
Tigerfish
The RAF HC2 puma has no commonality with EC225LP in terms of dynamic components.
BTC8183 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 12:35
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bristol
Posts: 358
Thanks, - That is what I wanted to hear!
TF
tigerfish is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 12:51
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 16
Hope the picture I posted in post 275 is clear for you.

What can be said from this picture is that on the norwegian crash picture neither the head of the pin, with two flat cuts nor the two safety pins are visible.

The question then is why ?

Gone as a result of the MGB explosion : possible
Gone as a result of a maintenance flaw : possible

Just one thing: the pin are tight fit, with no play in the vertical (lift) axis, they are not rotating parts, thus, I think that a lack of safety pin would not be noticed by a vibration monitoring system.

Well, I can clearly see a bolt and a safety pin in the very same picture..
Attached Images
File Type: png
Rotorhead.png (634.7 KB, 714 views)
offtrack is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 12:56
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A nice place
Posts: 156
Iím glad itís not just me that can see the hardware.
Pablo332 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 13:38
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 553
So I will ask for speculation again. If Airbus seems so certain that this was not a manufactures fault, then as most seem to agree here, it must be a maintenance issue, what error on the part of maintenance would cause such a sudden catastrophic failure?

We assume since there was no PAN or Mayday call that this took the crew completely by surprise. So no loss of oil, no chips, no vibrations or strange sounds. I can't imagine what single error ( missing bolt, nut, TQ value ,etc) could account for this, especially since this was not a new MGB replacement, so something done during regular running maintenance.
Outwest is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 14:06
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Country
Posts: 96
I am told that part of decision to lift the operational halt is because inspections have shown there is no connection to the bevel gear vertical shaft issues.
TwoStep is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 14:10
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 53
Posts: 75
What maintenance action could have....

A fill-up with the wrong oil/lubricant?
Harry the Hun is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 14:13
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 553
I am told that part of decision to lift the operational halt is because inspections have shown there is no connection to the bevel gear vertical shaft issues.
Well that seems premature then as that issue caused the oil pumps not to be driven, not the rotor head departing. And again, any oil/lube issue would be preceded by numerous cockpit indications I would think.
Outwest is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 14:39
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Originally Posted by TwoStep View Post
I am told that part of decision to lift the operational halt is because inspections have shown there is no connection to the bevel gear vertical shaft issues.
Since when has the CAA (UK & Norway) lifted the ban on EC225 public transport flights? As far as I can see UK CAA Safety Directive 2016/001 and Norwegian CAA Safety Directive 16/05616-1 are still in force as I write this.

Airbus never in fact grounded the aircraft. All they did was their usual pussyfooting around and issued a Safety INFORMATION Notice which indicated that AB "allied" themselves to the CAA directives which of course only applied to UK and Norway. I would be interested to see if all other national authorities other than UK and Norway have grounded aircraft under their jurisdiction.

Last edited by roundwego; 2nd May 2016 at 14:50.
roundwego is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 15:16
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oregon, US
Posts: 155
"It's my understanding HUMS picked up on the EC225 bevel failure in advance but due to the once per day download pattern used by the operator at that time, it went out on its afternoon flight and subsequently failed resulting in the ditch. Had the HUMS card been downloaded after its morning flight and before its afternoon flight, the impending failure was clear and would have been caught, the aircraft would never have departed. That's why the industry changed to more frequent after flight HUMS downloads in the aftermath.

If it's a gearbox failure this time around which to be honest, is more probable than probably not, I would expect the HUMS to come under close scrutiny. The difficulty the operators have is deciphering the data and what it actually means to the airworthiness of the helicopter, there are a lot of instrumentation defects for example so these need to be filtered out and it can be difficult to detect genuine mechanical failure modes. HUMS probably catches a lot that we are all unaware of because they get to it in time, it's only when failures happen, HUMS comes under scrutiny. "




It seems to me that for HUMS to truly be effective it needs built in learning software and immediate, internal analysis. i.e. Install it with a manufactured baseline data (expectation of vibrations for a particular aircraft type). Perform a few flights in the learn mode (gathering data about that specific airframe) review the data for those flights to make sure it isn't "learning" any vibrations that are of concern.


From that point on if it detects a vibration outside the standard deviation it could illuminate a light (similar to a chip light). On more complex systems it could even indicate where the vibration is on the display.


I believe all of the technology exists. How far are we away from something like this?
500guy is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 15:20
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 553
Outwest, I can't think of anything at all maintenance wise that would cause a sudden detachment of the Main Rotor Mast.
Ok, well that makes at least 2 of us....so that statement from Airbus should be taken with a large dose of salt I think....


Oh, and to answer your question, no I would not be strapping one on at this point.
Outwest is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 15:33
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 553
i.e they have no reason to ground the fleet as they don't have any evidence to support that grounding.
That makes me think of the time I asked one of the Indian pilots in Bombay how the Mil 8's were going offshore without flotation....he said well how do you know it won't float, they have never sunk one.
Outwest is offline  
Old 2nd May 2016, 15:44
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A nice place
Posts: 156
From the underslung MRH picture post 207, it would appear that the MGB Flared housing is missing from the Lift housing of the MRH shaft. Lack of lubrication to the mast bearings may be an issue, I believe on this model there is no way of verifying oil supply as there was on the 332 post MRH replacement. But HUMS should have picked this up.

There is also the barrel nut possibility, but I can’t see it causing drastic damage in such a short period of time.
Pablo332 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.