EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oslo
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spread of main rotor after accident
This is a map that shows the position of the main parts after the 225 accident in Turøy, Norway.
The parts of the main rotor is found several hundred meters apart. Why?/Users/Sandberg/Desktop/rotor-spread.JPG
The parts of the main rotor is found several hundred meters apart. Why?/Users/Sandberg/Desktop/rotor-spread.JPG
Last edited by halsandberg; 13th May 2016 at 21:16.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oslo
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sun gear from 225 accident
This is one of the sun gears from the 225 accident. The Norwegian Accident Investigation Board - Flyhavarikommisjonen - do not comment on the state of the gear. Why not?
This is probably futile since the delay waiting for moderator approval most likely will mean nobody will see this, but I'll give it a go. A lot of the google translation isn't that bad, so I'll just copy that and improve it where needed.
Disclaimer: The original text is unclear, inconsistant and repetitive. I've rewritten some parts where the intended meaning was obvious to me, but for the most I've just tried to translate as best as I can what were written in the news article. My English knowledge is also limited when it comes to the names of the bits and pieces, and the same seems to be true for the Norwegian terms for the author of the Norwegian text. I've been unable to find a video of the press conferance, which I'm pretty sure would make referring what was actually said by the AIBN much easier. All in all this doesn't bring a lot of new information, and I'd recommend reading the preliminary report instead.
Found several thousand parts from the helicopter accident
AIBN is still missing vital parts and will conduct further searches around Turøy.
Erlend Jensen Haugen, Hans O. Torgersen, Alf Ole Ask and NTB
Published May 13th. 2016 5:55 p.m.
Updated May 13th. 2016 8:29 p.m.
Around 6:30 p.m AIB presented the interim report of the helicopter accident at Turøy outside Bergen on 29 April, in which 13 people died.
- It's a complicated process and much remains to be done, said department director Kåre Halvorsen.
He said that there has been searched almost continuously in the sea since the accident, and that the search will resume on May 18 (May 17 is the national day in Norway).
- Thousands of parts have been found. Parts are still missing, and we will continue to search for parts we consider important to find, he said.
Accident inspector Tor Nørstegård said that parts found in the sea have already begun to corrode.
- Time is working against us, so it is urgent to retrieve parts from the sea, he said.
SHOWED PARTS: At the press conference, parts found after the accident where showed. Deputy Halvorsen stressed that these should not be considered as the cause of the accident. - These are components that are core to the investigation and have gotten most attention, but it is not certain that any of these havetriggered the accident, he said.
Scanpix
Gearbox parts can provide answers
The preliminary report, which can be read here, is about the work done so far and the plans ahead. According to the report, everything was normal until a sudden catastrophic failure occurred. The recordings from the cockpit voice and flight data recorder (CVFDR) stopped when the accident ocurred.
- There are no indications that the pilots' actions played a role in the accident, the report says.
AIBN is particularly keen to gather as many parts as possible belonging to the gearbox, which is the intermediary between the motor and the rotor. These parts might explain why to rotor detached
.
Engine runs at 20,000 rpm, which the gearbox reduces to 265 rpm for the rotor. This means that the gearbox is subject to very big forces.
The gearbox itself was found on land, while the internal gears were found both on land and in the water, Halvorsen informed.
Too early to conclude
This far several thousand parts from the helicopter have been found during searches at sea and on land. We're focusing the search on parts from the gearbox.
- How much of the critical parts are missing?
- We have barely started to put together the picture. It's therefore impossible to say how many parts we lack, Halvorsen said, adding that the more one finds, the more precise conclusions can be drawn
.
He also stressed that it's not given that the parts which were shown at the press conference are components that explain what caused the accident.
- What we have found help us to understand what has happened, he explained.
CORROSION: Accident inspector Tor Nørstegård underlined the urgency of getting wreckage parts up from the sea due to corrosion. One of the parts that were shown was already rusted when it was found, he said.
Scanpix
Will take a long time
Halvorsen told that a lot of analysis work remains. AIBN cooperates with the French and the British AIBs
.
- Several of the parts are to be examined by the English and French commission and in part by the manufacturer under our supervision, aircraft accident investigator Tor Nørstegård said
.
AIBN has not yet started to dismantle the large components. The metallurgical investigations will take a long time.
- The road ahead for us now will be to pack down the critical components, send them and travel with them to wherever they are to be examined further, Halvorsen said.
AIBN was very keen to emphasize that no definite conclusion can be drawn from the material and analyses gathered so far.
ROTOR: The support bar which helps to hold the gearbox in place and the rotor was found 3-400 meters from the crash site.
RUNE NIELSEN
VG: Rotor and gearbox mounting detached
According to VG (another Norwegian newspaper) the rotor detached together with the gearbox mounting.
The newspaper has gotten information that AIBN has found mounting fixtures to the bolt and the mounting itself, which held the rod attached to the top of the gearbox (I'm really sorry, I know this isn't very clear but neither is the original norwegian text and I'm unable to understand what they are actually trying to say). The support bar which helps to hold the gearbox and rotor in place and the rotor was found 3-400 meters from the crash site.
The AIBN warns not to draw any conclusions from this.
A video taken by an eyewitness shows rotor which was in the air long after the 10-ton helicopter crashed to the ground with 13 helpless passengers aboard.
Last week the helicopter manufacturer Airbus sent a letter to all its customers asking them to check these support rods and how hard they were tightened.
AIBN has since the accident searched with divers for parts of the helicopter that can be of help shed light on what happened prior to the accident.
AIBN is still missing vital parts and will conduct further searches around Turøy.
Erlend Jensen Haugen, Hans O. Torgersen, Alf Ole Ask and NTB
Published May 13th. 2016 5:55 p.m.
Updated May 13th. 2016 8:29 p.m.
Around 6:30 p.m AIB presented the interim report of the helicopter accident at Turøy outside Bergen on 29 April, in which 13 people died.
- It's a complicated process and much remains to be done, said department director Kåre Halvorsen.
He said that there has been searched almost continuously in the sea since the accident, and that the search will resume on May 18 (May 17 is the national day in Norway).
- Thousands of parts have been found. Parts are still missing, and we will continue to search for parts we consider important to find, he said.
Accident inspector Tor Nørstegård said that parts found in the sea have already begun to corrode.
- Time is working against us, so it is urgent to retrieve parts from the sea, he said.
SHOWED PARTS: At the press conference, parts found after the accident where showed. Deputy Halvorsen stressed that these should not be considered as the cause of the accident. - These are components that are core to the investigation and have gotten most attention, but it is not certain that any of these havetriggered the accident, he said. Scanpix
Gearbox parts can provide answers
The preliminary report, which can be read here, is about the work done so far and the plans ahead. According to the report, everything was normal until a sudden catastrophic failure occurred. The recordings from the cockpit voice and flight data recorder (CVFDR) stopped when the accident ocurred.
- There are no indications that the pilots' actions played a role in the accident, the report says.
AIBN is particularly keen to gather as many parts as possible belonging to the gearbox, which is the intermediary between the motor and the rotor. These parts might explain why to rotor detached
.
Engine runs at 20,000 rpm, which the gearbox reduces to 265 rpm for the rotor. This means that the gearbox is subject to very big forces.
The gearbox itself was found on land, while the internal gears were found both on land and in the water, Halvorsen informed.
Too early to conclude
This far several thousand parts from the helicopter have been found during searches at sea and on land. We're focusing the search on parts from the gearbox.
- How much of the critical parts are missing?
- We have barely started to put together the picture. It's therefore impossible to say how many parts we lack, Halvorsen said, adding that the more one finds, the more precise conclusions can be drawn
.
He also stressed that it's not given that the parts which were shown at the press conference are components that explain what caused the accident.
- What we have found help us to understand what has happened, he explained.
CORROSION: Accident inspector Tor Nørstegård underlined the urgency of getting wreckage parts up from the sea due to corrosion. One of the parts that were shown was already rusted when it was found, he said. Scanpix
Will take a long time
Halvorsen told that a lot of analysis work remains. AIBN cooperates with the French and the British AIBs
.
- Several of the parts are to be examined by the English and French commission and in part by the manufacturer under our supervision, aircraft accident investigator Tor Nørstegård said
.
AIBN has not yet started to dismantle the large components. The metallurgical investigations will take a long time.
- The road ahead for us now will be to pack down the critical components, send them and travel with them to wherever they are to be examined further, Halvorsen said.
AIBN was very keen to emphasize that no definite conclusion can be drawn from the material and analyses gathered so far.
ROTOR: The support bar which helps to hold the gearbox in place and the rotor was found 3-400 meters from the crash site. RUNE NIELSEN
VG: Rotor and gearbox mounting detached
According to VG (another Norwegian newspaper) the rotor detached together with the gearbox mounting.
The newspaper has gotten information that AIBN has found mounting fixtures to the bolt and the mounting itself, which held the rod attached to the top of the gearbox (I'm really sorry, I know this isn't very clear but neither is the original norwegian text and I'm unable to understand what they are actually trying to say). The support bar which helps to hold the gearbox and rotor in place and the rotor was found 3-400 meters from the crash site.
The AIBN warns not to draw any conclusions from this.
A video taken by an eyewitness shows rotor which was in the air long after the 10-ton helicopter crashed to the ground with 13 helpless passengers aboard.
Last week the helicopter manufacturer Airbus sent a letter to all its customers asking them to check these support rods and how hard they were tightened.
AIBN has since the accident searched with divers for parts of the helicopter that can be of help shed light on what happened prior to the accident.
Rotor and fairings around the rotor are lying far away from the wreckage while especially the second stage gear wheels are marked very close to the impact site. Strangely the first stage gear wheel being found a little bit further away from the point of impact of the main wreckage.
What I find striking is the fact that they can't judge if the front suspension bar separated by force or by losing a pin. With the bits and pieces they have at least this should be identifiable where it separated and if this was due to overload fracture.
For the MGB they are probably still lacking a number of parts of the epicyclic module.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the discolouration pattern on the failed forward suspension bar upper mount indicative of a fatigue crack/cracks prior to failure? Looks possible but I'm no metallurgist.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: France
Age: 64
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer of your question is in the preliminary report, page 7
"At this preliminary stage of the investigation, detailed metallurgical examinations have not been performed. The examinations so far have not shown any sign of fatigue failure."
Corrosion sets in very quickly when sea water is involved.
When BO 105 G-AZOM crashed flying out of Strubby it was in the water for less than a day. However by the time the aircraft was examined the corrosion at the point where the tail drive shaft failed made it almost impossible to determine the cause.
When BO 105 G-AZOM crashed flying out of Strubby it was in the water for less than a day. However by the time the aircraft was examined the corrosion at the point where the tail drive shaft failed made it almost impossible to determine the cause.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 39
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upper suspension bar fitting
Forgive me as I'm not an engineer/technical minded, however it seems the two rear sus bars are complete with their mounting brackets (and nap pins still installed), which to me gives impression they've come loose from a/c frame under force.
That leaves the question of the front sus bar, which they haven't shown a full picture of, however they do show the top mounting eyelet (with bolt and pin) that seems to have broken up.
If the bottom of the front sus bar was not anchored as per some of the 'maintenance theories' then surely the bar would have come away with the MR head un-challenged and the top attachment wouldn't have been damaged?
Does the fact it's broken away not indicate that it was still secured at bottom when it separated?
That leaves the question of the front sus bar, which they haven't shown a full picture of, however they do show the top mounting eyelet (with bolt and pin) that seems to have broken up.
If the bottom of the front sus bar was not anchored as per some of the 'maintenance theories' then surely the bar would have come away with the MR head un-challenged and the top attachment wouldn't have been damaged?
Does the fact it's broken away not indicate that it was still secured at bottom when it separated?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The broken parts of the planetary gear indicate that a failure in the main gear box was most likely to be the initiating event. The forward suspension bar mounting looks to have failed under a sudden single stress event although there appears to be some signs of minor cracking or corrosion at surface edges. Detailed examination will be needed to check for beach marks to determine positively that this was not a fatigue crack. Pitting and staining of the parts is most likely due to fire and/or immersion in sea water.
The inertia of the main rotor blade would be sufficient to snap the forward mount in event of the main rotor gear box failing suddenly and jamming.
So very reminiscent of the previous rotor detatchment involving G-REDL.
The inertia of the main rotor blade would be sufficient to snap the forward mount in event of the main rotor gear box failing suddenly and jamming.
So very reminiscent of the previous rotor detatchment involving G-REDL.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 39
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The broken parts of the planetary gear indicate that a failure in the main gear box was most likely to be the initiating event. The forward suspension bar mounting looks to have failed under a sudden single stress event although there appears to be some signs of minor cracking or corrosion at surface edges. Detailed examination will be needed to check for beach marks to determine positively that this was not a fatigue crack. Pitting and staining of the parts is most likely due to fire and/or immersion in sea water.
The inertia of the main rotor blade would be sufficient to snap the forward mount in event of the main rotor gear box failing suddenly and jamming.
So very reminiscent of the previous rotor detatchment involving G-REDL.
The inertia of the main rotor blade would be sufficient to snap the forward mount in event of the main rotor gear box failing suddenly and jamming.
So very reminiscent of the previous rotor detatchment involving G-REDL.
Thank you, appreciate your pov.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preliminary Report
The latest update from the AIBN makes it clear that they are not yet able to form any substantive conclusions as to what caused the catastrophic separation of the main rotor head and mast. They are continuing to look for components for their reconstruction. The report if anything makes Airbus Helicopters statement on 3 May seems even more confusing. Nothing I have seen in the brief report remotely suggests that they are focussing on possible maintenance errors any more than the many thousands of other potential causes. It seems that the reason for the crash is lying under the sea or remains to be discovered in many more hours of painstaking investigation. While this happens the Puma's future, at least in the North Sea hangs in the balance. Whether the ultimate conclusion finds that the cause is a failure similar to the previous accidents or another which caused a similar catastrophic separation the machine's customer base is losing confidence. Much of this is unscientific, even emotional, but getting people to feel happy about this aircraft is going to be difficult. it is not really a question of 5 million safe flying hours but the amount of failures in the last few hundred thousand.
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...sian-roulette/
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...sian-roulette/
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubble Copter
Not necessarily, if the unsecured front bottom suspension bolt slipped out (2-3 months after installation) the bar would still remain sandwiched between the 2 engine firewalls. After input bearing failure->epicyclic failure, the head would have twisted off, but the bar could have remained stuck between the two firewalls, the top eyelet would have had to bear the brunt of the shear forces and broken off. I'm surprised that there is no picture yet of the bottom bracket area, either showing it intact, or ripped out of the frame. The front bar appears to be missing.
The last thing the investigators want to do now is link this accident to a HS/CHC mechanic error without being 100% sure (120% sure?), as this could tear their community apart.
The Norwegians integrity/professionalism is second to none, so the cause will be revealed...but it'll take time.
If the bottom of the front sus bar was not anchored as per some of the 'maintenance theories' then surely the bar would have come away with the MR head un-challenged and the top attachment wouldn't have been damaged?
Does the fact it's broken away not indicate that it was still secured at bottom when it separated?
Does the fact it's broken away not indicate that it was still secured at bottom when it separated?
The last thing the investigators want to do now is link this accident to a HS/CHC mechanic error without being 100% sure (120% sure?), as this could tear their community apart.
The Norwegians integrity/professionalism is second to none, so the cause will be revealed...but it'll take time.
Last edited by letmein; 14th May 2016 at 13:18. Reason: Remove redundancy
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Shropshire
Age: 44
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G0ULI, I am an EC225 driver and looking at those pictures and the pattern that the debris landed shows that thing separated very dynamically and i would suggest that a heavy lump of metal hitting a rock from 2000' would smash. This would account for the damage to all the gears we see.
I would be very happy to go flying tomorrow in the 225. I have flown many types and i have never been in a helicopter that can take full fuel and pax. The aircraft is very well designed and I hope that she remains flying.
I would be very happy to go flying tomorrow in the 225. I have flown many types and i have never been in a helicopter that can take full fuel and pax. The aircraft is very well designed and I hope that she remains flying.
Possibly but not necessarily. These epicyclic gears are hardened and if thrown clear, falling free and hitting rock from 2000ft it is easily conceivable that they would break apart
The forward suspension bar mounting looks to have failed under a sudden single stress event although there appears to be some signs of minor cracking or corrosion at surface edges.
Admittedly with the new pieces of information we have a G-REDL scenario seems a bit more probable than other scenarios. Still, we need to wait for the experts doing their work. There is no benefit in jumping to conclusions.