EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Twist & Shout
"There are many potential sources of metal fragments in a transmission."
What you say is undoubtedly true, however in the case of REDL before it crashed, the particles of metal were detected and identified as coming from the top of the gearbox i.e. the epicyclic reduction stages. Or so I believe.
Again I ask our engineers "Was there any history of the Norwegian EC225 gearbox making metal before the crash, because if not the likelihood of similarity with REDL is probably reduced?"
"There are many potential sources of metal fragments in a transmission."
What you say is undoubtedly true, however in the case of REDL before it crashed, the particles of metal were detected and identified as coming from the top of the gearbox i.e. the epicyclic reduction stages. Or so I believe.
Again I ask our engineers "Was there any history of the Norwegian EC225 gearbox making metal before the crash, because if not the likelihood of similarity with REDL is probably reduced?"
Last edited by Colibri49; 15th May 2016 at 07:43.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: France
Age: 64
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be wrong but I am astonished to see that nobody noticed that the suspension bars were secured with only one safety pin.
Normal configuration: each extremity of the suspension bar should be secured with two safety pins strapped each other.
Why it is not the case?
Normal configuration: each extremity of the suspension bar should be secured with two safety pins strapped each other.
Why it is not the case?
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nuremberg (metropol region)
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See January | 2012 | Isambard's Lad! Would be a freewheeling unit between MR and MRGB opportune? Is it realizeable?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S-92 vs 225 range/payload claims
To keep it real.
In my world, when you add the factor of required climb gradients OEI, the 225 does not in any way outperform the S-92 in the range/payload department.
On a standard day, an S-92 can do a 5% Climb (Standard Copter SID) OEI, at Max gross weight (26500 lbs), up to normal cruise altitudes.
Try that on a 225 (5% OEI Climb), and you will find that you will have a significantly reduced take off weight, as in less range/payload
And that makes the real life payload/range better on the S-92, as verified by the observations of member 26500lbs
Torcher
In my world, when you add the factor of required climb gradients OEI, the 225 does not in any way outperform the S-92 in the range/payload department.
On a standard day, an S-92 can do a 5% Climb (Standard Copter SID) OEI, at Max gross weight (26500 lbs), up to normal cruise altitudes.
Try that on a 225 (5% OEI Climb), and you will find that you will have a significantly reduced take off weight, as in less range/payload
And that makes the real life payload/range better on the S-92, as verified by the observations of member 26500lbs
Torcher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May 13, 2016
"Airbus Helicopters welcomes the AIBN’s preliminary report and is encouraged by the progress of the investigation. We continue to focus our efforts on providing assistance to the investigation team, while working closely with our global customers to ensure that checks mandated by Airbus Helicopters and EASA are completed in support of the continued operations of the EC225LP."
By inference AH continue to maintain that the aircraft is safe to fly and the actions of UK & Norway authorities are unnecessary. They don't even mention the extension of the ban to earlier models. One can only assume they wouldn't be so reckless unless they are aware of key facts not yet in the public domain.
"Airbus Helicopters welcomes the AIBN’s preliminary report and is encouraged by the progress of the investigation. We continue to focus our efforts on providing assistance to the investigation team, while working closely with our global customers to ensure that checks mandated by Airbus Helicopters and EASA are completed in support of the continued operations of the EC225LP."
By inference AH continue to maintain that the aircraft is safe to fly and the actions of UK & Norway authorities are unnecessary. They don't even mention the extension of the ban to earlier models. One can only assume they wouldn't be so reckless unless they are aware of key facts not yet in the public domain.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: in the cloud
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, not identical but they are quite similar. The L2 was resedigned from earlier Puma variants to be the new generation with some improvements. I don't know if it is exactly the same epicyclic gears.
At least, EC225 has the 30 min run dry feature( glykol cooling/lubricating system) which the AS332L2 dont have(at least I beleave).
At least, EC225 has the 30 min run dry feature( glykol cooling/lubricating system) which the AS332L2 dont have(at least I beleave).
And is true for dry run but in reality it's more than 30min the records it's 48min without oil and without glycol...
Join Date: May 2016
Location: in the cloud
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To keep it real.
In my world, when you add the factor of required climb gradients OEI, the 225 does not in any way outperform the S-92 in the range/payload department.
On a standard day, an S-92 can do a 5% Climb (Standard Copter SID) OEI, at Max gross weight (26500 lbs), up to normal cruise altitudes.
Try that on a 225 (5% OEI Climb), and you will find that you will have a significantly reduced take off weight, as in less range/payload
And that makes the real life payload/range better on the S-92, as verified by the observations of member 26500lbs
Torcher
In my world, when you add the factor of required climb gradients OEI, the 225 does not in any way outperform the S-92 in the range/payload department.
On a standard day, an S-92 can do a 5% Climb (Standard Copter SID) OEI, at Max gross weight (26500 lbs), up to normal cruise altitudes.
Try that on a 225 (5% OEI Climb), and you will find that you will have a significantly reduced take off weight, as in less range/payload
And that makes the real life payload/range better on the S-92, as verified by the observations of member 26500lbs
Torcher
Both 225s and 92s work to Class 1 and on any given day the 225 always has a better payload available on the NS. The 92 is also more expensive and has a poor serviceability record with parts supply very poor compared to AH. People seem to have a short memory and up to the point of this tragic accident the S92 was all but reduntent on the NS. Most new contracts have either been for 225s or a mixture of 225s and 92s with the ratio being in favour of 255s, the reason......cost, serviceability and endurance.
I also hear complaints of back pains and hearing issues from 92 pilots and passengers complain about vibration and having to sit side by side feeling cramped where as on the Puma the slightly offset seating and better leg room being an advantage although still tight.
For all who say the Super Puma should be retired, then what's your plans should a S92 have an accident in the next few years? Personally I hope that it's not the end of the 225 but emotions are running high. This is the first fatal accident with the 225 on the NS. The ditchings were controlled landings with warnings, drills, floats and rescue all working flawlessly. The issue was found and resolved.
The offshore world is dangerous by its very nature and although huge amount of money is spent to mitigate risks as much as is possible it is pie it the sky thinking to expect a completely risk free environment. That includes the transport system. Hence the workforce are rewarded in part for the higher risks in well above average wages.
I would fly the Super Puma again but as time goes on I expect to be on a conversion course over the next few months as the industry reacts to the situation. What ever the cause of the crash I just hope it won't take too long to find and divulge.
I also hear complaints of back pains and hearing issues from 92 pilots and passengers complain about vibration and having to sit side by side feeling cramped where as on the Puma the slightly offset seating and better leg room being an advantage although still tight.
For all who say the Super Puma should be retired, then what's your plans should a S92 have an accident in the next few years? Personally I hope that it's not the end of the 225 but emotions are running high. This is the first fatal accident with the 225 on the NS. The ditchings were controlled landings with warnings, drills, floats and rescue all working flawlessly. The issue was found and resolved.
The offshore world is dangerous by its very nature and although huge amount of money is spent to mitigate risks as much as is possible it is pie it the sky thinking to expect a completely risk free environment. That includes the transport system. Hence the workforce are rewarded in part for the higher risks in well above average wages.
I would fly the Super Puma again but as time goes on I expect to be on a conversion course over the next few months as the industry reacts to the situation. What ever the cause of the crash I just hope it won't take too long to find and divulge.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from Colibri49's posts further up the page, I quizzed the guys in Norway about the REDL incident when I did my L2 type rating. I was told the root cause of the accident was the break up of the 'critical mast bearing'. The guy actually went and got one from the stores to show us what it looked like.
Megan, I think he may mean that SID gradients are based on all engines operating. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement to maintain 5% gradient in the event of a power unit failure as long as safe terrain seperation is maintained which may require a turn off the SID as part of a contingency procedure.
Megan, I think he may mean that SID gradients are based on all engines operating. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement to maintain 5% gradient in the event of a power unit failure as long as safe terrain seperation is maintained which may require a turn off the SID as part of a contingency procedure.
I, too was confused by spectral's "OEI it's not one engine INOPERATIVE", but now take it to mean "a SID is not an OEI procedure". Clarity of communication - a CRM skill...
Last edited by keithl; 15th May 2016 at 17:15.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Home
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess there is other places to discuss OEI, SID's and S92 vs EC225 ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from Colibri49's posts further up the page, I quizzed the guys in Norway about the REDL incident when I did my L2 type rating. I was told the root cause of the accident was the break up of the 'critical mast bearing'. The guy actually went and got one from the stores to show us what it looked like.
The REDL accident was due to the failure or a 2nd stage epicyclic planet gear, not a "critical mast bearing". The gear broke up and one piece was dragged between the epi case/ring gear and the remaining gears which burst the case. Case failure caused the rotor torque to be transmitted through the lift struts which then failed.
The 225 and the 332L2 have a large amount of MGB commonality. The 225 main module is the same configuration as the 332L2 with some material / coating changes to various gear wheels. The epicyclic module on the 225 is common to the 332L2. The 332L2s conical housing is replaced by the 225s flared housing with the emergency lube system.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. This is how the rods were found after the event involving big dynamic forces.
All 5 connector pins that were recovered had one nappy pin remaining in each.
2. They found more nappy pins but only displayed 5 ( unlikely IMO but possible )
Any other ideas ?
.
Last edited by TylerMonkey; 15th May 2016 at 20:15.
The REDL accident was due to the failure or a 2nd stage epicyclic planet gear, not a "critical mast bearing". The gear broke up and one piece was dragged between the epi case/ring gear and the remaining gears which burst the case. Case failure caused the rotor torque to be transmitted through the lift struts which then failed.
Perhaps this has happened again.
If it has.
Regardless of statistical evidence of reliability, having a rotor system depart the airframe "every so often" is going to prove unacceptable, to many.