EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016

[ericferret]

I would have thought that the NG guages would have given a clue. As pitch increaces the rotor RPM would droop leading to an increace in NG. However the freewheeling engine would not sense a droop and this would lead to an NG split.

[AW009]

@cteneto139 #802 & #793, @[e-mail] #904: Might be in an older SA330 (J) produced 1968 – 1987, but this is not relevant to the crash of H225 LN-OJF. Definitely this old story does not apply to AS 332 L1, AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP / H225, those are equipped with 1 & 2 triple tachometer and fuel flow meters.

[birmingham]

Kawijet you may well be correct here. Others have been questioning my post where I said Airbus must surely have more information than they have released to be sure of their comment that the aircraft is safe to fly. They obviously can't speculate as to the cause, but a safe to fly providing you check message must mean they are very confident not only that the failure occurred somewhere other than the second planetary stage, but that it was a failure somehow related to the missing lift bar. This would add even more weight as to why the AH statement is circumspect to the point of confusion. If they are pretty sure of the cause (and given what they have said I hope they are for their sake) they dare not be specific as the investigation will review the design, manufacture and maintenance of the components associated with this. It also helps understand why they have kept the ban in place. Although AH can express confidence in their product the AIBN must consider all the parties and if (and I stress if) it is a suspension bar issue they will have to try and conclude why the accident occurred and all the factors associated with it i.e.

1. Was maintenance correctly carried out (CHC)
2. Did it fail due to a manufacturing error (AH/Sub contractors)
3. Was the design in any way culpable (AH)

Also these things rarely will have a single cause.

They are going to have to make a big statement and some of the evidence hasn't even been recovered.

Whatever the report says It will specify the likely cause and make recommendations to prevent a recurrence. The worry for AH is that some of the customers are convinced (rationally or irrationally) that the best way to prevent a recurrence is to fly on other helicopters.

[roundwego]

The worry for AH is that some of the customers are convinced (rationally or irrationally) that the best way to prevent a recurrence is to fly on other helicopters.

So statistically, the next helicopter of this class to have a major accident will be the S92. Then what?

[birmingham]

roundwego statistically it is no more likely to be an S92 than a Puma or anything else.

However, i get your point.

If you just look at the facts;

1. Since that terrible month in 2009 when 33 oil workers died as a result of two separate MGB failures no oil worker has been killed as a result of an MGB failure on either type. (unless that turns out to be the case with the current incident).

2. One more oil worker has been killed in the oil industry on an S92 than a Puma as a result of MGB failure.

3. There have been three further serious NS incidents since 2009 all involving Pumas
+May 2012 G-REDW MGB & backup failed, ditched but no fatalities.
+August 2013 G-WNSB four dead but completely unrelated to MGB failure
+May 2016 LN-OJF 13 dead no evidence of MGB failure as primary cause so far.

So 50 dead in 7 years 5 accidents 1 S92 & 4 Pumas
33 died on Pumas 17 on S92

All 4 NS accidents involved Pumas.

Public perception in the NS though is 4 accidents in about 7 years 3 of them fatal and 33 dead. All Pumas.

It isn't rational or logical but people now have an unrealistic expectation of near total safety.

It is going to be extremely difficult to salvage the type's reputation.

[roundwego]

Originally Posted by birmingham

roundwego statistically it is no more likely to be an S92 than a Puma or anything else.

Of course it's more likely to be a S92 if 225s are grounded (commercially or by authorities). What other large helicopter will be supporting oil and gas?

[Cows getting bigger]

If it is the S92, I see Sumburgh getting somewhat busier.

[birmingham]

agreed - just meant that there are still other types in the NS albeit not 19 seat

[birmingham]

and also that Sikorsky would point out that the investigators in the S92 event in Newfoundland pointed to 15 other factors other than the MGB that were partial causes.

I think though it is also worth pointing out that these aircraft save more lives than they take!

[birmingham]

Mitchaa indeed I did - sorry about that. Do you mean 6 in total as S92 was Newfoundland or have I missed another

So by my reckoning in the NS it is 5 accidents in 7 years involving ditching or worse.
3 related to MGB 1 fatal two scary precautionary ditchings.
1 not connected to MGB though fatal
1 fatal yet to be resolved

33 fatalities in all.

Must be incredibly tough on all who put in so much effort to make this business safe

[voando]

Mitchaa - G-WNSB Loss of control not CFIT, surely?

[Bishy]

Birmingham,
Our passengers that we transport to the rigs are a suspicious bunch. Some were scared to fly in a red helicopter after the bond accident regardless of 92 or 225. There needs to be a lot more interaction between operators and passengers. I know that my company has gone some way to solve this. That said i was stuck offshore with a faulty sensor and was asked about the 225 gearbox modification. The poster explaining this was straight outside the guys office door and he had never looked at it. When i explained it to him he seemed a lot more comfortable being flown in a 225. Education is the key if the 225 will fly again. Lets wait and see what happens in the investigation.

[Kawijet]

Mitchaa,

Unfortunately you are not correct. The photo you post of G-REDL shows the conical and upper epicyclic still in position but its not too clear. What you saw in the wreckage was the outer ring not the planetary gear carrier. The report states these were all recovered together and that IS what it means - together meaning still assembled.
It makes sense - the gearcasing fractured at the point of the upper 2nd stage epicyclic module and thats where the gearbox parted with the MGB. Above this is the conical. So if the conical also parted the upper gear carrier would have fallen free of the rotorhead leaving the splined connector but that is not what you see in that photograph of the recovered rotorhead. It does not taper from the swashplate down to the splined rotor mast like in this instance, but looks the same width right down, due to the conical and upper module still in position.... Does that make sense?

The report is quite clear that these parts were recovered together assembled, which, is totally different from this accident.

[helicrazi]

Bishy,

There never were any red S-92's???

[casper64]

So... Lets ground all A320s, the egypt air aircraft made some unexplainable turns and 66 people most likely lost their lives (may they RIP). If no cause is found it will most likely mean the end of the A320. As the A319 and the neo versions are very similar in designs these types should be grounded as well until further notice...

Am I exagragating or are a lot of people on this forum doing just that with regard to the 225 crash? Let's just wait for the results. And if none found, the aircraft will most likely be released to service with some thorough inspections as we do with airliners as well... Or should we also ground the world wide fleet of Boeing 777 as we don't know the whereabouts of the Malaysian one and don't know why it crashed....

[PlasticCabDriver]

Bishy,

There never were any red S-92's???

Wish there were, those 92s would have looked awesome in Bond scarlet.

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Originally Posted by Kawijet

Another interesting Photograph of Rotorhead and rear upper cowling
with what looks like blade abrasions on the paintwork.

Kawijet -
Explain the relative positions of rotorhead and cowling
to achieve your "what looks like blade abrasions on the paintwork",
giving due account of the rotorhead's kinetic energy,
impacting the non-aerodynamic frangible cowling.

Instead of your X-Files worthy supposition,
try -
A non-airframe-specific component
previously painted in a different colour scheme.

ATB
Paul

[AW009]

To give the gist, I have just written in the German Defense-Political, Armaments and Procurements Blog "Augen geradeaus! (eyes straight!)" of Thomas Wiegold (Der Drehflügler, Mai 2016/II : Augen geradeaus):

To adjust a preliminary interim status of AIRBUS H225 crash, please have a look on comment #805 in PPRuNe today (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/578...ml#post9380940):

The causes of accident, responsibilities and liabilities in my opinion might be supposed to develop even more intransparent and complex and we might return to #612 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/578...ml#post9372108)

It also appears to me that "Discretion is the better part of valor, for the three (VIP- & governmental) Cougar AS 532 U2 of German MoD“ (in german language: „Vorsicht ist die Mutter der Porzellankiste“).

By this, the rather hollow and extremely glibly statement - being bare of any expertice and simply arrogant – of the German Air Force spokesman to the German Press Agency in Berlin on Saturday [30th of April, 2016, please check #644, http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/578...ml#post9373218) is becoming more and more worst!

The user community of Augen geradeaus! (eyes straight!) is frankly spoken of an adequate and very professional level compared to PPRuNe and is due to a given expertice by a cross sectional area through the German Forces, FMOD and Industry (even commercial aviation) also very tolerant, open minded and responsive to any profound statement.

So please don’t hesitate with your comments, also in english language! Thanks ahead.

P.S.: Beside 35 years in comercial aviation I’m looking back on a military career of 12 years, retired as Captain and this is part of my motivation.

[Skotty]

Mitchaa @ #825

I agree with Kawijet @ #822

The following quote from the AAIB report on G-REDL confirms that the top part of the MGB detached along with MRH:

"The upper section of the gearbox assembly, which included the remains of the second stage of the epicyclic reduction gearbox, the conical housing and all three lift struts, had detached from the MGB and were recovered with the rotor head."

I have attached the drawing of the MRH (main rotor head) to which I have added pointers. LN-OJF's MRH separated at the joint between the lift housing and the flared housing. This is the same joint which would be separated when removing the MRH from the MGB (main gearbox) during maintenance. G-REDL's MRH separated at the epicyclic casing which is below the flared housing. This was due to the rupturing of the epicyclic casing.

We will just have to wait for the official report on why LN-OJF's MRH separated from the MGB at this point, but in my opinion this would be the most likely spot for the separation to occur if the lift forces were routed through the MGB casing instead of the struts. Of course this is just one out of many scenarios as to why it separated here.

[AW009]

@casper64: ’nomen est omen’ or ’ si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses’.