EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,420
I don't know if in the UK the CAA has made any pronouncements;
The CAA said;
2 Compliance/Action to be Taken
2.1 The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), in exercise of its powers under article 15 of the Air Navigation Order 2009, directs operators of any Airbus Helicopters EC225LP or AS332L2 helicopter which is:
a) registered in the United Kingdom; or
b) flying in the United Kingdom or in the neighbourhood of an offshore location.
to comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 2.2.
2.2 Operators and pilots must not conduct any flight with an Airbus Helicopters EC225LP or AS332L2 helicopter.
2.1 The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), in exercise of its powers under article 15 of the Air Navigation Order 2009, directs operators of any Airbus Helicopters EC225LP or AS332L2 helicopter which is:
a) registered in the United Kingdom; or
b) flying in the United Kingdom or in the neighbourhood of an offshore location.
to comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 2.2.
2.2 Operators and pilots must not conduct any flight with an Airbus Helicopters EC225LP or AS332L2 helicopter.
So, the answer to Helicrazi is yes, SAR is banned, or would be if there were any operators with these helicopters.
And to the second question, the CAA bans both, and (partly because of that) I suspect the EASA AD is simply sloppy drafting, as per everything else EASA produces. But there may be a good reason, I wouldn't know.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by helicrazi
@HeliComparator: good point, well made.
Next question, why allow 225's and not L2's?
Next question, why allow 225's and not L2's?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 281
HeliComparator:
You are correct, there are L2's servicing the Babcock SAR contract, which is why I don't understand EASA allowing 225's to continue, but not L2's.
Of course with the CAA blanket ban across all roles, then it wouldn't matter anyway.
You are correct, there are L2's servicing the Babcock SAR contract, which is why I don't understand EASA allowing 225's to continue, but not L2's.
Of course with the CAA blanket ban across all roles, then it wouldn't matter anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by helicrazi
HeliComparator:
You are correct, there are L2's servicing the Babcock SAR contract, which is why I don't understand EASA allowing 225's to continue, but not L2's.
Of course with the CAA blanket ban across all roles, then it wouldn't matter anyway.
You are correct, there are L2's servicing the Babcock SAR contract, which is why I don't understand EASA allowing 225's to continue, but not L2's.
Of course with the CAA blanket ban across all roles, then it wouldn't matter anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 905
Apologies if this has already been posted...
EC225 Main Rotor Head and Main Gear Box Design - Aerossurance
EC225 Main Rotor Head and Main Gear Box Design - Aerossurance
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by MichiScholz
Can anybody explain the differece between these types, regarding to the MGB/ rotor Head or connection to the fuselage?
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by krypton_john
Apologies if this has already been posted...
EC225 Main Rotor Head and Main Gear Box Design - Aerossurance
EC225 Main Rotor Head and Main Gear Box Design - Aerossurance
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by HeliComparator
MGB and mounting very similar in basic principle, but the devil is in the detail and inside there are major differences in materials etc. Although the L and L1 are identical I think? The AS332L and L1 had a head with conventional bearings, the L2 and 225 have no conventional bearings in the head, just elastomeric thingies (multilayered blobs of rubber and metal discs). More blades on the 225.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: US
Posts: 114
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 561
Indeed. Call all the hard working AIBN investigators tomorrow morning and ask them to start their summer holiday. Tell 'em an internet publication has solved things for you. Actually quit the whole branch, what a waste of tax payer's money. Same all over Europe. I bet hundreds of millions would be saved over the becoming years if we all just let the media tell us what went wrong.
The media is reporting what the AIBN reported, even included the actual report so how is that wrong with what the others posted.
I would say wdew is referring to all the speculation that this was a sus bar failure, and it appears that the AIBN has ended that speculation. I, and some others like Mitchaa had said that from the beginning....
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 19
Only for idiots like you. I have never seen such a cover up by an Authority.
Note book's need to get hands on. EPI no chance if they did the correct actions. I Knew/ know both the people that made those errors in Miri and REDL. 1 is due an Alloute 3 plus a hangar to the team. The other was not welcome to return.
Note book's need to get hands on. EPI no chance if they did the correct actions. I Knew/ know both the people that made those errors in Miri and REDL. 1 is due an Alloute 3 plus a hangar to the team. The other was not welcome to return.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Home
Posts: 72
[QUOTEOnly for idiots like you. I have never seen such a cover up by an Authority.
Note book's need to get hands on. EPI no chance if they did the correct actions. I Knew/ know both the people that made those errors in Miri and REDL.[/QUOTE]
Not going to comment on the idiot thing but what would you suspect they are covering up? Why would you have such a hard time believing this is a MGB/EPI failure?
Note book's need to get hands on. EPI no chance if they did the correct actions. I Knew/ know both the people that made those errors in Miri and REDL.[/QUOTE]
Not going to comment on the idiot thing but what would you suspect they are covering up? Why would you have such a hard time believing this is a MGB/EPI failure?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 603
I may be confused but isn't roscoe's link to a news report with a headline stating 'Super Puma crash was gearbox failure' - the actual AIBN report doesn't say anything of the sort, it just says:
- which is what we already knew?
TeeS
Recent metallurgical findings have revealed features strongly consistent with fatigue in the outer race of a second stage planet gear in the epicyclic module of the MGB. It cannot be ruled out that this signifies a possible safety issue that can affect other MGBs of the same type. The nature of the catastrophic failure of the LN-OJF main rotor system indicates that the current means to detect a failure in advance are not effective.
TeeS
