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 Jun 2016, 20:08
  #1121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
@helicrazi: It would do if there were any EC225s flying SAR in the UK / G-reg but as far as I know there aren't.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 20:25
  #1122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 281
@HeliComparator: good point, well made.

Next question, why allow 225's and not L2's?
helicrazi is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 20:32
  #1123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,420
I don't know if in the UK the CAA has made any pronouncements;
Well, I would have known if I had read the thread a bit more carefully.

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.
(a) and (b), and 2.2 seem to me to prohibit all UK-registered aircraft of the types listed, regardless of their role, from being flown anywhere, as well as prohibiting flights by non-UK aircraft of those types in UK airspace. So it's only the military who can keep flying, if indeed they have any.

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.
Capot is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 20:34
  #1124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by helicrazi View Post
@HeliComparator: good point, well made.

Next question, why allow 225's and not L2's?
Yea well not that good a point - there are of course AS332L2s flying SAR aren't there? (Jigsaw) or rather, were. Or am I out of date?
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 20:36
  #1125 (permalink)  
 
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.
helicrazi is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 21:20
  #1126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by helicrazi View Post
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.
I see your point. Could it be as simple as a typo? Maybe they forgot to add "or AS332L2" to that para? Presumably it was done in a bit of a rush.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 21:50
  #1127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Austria
Posts: 28
Difference L,L1,L2 and 225

Can anybody explain the differece between these types, regarding to the MGB/ rotor Head or connection to the fuselage?
MichiScholz is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 22:30
  #1128 (permalink)  
 
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
krypton_john is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 22:35
  #1129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 63
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by MichiScholz View Post
Can anybody explain the differece between these types, regarding to the MGB/ rotor Head or connection to the fuselage?
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.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 22:43
  #1130 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: The Gulf Coast
Posts: 706
Originally Posted by krypton_john View Post
Apologies if this has already been posted...

EC225 Main Rotor Head and Main Gear Box Design - Aerossurance
It was posted in about page 31 of this thread, which is now a page 56+.
T28B is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2016, 22:45
  #1131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by HeliComparator View Post
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.
The L2 and the 225 share the same epicyclic module which is different for the L and L1, the 332L2 and 225 have two stages of eight gears, not sure of the L and L1 have 7 or 9 gears per stage. The main module for the L2 and 225 are basically the same configuration with material changes to the gears of the 225 main module to take account of the higher power/operations temps. The L2 has a conical housing on top of the epicyclic with two races of ball bearings to take the lift loads, the 225 has a flared housing with two rows of inclined roller bearings to take the lift loads. The 225 also has the EM lube system
n305fa is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 00:36
  #1132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: EASA land
Posts: 34
Babcock has grounded all 225's and that includes the EC-MCR, the brand new, one and only SAR 225 operated by Inaer Spain

Last edited by Thorond0r; 3rd Jun 2016 at 01:52.
Thorond0r is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 01:22
  #1133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: US
Posts: 114
Super Puma Crash Was Gearbox Failure - Unexpected AIBN Preliminary Report Released - Oil and Gas News
roscoe1 is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 02:16
  #1134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Brisbane
Age: 57
Posts: 42
End of speculation.
wdew is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 03:28
  #1135 (permalink)  
 
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....
Outwest is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 03:50
  #1136 (permalink)  
 
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.
OMONEZ is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 04:06
  #1137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Vancouver,WA.
Posts: 14
Case closed..
Max Power 3503e is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 04:28
  #1138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 19
When it suits you. 32 years on the Sa330J AS 332L / L1 / L2 First course on the EC225 LP
Retired now at 55.
Moderator Outwest loc: LOS
This member from his posts has never been close any puma aircraft.
OMONEZ is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 05:10
  #1139 (permalink)  
 
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?
Satcomm is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2016, 05:28
  #1140 (permalink)  
 
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:

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.
- which is what we already knew?

TeeS
TeeS is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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