EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As previously stated, EASA do not have jurisdiction over State operations such as SAR/Military etc. The NAA of the state involved will make a ruling on this, as the UK and Norwegian CAA have.
The wording on the EASA document is irrelevant to these ops (albeit with a possible mistake of missing the L2).
The wording on the EASA document is irrelevant to these ops (albeit with a possible mistake of missing the L2).
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that they do not have Operational jurisdiction - hence in the UK there is CAP999 for guidance, and a national SAR AOC - but surely a civil registered aircraft on an EASA TC being maintained under EASA Part 145 and Part M will be subject to an Airworthiness Directive?
I'll try again as my last post got lost in the noise...
The new interim report shows a picture of a second-stage planetry gear. Although it's not mentioned in the text, the caption notes that 3x of the rollers are missing...
How? How do they escape? Or were they never fitted...??
The new interim report shows a picture of a second-stage planetry gear. Although it's not mentioned in the text, the caption notes that 3x of the rollers are missing...
How? How do they escape? Or were they never fitted...??
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@212man. You would think so I know, and it really is semantics as the CAA have introduced the flight ban for all ops, however whilst on SAR ops (not training) the aircraft is technically maintained under the old BCAR system and a different Certificate of Release to Service (CRS) (CAA rather than EASA) must be issued. There is a CAA derogation in place to cover this situation.
@nige321 as you can see in the picture of the planetary gear there was much stress on the gears so they become ovalized - thats a possibilty how such a roller can escape from the bearing.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nuremberg (metropol region)
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again my questions to the community:
P.S.: Please see https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country/map
- Would FAA react analogue to EASA?
- How will all the EASA non-member states - but being in relationship to EASA - react?
- How will military of the EASA memberstates react?
- How will military of EASA non-member states react?
- Are there any of those reactions already known?
- If yes, by which states?
- What is the reaction?
- In commercial aviations?
- In military aviations?
P.S.: Please see https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country/map
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way the rollers can get out of an installed planet gear is if the outer race either brakes, deforms or is pulled off the inner race. Getting them out of the loading slot in the inner race can only be done with the inner race, rollers and cages rotated 90 degrees to the outer race.
The outer race is part of a sphere and the rollers are barrel shaped which allows the gear to "self align"
The outer race is part of a sphere and the rollers are barrel shaped which allows the gear to "self align"
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A nice place
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way the rollers can get out of an installed planet gear is if the outer race either brakes, deforms or is pulled off the inner race. Getting them out of the loading slot in the inner race can only be done with the inner race, rollers and cages rotated 90 degrees to the outer race.
The outer race is part of a sphere and the rollers are barrel shaped which allows the gear to "self align"
The outer race is part of a sphere and the rollers are barrel shaped which allows the gear to "self align"
EASA EAD now corrected to include L2:
Note: Pursuant to Art.1 (2) (a) of Regulation (EC) 2016/2008, the requirement of paragraph (1) of this AD does not apply to AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP helicopters while carrying out military, customs, police, search and rescue, firefighting, coastguard or similar activities or services.
There's the gear bottom-right.
You're trying to say that that gear distorted enough to release 3 rollers, from 2 different places, then snapped back into its former shape, all without any damage...??!
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am looking back in the Super Puma gearbox overhaul history.
For the A332 L1 MGB it is written about the TBO which is 3000 hours.
It was yesterday said on the press conference by CHC
that the TBO on MGB is 4400 hours on the EC225.
Why is the TBO MGB longer with the EC225 than the L1?
For the A332 L1 MGB it is written about the TBO which is 3000 hours.
It was yesterday said on the press conference by CHC
that the TBO on MGB is 4400 hours on the EC225.
Why is the TBO MGB longer with the EC225 than the L1?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more than possible once the case broke, only have to go to ~20 degree's to 'free' the rollers, ie. more than likely to have happened during the event
the cracked gear (bottom left) looks like it was caused by the event too, as it the distortion of the gear, rather than fatigue.
can't tell from these what the root cause of the failure were, could have been anything from a big chip/bit floating round the box or the failure of one of the rods then placing a massive angular load on the epicyclic.
None of this is the smoking gun.
the cracked gear (bottom left) looks like it was caused by the event too, as it the distortion of the gear, rather than fatigue.
can't tell from these what the root cause of the failure were, could have been anything from a big chip/bit floating round the box or the failure of one of the rods then placing a massive angular load on the epicyclic.
None of this is the smoking gun.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 64
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the picture provided by nige123 (and the aib) - if the LH lower gear is missing ALL its bearings and is still intact .... the fact that the RH one has only 3 missing would be a bonus whatever its failure mode!
Who can say what goes on during a catastrophic event of this size?
I think we are still looking at a chicken and egg.
Who can say what goes on during a catastrophic event of this size?
I think we are still looking at a chicken and egg.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one interesting thing to note, looking at the gear teeth themselves, they look remarkably un-damaged, if the primary cause was trash in the box, you would expect to see some evidence of this in tooth damage.
The FAA has now issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive prohibiting further flight on AS332L2 and EC225LP.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/e8afb3f556876b0b86257fc7006d82e2/$FILE/2016-12-51_Emergency.pdf
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/e8afb3f556876b0b86257fc7006d82e2/$FILE/2016-12-51_Emergency.pdf
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nuremberg (metropol region)
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
major avalanche
Up to now the first (German) military reaction to CAA N and CAA UK, EASA and FAA and their AD, SD and EAD:
(see Absturz eines "Superpuma": Bundeswehr setzt Flüge mit VIP-Hubschraubern aus - SPIEGEL ONLINE)
’Crash of SUPER PUMA: [German] Bundeswehr suspends flights of governmental helicopters’
(see Absturz eines "Superpuma": Bundeswehr setzt Flüge mit VIP-Hubschraubern aus - SPIEGEL ONLINE)
’Crash of SUPER PUMA: [German] Bundeswehr suspends flights of governmental helicopters’
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: **** You
Age: 74
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now we have a possible scenario of why the Epicyclic blew apart.
I always maintained a Sus Bar or Foot will not cause the Gearbox to separate.
But I also don't see the Planet wear causing the event. It became a weak point for sure. If the Sus Bar letting go did cause enough gear stress for the Epicyclic to fail is really doesn't matter does it......EITHER scenario on it's own or together will result in total destruction of the Machine and everyone in it.
What can't be ignored regardless of what the cause, is the fact it was never detected by HUMS, CHIPS, FDR, CVR, SOAP, ENGINEERS, PILOTS
Whatever failed first it gave no warning at all!
Why the Gear Race wear was not picked up in a SOAP sample, is also a mystery. Surely SOAP samples are taken as part of the normal Maintenance Program.
HUMS is clearly inadequate in detecting detecting early bearing wear issues in the Epicyclic. With multiple Gears with the same tooth count rotating on the same plane it's not doesn't surprise. A Tooth defect is a different story.
I'm sure the HUMS actual values, learning values, component step change, ETC were all looked at in great detail. You might find now they know which component is worn they can take another closer look at the HUMS Data and actually spot the wear. If if they did,was the Relevant Data significantly above the Noise to fix by reducing the trigger levels on the those Accelerometers. I think not.
If the Conical housing failed then surely that can only happen if it was badly treated at some stage, same could be said for the Sus Bars or Gearbox itself.
The speed of the occurrence with no warning remains the most disturbing thing whatever the finding and it's getting harder and harder to walk away from
I always maintained a Sus Bar or Foot will not cause the Gearbox to separate.
But I also don't see the Planet wear causing the event. It became a weak point for sure. If the Sus Bar letting go did cause enough gear stress for the Epicyclic to fail is really doesn't matter does it......EITHER scenario on it's own or together will result in total destruction of the Machine and everyone in it.
What can't be ignored regardless of what the cause, is the fact it was never detected by HUMS, CHIPS, FDR, CVR, SOAP, ENGINEERS, PILOTS
Whatever failed first it gave no warning at all!
Why the Gear Race wear was not picked up in a SOAP sample, is also a mystery. Surely SOAP samples are taken as part of the normal Maintenance Program.
HUMS is clearly inadequate in detecting detecting early bearing wear issues in the Epicyclic. With multiple Gears with the same tooth count rotating on the same plane it's not doesn't surprise. A Tooth defect is a different story.
I'm sure the HUMS actual values, learning values, component step change, ETC were all looked at in great detail. You might find now they know which component is worn they can take another closer look at the HUMS Data and actually spot the wear. If if they did,was the Relevant Data significantly above the Noise to fix by reducing the trigger levels on the those Accelerometers. I think not.
If the Conical housing failed then surely that can only happen if it was badly treated at some stage, same could be said for the Sus Bars or Gearbox itself.
The speed of the occurrence with no warning remains the most disturbing thing whatever the finding and it's getting harder and harder to walk away from