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 25th Sep 2016, 11:38
  #1561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 227
OK fair nuff, it was before my time and I only heard snapshots from a few people when I first joined.

Si
bigglesbutler is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2016, 13:14
  #1562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 141
Let's not kid ourselves...

All large oil companies have various management structures to kid themselves they are doing it the 'Safeway'.
The Statoil 'report' was a joint ar5e-covering and PR exercise that contributes nothing to the safety argument.
Likewise, Shell Aviation can employ as many 'inspectors' and 'Aviation Safety Advisors' as they can justify; but it will be Shell Commercial that calls the shots.
As far as introducing up-to-date Helideck lighting - you must be referring to decks before my time.......
For example; latest 'Clipper' deck was introduced well after the design of 'new' Helideck lighting was agreed, and it was still allowed to be commissioned with 'old-spec' lighting!
Be careful what you say SM, it was only after the industry embarrassed the CAA into taking action did 'updates' - which had previously been left on the shelf as they were only examples of 'best practice' - start to be 'mandated'.
You are still using out-of-date aircraft when you could been leading the field and insisting in OEMs to provide 'modern' machines - but then that would cost more and it is only a 'taxi' to get plumbers to work and no one has insisted in the past..............
You might regard yourselves as 'leaders' in the Energy Transport sector but you are all well behind the fixed-wing world. That might have been acceptable in the days of the mad rush to extract the black stuff but you have no excuse now and will find it difficult to hide behind a wall of Safety Cases when the lawyers ask "why not" when it was simply a matter of spending a bit more of the green stuff.......
JulieAndrews is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2016, 18:01
  #1563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,360
'Safeway'
is a supermarket......
Shell Aviation
makes fuels and lubricants.....
You are still using out-of-date aircraft
Currently we only use AW139/189, S92 and AH175, but happy if you can point us to some more modern types...
212man is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2016, 19:31
  #1564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,523
I think that is the point....

There are no other options.
It is only recently that such an aircraft like the 175 has come to market.
The 175 was not Shell's first choice.
Please do not pretend that the 92 and latest rash of AWs are 'modern' designs.
However, you have probably been in the industry for so Long that you can be forgiven for thinking 'modern' means having true Class 1 performance.
And well done for picking-up in the typos, keep doing that and all should be well with the world ;-)

Last edited by EESDL; 25th Sep 2016 at 19:47. Reason: Afterthought.
EESDL is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 08:50
  #1565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,360
There are no other options.
It is only recently that such an aircraft like the 175 has come to market.
You appear to be making the same point as me.
212man is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 12:00
  #1566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 112
Most of the research projects Shell have co-funded are long in the past.

On the most recent, on TAWS (fixing an inadequate system that they had stubbornly insisted was introduced prematurely!), I'm told that their contribution was a token figure AFTER others had already funded inital work, but enough to get their name on the credits.

So where are Shell using the 175?
Never Fretter is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 12:19
  #1567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N.Africa for now
Posts: 100
SAi

Shell M &212 man
Care to give us evidence of what really SAI funded and how much ?

Thanks
B.G
bladegrabber is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 13:35
  #1568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,360
Originally Posted by Never Fretter View Post
Most of the research projects Shell have co-funded are long in the past.

On the most recent, on TAWS (fixing an inadequate system that they had stubbornly insisted was introduced prematurely!), I'm told that their contribution was a token figure AFTER others had already funded inital work, but enough to get their name on the credits.
Not sure the facts bear that statement out!


So where are Shell using the 175?
They're not, but is approved and useable if tendered.
212man is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 13:44
  #1569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Beyond the black stump!
Posts: 1,185
Please do not pretend that the 92 and latest rash of AWs are 'modern' designs.
I realize that I may not be the smartest person participating, but what exactly are these missing "modern" designs you are referring to?
Cyclic Hotline is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2016, 18:58
  #1570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 74
Posts: 765
If the warning project is going ahead it does look like someone else put in 9 times what Shell did.

They're not, but is approved and useable if tendered.
Ah yes I used to enjoy those long trips to exotic locations being wined and dined by OEMs.

Margarine was a great place to visit for the EC155 and EC225 approvals.
Shell Management is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2016, 12:17
  #1571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,523
Modern

Sorry Cylic, what I meant is that in aviation 'Modern' does not mean what is available from the manufacturers but what could be available from technology currently available.
I guess CAA's recent pointer that the industry could go a long way to lead this and to help themselves in the process.
It's encouraging to see such overt 'hinting' or even 'wrist slapping' from the authorities - I guess they are getting fed-up of the industry taking the £iss!
I'm out of it now but I understand from what has been published that the industry is still dragging its feet over various issues - or has the CAA got it wrong?
EESDL is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2016, 12:53
  #1572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: England
Posts: 1,249
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...Report2016.pdf
ericferret is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2016, 13:26
  #1573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,262
Gentlemen, I will suggest that some of these posts really belong in the "end of the 225" thread or one of the threads on the oil industry/helicopter support thereof. We seem to have drifted from the more pressing concern of accident details and reports pertaining thereunto. (I confess, I found the linked 2016 report of interest).
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2016, 12:05
  #1574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 10
As you have all probably seen it in the press, EASA withdrew on friday the flight restrictions on 225LP and 332L2.

You can find below the related inspections asked by EASA to perfom safe flights :
EASA Safety Publications Tool
Tatischeff is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2016, 20:04
  #1575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 6
So AH got EASA to lift the ban...****ing joke that's what it is!! No regards for personnel, money talks as usual. Just spit the victims relatives in the face, why don't you!! Well, the flying piece of junk is gone forever from the Norwegian sector anyway, thank god. But I feel for the poor souls who has no choice other than the puma.
TommyL is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2016, 00:29
  #1576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Norway
Posts: 32
EASA have effectively banned the use of the type of second stage planet gears involved in the accident(s?). Any 225LP and 332L2 with that type og second stage planet gears have to replace them with the other type to fly again.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about this to evaluate if that is enough to deem it safe or not, but it's not like they just waited for the dust to settle and then let things continue as if nothing happened.
Nadar is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2016, 00:39
  #1577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 380
This reminds me of the early years of the Cessna Conquest, which included some fatal crashes because of design flaws that were not corrected but only patched.
Cessna eventually had to redesign the entire tail assembly and the aircraft never achieved its full market potential.


As I read the EASA document, it simply notes that one type of planetary gear configuration has lower stress levels and better reliability than the other, so it must now be used.
It conceded that 'the root cause of the failure is still not fully understood'.


Perhaps that is pragmatic air safety regulation, but it seems more like military than commercial in orientation.


etudiant is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2016, 08:23
  #1578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terminal 5
Posts: 54
EASA v UK & Norway CAA

What is going on with EASA?

They are going against the advice of both the UK and Norwegian CAA's, who are arguably the most experienced airworthiness authorities regarding offshore helicopters in the world.

EASA agree with the UK & Norwegian CAA's that the cause of the latest 225 accident is not understood yet. But even so EASA are prepared to take a risk and allow it to fly commercially, although admittedly with fairly restrictive daily maintenance.

This is not joined-up governance. Some people have suggested this is curiously advantageous timing for Airbus just before Helitech week. For all our sake's let's hope the EASA decision is based more on fact than political expediency.
Sanus is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2016, 13:05
  #1579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 76
If it is political, some nation should be happy they get someone to share the blame and keep their industry.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2016, 12:41
  #1580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by Sanus View Post
What is going on with EASA?

They are going against the advice of both the UK and Norwegian CAA's, who are arguably the most experienced airworthiness authorities regarding offshore helicopters in the world.

EASA agree with the UK & Norwegian CAA's that the cause of the latest 225 accident is not understood yet. But even so EASA are prepared to take a risk and allow it to fly commercially, although admittedly with fairly restrictive daily maintenance.

This is not joined-up governance. Some people have suggested this is curiously advantageous timing for Airbus just before Helitech week. For all our sake's let's hope the EASA decision is based more on fact than political expediency.
Unbelievable - three agencies two opinions and no explanation as to why they disagree. There is no place for politics in safety.
birmingham is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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