EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
The House of Commons Transport Committee, Offshore helicopter safety,
Second Report of Session 2014–15, at Table 1 on page 11, shows the pattern of accidents in the UK sector from 1976 to 2013.
Can we agree that overall there is a dropping trend in both accidents and accidents per 100000 hours?
Worryingly, the pattern of a fatal accident every three years seems to stubbornly remain.
Second Report of Session 2014–15, at Table 1 on page 11, shows the pattern of accidents in the UK sector from 1976 to 2013.
Can we agree that overall there is a dropping trend in both accidents and accidents per 100000 hours?
Worryingly, the pattern of a fatal accident every three years seems to stubbornly remain.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oslo
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Photos of parts at press conference
Here are some photos of the parts shown at the press conference - click on them for full resolution (photo: Tor Erik H. Mathiesen / NTB Scanpix):
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DDA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so, my take..
-It happened in the blink of an eye, no time for Mayday, etc.
-Given mode of failure, rotor head twisting off, epicyclic gear breakdown is likely.
-The HUMs probably did not indicate pending failure before flight. (..but HUMs data could have been misinterpreted)
-More details will trickle in over the next few months, years, before final analysis.
-Accident happened within one of the most professionally run organization in helicopter industry.
= H225 grounded for a long time (maybe forever)//confidence shattered
-It happened in the blink of an eye, no time for Mayday, etc.
-Given mode of failure, rotor head twisting off, epicyclic gear breakdown is likely.
-The HUMs probably did not indicate pending failure before flight. (..but HUMs data could have been misinterpreted)
-More details will trickle in over the next few months, years, before final analysis.
-Accident happened within one of the most professionally run organization in helicopter industry.
= H225 grounded for a long time (maybe forever)//confidence shattered
AH's confidence in saying they don't want to ground the 225 and the announcement had me on the edge of my seat about the reason for their confidence and the very short time span they arrived at their stand point. But years in the industry told me this one will not go away in a week.. Still, the same years of experience in the industry left me perplexed with AH's response to date.
Phew, for a minute I was worried HC but now that's all cleared up, thanks.
Now that Airbus has lifted the suspension, my regulator is mute, having not suspended flights, all I have to do is persuade our operator to lift their (apparently unnecessary) suspension and the pilots to fly as normal and all will be statistically fine.
Now that Airbus has lifted the suspension, my regulator is mute, having not suspended flights, all I have to do is persuade our operator to lift their (apparently unnecessary) suspension and the pilots to fly as normal and all will be statistically fine.
If only it were possible to prevent any future maintenance errors. And then, I guess, "do something" to prevent any future pilot errors. Hmmmm, now that would be a wonderful fairytale land! Ain't going to happen though.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DDA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. I remember how a previous client was insisting our company produce a set of actions that would prevent an oil filler panel on the 76 of not being closed properly from (ever) taking place again. And in this case they will be pushing even more for rectification and assurances..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logically I'd agree Mitchaa. Except no one is about to point fingers at potential mistake makers because of the fallout. If it looks like a maintenance error, you need to pull work sheets, components used, trace back down the supply chain from stores back to the OEM etc. That's what's going to take time.
Our company works with the Norwegians and have never found them lacking in any respect. I have the highest regard of them and their people, which is not an excuse or disclaimer for what happened Friday, just a fact.
Our company works with the Norwegians and have never found them lacking in any respect. I have the highest regard of them and their people, which is not an excuse or disclaimer for what happened Friday, just a fact.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have now seen two quotes reported from the AIBN press conference. One says technical fault and one says technical error. It may be a translation thing but these two words, fault and error have pertinent different meanings in my mind. Can anyone clarify?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DDA
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Home
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitchaa, if price of oil was right, it would be airborne. It was only the last fatal accident off Scotland that CHC was quoted saying "Customers are asking us to return the aircraft to service." This after CHC had voluntarily suspended flights. Also to support this, CAA's own report back around that time titled/taking about " Offshore helicopter safety report reveals 'macho bullying culture". Sorry, and I hope I am 100% incorrect, but it is hard to believe those "advisors" really have a unbiased opinion.
Rumor is that it was the forward strut, lower pin "came loose" and no longer carried load, Remaining two not sufficient to carry loads, everything else ripped apart.
Q: same struts for 225 as previous versions?
As we earlier noted, this model is considered new, but the certification basis is clearly associated with previous models. Fatigue evaluation of structure is from amendment 20, 1980, which is not the same as today. New versions require threat assessment, which may have better predicted (and thus mitigated) issues with the struts and their attachment.
Even to the old standards, questions should be asked to ensure that the new aircraft and new loads are used to show that same or similar parts are safe.
Q: same struts for 225 as previous versions?
As we earlier noted, this model is considered new, but the certification basis is clearly associated with previous models. Fatigue evaluation of structure is from amendment 20, 1980, which is not the same as today. New versions require threat assessment, which may have better predicted (and thus mitigated) issues with the struts and their attachment.
Even to the old standards, questions should be asked to ensure that the new aircraft and new loads are used to show that same or similar parts are safe.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: London
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest from Airbus:
"Airbus Helicopters welcomes the announcement made by the AIBN today.
The investigation will now solely be focused on potential root causes of a technical failure, such as design, production, and/or maintenance.
Airbus Helicopters continues to provide its full support to the AIBN investigation."
"Airbus Helicopters welcomes the announcement made by the AIBN today.
The investigation will now solely be focused on potential root causes of a technical failure, such as design, production, and/or maintenance.
Airbus Helicopters continues to provide its full support to the AIBN investigation."
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been at least one instance of the incorrectly sized pin being inserted in the forward suspension bar attachment. The two aft sets of pins are a smaller diameter than the front ones. In this case, the error was discovered on the ground when collective was raised/power applied and the crew experienced a "clunk" as the bar lifted in it's bracket, the MGB effectively nodding up and down as power was applied and removed..
I'm not saying this has happened here. It may be possible that the correct pin has been inserted and has failed (not sure how likely that is to happen) or the correct pin has been inserted and the two nappy pins have not been fitted to preclude it slipping out. Yes it is subject to inspection after the installation, but if the incorrect pin can be fitted and no-one notices............
To inspect this pin, a panel on the firewall needs to be removed. Awkward to get to as you need to reach in under the RH engine, in a contortionist fashion to remove the panel fasteners.
I'm not saying any of this is likely or probable, but it is certainly possible. If the failure is a maintenance one.
I'm not saying this has happened here. It may be possible that the correct pin has been inserted and has failed (not sure how likely that is to happen) or the correct pin has been inserted and the two nappy pins have not been fitted to preclude it slipping out. Yes it is subject to inspection after the installation, but if the incorrect pin can be fitted and no-one notices............
To inspect this pin, a panel on the firewall needs to be removed. Awkward to get to as you need to reach in under the RH engine, in a contortionist fashion to remove the panel fasteners.
I'm not saying any of this is likely or probable, but it is certainly possible. If the failure is a maintenance one.
If it does turn out to be a maintenance error, let's hope the investigation doesn't just say "engineer error - they sacked him so no more problem" but rather looks at all the factors that might have contributed such as a company on the verge of bankruptcy, redundancies looming, lots of pressure from the top on costs, customers demanding cost reductions etc plus of course the usual possible personal issues.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They said "teknisk ulykke" or "ulykke av teknisk art" (i.e. technical accident) can't remember exactly. I made particular note of the term "ulykke". They didn't use the term "teknisk feil" (technical error/fault). A lot of the reporting does too much interpreting in my opinion, as in the "no human error" element, which was only about the flight crew (this was quite specific without stating that it didn't mean human error hadn't taken place elsewhere).
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They said "teknisk ulykke" or "ulykke av teknisk art" (i.e. technical accident) can't remember exactly. I made particular note of the term "ulykke". They didn't use the term "teknisk feil" (technical error/fault). A lot of the reporting does too much interpreting in my opinion, as in the "no human error" element, which was only about the flight crew (this was quite specific without stating that it didn't mean human error hadn't taken place elsewhere).