EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016

[Never Fretter]

Apate says

they are simply covering their backsides and are totally untrustworthy.

That's your anonymous opinion, but you know what they say opinions are like.

buzz66 says

Can't be a Sus Bar failure because the Gearbox split in 2 parts.

I agree with scuffers: not necessarily. As the lift housing becomes under-supported the modular MGB could fail in a number of ways as it is exposed to loads outside its design case and potentially some secondary impacts.

Let's work the odds here for your bet.

Luckily the AIBN have to do better then saying it looks a bit like another accident.

[Sanus]

Jim,

I wouldn't take the wager.

Last Monday morning Airbus Helicopters distributed letter 3031-S-00 definitively stating that all operators can safely return their 225's to service (subject to local approval). They based their comments on "additional information gathered during the last 48 hours" i.e. Saturday / Sunday.

The implication is one of maintenance error. Soon after the release of this letter strong rumours were leaked about the discovery of locking pins found 'on the bench'.

Airbus would not have dared suggest this so quickly after the accident without being 100% sure.

[Never Fretter]

Sanus

The implication is one of maintenance error.

Again your opinion, but its doesn't rule our design or manufacturing issues.

Soon after the release of this letter strong rumours were leaked about the discovery of locking pins found 'on the bench'.

Unsubstantiated rumours. What makes a rumour strong?

[Sanus]

NF,

All rumours are unsubstantiated. Otherwise they're called facts.

You pose a good question. I'd say a rumour becomes strong when it passes the taxi driver test.

[kikorro]

Originally Posted by dipperm0

I just scrolled the AAIB website to check for the AS 332 to EC 225 LP family accident reports after 2000.
Found 5:
G-REDL crashed with rotor hub separation,
G-REDW and G-CHCN went down under controled ditching following MGB lubrication system fault,
G-WNSB and G-REDU crashed following loss of control or references.

Did I miss something ?

DO

Last october a spanish military As332 crashes near to Mauritania. No survivors, and by now, no known reasons.

They were flying from Noaudibouh to Las Palmas, i think

[Never Fretter]

All rumours are unsubstantiated. Otherwise they're called facts.

There is a similar difference between wild speculation and being able to draw meaningful conclusions.

[TylerMonkey]

Originally Posted by Never Fretter

Sanus

Again your opinion, but its doesn't rule our design or manufacturing issues.....

I think you answered your own question.
Why would the manufacturer recommend a return to service this quickly if they HAD NOT (in their own minds) ruled out design or manuf issues. Seems like a logical conclusion, would be very negligent to proceed if they think there is any chance a defect of theirs will come back to bite them. I wonder how many lawyers are advising them . . .

[donut king]

Originally Posted by TylerMonkey

I think you answered your own question.
Why would the manufacturer recommend a return to service this quickly if they HAD NOT ruled out design or manuf issues. Seems like a logical conclusion, would be very negligent to proceed if they think there is any chance a defect of theirs will come back to bite them. I wonder how many lawyers are advising them . . .

Why would a manufacturer ground their type without proof of a design/ manufacturing failure?

Airbus is standing behind their product until it's proven, possibly, to be defective.....imho

[aeropierre]

Originally Posted by Satcomm

Birmingham - never say never! Let's just replace 60% of the helicopters in the North Sea. What do you suggest we replace them with? Guess it would be great if we could replace it with something that is guaranteed not to fail. Even with the guarantee, the cost and down time implementation of this would be astronomically. The retraining(hopefully) of everyone from drivers, maintenance, ramp staff to passenger and management would be astonishing. Now minus the guarantee of a perfect aircraft, because that does not exist, I think the safety factor would drastically decrease with drivers that have limited experience of type, engineers that are fixing aircraft they are as familiar with and even ramp staff doing daily operations around aircraft they are not use to. The downtime and limit aircraft support while waiting for aircraft to be manufactured and staff ramped up would have oil companies crippled for passenger movements. The spin off to this would have massive consequences, from cost, fatigue, moral, etc.

A very rare an intelligent comment in this helicopter world .I agree 100%.

[Audun]

Civil defence looking for gear box parts using metal detecors in rough terrain
Søker etter årsaken til Turøy-tragedien - NRK Hordaland - Lokale nyheter, TV og radio
The AIBN says it "feel we need more parts" says the leader of the investigation

[FNTC]

From that link:
" Vi er kjent med at rotoren forlot helikopteret, og vi søker å finne alle de komponentene som kan fortelle oss litt om hvorfor det kunne skje. Da er girboksen et sentralt punkt, sier granskingsleder Kåre Halvorsen.

Translation:
"We are familiar with the fact that the rotor left the helicopter, so we are trying to find all the components that can tell us something about why that could happen. In that sense, the gearbox is a central point, says head of investigations, Kaare Halvorsen."

[TylerMonkey]

Originally Posted by donut king

Why would a manufacturer ground their type without proof of a design/ manufacturing failure?

Airbus is standing behind their product until it's proven, possibly, to be defective.....imho

In most cases I would agree. This one is different, Airbus has G-REDL a previous gearbox event. Combined with the fact that gearbox parts are still missing now and being searched for would make me assume (IMO) that they would hold off approving flight. The fact they released the letter suggests they found physical evidence that is not in the wreckage solely. Whatever they found is not in the missing wreckage, that's a given. And they seem to have decided it won't change their opinion on present flight safety when all the wreckage is finally recovered, again IMO.
I see 3 locations, recovered wreckage, missing wreckage, and gear in maintenance facilities. Recovered wreckage is incomplete, that alone may not answer all the questions. Missing wreckage may help to solve the puzzle but they don't have it. There is only one conclusion I can see logically . . . they found something outside of the wreckage evidence that made them issue this advisory that the 225 is safe to fly. I don't buy the theory that it is all PR spin to keep business as usual. My 2 cents, and worth as much.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by TylerMonkey

In most cases I would agree. This one is different,
Missing wreckage may help to solve the puzzle but they don't have it. There is only one conclusion I can see logically . . . they found something outside of the wreckage evidence that made them issue this advisory that the 225 is safe to fly. I don't buy the theory that it is all PR spin to keep business as usual. My 2 cents, and worth as much.

That seems very plausible. Also, I can't imagine that either their lawyers or the various regulators would allow such an assertion if they did not have strong grounds.

[G0ULI]

McDonnell Douglas insisted for quite some time that the original DC10 cargo door was quite safe when operated correctly, except when wear and tear of components gave faulty indications that the safety interlocks were engaged, when they weren't.

As aircraft age under real life operating conditions, parts can age and degrade in ways that were not anticipated by the manufacturer.

[TowerDog]

. . they found something outside of the wreckage evidence that made them issue this advisory that the 225 is safe to fly. I don't buy the theory that it is all PR spin to keep business as usual. My 2 cents, and worth as much.

Airbus came to the scene, did a quick inspection and concluded it was not their problem, good to go.

One can only speculate what they found and it was probably not a design fault.

[rotor-rooter]

Originally Posted by TowerDog

Airbus came to the scene, did a quick inspection and concluded it was not their problem, good to go.

One can only speculate what they found and it was probably not a design fault.

This would seem to be a very reasonable assumption Towerdog. Unfortunately for Airbus, until they share that information with the general public, no-one is going to want to fly in it. Operators, Customers, offshore workers, and on it goes.

A review of Bill Chiles criteria for a safety assessment that it was safe for his family and grandchildren to fly in, remains the basis that every person involved will continue to use.

There are very few Airbus employees that have spent any time ever flying in a 225, let alone exposed to the offshore environment. I think many people have that in mind when these statements come out.

[henra]

Originally Posted by Apate

Forget the AH and DGAC noise, they are simply covering their backsides and are totally untrustworthy. The stakes a very high and they are trying to save a product line here.

Hmm, although I still wouldn't bet any money on either cause (suspension bar vs. Gearbox vs. anything else) I can't really follow this reasoning.
How would all of this help if one week later it comes out it was indeed a gearbox failure?
Do you think deliberately deceiving people to gain just one or two weeks would help longterm sales of the 225? Do you buy your 20Mio$ stuff just upon sentiment of the week?
Do you assume exactly this week someone will buy 20 AH225 when he wouldn't have done so if it wasn't declared safe to fly again by the Manufacturer? I don't see how this would help the 225 in the long term. The cause will be found and that will then be the basis for the future. Assumption of the week is meaningless.


Again: What is the benefit of re-assuring yourself it was a certain cause when the experts are still digging through the wreckage. And until we really know the cause from the investigators it might be a good idea to keep the 225 on the ground or at least stick closely to the EASA Safety Bulletin.

[Heathrow Harry]

You need to also consider the possible knock-on effect of grounding every 225.

All those offshore platforms require operating and maintenance crews to not only to keep running but also to stay safe - theoretically you could go back to boat transfers but that's a hell of a lot more dangerous than using a helicopter

[TowerDog]

. This would seem to be a very reasonable assumption Towerdog. Unfortunately for Airbus, until they share that information with the general public, no-one is going to want to fly in it. Operators, Customers, offshore workers, and on it goes.

I would not fly in those things either if there was even a remote possibility the main rotor would detach under normal operations.
(Yes, we don't know the cause yet, but I don't care what the cause is, sloppy maintenance, metal Fatique, etc., I would still not strap by arse into a 225 if there was other choise, and there usually is)

[Satcomm]

I would not fly in those things either if there was even a remote possibility the main rotor would detach under normal operations.
(Yes, we don't know the cause yet, but I don't care what the cause is, sloppy maintenance, metal Fatique, etc., I would still not strap by arse into a 225 if there was other choise, and there usually is)

Tower Dog, I'm not sure what you do for a living but I hope it does not involve flying in a helicopter. If so, what i am about to inform you may shock the hell out of you. There is NOT a single helicopter manufactured that does not have a "remote" chance of the main rotor head departing the airframe. In fact, ALL Helicopters (including theentire super puma family) are designed to retain the main rotor head under "normal" operating conditions. The super puma (225 and 332), are not the first helicopter types to have had the rotor head depart. It has happened to everything from Enstroms, S76s to super Pumas. Put that aside, the main rotor head departing the aircraft is only ONE and very remote way that a helicopter ride can become fatal.

Speculation, discussions and rumours aside, This has been a very tragic event and today my heart does go out to tall the mothers involved and surrounding this tragedy.