EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
I do think the burden of proof is on Airbus after their statement. Clearly it aims to restore the 225 to routine service asap.
The rotor pulled off one of their aircraft which killed 13 people, but they give an all clear.
So there must be something substantial that has been found, but not yet released.
Absent some very specific understanding of the cause, it would risk brand killing to issue such a recommendation. Who could trust them again if they are found to be at fault?
The rotor pulled off one of their aircraft which killed 13 people, but they give an all clear.
So there must be something substantial that has been found, but not yet released.
Absent some very specific understanding of the cause, it would risk brand killing to issue such a recommendation. Who could trust them again if they are found to be at fault?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think so, too.
Of course the AIBN needs to conclude the investigation before anything is published.
Airbus will not talk about the reason because they are a party in the formal investigation, too.
Of course the AIBN needs to conclude the investigation before anything is published.
Airbus will not talk about the reason because they are a party in the formal investigation, too.
(You loose a part of a blade or a pitch change link comes loose or something major in your MGB brakes and chances are -bye bye to the big ceiling fan above you). Fortunately this happens very rarely. But it has happened in the past and in all likelihood will do so in the future.
Several comparisons of this grounding of the 225 to Airlines not grounding whole fleets of Airliners after a crash.
If a Wing separates from the Airliner during cruise flight in nominal weather conditions and a similar Video was published.....would there be a grounding of the fleet you wonder?
The Dreamliner by Boeing had some electrical problems and encountered a grounding order as I seem to recall (or is my alcohol ravaged brain confusing events somehow?).
Just how much design criteria and manufacturing processes must MGB's have in common before they are considered similar enough to be considered the "same".
If a Wing separates from the Airliner during cruise flight in nominal weather conditions and a similar Video was published.....would there be a grounding of the fleet you wonder?
The Dreamliner by Boeing had some electrical problems and encountered a grounding order as I seem to recall (or is my alcohol ravaged brain confusing events somehow?).
Just how much design criteria and manufacturing processes must MGB's have in common before they are considered similar enough to be considered the "same".
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
. Bad news for you:
If I did, would stay away from certain types, I don't blame the oil workers one bit.
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
. I haven't yet seen anything that would keep me out of a EC225.
I saw a video of the spinning rotor flying away like a frisbee while the rest of the chopper went into a 9 second dive hitting the rocks at close to 200 mph.
That was enough to keep me out of the EC225. Guess I turned into a chicken on my old days.
Same, wouldn't think twice about it.
Over 4,000,000 flight hours? I think the odds of getting struck by lightning are 700,000 to 1.
Over 4,000,000 flight hours? I think the odds of getting struck by lightning are 700,000 to 1.
There are two components to risk, plus the emotional aspect.
1. Likelihood. (In your lightening statistics, it probably includes those that play golf during thunderstorms. Unlike the tragic accident being discussed where nothing the pilot can do will change their odds, or the outcome.) Without a cause being identified, it's like playing Russian Roulette with thousands of chambers, but an unknown number of bullets. Like most on PPRuNe, I have no idea what went wrong in this case. Is it impossible that it's discovered that every EC225/L2 gearbox will fail under certain life/environment conditions? (Less than the currently mandated replacement schedule. Perhaps a part that currently isn't "lifed", and is reused during overhaul. Just saying it's not impossible, with our current knowledge.)
2. Outcome. Some people are struck by lightning and suffer few consequences.
3. Emotional. Even though I'm more likely to be killed driving to work, no motor vehicle crash offers 10+ seconds of terror, with certain death the outcome.
Given an option, I'd personally prefer to fly a machine type, that didn't have a proven history of unexplained catastrophic failures.
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
As per Google:
. Your odds of being struck by lightning this year are 1 in 960,000. In your lifetime those odds drop to about 1 in 12,000. Your odds of being struck by lightning twice in your lifetime are 1 in 9 million, which is still a higher chance than winning the Powerball.Jan 13, 2016
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Behind a dusty desk, and in some really hot, dusty, wet and cold places subject to who is paying the bill. But mostly Gods own land.
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, all this talk of lightning... have you factored in the possibility of triggered lightning?
As to whether AH is currently deliberately misleading customers as part of some defensive death-throe, this seems unlikely but what is more certain is that EASA wouldn't be complicit in that. If there was evidence of a serious design fault that could lead to a probability of a repeat of the accident, EASA would surely have grounded the fleet as part of their AD, rather than merely requiring some fairly superficial checks to be carried out.
HC
Fair points and valid points Sir, so allow me to rephrase:
Given an option, I'd personally prefer to fly a machine type, that doesn't have a recent history of one presently, and understandably due to ongoing investigation, unexplained catastrophic failure.
I love flying the EC225, it's, in my opinion, a great machine. I've always felt very safe in it.
I'll never forget the feeling I had watching that video of the rotor system in flight. I'm not sure I'll ever feel the same airbourne in the Puma series again. Time will tell. (A lot of things)
Fly safe, smile at every suitable opportunity.
Fair points and valid points Sir, so allow me to rephrase:
Given an option, I'd personally prefer to fly a machine type, that doesn't have a recent history of one presently, and understandably due to ongoing investigation, unexplained catastrophic failure.
I love flying the EC225, it's, in my opinion, a great machine. I've always felt very safe in it.
I'll never forget the feeling I had watching that video of the rotor system in flight. I'm not sure I'll ever feel the same airbourne in the Puma series again. Time will tell. (A lot of things)
Fly safe, smile at every suitable opportunity.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May eat my words on this but not buying the missing diaper pin theory. Mainly due to the length of time between the accident and the MRH/MGB replacements. Having worked in the industry long enough, find it really hard to believe, at this time with all the safety nets, such a critical part would be missed. The first engineer would have to forget, the second engineer (initialing the independent) would either have to have gained enough trust in the first guy not to look, however, I cant imagine he wouldn't at least asked (which is when you would think the first guy would go "oh $#%&"). There would most likely be a checklist/greasy thumb copy of the major component replacement that gets attached to the work card where someone checked installing the pins (again "oh %$^*, I forgot the pins). Now this is just the 2 guys signing for the job, there would be several other engineers involved in replacing either of the above 2 components, possibly even a shift change (maybe not for MRH) where another set of guys would have been involved. After all that, hangar/stand cleanup, I think someone would have noted a firewall panel, washer and 2 diaper pins left over and questioned why.
So all that got missed, the aircraft has been flying for a month (according to the rumors) since the MRH replacement. There would have been a significant amount of daily inspections, preflights and turnarounds in which no engineer picked up of the missing panel. I realize its down in the bottom of the firewall behind the engine but I think it would be picked up on a daily. Engineers minds are trained to pick up on the anomalies not the thing that are correct. Again, after all that time, someone is now just noting the significance of the parts sitting in the hangar ... I don't know guys, really seems far fetched to me.
I guess nothing is impossible but its not like this is HS's first go at a puma. I do not work for HS but I do think they are a probably the most experienced super puma operators out there. CHC like all the other big boys, have all the known safety nets in place and is just hard to think such a small yet critical step creeped through the cracks for so long.
Obviously like everything else on here, this is just my own speculation and in due time we will hopefully find out the true cause so that the chances of it happening again are minimised.
So all that got missed, the aircraft has been flying for a month (according to the rumors) since the MRH replacement. There would have been a significant amount of daily inspections, preflights and turnarounds in which no engineer picked up of the missing panel. I realize its down in the bottom of the firewall behind the engine but I think it would be picked up on a daily. Engineers minds are trained to pick up on the anomalies not the thing that are correct. Again, after all that time, someone is now just noting the significance of the parts sitting in the hangar ... I don't know guys, really seems far fetched to me.
I guess nothing is impossible but its not like this is HS's first go at a puma. I do not work for HS but I do think they are a probably the most experienced super puma operators out there. CHC like all the other big boys, have all the known safety nets in place and is just hard to think such a small yet critical step creeped through the cracks for so long.
Obviously like everything else on here, this is just my own speculation and in due time we will hopefully find out the true cause so that the chances of it happening again are minimised.
The other misconception is with regards the inspection process. You may be looking at it from a UK point of view which make your assertions spot on but in Norway engineers can Dupe their own work so an independent inspection is never required under their legislation. This may seem ridiculous to many on here but it is how it is.
But as many have said on here we are all just listening to rumours and it may be a long time before we know the correct details.
My thoughts are with the families of those affected by this tragedy.
T&S
The problem with your philosophy is that it means you would be happy to fly a brand new type with no history, which nevertheless inevitably has some major design defects, over a type that had known issues that have been satisfactorily addressed. I suggest this is based on emotion not logic.
Yes the video was awesome in a scary way, but the fact that there was a visual record of the catastrophe is only an emotive factor, not a "scientific" one. Pilots are supposed to be cool and logical!
The problem with your philosophy is that it means you would be happy to fly a brand new type with no history, which nevertheless inevitably has some major design defects, over a type that had known issues that have been satisfactorily addressed. I suggest this is based on emotion not logic.
Yes the video was awesome in a scary way, but the fact that there was a visual record of the catastrophe is only an emotive factor, not a "scientific" one. Pilots are supposed to be cool and logical!
HC
I have a proven history of flying what ever I feel I have to fly to pay the bills.
I'm overly cool and logical.
I think it's pretty unemotional and factual, that at this time there is an unexplained catastrophic failure involving EC225. (Perhaps it would be irrational to be happy to fly an EC225 under the current circumstances, even for say, SAR.)
At this time, I'd rather fly an AW139 or S92, as the catastrophic failures those types have experienced have been explained and mitigated. (As far as I understand.)
Soon I expect the EC225 to return a similar status.
I have a proven history of flying what ever I feel I have to fly to pay the bills.
I'm overly cool and logical.
I think it's pretty unemotional and factual, that at this time there is an unexplained catastrophic failure involving EC225. (Perhaps it would be irrational to be happy to fly an EC225 under the current circumstances, even for say, SAR.)
At this time, I'd rather fly an AW139 or S92, as the catastrophic failures those types have experienced have been explained and mitigated. (As far as I understand.)
Soon I expect the EC225 to return a similar status.
Gents, all this talk of lightning... have you factored in the possibility of triggered lightning?
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Home
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SMW72, the inspection plate being found in the hangar was mentioned but really holds weight in my rant with the fact of continued missed inspection (not seeing the that the plate was missing).
I've heard the same from a number of different people now. Washer, nappy pins and possibly the round fire wall panel still in the hangar.
Wanting a type with a different history may be a problem. The alternatives all have significant risk factors but many have not been so publicly aired.
As I choose not to play Golf during a Thunderstorm....or swim with Sharks while holding bleeding meat in my hands...or ride in a VW Micro Bus while Troglidita drives....I can choose what Aircraft I fly to earn my living.
Usually it is not the type of aircraft but the operator that makes the most difference and their version of what constitutes adequate maintenance.
Not suggesting that is the case here.....but it one of the possible explanations as we found in the previous Group Rotor Blade Chunking Contest Win by EC.
We have crafted complex methods in efforts to prevent these tragedies but somehow no matter what we do there is something that happens to trip us up in achieving that goal.
The Human/Machine Interface relies upon perfection in the Human.....and that is where it all runs up on the rocky shore.
Usually it is not the type of aircraft but the operator that makes the most difference and their version of what constitutes adequate maintenance.
Not suggesting that is the case here.....but it one of the possible explanations as we found in the previous Group Rotor Blade Chunking Contest Win by EC.
We have crafted complex methods in efforts to prevent these tragedies but somehow no matter what we do there is something that happens to trip us up in achieving that goal.
The Human/Machine Interface relies upon perfection in the Human.....and that is where it all runs up on the rocky shore.