EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The AUK
Age: 80
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They sort of are but aren't.
EASA Member States as at July 2014.
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, CzechRepublic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,Netherlands Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
Regards to ya all. Big E
Last edited by The Big E; 13th May 2016 at 09:30. Reason: Line and word spacing.
This is probably many times the number of pages in the FAR 29 regulations at the time the EC225 was FAA certified
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maintenance Speculation
Despite all the speculation about potential maintenance issues it would seem, as is so often the case, that there is not one blindly obvious explanation for this incident. TBF given HS/CHC's reputation as a top notch maintenance outfit it would be extremely surprising if this was the case.
Despite the pressure the various authorities must be under to release some news or relax the ban, if they felt it was safe to do so they would have surely done so by now. Consequently I'm a bit confused by the statement from Airbus. When they stated on 1 May; "Considering the additional information gathered during the last 48 hours, Airbus Helicopters’ decision, at this stage, is to not suspend flights of any nature for the EC225LP".
Given that the Norwegian and British authorities must also be in possession of this information it is strange that 13 days later they haven't releaxed the ban.
It is unsurprising that the regulators are more cautious than the manufacturer here but they will usual make statements when significant information comes to light. Their statement of 3 May didn't really endorse Aibus Helicoters' comments.
Does anyone know if there are any planned press conferences/announcements or will they not release any information until they feel they have something significant to say?
Despite the pressure the various authorities must be under to release some news or relax the ban, if they felt it was safe to do so they would have surely done so by now. Consequently I'm a bit confused by the statement from Airbus. When they stated on 1 May; "Considering the additional information gathered during the last 48 hours, Airbus Helicopters’ decision, at this stage, is to not suspend flights of any nature for the EC225LP".
Given that the Norwegian and British authorities must also be in possession of this information it is strange that 13 days later they haven't releaxed the ban.
It is unsurprising that the regulators are more cautious than the manufacturer here but they will usual make statements when significant information comes to light. Their statement of 3 May didn't really endorse Aibus Helicoters' comments.
Does anyone know if there are any planned press conferences/announcements or will they not release any information until they feel they have something significant to say?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry hadn't seen this
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Birmingham, according to this link
Helikopter styrtet ved Turøy - NRK Hordaland - Lokale nyheter, TV og radio
which translated says that there will a press conference tonight at 6:30pm norwegian time where the preliminary accident report will be presented by the AIBN.
Helikopter styrtet ved Turøy - NRK Hordaland - Lokale nyheter, TV og radio
which translated says that there will a press conference tonight at 6:30pm norwegian time where the preliminary accident report will be presented by the AIBN.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The air accident investigators have to do rather more than just find the cause of an accident. Reporting that a bolt snapped under excessive load or a part was misfitted during maintenance simply identifies the immediate cause of that particular incident. The chain of events leading up to the failure has to be identified and remedial measures suggested to prevent a recurrance. That requires some quite detailed discussions with the aircraft manufacturer and maintenance organisations and possibly lengthy engineering tests before any detailed report will be published.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all the 1309 discussion it should always be understood, that this is not covering human error, neither during maintenance not during operation. It just covers all technical failure cases which are related to the type desgn.
There are always good chances that human action can cause catastrophic failure.
There are always good chances that human action can cause catastrophic failure.
Given that the Norwegian and British authorities must also be in possession of this information it is strange that 13 days later they haven't releaxed the ban.
It is unsurprising that the regulators are more cautious than the manufacturer here but they will usual make statements when significant information comes to light. Their statement of 3 May didn't really endorse Aibus Helicoters' comments.
It is unsurprising that the regulators are more cautious than the manufacturer here but they will usual make statements when significant information comes to light. Their statement of 3 May didn't really endorse Aibus Helicoters' comments.
Still it would be quite embarrassing for them should come out that their relatively definitive statement was premature and wrong.
Birmingham
As you point out in your next post, they have actually extended the ban to the 332L2.
I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, I would welcome it but I am not going for the bolt/pin/nappy pin theory. I am leaning towards a repeat of G-REDL.
Given that the Norwegian and British authorities must also be in possession of this information it is strange that 13 days later they haven't releaxed the ban.
I am quite prepared to be proved wrong, I would welcome it but I am not going for the bolt/pin/nappy pin theory. I am leaning towards a repeat of G-REDL.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nuremberg (metropol region)
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@industry insider: I am the very same opinion as you are: Repeat of G-REDL might be the ’causa’ or the root, the separated rotor head is only the fatal and deterrent effect. But between those is the question of redundancy and the quality of engineering.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: France
Age: 66
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant'
Alan Greenspan, head of the Fédéral Reserve
Alan Greenspan, head of the Fédéral Reserve
So it looks the 2 aft suspensions bars were ripped off the fuselage including the foundation hinges. Probably after first failure of either: the epicyclic module or the front suspension bar upper hinge point (and following epicyclic failure or Gear housing after extensive uneven loading)
This makes maintenance mistakes at the difficult to access forward bottom hinge point less probable. Unless the forward suspension bar has not been found on the Main wreckage, and would have broken at two ends.
SLB
This makes maintenance mistakes at the difficult to access forward bottom hinge point less probable. Unless the forward suspension bar has not been found on the Main wreckage, and would have broken at two ends.
SLB
The above link to the preliminary report doesn't work for me, so I'm posting as well: http://www.aibn.no/Om-oss/Nyhetsarki...-File&attach=1
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the google translated (Hoping for another translation soon, and tip the cap to those hard working folks on the investigation team:
1) Is that a sun or a planetary gear from the epicyclic? (ouch, look at the damage to those gear teeth!)
2) What is the significance of that electronics box?
3) I see the "nappy pin" still attached to that end of that strut/support. Now have an idea on the size of pins/bolts.
1) Is that a sun or a planetary gear from the epicyclic? (ouch, look at the damage to those gear teeth!)
2) What is the significance of that electronics box?
3) I see the "nappy pin" still attached to that end of that strut/support. Now have an idea on the size of pins/bolts.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oslo
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did the Norwegians show this from the crashed 225?
This is one of the parts that the Norwegian Accident Investigation Board showed to the public 05/13-2016 regarding the 225 accident outside Tyrøy.
It´s supposed to be engine control electronics.
Why did they show this part?motor-control-225-turoy-MG_0324.jpg
It´s supposed to be engine control electronics.
Why did they show this part?motor-control-225-turoy-MG_0324.jpg
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oslo
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damaged sun gear 225
This is a sun gear from the HC225 that crashed two weeks ago in Norway. The Norwegian Accident Board showed this to the press today, 05/13-2016 - what does the damage on the gear show?/Users/Sandberg/Desktop/sun-gear-225.jpg
Last edited by halsandberg; 13th May 2016 at 21:14.