EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 67
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
catastrophic failure developed in 1-2 seconds
Just as an ex mechancic, (not aviation) this really looks like a gearbox failure: By the speed of events and extent of damage on the inside components compared to the rotorhead assembly. I believe the problem here is that there is no way to explain how a perfectly running set of gears will instantly go up in pieces. Very scary.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Shropshire
Age: 44
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom57, Surely you understand the faster things spin the more centrifugal/centripetal forces they suffer. If something is seriously unbalanced by a failure of a support strut then this could happen. All you have to do is look at what ground resonance can do. A helicopter is naturally unstable and a slight variation can change a lot of things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FeXjhUEXlc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FeXjhUEXlc
Bishy,
I don't think your take on full fuel fuel pax will have any persuasion when it comes down to getting the 225 back into work on the NS. Yes a capable aircraft but with it's history over the last few years it's going to be a tough one.
LZ
I don't think your take on full fuel fuel pax will have any persuasion when it comes down to getting the 225 back into work on the NS. Yes a capable aircraft but with it's history over the last few years it's going to be a tough one.
LZ
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Shropshire
Age: 44
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LZ,
I agree the 225 has got a lot of detractors, for the passengers it is cramped and has a striking similarity to all other super pumas. I think that possibly the PR campaign for the EC225 is lost. This is a great shame because the 225 out performs the S92 in speed and payload let alone cost per NM. The oil companies love the 225 because it is cheaper, but the big question is the future and i fear that this horrific accident that claimed the lives of 13 people (RIP) could be a sad end to the 225. After 16 years since the launch this is the first fatal accident that is pretty good going. there are not many types in the rotary world that can boast that.
I agree the 225 has got a lot of detractors, for the passengers it is cramped and has a striking similarity to all other super pumas. I think that possibly the PR campaign for the EC225 is lost. This is a great shame because the 225 out performs the S92 in speed and payload let alone cost per NM. The oil companies love the 225 because it is cheaper, but the big question is the future and i fear that this horrific accident that claimed the lives of 13 people (RIP) could be a sad end to the 225. After 16 years since the launch this is the first fatal accident that is pretty good going. there are not many types in the rotary world that can boast that.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bishy,
slight detraction, but how do you come to the calculation that the 225 provides better payload than the S92? Cost per nm, perhaps I dont know, but payload, I am a little unsure. In the operation I was flying in we frequently would have to replace 225 flights with S92 flights due to payload and range, especially when it was poor weather requiring a second onshore alternate.
slight detraction, but how do you come to the calculation that the 225 provides better payload than the S92? Cost per nm, perhaps I dont know, but payload, I am a little unsure. In the operation I was flying in we frequently would have to replace 225 flights with S92 flights due to payload and range, especially when it was poor weather requiring a second onshore alternate.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Shropshire
Age: 44
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
26500Lbs,
I have spoken to a few 92 drivers and the 225 has better load and range. A friend who is a 92 driver told me they could only take 16 pax when the 225 could take 19 to the same destination (same weather and wind and bags) the 225 is exceptionally capable.
I hope that answers your question. The cost per NM was a rumour that i heard probably due to leasing agreements.
I have spoken to a few 92 drivers and the 225 has better load and range. A friend who is a 92 driver told me they could only take 16 pax when the 225 could take 19 to the same destination (same weather and wind and bags) the 225 is exceptionally capable.
I hope that answers your question. The cost per NM was a rumour that i heard probably due to leasing agreements.
Adding the information from what we saw in the pictures after the accident ( for ex: http://i86.servimg.com/u/f86/11/94/64/62/hub7b10.jpg ) and the pictures from the press conference and preliminary report make me get it hard to get togheter if not something did disconnect without breaking.
There are three strut rods, one did somehowe break, and there is no picture of that one ? ...not found yet..?
The other two is the rear ones, on pictures in the report. One of them seems not connected(rear hand aft ?) to any hinge in the picture of the rotor in my link above...?
The hinge doesnt seem to be broken and the bolt and pin is not connected on the picture in the preliminary report.
How could we explain that one strut rod seems to lack of hinge connector for the helicopter body, but the hinge is not broken, nor is the bolt ?
There are three strut rods, one did somehowe break, and there is no picture of that one ? ...not found yet..?
The other two is the rear ones, on pictures in the report. One of them seems not connected(rear hand aft ?) to any hinge in the picture of the rotor in my link above...?
The hinge doesnt seem to be broken and the bolt and pin is not connected on the picture in the preliminary report.
How could we explain that one strut rod seems to lack of hinge connector for the helicopter body, but the hinge is not broken, nor is the bolt ?
Last edited by AAKEE; 14th May 2016 at 17:14. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to look at the figures but a 'light' S92 might come closer to the available payload a 225 offers.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
after a look at some data:
our 225s have a DOM (pilots included) of approx 6800kg (average), after full fuel that leaves approx 1920kg for pax.
the 92s weighs around 18370lbs, which after full fuel leaves only 3130lbs/1420kgs
QED
(even the heaviest 225 still offers 100kg more than the lightest 92)
our 225s have a DOM (pilots included) of approx 6800kg (average), after full fuel that leaves approx 1920kg for pax.
the 92s weighs around 18370lbs, which after full fuel leaves only 3130lbs/1420kgs
QED
(even the heaviest 225 still offers 100kg more than the lightest 92)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forward Suspension Bar Anchor Bracket
Letmein said:
I believe that this is the most puzzling aspect of the AIBN's release of information so far. It is the last detail yet to be revealed that would give creedance to the otherwise confusing service directive and EASB announced by Airbus Helicopters in the week after the crash. But, as letmein also points out, the AIBN will want to be doubly sure before going down that road.
I'm assuming they have the whole of the transmission deck to examine, albeit with extensive deformation, but the forward sus bar anchor point is either there or it's not. If it is still attached the condition should go a long ways to deducing how the forward suspension bar may have departed the airframe, if in fact that bar is missing.
If the anchor is not with the upper deck I guess the whole theory of a slipped pin becomes a very moot point, and a REDL scenario becomes ever more plausible/probable.
I wish the investigation team godspeed in their efforts.
I'm surprised that there is no picture yet of the bottom bracket area, either showing it intact, or ripped out of the frame. The front bar appears to be missing.
I'm assuming they have the whole of the transmission deck to examine, albeit with extensive deformation, but the forward sus bar anchor point is either there or it's not. If it is still attached the condition should go a long ways to deducing how the forward suspension bar may have departed the airframe, if in fact that bar is missing.
If the anchor is not with the upper deck I guess the whole theory of a slipped pin becomes a very moot point, and a REDL scenario becomes ever more plausible/probable.
I wish the investigation team godspeed in their efforts.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other two is the rear ones, on pictures in the report. One of them seems not connected(rear hand aft ?) to any hinge in the picture of the rotor in my link above...?
The hinge doesnt seem to be broken and the bolt and pin is not connected on the picture in the preliminary report.
How could we explain that one strut rod seems to lack of hinge connector for the helicopter body, but the hinge is not broken, nor is the bolt ?
The hinge doesnt seem to be broken and the bolt and pin is not connected on the picture in the preliminary report.
How could we explain that one strut rod seems to lack of hinge connector for the helicopter body, but the hinge is not broken, nor is the bolt ?
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nuremberg (metropol region)
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I am still missing statements of the Pro's. Are the MRGB of both types absolute identical? Or which differences are given in detail?
Thank you ahead.
Thank you ahead.
Last edited by AW009; 14th May 2016 at 20:33.
Sorry, I am still missing statements of the Pro's. Are the MRGB of both types absolute identical? Or which differences are given in detail?
Thank you ahead.
Thank you ahead.
Nope, not identical but they are quite similar. The L2 was resedigned from earlier Puma variants to be the new generation with some improvements. I don't know if it is exactly the same epicyclic gears.
At least, EC225 has the 30 min run dry feature( glykol cooling/lubricating system) which the AS332L2 dont have(at least I beleave).
I've driven EC225s for thousands of hours and there's one difference between this terrible accident and the equally terrible REDL, apart from the fact that the aircraft involved are different variants of the Super Puma family. As far as I can recall REDL had been "making metal" for a few flights or some hours before the epicyclic gears at the top of the gearbox failed. There was communication between engineers and Eurocopter before the accident to establish whether the gearbox should be allowed to continue in service. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
As a consequence and shortly after that tragedy, all Mk2s and all EC225s had the magnets just below the epicyclic stages removed, so that the shedding of metal particles would become obvious much sooner. Is this so please, respected engineers?
What I'd dearly like to know is whether the Norwegian EC225 gearbox had been "making metal" in the run-up to this latest terrible crash, because if wasn't then that inclines me towards believing that a suddenly disconnected suspension strut might well have been the cause.
As a consequence and shortly after that tragedy, all Mk2s and all EC225s had the magnets just below the epicyclic stages removed, so that the shedding of metal particles would become obvious much sooner. Is this so please, respected engineers?
What I'd dearly like to know is whether the Norwegian EC225 gearbox had been "making metal" in the run-up to this latest terrible crash, because if wasn't then that inclines me towards believing that a suddenly disconnected suspension strut might well have been the cause.
Colibri49
While what you say might be true, the complexity of these machines, and the stresses involved can create unexpected outcomes.
Perhaps the making of metal in the REDL case was unrelated to the subsequent catastrophic failure. (A "red herring")
This scenario would make the mitigation applied (to detect metal particles earlier) ineffectual.
Obviously I have no more idea about the cause of this latest tragedy than any other EC225 pilot.
Like everyone involved I hope the actual cause is positively identified. Unfortunately this outcome is far from assured.
There are many potential sources of metal fragments in a transmission. Some more benign than others.
While what you say might be true, the complexity of these machines, and the stresses involved can create unexpected outcomes.
Perhaps the making of metal in the REDL case was unrelated to the subsequent catastrophic failure. (A "red herring")
This scenario would make the mitigation applied (to detect metal particles earlier) ineffectual.
Obviously I have no more idea about the cause of this latest tragedy than any other EC225 pilot.
Like everyone involved I hope the actual cause is positively identified. Unfortunately this outcome is far from assured.
There are many potential sources of metal fragments in a transmission. Some more benign than others.
The other two is the rear ones, on pictures in the report. One of them seems not connected(rear hand aft ?) to any hinge in the picture of the rotor in my link above...?
The hinge doesnt seem to be broken and the bolt and pin is not connected on the picture in the preliminary report.
How could we explain that one strut rod seems to lack of hinge connector for the helicopter body, but the hinge is not broken, nor is the bolt ?
The hinge doesnt seem to be broken and the bolt and pin is not connected on the picture in the preliminary report.
How could we explain that one strut rod seems to lack of hinge connector for the helicopter body, but the hinge is not broken, nor is the bolt ?
It's still don't know what to make of the bar/rod in the picture or the rotor head, it looks like the lower end of one of them without the mounting/attachement attached. At the same time, the pins can't have been missing since they're all among the found parts and the bolts all seems in one peace. If the bolt and pin is installed there is no way the suspension bar can be detached from the mounting/attachement without any of the parts being broken, so something doesn't add up here. Maybe the mounting/attachement already had been removed on the ground before the picture was taken as this was considered a cruical part to secure?
I'm no expert in this field in any way, but I've always considered the missing pin theory a bit to "easy", and I think they would have a bit more warning signs that 1-2 seconds if that were the case. I've experienced pins breaking and bolts sliding out for the bucket on an excavator some times, and once the bolt lets go of the first "side" you will either break it or it will deform and give you a lot of slack. Since these bolts probably is very hardened, My guess is that the bolt would break before it would move all the way out as long as it had any load on it.
If I'm going to speculate I think the incident two(?) days before the accident deserves more attention. I've read so many articles about this by now so I don't recall what were the exact sources for every bit of information, but unless I'm completely mistaken the incident was described in the press as a "yellow engine warning light" that came on. They then replaced some "engine" part (I never trust journalists to be very precise about such things, so it could be anything), the warning light was still lit and then changed something else and the warning light went away and the aircraft was put back into use. I also read somewhere else that there is some kind of live "analysis" of the HUMS data which lights a "yellow warning light" if something is found to need attention. It's unknown to me whether this system is the "extra safety" system that were installed as a result of the two earlier gearbox failures and removed when the new gearbox was installed or if there's still some live analysis of the HUMS data in corrolation to a yellow warning lamp.
I know that there are loads and loads of warning lamps in there, and that a "yellow light" isn't enought to make any connection as such, but my imagination can't help but think that there could have been a problem triggering some automatic analysis - to which they couldn't figure out the exact cause. If they first replaced one part and tested, and the replaced a second one it indicates to me that they wasn't exactly sure what caused the warning, and the warning could go away even if they didn't fix the underlying problem (for example because they could have "treated a symptom" instead of the root cause).
I'm not saying it's something here, I just think it's strange that with all this speculation I've seen nothing about this possible connection.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me understand what I'm seeing in the photos. The front strut rod somehow was fractured at the top end as per photo and therefore most likely was no longer attached to the rotor head when it landed.
The head landed with only the two rear strut rods still attached ? On their lower ends were the hard point mount plates that were ripped away from the fuselage, (bolt holes, missing bolts). The 4 connector pins and their nappy pins (not all nappies but at least one per end) landed still installed in the two rear strut rods.
Why can we see a connector rod in the head pic on the rocks ( I highlighted with the red arrow ) sticking up in the air with no connection, no pin, no nappies. Should not this Rod be one of the two rear rods? If so this end would have a pin and mount plate attached if it is the lower point. If it is the upper connection point it should still be pinned to the rotor head.
The head landed with only the two rear strut rods still attached ? On their lower ends were the hard point mount plates that were ripped away from the fuselage, (bolt holes, missing bolts). The 4 connector pins and their nappy pins (not all nappies but at least one per end) landed still installed in the two rear strut rods.
Why can we see a connector rod in the head pic on the rocks ( I highlighted with the red arrow ) sticking up in the air with no connection, no pin, no nappies. Should not this Rod be one of the two rear rods? If so this end would have a pin and mount plate attached if it is the lower point. If it is the upper connection point it should still be pinned to the rotor head.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nuremberg (metropol region)
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Berlin/Oslo (dpa) - Der Absturz eines Eurocopter-Hubschraubers an der Küste Norwegens hat nach Angaben der deutschen Luftwaffe keine Auswirkungen auf die Flugbereitschaft der Bundeswehr. «Das in Norwegen eingesetzte Modell H-225 Super Puma - auch Eurocopter EC 225 - haben wir nicht im Bestand», sagte ein Luftwaffensprecher am Samstag [30. April 2016] der Deutschen Presse-Agentur in Berlin. «Es ergeben sich daher keine Konsequenzen, irgendwelche Überprüfungen an unseren Helikoptern [Cougar AS-532-L2] durchzuführen oder gar den Flugbetrieb mit Hubschraubern der Flugbereitschaft einzustellen.»
Translation: Berlin / Oslo (dpa) - According to the German Air Force, the crash of a Eurocopter helicopter on the coast of Norway, does not affect the Special Air Mission Wing of the German Ministry of Defence (BMVg) to the Bundeswehr (German armed forces). «The Model H-225 Super Puma - Eurocopter EC 225 operated in Norway we do not have in stock,» an Air Force spokesman said on Saturday [30th of April, 2016] to the German Press Agency in Berlin. «Therefore no consequences are resulting to execute any savety inspections on our helicopters or even suspending flight operations with helicopters [Cougar AS-532-L2] of the the Special Air Mission [and VIP-] Wing of the German Ministry of Defence to the Bundeswehr»
…. paper pusher!
Translation: Berlin / Oslo (dpa) - According to the German Air Force, the crash of a Eurocopter helicopter on the coast of Norway, does not affect the Special Air Mission Wing of the German Ministry of Defence (BMVg) to the Bundeswehr (German armed forces). «The Model H-225 Super Puma - Eurocopter EC 225 operated in Norway we do not have in stock,» an Air Force spokesman said on Saturday [30th of April, 2016] to the German Press Agency in Berlin. «Therefore no consequences are resulting to execute any savety inspections on our helicopters or even suspending flight operations with helicopters [Cougar AS-532-L2] of the the Special Air Mission [and VIP-] Wing of the German Ministry of Defence to the Bundeswehr»
…. paper pusher!
Last edited by AW009; 15th May 2016 at 07:07.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the pictures chosen by the AIBN simply contain items that they are examining - no more than that;
There was an amber warning in the days before the crash - that would have to be looked at as part of any investigation methodology.
They have a destroyed gear - that would have to be explained.
They have an incomplete suspension bar assembly so they need to try and find the rest of it and make sense of the wreckage.
However, they are clearly not at a position where they feel they understand the causes of the accident sufficiently to (a) Make a more specific statement (b) relax the ban on commercial flights.
While they would obviously continue to search for missing components in any case, their emphasis on this seems to suggest that lack of specific items is directly hampering their ability to properly understand the principal initiating cause - or more likely provide enough evidence to make a definitive statement.
There was an amber warning in the days before the crash - that would have to be looked at as part of any investigation methodology.
They have a destroyed gear - that would have to be explained.
They have an incomplete suspension bar assembly so they need to try and find the rest of it and make sense of the wreckage.
However, they are clearly not at a position where they feel they understand the causes of the accident sufficiently to (a) Make a more specific statement (b) relax the ban on commercial flights.
While they would obviously continue to search for missing components in any case, their emphasis on this seems to suggest that lack of specific items is directly hampering their ability to properly understand the principal initiating cause - or more likely provide enough evidence to make a definitive statement.
