Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016

Old 26th May 2016, 12:38
  #921 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Industry Insider

Maybe, but don't think that changes the sentiment of the post - let's say operations, maintenance, engines, parts etc. My point was that the other types could also have a run of fatal accidents.
birmingham is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 12:44
  #922 (permalink)  
 
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
Gasax, I'm sorry but "Given the workforce have no say in the matter, or influence over it, makes them a hostage to fortune." is an overly dramatic, non-poetic way to say "in it for the money."
Anyone who works offshore can re-locate to the beach anytime they want to, there are no hostages real or perceived, it's a personal choice, with choices.

And as for "the helicopter companies and the CAA have been pretty complacent over a non-improving accident rate." In your role as a Technical Risk Assessor for the offshore industry how have you reflected this? Or have you skirted over this to keep your employer happy and look after your own interests? I'm sure there are plenty of people on this thread happy to discuss the impact of Energy companies, and their 'experts', their requests for rate reductions? Their own individual requirements as apposed to the OGP or other industry requirements to be 'special', the impact of their flight programme with the single aim of keeping the offshore workforce happy and not the best human factors approach, and there are many more... So having identified yourself as a technical risk assessment professional what have YOU done to work with your company to make things safer? ...or is it someone else's problem, OEM's, Operators etc?
Miles Gustaph is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 12:52
  #923 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Corbetta
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by birmingham
alby3z Thank you very useful background.

lynnx It will be interesting to see whether something to do with the (apparently) missing suspension bar assembly is a symptom or a causal factor. I think that AH's necessarily cryptic (for legal and liability reasons) early statement that the Puma's are safe to fly, led many to infer that there was an obvious primary cause (and one that differed from G-REDL). If the primary cause was that obvious and we could be assured that the risk could be mitigated by the recommended AH precautions, then I think the type would have been cleared to restart flying. The only reason I can think of, for that not being the case, is that the AIBN do not yet believe they have enough evidence to convince a shocked and fearful user base that the likely cause is sufficiently understood at this stage of the investigation. Given the frequency of recent tragedies their caution is understandable. Of course the one fact we do know for certain is that we have experienced another catastrophic structural failure. Finding the primary cause is only one part of the picture when it comes to determining how we go forward with NS helicopter shuttles.
Birmingham, Lynnx, the fact is that older aircrafts are certified to older FAR amendment. This is perfectly admitted, but it may happen that older acceptable means of compliance (eg. Analysis instead of exp tests) are superseded by more stringent requirements.

So, the newer the better, should be in terms of safety.
alby3z is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 12:55
  #924 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,218
Received 317 Likes on 176 Posts
I work in technical risk assessment for the offshore industry. When you calculate the risk which the workforce are exposed to, helicopter flying is a significant element. It depends upon the age, layout and complexity of the installation but on a modern platform the transport risk is typically 30 to 40% of the total risk.
Apart from the drive to and from the airport, of course!

When they pay to fly it is fixed wing (virtually always) and typically about 100 times safer than flying in a helicopter
Nonsense! Globally the figures are about 7 times and for IOGP members around 3-5 times. Hence, the Shell 7/7 = 1 initiative 10 years ago.
212man is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 13:58
  #925 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Miles - I would certainly take your point about there being a choice. However when that choice turns out to be rather different than portrayed people are not unnaturally unhappy. Refusing to fly means near instant unemployment - something you are keen to experience?

As for what have I personally done? In most cases my efforts have been directly refuted by the helicopter companies - 'flying at night is no more dangerous than during the day', 'no it is not a CAP 437 helldeck but why would it be any more dangerous?' from just two items of work recently.

My ultimate clients, the oil companies generally accept the numbers but are immovable in terms of changes to contract conditions. ALARP is a great principle but they are completely resistant to anything which is not direct regulatory compliance. Given the majority are headquarter in the US this is not surprising. In the US the legal profession clear things up afterwards..... and the companies are content with that - hence lonewolf's comments above.

To 212 I would say be careful which data you use and how you compare it. Using Global figures neatly reduces all the differences. The IOGP figures for the N.Sea utilise a period when accidents rates were at a historic low - very useful for generating low risk numbers, they are now back up where they were before the middle to late 1990s. So inspite of new design aircraft, the accident rate has gone up. If you utilise the CAA figures in CAP1145 and 1036 you see a difference in 25 to 30 in fatal accident rates - but again smeared by the use of 5 year moving averages. Remove that and you get to around 80 - hence my glib use of the number 100.

But the real point is that there should be no reason that helicopter travel should not be at least as safe as it was for the period covered by the IOGP data. CAP1145 concentrated very much on the right hand side of the BowTie - catering with 'after the crash' measures. That is not the right approach.

Last edited by gasax; 26th May 2016 at 14:44.
gasax is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 14:59
  #926 (permalink)  
 
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
Gasax,

I'm sorry but the reality of the North Sea is that while we all work diligently towards a zero accident rate, history and the environment shows us that despite performance and technological improvements accidents still affect the workforce.

This is absolutely heart-breaking but it is a reality that has existed, abet with different probability / severity levels since the first single engine helicopter went offshore.

Anyone who goes offshore knows this and the reality is that they are struggling with their own personal risk appetite and willingness to take a job with perhaps a lesser salary and certainly less time-off. Safety has improved as has the salaries and time off for the workforce which is the true root cause of workforce unhappiness. That said it is absolutely an imperative that the industry as a whole does everything it can to continually improve safety performance.

As for your examples of what you have done. You have given very poor examples and I am astounded that a technical safety assessor makes claims that can be so easily refuted. Did you provide data or did you rely on you technical skill, or was it just common sense that makes to think your being bull****ted by aviation professionals? If this is the level of your skillset and a representation of your work then I am not surprised that the workforce has unrealistic expectations of performance and are unhappy as you are making the unrealistic expectation to them, not the aviation companies!
Miles Gustaph is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 20:15
  #927 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Right side of zero
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some facts

There seems to be some misunderstanding on certain factual details regarding the accident discussed in this thread. I will quote and link relevant sources so that we can all try to have a better understanding of the matter at hand.

Originally Posted by TylerMonkey
They have only recovered a very small piece of the front suspension bar. ( plus the upper attaching pin, bearing and nappy pin). I don't see how AH can decide this early that the 225 is totally safe to fly. If they do not have the lower 90% of this Rod and the lower attaching bracket plus it's pin then there is a huge piece of the puzzle missing. What if they find these pieces later and there is evidence of metal fatigue or other failure. It seems to me they are mainly concerned if it is a gearbox problem like previous events. So far they feel it is not and therefore business as usual.
Originally Posted by birmingham
The latest from the AIBN is "most of the wreckage is recovered" - hopefully including the missing lift/suspension bar and associated components. It will be interesting to see whether something to do with the (apparently) missing suspension bar assembly is a symptom or a causal factor.
During the press conference that the AIBN held on the 13th of May the following was stated:

"We've noticed certain images in the media of a suspension bar - a "lift connection" - where a "foot" is missing. We've seen that this have created certain rumors.. The reality of the matter is that we have all the components belonging to the suspension bars. We have a good grasp on how the mechanisms there function, so far, but still a lot of research remains to be done also on that matter. However all components, as we see it, have been present. Though we are still missing the center portion of one of them, we do have the end pieces."

A follow up question from a journalist:

"When you said that you had found all the components belonging to the "torsion bars" (I assume he was referencing the suspension bars)", does that mean you have found all bolts, all safety connections etc. from which one could say no bolts have snapped, is that correct?"

Answer:

"We do not have all the bolts from the fixings. But we have traces at the fixings, both at the "base mounts" and on the... and we also have some bolts."

They also go on to later say:

"Half of all epicyclic gears have been found, approximately 50% of each of the two stages."

And:

"What is important to us at this point is to find the second stage planet carrier."


SOURCE

The video of the conference starts at 15:29 and the above quotes starts at at 19:18 (Norwegian only).

Last edited by Magjam; 26th May 2016 at 20:41. Reason: Added another quote
Magjam is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 20:37
  #928 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 64
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Correct me if I,m wrong, but reading those quotes......at no point was it said that anything was installed correctly/not installed correctly or had, for certain items, even been found!
Carefull weasel words, and no wonder rumours abound.
I do , however, absolutely understand the reason for them.
lynnx is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 20:41
  #929 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Magjam,

That is very helpful. I don't have enough Norwegian to follow the broadcast and there has been very little detailed English language reporting of it as far as I have seen.
birmingham is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 23:41
  #930 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Norway
Age: 44
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any thoughts about all the pitchlinks been severed on the middle?
Could that be an indication of sudden stoppage of the MGB?
Can't remember anyone commenting those.
charlieDontSurf is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 01:51
  #931 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 66
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Reviewing the 1997 LN-OMP Puma mishap report:


In that case the forward support bar fractured, and the head pulled the gearbox up and back, ripping off the transmission support frame and both rear struts. Gearbox and head all stayed together, despite tremendous rotor forces.
Also in that case, then Eurocopter, the OEM, seemed to come up with rebuttal to root cause, and the report refers to their claim as "absurd".


This is a chicken and egg situation as far as gearbox destruction or strut separation. There are two precedent mishaps with known and different causes, with different outcomes.


We should and do expect that despite the press release strategy, AH will be keen to investigate root cause and work diligently to effect the solution.
OnePerRev is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 02:23
  #932 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: **** You
Age: 74
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kawijet
I hope they continue to operate the 225. Find the issue and rectify and prevent this from happening again as far as is reasonably possible. That is the only sensible solution. I get really irritated by those "Scrap the Puma" pages on facebook. Obviously dreamt up by a knee jerk reacting Oil worker for a bunch of likes. Probably the same worker who "wont set foot on one of those death traps again!" but is at the front of the line to get on one at home time....

If they did take the decision to remove the puma from service then ALL the offshore workforce would have to work extended rota patterns to cope with the reduced number of flights... wouldn't take long for the "Re-instate the Puma!" pages to crop up. Probably from the same guy who called to scrap them.
Rubbish....there are so many idle Aircraft just waiting to fill slots for EC225 Aircraft.
CHC are about to dump 90 Idle Aircraft (Less the EC225's on that list) on the Market alone let alone all the other machines from Bristow and the like.
buzz66 is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 07:45
  #933 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Buzz66 agreed.

The current oil price is relevant here. At $50 and sub $50 oil much of the world's oilfields and a great deal of the NS fields are marginal at best. So we can't look at the current situation as business as usual.

Contractors are distressed and handing back aircraft. CHC alone are planning to let go of 38 332s and 225s in the next 90 days and will have 16 spare S92s that are going the same way.

Statoil are starting their own investigation into this incident and part of its remit is to recommend to the CEO and COO how they will respond to the tragedy to improve safety.It is inevitable that this enquiry will review the Puma's safety history. One option among many (and I stress option) is to switch types.

I'm not advocating this option - my personal view is that the problem (and please accept we have a problem here) is not with the Puma, in particular, but helicopter safety in general. That despite much improvement in the technology and continuous effort, we have been unable to improve the NS safety record for helicopters which (for fatal accidents at least) sits stubbornly at 1970s levels.

Also and to spare anyone pointing it out I am fully aware that changing types will not, in itself, in anyway whatsoever, guarantee an improvement in safety, it might even reduce it! - but it is an option that all the customers will probably consider.

Last edited by birmingham; 27th May 2016 at 08:53.
birmingham is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 08:02
  #934 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 64
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Charlie,
I suggest that the pitch change rods are broken because they represent the weakest link in the chain of main rotor head, rods, swashplate, and servo to gearbox attachment points once the head itself has detached.
lynnx is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 08:44
  #935 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Corbetta
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by charlieDontSurf
Any thoughts about all the pitchlinks been severed on the middle?
Could that be an indication of sudden stoppage of the MGB?
Can't remember anyone commenting those.
CharlieDontSurf that's not possible, because the pitch links rotates with the rotor head, a sudden stop of its rotation would not cause damage at all to these elements.
alby3z is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 10:50
  #936 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Right side of zero
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lynnx
Correct me if I,m wrong, but reading those quotes......at no point was it said that anything was installed correctly/not installed correctly or had, for certain items, even been found!
Carefull weasel words, and no wonder rumours abound.
I do , however, absolutely understand the reason for them.
Weasel words? Really?

You are right in that nothing was stated about any parts being installed incorrectly.

I believe the point of this press conference was to give a short statement, present some more or less random parts recovered and to answer questions about the preliminary report released on the same day.
The point of it was not to give out any hasty speculations or conclusions as to causal or contributing factors. If anything, any hesitance or re-phrasing during the statements seems to be to avoid doing just that and to avoid delving too deeply into technical details (which they actually stated later on when a journalist asks what a "base mount" is). To me it seems they were offering as much transparency that could be expected at the time.

As to if: "..any certain items had even been found!", you have to be a bit less bombastic and a bit more specific than that. I recommend that you watch the video or read the quotes again where it was stated:

"The reality of the matter is that we have all the components belonging to the suspension bars."

And:

"Though we are still missing the center portion of one of them, we do have the end pieces."

I believe the rumor they alluded to was one where either the fitting (aka fixing/foot/base mount), the mounting bolt, the safety nappy pin or all of them had not even been installed on the lower part of the forward suspension bar and were sitting on a table in a hangar somewhere.

They debunked that rumor, at least as far as I am concernced.
Magjam is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 12:59
  #937 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: uk
Age: 64
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question;

"When you said that you had found all the components belonging to the "torsion bars" (I assume he was referencing the suspension bars)", does that mean you have found all bolts, all safety connections etc. from which one could say no bolts have snapped, is that correct?"

Answer;

"We do not have all the bolts from the fixings. But we have traces at the fixings, both at the "base mounts" and on the... and we also have some bolts."




Is this not specific enough? ( and not included in your post)
lynnx is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 13:25
  #938 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brazil
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NorskEnglishA A
Search here
Search
HomeAbout us
Telephone for notificationMandateAnnual reportOrganisation mapAviationRailwayRoad TrafficMarineContact usSubscribe

TELEPHONE:
Switchboard
tlf: 63 89 63 00
24-hour telephone for notification:
Aviation +47 63 89 63 20
Railway +47 63 89 63 30
Road traffic +47 63 89 63 40
Marine +47 63 89 63 50
PRESS CONTACT:
Director General
William J. Bertheussen
Telephone 63 89 63 02
Mobile 974 85 770
E-mail [email protected]
Press image Download
PRESS CONTACT FOR THE HELICOPTER ACCIDENT ON TURØY:
Director, Aviation Department
Kåre Halvorsen
Mobile 995 27 405
The Helicopter Accident: Information to the public about components found in the area 27.05.2016

A Super Puma helicopter enroute for Bergen, crashed on Store Skitholmen near Turøy in Hordaland 29 April 2016. The Accident Investigation Board of Norway (AIBN) like to inform the public about the following:

Any components found, that can be traced to the helicopter accident, should immediately be rinsed with fresh water and applied a conserving oil. Contact the Police, phone: 02800. Findings may be submitted to Sotra and Øygarden police, phone: 56 31 58 00, or to Bergen police, phone: 55 55 63 00.

If a discovery is made of wreckage components that partly or completely match with pictures attached, please take direct contact with AIBN, Aviation department, at 24 h. telephone for notification: 63 89 63 20.

Stag
Jdbelo is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 13:47
  #939 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Oslo
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AIBN has this afternoon published a press release with info to the public on how to handle finds of missing parts.
| AIBN press release (in Norwegian)

They tell the public to rinse finds with fresh water and call the local police.

They also attached three photos of special missing parts, and tell the public to call the AIBN immidiatly if they are found.

Here are the photos:




byeskille is offline  
Old 27th May 2016, 14:58
  #940 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Right side of zero
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interpretation

Originally Posted by lynnx
Question;

"When you said that you had found all the components belonging to the "torsion bars" (I assume he was referencing the suspension bars)", does that mean you have found all bolts, all safety connections etc. from which one could say no bolts have snapped, is that correct?"

Answer;

"We do not have all the bolts from the fixings. But we have traces at the fixings, both at the "base mounts" and on the... and we also have some bolts."


Is this not specific enough? ( and not included in your post)
A lot of this comes down to interpretation and translation, but I sincerely believe that the bolts he is referring to are the ones attaching the 3 fittings to the roof-structure of the aircraft. 4 bolts on each fitting, so a total of 12. It is obvious to me that some of them are missing, since I imagine they have sheared/pulled right off at or after commencement of the catastrophic event or at ground impact.

The traces he speaks about which makes them believe all these parts were present at the start of the accident, I assume are on the fittings (which they claim to have) and the roof structure itself. Whether or not these bolts had been correctly torqued is pure speculation at this point.

I don't know if this has been posted here earlier, but I found an eyewitness interview recorded on the day of the accident. The person works offshore but was at home outside his house on Turøy island, about 1km slant range from the helicopter ToD (my google map estimate) looking at it with his daughter. He says he has helicopter flights passing by his house every day and he rides them to and from work.

Source(Norwegian only)

The translation:

"I was looking at the helicopter as it was flying normally. Then after a few seconds it started veering back and forth quite substantially followed by 3-4 quite loud bangs where we then clearly see parts coming off of the helicopter. A few seconds after that there is one additional bang after which the helicopter goes straight down and the rotor has come off."

He estimates a time period of 10s maximum between the veering and the fuselage crash/impact with the ground. As he saw the rotor seperate they ran inside the house as he thought the rotor could possibly come crashing down on them.

Last edited by Magjam; 27th May 2016 at 15:18. Reason: Grammar
Magjam is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.