EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA:
I'd say it's far from case closed..the Oil and Gas news is going out on a limb here by stating that:
At this time, it cannot be determined if this is a contributing causal factor or subsequent failure from another initiating factor. Pending further investigation to determine the root cause(s)….[..]
Chillingly the report states that fatigue was the cause of the gearbox failure
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professional Pilots board....sure doesn't resemble anything like it. I have a feeling that for a couple of persons here, the "retirement" might not have been a voluntary thing...
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Home
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMONEZ, I was not calling you an idiot. I was just saying that I was not going to comment on you calling everyone on here an idiots ... Turns out we may have one more peanut in the gallery.
Anyway, was just trying to figure out your stance on the topic. Seemed like your first post "EPI no chance .... " suggested to me that you did not believe it was an EPI failure. But now your second post suggests that you may actually agree with the EPI/MGB failure.
Number of years on type does not impress most engineers. Think 99% would agree that we have all worked with guys that, well, you wonder how they ever got where they are. Again, not suggesting this is you, you obviously seem very level headed.
Anyway, was just trying to figure out your stance on the topic. Seemed like your first post "EPI no chance .... " suggested to me that you did not believe it was an EPI failure. But now your second post suggests that you may actually agree with the EPI/MGB failure.
Number of years on type does not impress most engineers. Think 99% would agree that we have all worked with guys that, well, you wonder how they ever got where they are. Again, not suggesting this is you, you obviously seem very level headed.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nuremberg (metropol region)
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
„Rien ne va plus“
One of the two big questions is, would FAA react analogue to EASA?
The other is, how will all the EASA non-member states - but being in relationship to EASA - react?
https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/international-cooperation/easa-by-country/map
The other is, how will all the EASA non-member states - but being in relationship to EASA - react?
Last edited by AW009; 3rd Jun 2016 at 05:47. Reason: link
@OMONEZ I recognize most of the words you write as English, but the sentences might as well be Chinese to me - I don't understand what you're trying to say.
@lynnx A strongly agree even though I'm not a pilot. Pilot or not, the endless "fighting" about who's right is pointless. I read this thread to get ideas/theories/viewpoints on what might have gone wrong, not to watch people tell other's they are wrong. To do the latter there are thousands of other internet forums I could read.
@TommyL
@lynnx A strongly agree even though I'm not a pilot. Pilot or not, the endless "fighting" about who's right is pointless. I read this thread to get ideas/theories/viewpoints on what might have gone wrong, not to watch people tell other's they are wrong. To do the latter there are thousands of other internet forums I could read.
@TommyL
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Mitchaa, obviously the subject matter of this thread is very serious but.... Your response to OMENEZs "Agressive, paranoid poetry" made me piss myself laughing. Thanks for lightening the mood somewhat!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway let's be clear amongst all the squabbling, the report implies suspicion about a planet gear break-up but doesn't categorically state it. So the press item is misrepresenting somewhat. However, clearly enough evidence to convince EASA. Worrying...
Mitchaa, obviously the subject matter of this thread is very serious but.... Your response to OMENEZs "Agressive, paranoid poetry" made me piss myself laughing. Thanks for lightening the mood somewhat!
In case any of you haven't seen this EAD yet: (apologies for cack copy paste)
F L I G H T P R O H I B I T I O N
Manufacturer(s):
Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale)
Applicability:
AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP helicopters, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Reason:
Following a fatal accident that occurred in Norway to an EC 225 LP helicopter, indicating in-flight detachment of the main rotor hub from the main gearbox (MGB), EASA issued Emergency AD 2016-0089-E to require, as a precautionary measure, the accomplishment of one-time inspections. Investigation is on-going to identify the root cause of this accident.
The review of the data reported in accomplishing AD 2016-0089-E, revealed installation findings for the MGB upper deck fittings of the three MBG suspension bars. Prompted by these findings, EASA issued superseding AD 2016-0103-E for further inspection and replacement instructions for correct installation of the MGB suspension bars and attachment fittings.
Soon after EASA AD 2016-0103-E was issued, a second preliminary report from the investigation board indicated metallurgical findings of fatigue and surface degradation in the outer race of a second stage planet gear of the MGB epi-cyclic module. At this time, it cannot be determined if this is a contributing causal factor or subsequent failure from another initiating factor.
Pending further investigation to determine the root cause(s) of the reported damage, and development of mitigating measures by Airbus Helicopters, EASA has decided, as an additional precautionary measure, to temporarily ground the fleet.
For the reason described above, this AD prohibits flight of the AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP helicopters .
Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s):
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.
(1) From the effective date of this AD, do not operate any AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP helicopter, except as specified in paragraph (2) of this AD.
(2) A single ferry flight without passengers is allowed to a maintenance location where the helicopter grounding, as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, can be accomplished in adequate storage conditions.
Note: Pursuant to Art.1 (2) (a) of Regulation (EC) 2016/2008, the requirement of paragraph (1) of this AD does not apply to EC 225 LP helicopters while carrying out military, customs, police, search and rescue, firefighting, coastguard or similar activities or services.
F L I G H T P R O H I B I T I O N
Manufacturer(s):
Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale)
Applicability:
AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP helicopters, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Reason:
Following a fatal accident that occurred in Norway to an EC 225 LP helicopter, indicating in-flight detachment of the main rotor hub from the main gearbox (MGB), EASA issued Emergency AD 2016-0089-E to require, as a precautionary measure, the accomplishment of one-time inspections. Investigation is on-going to identify the root cause of this accident.
The review of the data reported in accomplishing AD 2016-0089-E, revealed installation findings for the MGB upper deck fittings of the three MBG suspension bars. Prompted by these findings, EASA issued superseding AD 2016-0103-E for further inspection and replacement instructions for correct installation of the MGB suspension bars and attachment fittings.
Soon after EASA AD 2016-0103-E was issued, a second preliminary report from the investigation board indicated metallurgical findings of fatigue and surface degradation in the outer race of a second stage planet gear of the MGB epi-cyclic module. At this time, it cannot be determined if this is a contributing causal factor or subsequent failure from another initiating factor.
Pending further investigation to determine the root cause(s) of the reported damage, and development of mitigating measures by Airbus Helicopters, EASA has decided, as an additional precautionary measure, to temporarily ground the fleet.
For the reason described above, this AD prohibits flight of the AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP helicopters .
Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s):
Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously.
(1) From the effective date of this AD, do not operate any AS 332 L2 and EC 225 LP helicopter, except as specified in paragraph (2) of this AD.
(2) A single ferry flight without passengers is allowed to a maintenance location where the helicopter grounding, as required by paragraph (1) of this AD, can be accomplished in adequate storage conditions.
Note: Pursuant to Art.1 (2) (a) of Regulation (EC) 2016/2008, the requirement of paragraph (1) of this AD does not apply to EC 225 LP helicopters while carrying out military, customs, police, search and rescue, firefighting, coastguard or similar activities or services.
Last edited by nowherespecial; 3rd Jun 2016 at 10:44.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Right side of zero
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My reading of the various directives is:
UK/Norway has grounded both the L2 and LP - no concessions. This prohibition includes overflight by any third country operator. EASA says you can do a single ferry flight and continue SAR.
As part of ongoing investigations, significant anomalies have been identified in both MGB suspension bars/fittings and planetary gear.
Are there any operators still flying the 225L2/LP outside of UK/Norway?
UK/Norway has grounded both the L2 and LP - no concessions. This prohibition includes overflight by any third country operator. EASA says you can do a single ferry flight and continue SAR.
As part of ongoing investigations, significant anomalies have been identified in both MGB suspension bars/fittings and planetary gear.
Are there any operators still flying the 225L2/LP outside of UK/Norway?
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Nuremberg (metropol region)
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unbelievable
Should we restart the thread with Adam & Eve and discuss the difference and the sense between an 'AD' and a 'SD', the differences betwee jurisdictions and competences of EASA CAA N and CAA UK and should we also discuss the meaning of 'PP' in the abbrevation of 'PPRuNe'?
Last edited by AW009; 3rd Jun 2016 at 11:52. Reason: mistake
Note: Pursuant to Art.1 (2) (a) of Regulation (EC) 2016/2008, the requirement of paragraph (1) of this AD does not apply to EC 225 LP helicopters while carrying out military, customs, police, search and rescue, firefighting, coastguard or similar activities or services.
This Regulation shall not apply when products, parts,
appliances, personnel and organisations referred to in paragraph
1 are engaged in military, customs, police, or similar
services. The Member States shall undertake to ensure that such
services have due regard as far as practicable to the objectives of
this Regulation
appliances, personnel and organisations referred to in paragraph
1 are engaged in military, customs, police, or similar
services. The Member States shall undertake to ensure that such
services have due regard as far as practicable to the objectives of
this Regulation