EC225 crash near Bergen, Norway April 2016
Let's not kid ourselves...
All large oil companies have various management structures to kid themselves they are doing it the 'Safeway'.
The Statoil 'report' was a joint ar5e-covering and PR exercise that contributes nothing to the safety argument.
Likewise, Shell Aviation can employ as many 'inspectors' and 'Aviation Safety Advisors' as they can justify; but it will be Shell Commercial that calls the shots.
As far as introducing up-to-date Helideck lighting - you must be referring to decks before my time.......
For example; latest 'Clipper' deck was introduced well after the design of 'new' Helideck lighting was agreed, and it was still allowed to be commissioned with 'old-spec' lighting!
Be careful what you say SM, it was only after the industry embarrassed the CAA into taking action did 'updates' - which had previously been left on the shelf as they were only examples of 'best practice' - start to be 'mandated'.
You are still using out-of-date aircraft when you could been leading the field and insisting in OEMs to provide 'modern' machines - but then that would cost more and it is only a 'taxi' to get plumbers to work and no one has insisted in the past..............
You might regard yourselves as 'leaders' in the Energy Transport sector but you are all well behind the fixed-wing world. That might have been acceptable in the days of the mad rush to extract the black stuff but you have no excuse now and will find it difficult to hide behind a wall of Safety Cases when the lawyers ask "why not" when it was simply a matter of spending a bit more of the green stuff.......
The Statoil 'report' was a joint ar5e-covering and PR exercise that contributes nothing to the safety argument.
Likewise, Shell Aviation can employ as many 'inspectors' and 'Aviation Safety Advisors' as they can justify; but it will be Shell Commercial that calls the shots.
As far as introducing up-to-date Helideck lighting - you must be referring to decks before my time.......
For example; latest 'Clipper' deck was introduced well after the design of 'new' Helideck lighting was agreed, and it was still allowed to be commissioned with 'old-spec' lighting!
Be careful what you say SM, it was only after the industry embarrassed the CAA into taking action did 'updates' - which had previously been left on the shelf as they were only examples of 'best practice' - start to be 'mandated'.
You are still using out-of-date aircraft when you could been leading the field and insisting in OEMs to provide 'modern' machines - but then that would cost more and it is only a 'taxi' to get plumbers to work and no one has insisted in the past..............
You might regard yourselves as 'leaders' in the Energy Transport sector but you are all well behind the fixed-wing world. That might have been acceptable in the days of the mad rush to extract the black stuff but you have no excuse now and will find it difficult to hide behind a wall of Safety Cases when the lawyers ask "why not" when it was simply a matter of spending a bit more of the green stuff.......
'Safeway'
Shell Aviation
You are still using out-of-date aircraft
I think that is the point....
There are no other options.
It is only recently that such an aircraft like the 175 has come to market.
The 175 was not Shell's first choice.
Please do not pretend that the 92 and latest rash of AWs are 'modern' designs.
However, you have probably been in the industry for so Long that you can be forgiven for thinking 'modern' means having true Class 1 performance.
And well done for picking-up in the typos, keep doing that and all should be well with the world ;-)
It is only recently that such an aircraft like the 175 has come to market.
The 175 was not Shell's first choice.
Please do not pretend that the 92 and latest rash of AWs are 'modern' designs.
However, you have probably been in the industry for so Long that you can be forgiven for thinking 'modern' means having true Class 1 performance.
And well done for picking-up in the typos, keep doing that and all should be well with the world ;-)
Last edited by EESDL; 25th Sep 2016 at 19:47. Reason: Afterthought.
There are no other options.
It is only recently that such an aircraft like the 175 has come to market.
It is only recently that such an aircraft like the 175 has come to market.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the research projects Shell have co-funded are long in the past.
On the most recent, on TAWS (fixing an inadequate system that they had stubbornly insisted was introduced prematurely!), I'm told that their contribution was a token figure AFTER others had already funded inital work, but enough to get their name on the credits.
So where are Shell using the 175?
On the most recent, on TAWS (fixing an inadequate system that they had stubbornly insisted was introduced prematurely!), I'm told that their contribution was a token figure AFTER others had already funded inital work, but enough to get their name on the credits.
So where are Shell using the 175?
Most of the research projects Shell have co-funded are long in the past.
On the most recent, on TAWS (fixing an inadequate system that they had stubbornly insisted was introduced prematurely!), I'm told that their contribution was a token figure AFTER others had already funded inital work, but enough to get their name on the credits.
On the most recent, on TAWS (fixing an inadequate system that they had stubbornly insisted was introduced prematurely!), I'm told that their contribution was a token figure AFTER others had already funded inital work, but enough to get their name on the credits.
So where are Shell using the 175?
Please do not pretend that the 92 and latest rash of AWs are 'modern' designs.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the warning project is going ahead it does look like someone else put in 9 times what Shell did.
Ah yes I used to enjoy those long trips to exotic locations being wined and dined by OEMs. 
Margarine was a great place to visit for the EC155 and EC225 approvals.
They're not, but is approved and useable if tendered.
Margarine was a great place to visit for the EC155 and EC225 approvals.
Modern
Sorry Cylic, what I meant is that in aviation 'Modern' does not mean what is available from the manufacturers but what could be available from technology currently available.
I guess CAA's recent pointer that the industry could go a long way to lead this and to help themselves in the process.
It's encouraging to see such overt 'hinting' or even 'wrist slapping' from the authorities - I guess they are getting fed-up of the industry taking the £iss!
I'm out of it now but I understand from what has been published that the industry is still dragging its feet over various issues - or has the CAA got it wrong?
I guess CAA's recent pointer that the industry could go a long way to lead this and to help themselves in the process.
It's encouraging to see such overt 'hinting' or even 'wrist slapping' from the authorities - I guess they are getting fed-up of the industry taking the £iss!
I'm out of it now but I understand from what has been published that the industry is still dragging its feet over various issues - or has the CAA got it wrong?
Gentlemen, I will suggest that some of these posts really belong in the "end of the 225" thread or one of the threads on the oil industry/helicopter support thereof. We seem to have drifted from the more pressing concern of accident details and reports pertaining thereunto. (I confess, I found the linked 2016 report of interest).
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Western Europe
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you have all probably seen it in the press, EASA withdrew on friday the flight restrictions on 225LP and 332L2.
You can find below the related inspections asked by EASA to perfom safe flights :
EASA Safety Publications Tool
You can find below the related inspections asked by EASA to perfom safe flights :
EASA Safety Publications Tool
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So AH got EASA to lift the ban...****ing joke that's what it is!! No regards for personnel, money talks as usual. Just spit the victims relatives in the face, why don't you!! Well, the flying piece of junk is gone forever from the Norwegian sector anyway, thank god. But I feel for the poor souls who has no choice other than the puma.
EASA have effectively banned the use of the type of second stage planet gears involved in the accident(s?). Any 225LP and 332L2 with that type og second stage planet gears have to replace them with the other type to fly again.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about this to evaluate if that is enough to deem it safe or not, but it's not like they just waited for the dust to settle and then let things continue as if nothing happened.
I'm not knowledgeable enough about this to evaluate if that is enough to deem it safe or not, but it's not like they just waited for the dust to settle and then let things continue as if nothing happened.
This reminds me of the early years of the Cessna Conquest, which included some fatal crashes because of design flaws that were not corrected but only patched.
Cessna eventually had to redesign the entire tail assembly and the aircraft never achieved its full market potential.
As I read the EASA document, it simply notes that one type of planetary gear configuration has lower stress levels and better reliability than the other, so it must now be used.
It conceded that 'the root cause of the failure is still not fully understood'.
Perhaps that is pragmatic air safety regulation, but it seems more like military than commercial in orientation.
Cessna eventually had to redesign the entire tail assembly and the aircraft never achieved its full market potential.
As I read the EASA document, it simply notes that one type of planetary gear configuration has lower stress levels and better reliability than the other, so it must now be used.
It conceded that 'the root cause of the failure is still not fully understood'.
Perhaps that is pragmatic air safety regulation, but it seems more like military than commercial in orientation.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terminal 5
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA v UK & Norway CAA
What is going on with EASA?
They are going against the advice of both the UK and Norwegian CAA's, who are arguably the most experienced airworthiness authorities regarding offshore helicopters in the world.
EASA agree with the UK & Norwegian CAA's that the cause of the latest 225 accident is not understood yet. But even so EASA are prepared to take a risk and allow it to fly commercially, although admittedly with fairly restrictive daily maintenance.
This is not joined-up governance. Some people have suggested this is curiously advantageous timing for Airbus just before Helitech week. For all our sake's let's hope the EASA decision is based more on fact than political expediency.
They are going against the advice of both the UK and Norwegian CAA's, who are arguably the most experienced airworthiness authorities regarding offshore helicopters in the world.
EASA agree with the UK & Norwegian CAA's that the cause of the latest 225 accident is not understood yet. But even so EASA are prepared to take a risk and allow it to fly commercially, although admittedly with fairly restrictive daily maintenance.
This is not joined-up governance. Some people have suggested this is curiously advantageous timing for Airbus just before Helitech week. For all our sake's let's hope the EASA decision is based more on fact than political expediency.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is going on with EASA?
They are going against the advice of both the UK and Norwegian CAA's, who are arguably the most experienced airworthiness authorities regarding offshore helicopters in the world.
EASA agree with the UK & Norwegian CAA's that the cause of the latest 225 accident is not understood yet. But even so EASA are prepared to take a risk and allow it to fly commercially, although admittedly with fairly restrictive daily maintenance.
This is not joined-up governance. Some people have suggested this is curiously advantageous timing for Airbus just before Helitech week. For all our sake's let's hope the EASA decision is based more on fact than political expediency.
They are going against the advice of both the UK and Norwegian CAA's, who are arguably the most experienced airworthiness authorities regarding offshore helicopters in the world.
EASA agree with the UK & Norwegian CAA's that the cause of the latest 225 accident is not understood yet. But even so EASA are prepared to take a risk and allow it to fly commercially, although admittedly with fairly restrictive daily maintenance.
This is not joined-up governance. Some people have suggested this is curiously advantageous timing for Airbus just before Helitech week. For all our sake's let's hope the EASA decision is based more on fact than political expediency.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Location, location - is very important when buying a house.
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alas though there is politics for taking us into needless wars.
I think the place of safety though is too often clouded with the commercial and financial desires of those above. It does to me give the impression that this aircraft has one (another) last chance to not kill more people.
I think the place of safety though is too often clouded with the commercial and financial desires of those above. It does to me give the impression that this aircraft has one (another) last chance to not kill more people.