End of the 225?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offshore
Age: 64
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 225 seems well liked by those upfront but if you spent more time cramped in the back I think you might have a different opinion.
It will be the unpopularity with the workforce that kills it and not wholly on safety performance. It is dammed unpleasant being so squashed in for hours and hardly being able to walk off the dammed things due to complete loss of feeling in your legs.
It will be the unpopularity with the workforce that kills it and not wholly on safety performance. It is dammed unpleasant being so squashed in for hours and hardly being able to walk off the dammed things due to complete loss of feeling in your legs.
TommyL
The 737 is a good choice for a comparison. Two unexplained fatal crashes in the early 90's resulted in a a modification programme to the rudder control system that was not scheduled to be completed until 2010. So in effect what you say would not happen to a 737 is exactly what did happen. The paying public were flying on aircraft with a known defect for years that could lead to total loss of control.
The Rudder Story
The 737 is a good choice for a comparison. Two unexplained fatal crashes in the early 90's resulted in a a modification programme to the rudder control system that was not scheduled to be completed until 2010. So in effect what you say would not happen to a 737 is exactly what did happen. The paying public were flying on aircraft with a known defect for years that could lead to total loss of control.
The Rudder Story
The 225 seems well liked by those upfront but if you spent more time cramped in the back I think you might have a different opinion.
It will be the unpopularity with the workforce that kills it and not wholly on safety performance. It is dammed unpleasant being so squashed in for hours and hardly being able to walk off the dammed things due to complete loss of feeling in your legs.
It will be the unpopularity with the workforce that kills it and not wholly on safety performance. It is dammed unpleasant being so squashed in for hours and hardly being able to walk off the dammed things due to complete loss of feeling in your legs.
However it would be disingenuous to be "anti" the 225 on safety grounds when the real agenda was one of comfort.
Perhaps the answer is to ration food offshore? If the pax were all skinny I'm sure there would be a lot more room.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ericferret
I knew about these crashes, but did not know that the plane was allowed to keep flying before these modifications were fixed after they found the cause of the accidents. Well, I'm no aviation expert, so that may have been a bad example then. Just insane that they let the public fly on these with a known, un-rectified defect. But I guess money talks.
I knew about these crashes, but did not know that the plane was allowed to keep flying before these modifications were fixed after they found the cause of the accidents. Well, I'm no aviation expert, so that may have been a bad example then. Just insane that they let the public fly on these with a known, un-rectified defect. But I guess money talks.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 50 50 Broome
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bristow is apparently ramping up its pricing on S-92s and 139s to take advantage of the EC225 grounding and trying to pitch the oil companies against each other. I suppose its payback time for recent cost cutting by oil companies.
One does have to admire HC's loyalty to the 225.
Even events since the great 225 v 92 Shoot Out....HC is still in there swinging away like Casey at the Plate!
Even events since the great 225 v 92 Shoot Out....HC is still in there swinging away like Casey at the Plate!
It is also worth bearing in mind that I have flown both the S92 and the EC225, you have flown neither. So one of us is taking from experience, the other is making it up to suit their personal agenda.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 225 and the L2 are formally grounded in the NS and informally by their operators in many other regions. If they are to return we will have to understand that the views of TommyL and others are not "hysterical" to be brushed aside by we who think we know better. 13 more colleagues have died and to suggest that 1970s levels of fatal accidents is inevitable let alone acceptable is disrespectful, complacent, arrogance - you know who you are!
Whether the Puma survives is neither here nor there. We just need to find a way to make this business safer.
Whether the Puma survives is neither here nor there. We just need to find a way to make this business safer.
Did you read my post? THE COMPLETE ROTOR HEAD HAS DEPARTED NOT ONCE, BUT TWO TIMES ON THE PUMA!!!
I know of 5 incidents with the S92 where, in very slightly different circumstances, the crews would have ditched due to MGB problems. Instead they landed on unmanned platforms with closed decks, coast line, jungle and a chicken farm, so are not very familiar to the offshore workforce. All of that in the first 700,000 flying hours and ignoring the fatal accident.
The Sumburgh accident was caused by automation mismanagement and inadequate monitoring. In Norway an S92 came very close to spearing into the ground above Vne - due to automation mismanagement whilst flying an ILS in IMC. But didn't so nobody knows about it!
Bottom line is that HeliComparator's comments are accurate, and logic and statistics should prevail over emotion and ignorance (of the actual facts).
They are hysterical because they are born out of ignorance, fear, mob rule etc. Once we know the full picture we will be in a position to calmly decide whether or not the EC225 should fly again. If it is decided to return the 225 to service then yes we will need to explain carefully the rationale behind that decision. What we won't be doing is joining a wail-fest of shouting and expecting he that makes the most fuss to win the day. We probably won't even mention big-boy pants.
HC,
Bit unkind of you to say all that when I have posted this in the Accident Thread.
I am on record as waiting for the Final Report/Determination before crafting an Opinion.
You are absolutely correct I have flown neither of the two Types but that does not mean I cannot place a certain amount of credence in thinking two losses of all Rotor Blades and MR heads compared to none does suggest one Type of Aircraft might have a rather serious problem the other does not at this time.
For sure....when the Rotor Blades leave the aircraft all the flying experience on Type means naught....as everyone is a Passenger on their Final Ride.
Bit unkind of you to say all that when I have posted this in the Accident Thread.
I am on record as waiting for the Final Report/Determination before crafting an Opinion.
You are absolutely correct I have flown neither of the two Types but that does not mean I cannot place a certain amount of credence in thinking two losses of all Rotor Blades and MR heads compared to none does suggest one Type of Aircraft might have a rather serious problem the other does not at this time.
For sure....when the Rotor Blades leave the aircraft all the flying experience on Type means naught....as everyone is a Passenger on their Final Ride.
It is still early in the investigation and lots of questions remain and more work needs to be done but even as an idle spectator to discussion One simply must think Gearboxes just do not fail that often anymore and for two to have gross similarities resulting in a loss of the Main Rotors as a group.....One must wonder why!
I am quietly waiting to hear how all this turns out but evidence keeps turning up that brings us back to a possible cause a lot of folks just do not want to confront for any number of reasons.
I am quietly waiting to hear how all this turns out but evidence keeps turning up that brings us back to a possible cause a lot of folks just do not want to confront for any number of reasons.
You are absolutely correct I have flown neither of the two Types but that does not mean I cannot place a certain amount of credence in thinking two losses of all Rotor Blades and MR heads compared to none does suggest one Type of Aircraft might have a rather serious problem the other does not at this time.
The main difference I my opinion? One event happened in Europe, the other happened too far away for anyone in Europe to care much. We are still very tribal!
So both manufacturers are guilty of producing sub-standard designs that slipped through a supposedly stringent certification process? Just remind me, this is the 21st century isn't it?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember that the S92 fatalities were, most likely, the result of the crew not following the ECL or misunderstanding the meaning of Land Immediately. Something the Bond and CHC 225 crews who ditched did not. For the 225 in this instance a fault an action and a ditching. For the S92 a fault an incorrect action and a crash!
Originally Posted by [email protected]
So both manufacturers are guilty of producing sub-standard designs that slipped through a supposedly stringent certification process? Just remind me, this is the 21st century isn't it?
Anyway I agree with your sentiment in theory but the reality is that design errors get through due to certification weaknesses. But whilst there is room to improve the certification process it will never be perfect. There would be a danger of creating such a certification burden that no new aircraft could be certified and then we might have to do something really crass like spend our lives flying around in 1960s technology helicopters.
IMO what we need is a certification process based on knowledge, experience and "cleverness" rather than the one we have at the moment which is mostly based on bits of paper.
Cleverness can get you killed just as dead as a missing sentence in a pile of paper.
I quite like some 50's Tech Helicopters....Huey's, 61's, 64's, and 107's Chinooks...all of which are still working their Hind End's off throughout the World.
I quite like some 50's Tech Helicopters....Huey's, 61's, 64's, and 107's Chinooks...all of which are still working their Hind End's off throughout the World.
As HC says, endless crashery. Hundreds of deaths. Most of those deaths having been pre-internet and many far enough away from European shores to be invisible to the thick and manic British press.
I am engineer. Give me the numbers. The numbers do not lie.
All those hours. All those aircraft. All those years of service. The spec of that autopilot. The size of those escape windows.
I'll still be happy in my favourite second row seat in a 225 where I can see the instruments and reach the door release before some fat f3ckwit slides it past my window.
I am engineer. Give me the numbers. The numbers do not lie.
All those hours. All those aircraft. All those years of service. The spec of that autopilot. The size of those escape windows.
I'll still be happy in my favourite second row seat in a 225 where I can see the instruments and reach the door release before some fat f3ckwit slides it past my window.
Some testing, yes. But only the tests that someone thought to do, ie the tests that were required by the bits of paper. Wasn't it the S92 that had a big deal when one of allegedly duplex oil pumps lost drive? Apparently that scenario hadn't been taken into consideration during certification. Not much point in doing FMEA if you don't spend much time thinking up the Fs. That is where some intelligence is required.
I think one of the problems with large complex helicopters is that within a manufacturer, virtually no-one really understands how the whole thing hangs together. Lots of clever chaps with supreme knowledge about their little bit, but lacking the big picture.
I think one of the problems with large complex helicopters is that within a manufacturer, virtually no-one really understands how the whole thing hangs together. Lots of clever chaps with supreme knowledge about their little bit, but lacking the big picture.