End of the 225?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 50 50 Broome
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab
No, I tell them that in 700,000 fleet hours, so far, the oil has remained where it should be, which is in the MRGB.
I don't know where you fly but do you routinely brief your pax that in the event of loss of MRGB lube you will have to ditch, even if the sea state (and temperature) mean survival is unlikely?
Should the 225 be grounded and a complete redesign of the MRG be required it would seem that the type would be withdrawn from offshore transport. So what happens to the leased aircraft? CHC is protected by Chapter 7 so it can return without penalty but what about BHL ands Babcock? Do the leasing companies insist on the contract period being completed or do the operators return them to the leasers on the basis that they are not fit for purpose, who in turn return them to the factory.
Whatever way, one is going to be in financial difficulties saddled with n$millions of useless equipment.
Whatever way, one is going to be in financial difficulties saddled with n$millions of useless equipment.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 5th Jun 2016 at 12:12.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How did the usage of the aircraft (MAUM, high cruise speeds etc) differ from the military flight regimes"
I'm pretty sure that in a "hot war" the helicopters take a real beating (and we do see failures then but they are thought to be acceptable or at least likely to a degree
Offshore is day in day out, several times a day for years - to some extent the difference in use between a fire engine/truck and a bus..................
I'm pretty sure that in a "hot war" the helicopters take a real beating (and we do see failures then but they are thought to be acceptable or at least likely to a degree
Offshore is day in day out, several times a day for years - to some extent the difference in use between a fire engine/truck and a bus..................
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nigeria
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no comparison between military and civil flying. I have worked for a large civil operator on a military base in support of HM forces. Our cabs flew all day, full up, dawn til dusk. The Crab ones were occasionally seen outside the hangar if the weather was nice. I can imagine if its combat it changes but otherwise they fly a fraction of civvy cabs. Its no wonder they underestimated NS usage.
No, I tell them that in 700,000 fleet hours, so far, the oil has remained where it should be, which is in the MRGB.
Lets hope that 11 mins of run dry is enough to get your 92 safely on the ground/water if the filter issue ever raises its head again.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Home
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
Not years, just a couple months ago any 225 pilot could have stated the same. That's what I find kinda odd, apart from the sa330 that happened A LONG time ago. The G-REDL accident and Cougar S92 accident happened basically 1 month apart, yet, everybody is so trusting that Sikorsky has 100% fixed the issue and we will never see it again.
which would be no different to a 225/L2 driver a few years ago if he had briefed that the rotor head has stayed exactly where it was designed - attached to the rest of the MRGB fo hundreds of thousands of flight hours.
Surely the difference is that the cause of the S92 failure was clearly identifiable and a fix HAS been put in place.
Whereas there was no clearly identifiable cause for REDL.
Night and day springs to mind, helped by a good dose of hindsight.
Whereas there was no clearly identifiable cause for REDL.
Night and day springs to mind, helped by a good dose of hindsight.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
which would be no different to a 225/L2 driver a few years ago if he had briefed that the rotor head has stayed exactly where it was designed - attached to the rest of the MRGB fo hundreds of thousands of flight hours.
Lets hope that 11 mins of run dry is enough to get your 92 safely on the ground/water if the filter issue ever raises its head again.
Lets hope that 11 mins of run dry is enough to get your 92 safely on the ground/water if the filter issue ever raises its head again.
The 92 had a design flaw....it has been addressed.
The Check List was quite clear....but was not followed....and that is the direct cause of the Fatalities.
The 225 has a design flaw that was addressed....there was naught a crew could do. It seems perhaps just maybe....that fix did not solve the problem. Time will tell as the Investigation unfolds.
This back and forth about the 92/225 is just some much Willy Waving.
Let's deal with reality.
The Authority (Authorities) certified both.
Both Designs have serious issues that must be addressed by the Maker, the Authority, the Operator, and the Crews.
Now let's admit the existence of serious flaws in the whole of the System and start working to identify the problems so resolutions can be found.
Lives are at risk until that occurs.
The Check List was quite clear....but was not followed....and that is the direct cause of the Fatalities.
The 225 has a design flaw that was addressed....there was naught a crew could do. It seems perhaps just maybe....that fix did not solve the problem. Time will tell as the Investigation unfolds.
This back and forth about the 92/225 is just some much Willy Waving.
Let's deal with reality.
The Authority (Authorities) certified both.
Both Designs have serious issues that must be addressed by the Maker, the Authority, the Operator, and the Crews.
Now let's admit the existence of serious flaws in the whole of the System and start working to identify the problems so resolutions can be found.
Lives are at risk until that occurs.
Should the 225 be grounded and a complete redesign of the MRG be required
The gearbox has had thousands and thousands of hours of successful operation, until a couple of recent events. Fix what caused those aberrations.
Inspect all the gearboxes, assess which ones show signs of distress and note their running hours then adjust the TBO for the MRGB downwards across the fleet appropriately - replacing the epicyclic stages on condition.
Expensive? yes but not as bad as redesigning the whole box or scrapping the fleet.
Expensive? yes but not as bad as redesigning the whole box or scrapping the fleet.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Inspect all the gearboxes, assess which ones show signs of distress and note their running hours then adjust the TBO for the MRGB downwards across the fleet appropriately - replacing the epicyclic stages on condition.
Expensive? yes but not as bad as redesigning the whole box or scrapping the fleet.
Expensive? yes but not as bad as redesigning the whole box or scrapping the fleet.
If a newish gearbox can fail big-time with low hours and without warning, whilst other gearboxes of the same design regularly run to TBO, then that is a bit worrying. But surely under that circumstance it would be likely a flaw at manufacture, in which case the remedy is to tighten up on the quality control at the factory.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think a complete redesign would be the way to go, because you are back at square one with a product that has no operational history. What gotchas may have been included in the new design?
The gearbox has had thousands and thousands of hours of successful operation, until a couple of recent events. Fix what caused those aberrations.
The gearbox has had thousands and thousands of hours of successful operation, until a couple of recent events. Fix what caused those aberrations.
1. The L2 has been around since the early 90s and was operated successfully for many years. It should be possible to isolate the problem and develop a fix.
2. Replacing the gearbox is just not economically viable in the current climate.
If the Puma has any chance to return to the sky the best way for it to do so is to find out what exactly caused the problem and fix it. But even if we can I believe its future in the NS at least is going to be determined by industrial relations and the state of the industry - the machine is caught in something of a perfect storm
HC is correct on this one.
I would suggest tightening up QC all down the Chain but only after a definitive cause can be determined with great specificity and certainty.
Though it will have to draw upon past technical evidence....the perspective should be from a clean sheet of paper by ruling out previous assumptions and perspectives.
These two tragedies of Rotor Heads departing aircraft in Cruise Flight are clear signs that something is being missed in the past investigations and testing.
The results of being unable to find such a certain answer are going to be very detrimental to the future of not only the 225 but to the industry as a whole.
I would suggest tightening up QC all down the Chain but only after a definitive cause can be determined with great specificity and certainty.
Though it will have to draw upon past technical evidence....the perspective should be from a clean sheet of paper by ruling out previous assumptions and perspectives.
These two tragedies of Rotor Heads departing aircraft in Cruise Flight are clear signs that something is being missed in the past investigations and testing.
The results of being unable to find such a certain answer are going to be very detrimental to the future of not only the 225 but to the industry as a whole.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of machines have already been moved into place
Babcock have taken delivery of two (planned) new S92s for the NS
CHC have transferred 2 S92s from canada
Bristow one from Nigeria, three from the Falklands one of which went to Norwich and one from Brazil
Statoil have moved their two 225 SAR machines to S92s following the extension of the grounding.
I hope nothing happens to an S92
Babcock have taken delivery of two (planned) new S92s for the NS
CHC have transferred 2 S92s from canada
Bristow one from Nigeria, three from the Falklands one of which went to Norwich and one from Brazil
Statoil have moved their two 225 SAR machines to S92s following the extension of the grounding.
I hope nothing happens to an S92
Last edited by birmingham; 7th Jun 2016 at 15:34.
Did or did not the Customers take the position reported by CHC....that is the question.
If they did....and you are in Chapter 7 already...then it is probably unlikely CHC would be hard pressed in the current business climate to obtain financing for the purchase of other acceptable aircraft.
If they did....and you are in Chapter 7 already...then it is probably unlikely CHC would be hard pressed in the current business climate to obtain financing for the purchase of other acceptable aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's inevitable - unfortunately.
CHC Scotia don't fall under Chapter 11? Well yes and no. If they are a direct subsidiary then it is effectively the same thing if the Americans are guaranteeing the finance or the leasing it is effectively the same thing - i could go on. If CHC Scotia is independently viable it could live on its own - to do this they need to return the leases which is effectively the same thing!
And they don't need more new aircraft they already have them or will be able to access stored aircraft against valid contracts. North Sea passenger numbers are down 30%.
But be fair to the clients guys - what possible alternative do they have? They are bound to exercise caution, but if they want to wait for the enquiy, whatever fixes are recommended to be implemented and then see 18 months of safe running by a competitor, then one oilco at least has to stick its neck out and back the EC225. Are any of the advisors on this forum telling their boards to do that and do they think they will listen?
And CHC - do you think they felt the warm embrace of the manufacturer's full support? or did someone imply it was all their fault? ... to put it mildly. What goes around etc.
I appreciate that it could have happened to the 92, but it didn't, at least not in the NS and not so often - yet!.
This is real life, 13 real people are dead and the reputational damage to the beast is pretty well unrepairable.
This is only a helicopter when all is said and done. Unfair? - pretty much definitely but life is unfair.
As I said - perfect storm and a great aircraft heads to retirement as they all do eventually - this one without doubt prematurely... and please HC - I am genuinely as sad to see this happen as you are, really, have some great memories of all versions of this craft from the very beginning all those years ago has been a big part of my life too. I'm sure that some versions will carry on - but the game is well and truly over in E&P - and it's hard to take!
One partisan coment (and I have no connection to CHC/HS) - their people have remained dignified througout this whole episode - my condolences for the loss of their people, those honest souls who are going through hell (still) and for those additionally made redundant.
CHC Scotia don't fall under Chapter 11? Well yes and no. If they are a direct subsidiary then it is effectively the same thing if the Americans are guaranteeing the finance or the leasing it is effectively the same thing - i could go on. If CHC Scotia is independently viable it could live on its own - to do this they need to return the leases which is effectively the same thing!
And they don't need more new aircraft they already have them or will be able to access stored aircraft against valid contracts. North Sea passenger numbers are down 30%.
But be fair to the clients guys - what possible alternative do they have? They are bound to exercise caution, but if they want to wait for the enquiy, whatever fixes are recommended to be implemented and then see 18 months of safe running by a competitor, then one oilco at least has to stick its neck out and back the EC225. Are any of the advisors on this forum telling their boards to do that and do they think they will listen?
And CHC - do you think they felt the warm embrace of the manufacturer's full support? or did someone imply it was all their fault? ... to put it mildly. What goes around etc.
I appreciate that it could have happened to the 92, but it didn't, at least not in the NS and not so often - yet!.
This is real life, 13 real people are dead and the reputational damage to the beast is pretty well unrepairable.
This is only a helicopter when all is said and done. Unfair? - pretty much definitely but life is unfair.
As I said - perfect storm and a great aircraft heads to retirement as they all do eventually - this one without doubt prematurely... and please HC - I am genuinely as sad to see this happen as you are, really, have some great memories of all versions of this craft from the very beginning all those years ago has been a big part of my life too. I'm sure that some versions will carry on - but the game is well and truly over in E&P - and it's hard to take!
One partisan coment (and I have no connection to CHC/HS) - their people have remained dignified througout this whole episode - my condolences for the loss of their people, those honest souls who are going through hell (still) and for those additionally made redundant.
Last edited by birmingham; 8th Jun 2016 at 08:25.