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

End of the 225?

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

End of the 225?

Old 14th May 2016, 08:10
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 77
End of the 225?

Is this the end for the 225 offshore?

It took a lot less for the chinook but back then passengers had a younger and louder voice.

The move by Airbus to include an older Puma variant puts more pressure on operators and regulators to get the type(s) flying again. Were it to remain 225 specific would it be easier to 'do a chinook' and leave the 225 for military use only?

What would it take in the current economic climate for a type to stop transporting passengers offshore?
Hompy is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 09:41
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Is this the end for the 225 offshore?

It took a lot less for the chinook but back then passengers had a younger and louder voice.
People tend to forget that the Chinook continued to operate in the Norwegian sector very successfully for several years after the last UK accident. It eventually stopped service for economic and commercial reasons, not because the aircraft was unsafe.
roundwego is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 10:34
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 77
1995

True, but the three flying for Conocco stopped flying for over a year and were subject to seat reduction and other modification before returning to service(until 1995). They stopped flying altogether in the UK sector.

I draw the comparison because the chinook has proved itself as a very effective and safe machine. Many pilots and crew liked it.

However, the majority of offshore passengers didn't like it and decided they did not want to fly the type offshore. Apart from the three in Norway from 87-95, it stopped flying offshore.
Hompy is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 11:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 801
Originally Posted by Hompy View Post
However, the majority of offshore passengers didn't like it and decided they did not want to fly the type offshore. Apart from the three in Norway from 87-95, it stopped flying offshore.
The Chinook was simply not economical for Pax Offshore Transport. Way too much lifting capacity and too complex Mechanical design for pure Bus Shuttle service.
Unless you want to transport 105mm Howitzers Offshore. Than it's the ride of choice.

If the Chinook had been economical they would have returned it to Offshore Service. Created some Smoke and Mirrors and some Power Points around it (Had that existed back then) and everything would have returned to normal a bit later. The reluctance of the Pax was just the final nail in the coffin.
henra is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 11:44
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 188
Fingers pointing on the end of not only the 225, but also the L2 as well. That could be the case, unless there is evidence that it is not the main gear box that failed.

Nok en helikoptertype settes på bakken ?
Tango123 is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 11:48
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 298
It stopped in the UK because Shell no longer had a requirement to move the large number of workers required on the Brent and associated platforms. Most of the flotels were disappearing and it was cheaper and more efficient to use fixed wing to Shetland and smaller helicopters from Shetland to offshore. Although the Chinook had a chequered history in the UK sector, it was pure commercial reasons that caused its demise.
roundwego is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 12:28
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by roundwego View Post
It stopped in the UK because Shell no longer had a requirement to move the large number of workers required on the Brent and associated platforms. Most of the flotels were disappearing and it was cheaper and more efficient to use fixed wing to Shetland and smaller helicopters from Shetland to offshore. Although the Chinook had a chequered history in the UK sector, it was pure commercial reasons that caused its demise.
And yet it stopped immediately after the last accident in the UK. There was pressure on the oil companies from the offshore workers but how much this had an effect is anybody's guess. However, you cannot call the last accident and subsequent cessation of offshore flying for the type a coincidence.

That was 1987. This is 2016 and the 225 has had an equally 'chequered' history, if not worse.
Hompy is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 12:34
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wellington,NZ
Age: 62
Posts: 1,633
Guy I work with used to work on a rig in the North Sea.
He said that all the workers were quite worried about the trip out (and back), but were always relieved when they found that their steed for the day was a Sikorsky 61.

They were all scared to travel on a Puma. Chinooks weren't mentioned. Maybe they weren't used on the operation he was on.
Tarq57 is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 13:14
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,673
The old S61s used to catch fire quite often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_B...ky_S-61N_crash
Fareastdriver is online now  
Old 14th May 2016, 13:34
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 298
Originally Posted by Fareastdriver View Post
The old S61s used to catch fire quite often.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_B...ky_S-61N_crash
....and again here.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Engine fault caused helicopter fire
roundwego is offline  
Old 14th May 2016, 17:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Norwich
Posts: 237
And that is where you have Lies ........... Damn Lies ............... And Statistics.

The EC225 / H225 hasn't had 6 incidents, although I'm sure the press would have you believe that.

The 225 has had 4 incidents (I think) and this is the first that has ever resulted in injury / fatalities. How you view the Gearbox issues previously - Serious incidents for sure, but if they had happened over land and the aircraft had landed in a field, we wouldn't have really been talking about it - As per the S92 that did that at least 3 times (Australia / Brunei)

And another incident that was entirely pilot error, where the strength and excellent escape characteristics of the 225, enabled everyone to vacate the ditched aircraft without getting their feet wet.

So an excellent aircraft with a well proven and trusted design, or an inherantly flawed machine? I don't honestly know the answer, but I'd still fly the EC225. I think it is as proven as any helicopter globally. On the flip side, I guess Concorde was always flawed, there just weren't enough flying hours on it to have seen that fatal scenario occur previously.
Special 25 is offline  
Old 15th May 2016, 08:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 767
From Fareastdriver's link

The helicopter left the Safe Felicia semi-submersible oil rig in the Forties oilfield at 13:45 with 2 pilots and a full load of 19 passengers for the one hour flight to Sumburgh Airport on the Mainland of Shetland.


Not surprised that G-BEID caught fire if they were pulling enough torque in the old S-61 to make Forties - Sumburgh in one hour.
industry insider is offline  
Old 15th May 2016, 09:19
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 266
End of the 225

Long term: No idea, but the history of aircraft being removed from commercial service due to lack of passenger confidence goes right back to the Comet (Concorde, Chinook et al)

Short term: CHC plus Zenon are both looking for S92 pilots for Aberdeen, the Zenon recruitment says 12 month contracts. To me that indicates that no one expects to see the 225 released back to the line in the UK any time soon.
Max Contingency is offline  
Old 15th May 2016, 18:45
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 444
Babcock also looking for S92 contractors.
cyclic is offline  
Old 15th May 2016, 19:28
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,578
As per the S92 that did that at least 3 times (Australia / Brunei)
Yes; they dodged a couple of bullets there!
212man is online now  
Old 15th May 2016, 21:57
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 888
I used to fly the 332 L1 and L2, and the S61N. I'd be very interested in a worldwide set of stats for MGB failure on the S61. Off the top of my head I can count 5 in flight on the NS alone.

There is a bit of research failure in demanding the 225 be grounded for ever. The 332 had small number of MGB problem after 30 years of service, the 225 has had one failure after maybe 10 years. I had a 61 MGB problem, landed on the platform we had just left and found the MGB was failing fast, another 5 minutes and we would have been swimming. The S61 MGB was a known weak link, but no-one shouted for the 61 to be grounded.

I would happily fly the 332 series again or the 225 because their safety record is in fact bloody good.

SND
Sir Niall Dementia is offline  
Old 16th May 2016, 00:04
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 557
The S61 MGB was a known weak link
The MGB was/is very reliable, no rotor heads that I know of ever departed. Now the inputs/free wheels , those are a weak link.

Last edited by Outwest; 16th May 2016 at 00:36.
Outwest is offline  
Old 16th May 2016, 00:36
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Home
Posts: 72
The MGB was/is very reliable, no rotor heads that I know of ever departed. Now the inputs, those are a weak link.
No rotor head, just main rotor blades ... Which all had the same negative result.

I don't believe the 225 will be done. The big oil companies will ultimately dictate the return to the Northsea and I suspect with the down turn there will be no major rush. If we were still in the 100+ a barrel, I bet the push would already be on. Hey, we already seen one self proclaimed advisor stating in the other thread that his company were already talking about how they could rehabilitate the 225. By that I don't believe the oil company is going to redesign the gearbox for Airbus ... Pretty sure they mean, they are going to "rehabilitate" the passengers!
Satcomm is offline  
Old 16th May 2016, 00:52
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 557
No rotor head, just main rotor blades ... Which all had the same negative result
As I mentioned in the other thread, even losing 6' of one blade did not cause the head or MGB to depart.

My post referred to the statement that MGB was a weak line, which I disagree with. Not saying the 61 did not have other issues in its 60 years of service.
Outwest is offline  
Old 16th May 2016, 01:59
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Home
Posts: 72
Outwest, there were several issues with the 61 gearbox early on with oil loss that resulted in ditchings and that may have been what Sir Niall was referring too.

Didn't mean to undermine that fact that there have been no rotorhead detachments in the 61 but there have been several fatal crashes resulting from the rotor head throwing blades.

Really just comes down to the fact that every type out there is responsible for loss of lives and its really not conceivable to believe that one fatal crash of the 225 will end its days.
Satcomm is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.