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

EC 225 latest ......so quiet

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

EC 225 latest ......so quiet

Reply

Old 7th Oct 2016, 10:07
  #41 (permalink)  
RotorHead
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,001
http://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/...xpected-today/
206Fan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 11:35
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SE England
Posts: 91
What's the fix then?

Another HUMS threshold sticking plaster?
FC80 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 12:15
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: England
Posts: 9
https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news...leared-to-fly/

it's confirmed, actually
SweetComanche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 12:26
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 11
latest AD
EASA Safety Publications Tool
Groquik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 13:13
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 51
Posts: 4,184
Pulling the chip detectors and filter every day - any unintended consequences awaiting there?
212man is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 13:18
  #46 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
So the little bird which brought the rumour was telling the truth!
gnow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 13:24
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 69
Posts: 14,843
"Flying again" it might....the question is who will be flying in it?

The Airbus folks are rolling the Dice on this....one more catastrophic failure that kills a load of passengers and the crew...and their whole product line is going to be looked at very closely by potential buyers/operators/passengers.

The stage is set to see the end of a helicopter manufacturer if they get it wrong yet again.
SASless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 14:47
  #48 (permalink)  
nbl
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 54
The CAA said today the ban will remain in force in the UK
nbl is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 15:31
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,040
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
Not to impressed with the no fuzz burn aspect. This will make a difference in the "emergency Procedure" for a chip. I would certainly like to know if the light is just fuzz or perhaps something bigger.
Also do not like the daily chip plug / filter inspection.
But that is just my opinion.
albatross is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 15:45
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 188
Helihub.com:

Source: EASA
On 7 October 2016 the decision to lift the temporary flight suspension of the Super Puma EC225 LP and AS332 L2 helicopters from Airbus Helicopters put in place on 2 June 2016 following the crash of an EC225 LP helicopter in Norway on 29 April 2016. The set of very stringent protective measures which enable the decision to allow these type of helicopters to return to flight include:

The elimination of a specific type (Type A) of 2nd stage main gearbox planet gear involved in the accident by another type (Type B) which has a demonstrated reliable service life.
An additional safety factor applied to the demonstrated service life of this gear type (Type B), resulting in the time before replacement being reduced to less than half its current value.
The daily inspection or after 10 flight hours (whichever comes first) of the chip detectors, and every 10 flight hours oil filter with very stringent criteria.
All main gearboxes that have suffered from unusual events will be withdrawn from service. Unusual events include external events that might shock the gearbox but without visual evidence of damage.

EASA has been closely monitoring the analysis and tests conducted by Airbus Helicopters. We maintain our full support to the investigation led by the Accident Investigation Bureau of Norway (AIBN) for the accident. This action continues to address the initial safety recommendation on EASA and we will address any further recommendations addressed to EASA.

EASA will closely monitor the compliance action taken by the helicopter manufacturer and operators following the return to service along with operational information.

We will continue to work with the helicopter manufacturer, international regulators and national aviation authorities, offshore operators, to ensure that the highest possible safety standards always prevail.
Tango123 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 16:01
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the air with luck
Posts: 976
Seems to be managing a problem rather than a cure, the underlying problem is still there
500e is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 16:23
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: US
Posts: 70
Droppage of a main transmission from a truck, is at last, cause for rejection of a gearbox assembly.....
roscoe1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 19:58
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 804
I'm with 212man... something bad will happen from an incorrectly refitted detector or filter, or maintenance cover, or spanner left in the wrong place, or ...
krypton_john is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 7th Oct 2016, 23:10
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: awaiting position fix
Posts: 8
krypton john - You are describing general maintenance of an aircraft. Yes, more system disturbances will occur, but are you implying standards of maintenance will drop? Perhaps you should give our maintenance crews more respect?
loop swing is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Oct 2016, 00:27
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: US
Posts: 70
As a maintenance crewman for the last 36 years I have to partially agree with 212man. When you do an overhaul or perform almost any maintenance that requires disassembly of parts (which I think is the definition of maintenance), you run the risk of incurring some damage that was not there before your endeavor. We have all cut an o ring while reassembling something and fortunately we usually find the seep/leak before it goes back in service. Sometimes it takes a while to show up. The chances of catastrophic failure are slim but it can happen ( S92 oil filter studs not withstanding). I think if people get complacent because they do something every day the likelihood increases but filters and O rings should never fall into that category if proper procedures are followed, even if it means replacing cheap o rings every day and performing an extra run-up to leak check. Geez, do you check your landing light on pre-flight or do you think that if you turn it on an extra time that might be the last time it works before it fails and you would have been better off not checking it because it would work when you actually needed it? I think I'll stay in bed today......
roscoe1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Oct 2016, 04:20
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by albatross View Post
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.
Not to impressed with the no fuzz burn aspect. This will make a difference in the "emergency Procedure" for a chip. I would certainly like to know if the light is just fuzz or perhaps something bigger.
Also do not like the daily chip plug / filter inspection.
But that is just my opinion.
Generation of nuisance debris (or fuzz) is common with new components like gears/bearings/splined shafts that have not been run much. Fine ferrous metal debris generated by a gearbox with some hours on it, and picked up by magnetic chip detectors, is often an indication of early stage spalling failure of a bearing or gear. This type of failure typically progresses at a fairly slow rate, and does not usually present an immediate hazard to continued operation of the aircraft.

Inspecting chip detectors and the oil filter every 10 hours will require a lot of man hours. It is common to replace o-rings and fasteners every time these components are re-installed. Larger pieces of debris usually do not make it to the oil filter, since there are wire mesh screens located at the oil pump pickups.
riff_raff is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Oct 2016, 09:41
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 51
Posts: 4,184
The elimination of a specific type (Type A) of 2nd stage main gearbox planet gear involved in the accident by another type (Type B) which has a demonstrated reliable service life.
I'm no lawyer, but that looks like a gift to the lawyers acting for those seeking damages!

Anyone have a picture of the filter housing?
212man is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 8th Oct 2016, 09:42
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 51
Posts: 4,184
Larger pieces of debris usually do not make it to the oil filter, since there are wire mesh screens located at the oil pump pickups.
It was small particles that caused the filter clogging in the S92, requiring much more frequent filter changes than was anticipated. See where that ended.....
212man is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Oct 2016, 12:45
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 245
Apparently the 225s are safe to fly again according to one agency but not two others, the cause is not fully understood and the investigation hasn't finished. It is as clear as mud to me.
birmingham is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Oct 2016, 13:00
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 245
"There are two configurations of planet gear within the current type design. In depth review of the design and service data showed that one configuration has higher operating stress levels that result in more frequent events of spalling, associated with rolling contact fatigue, while the other exhibits better reliability behaviour. By limiting the type design to the gear configuration with lower stress levels and better reliability and specifying a reduced life limit, combined with more effective oil debris monitoring procedures and other operational controls, an acceptable level of safety can be restored."

Redesigning an epicyclic is hardly a trivial exercise and there must have been a very good reason to do so. I don't know the engineering history of this does anyone know if it was in response to earlier failures or simply to increase time between inspections or allow higher loadings?

Also were all the previous MGB accidents (excluding the bevel gear systems) involving type A?
birmingham is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service