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

Old 16th Jan 2018, 07:46
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by Flying Bull View Post
Well, destiny will catch you, where ever you are....

With Helicopters, normaly the Crew will kill you...

Looking through the accidentreports you will find, that about 90 % of the accidents are Human failures.....

Airbus has done quite a lot to prevent further incidents/accidents involving gearboxes. Which is a pain in the a.., cause I have to fiddel with the gearbox mag plug on a daily basis, even without any warning and on a different helicoptertype, just because of the similaritys of the gearboxdesigns....

It is good to prevent risks, but you also need work/live and take risks, which you can think you can handle.

The 225 has flown for years over years without major problems and I would rather get a lift in an 225 before getting in any Robinson helicopter....
But it's not between a 225 and a Robinson is it.
helicrazi is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 07:05
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by Flying Bull View Post
Well, destiny will catch you, where ever you are....

With Helicopters, normaly the Crew will kill you...

Looking through the accidentreports you will find, that about 90 % of the accidents are Human failures.....

Airbus has done quite a lot to prevent further incidents/accidents involving gearboxes. Which is a pain in the a.., cause I have to fiddel with the gearbox mag plug on a daily basis, even without any warning and on a different helicoptertype, just because of the similaritys of the gearboxdesigns....

It is good to prevent risks, but you also need work/live and take risks, which you can think you can handle.

The 225 has flown for years over years without major problems and I would rather get a lift in an 225 before getting in any Robinson helicopter....
Destiny will catch you wherever you are!?!

I’m finding I’m perhaps not thinking like the majority of pilots.
I prefer to rely on facts and logic.
For eg:I’d rather follow the ECL than bleed a goat, in an emergency.

We all understand that flying Helicopters is not now, or ever going to be, risk free. The differences from what we usually accept, and the EC225 risk include:

-It is a known and demonstrated (unfortunately) fatal fault.

-Nothing the pilot can do, can predict, or mitigate it’s occurrence.

-If it occurs, no amount of skill or luck can prevent a terrifying last few seconds of life.

No one has claimed they know why two similar MRBs have failed in almost identical ways. Some things have been done that might make reoccurrence less likely. This is good enough for some people. Not good enough for me.

If you are flying an EC225, and are happy - good on you, and I wish you all the best. They are a great machine to fly.

I hope never to fly one again.

Viv le difference
Twist & Shout is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 12:43
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 78
lol when you said relying on facts and logic, you are doing the opposite.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 13:26
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 745
@T&S - causes were found, rollerbearings from one Manufaktura were within limits but slightly different in shape and in both incidents within the gearbox.
These are withdrawn and no longer appoved.
Second was a rough handling (drop) of the gearbox recorded.
Gearboxtransport is now closely monitored and gearboxes, which suffer rough handling or i.e. a lightning strike are withdrawn from service.
Additional Checks to discover metal are brought in, the runtime of the gearboxes are reduced.
What else do you want?
A new gearbox design?
Nearly every helicopter has planetary and sun gears and therefore could have the same failure- where as in a 225 the fault was analysed and the risks reduced as far as possible.
With the rollerbearings now only permitted was no accident so far, with the ones withdrawn two.
Even with a high pressure behind getting the 225 airborne again, I‘m quite sure, that Airbus knows what will happen, if a similar accident happens again and won‘t take that risk...
Flying Bull is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 14:03
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Europe
Age: 54
Posts: 666
.
At the present time, there are more than 250 H225, EC332L2 and KAI Surion (all with the same MGB) flying every day around the world.
.
HeliHenri is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 14:31
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 686
At the present time, there are more than 250 H225, EC332L2 and KAI Surion (all with the same MGB) flying every day around the world.
According to a recent briefing by Airbus at the present time there are more than 120 H225s that remain grounded by their operators and customers.

I‘m quite sure, that Airbus knows what will happen, if a similar accident happens again and won‘t take that risk...
That's the problem Flying Bull, Airbus has proven itself to be cavalier taking risks with the L2 / 225 gearbox since 2009 and I for one don't trust what they say, at least until the final AIBN report is issued.
industry insider is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2018, 15:08
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Europe
Age: 54
Posts: 666
Originally Posted by industry insider View Post
According to a recent briefing by Airbus at the present time there are more than 120 H225s that remain grounded by their operators and customers.

That's right.
and they're not alone. According to Westwood’s annual World Offshore Helicopter Market Forecast, global helicopter fleet utilisation hit a low of 54% in 2017 due to falling demand. Oil companies required fewer journeys offshore and as a result, many airframes were put into storage.
HeliHenri is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 01:35
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by Mee3 View Post
lol when you said relying on facts and logic, you are doing the opposite.
Care to support your claim?
Twist & Shout is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 01:48
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by Flying Bull View Post
@T&S - causes were found, rollerbearings from one Manufaktura were within limits but slightly different in shape and in both incidents within the gearbox.
These are withdrawn and no longer appoved.
Second was a rough handling (drop) of the gearbox recorded.
Gearboxtransport is now closely monitored and gearboxes, which suffer rough handling or i.e. a lightning strike are withdrawn from service.
Additional Checks to discover metal are brought in, the runtime of the gearboxes are reduced.
What else do you want?
A new gearbox design?
Nearly every helicopter has planetary and sun gears and therefore could have the same failure- where as in a 225 the fault was analysed and the risks reduced as far as possible.
With the rollerbearings now only permitted was no accident so far, with the ones withdrawn two.
Even with a high pressure behind getting the 225 airborne again, I‘m quite sure, that Airbus knows what will happen, if a similar accident happens again and won‘t take that risk...
You see, it is openly admitted no one knows why these gearboxes came apart.
If they knew it was one of these reasons, they would have fixed the ONE reason.

Basically for eg, AH are saying “we use two manufacturers of the gear, only one has failed, so maybe, that’s the issue.” (Allegations that the other manufacturers gear has been found with spalling, but none have actually failed have been reported on this forum, but not addressed. )

The first failure occurred in a gearbox that hadn’t had been reported as exposed any unusual shock. But that might have been the reason the second failed in an almost identical way. Where is the logic in this?

After the first failure of this design in the AS332L2, AH said similar things: “increased inspections might prevent further catastrophic, fatal failures”. They were proved, at great cost in human life, to be wrong that time.

Some of you guys are falling for a propaganda campaign of smoke, mirrors and a scattergun approach. Perhaps reading comprehension is an issue for some.

Stay safe my friends. (Avoid believing what proven liars tell you.)
Twist & Shout is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 01:59
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by HeliHenri View Post
.
At the present time, there are more than 250 H225, EC332L2 and KAI Surion (all with the same MGB) flying every day around the world.
.
Playing Russian Roulette with 1000 chambers empty and only one loaded with a +P hollow point. Statistically quite safe, but the next flight could be the last.

To continue with this colorful analogy:
The rest of the industry is doing the same thing, but 1001 chambers were checked and empty before the game. Doesn’t mean you can’t drop the gun on your toe, or be hit in the head with it, or even have a bullet slipped in after the inspection. But it’s not the same as pulling the trigger, knowing there is a loaded chamber.

AH have tightened the trigger, cleaned the grips, painted the muzzle orange, and checked some of the chambers..might have fixed it....this time.
Twist & Shout is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2018, 08:49
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
I would like to think that AH know definitively that the problem is confined to a single type of MRB arrangement i.e. the one that failed but can't say so for legal reasons. Hopefully all will be made clear by a future report. The corner they have backed themselves into is that previous statements, especially the suspension rod debacle, has undermined credibility somewhat. So trust has been eroded. This cloud is going to hang over the type unless and until the AIBN are able to give us something more definitive
birmingham is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2018, 02:19
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by birmingham View Post
I would like to think that AH know definitively that the problem is confined to a single type of MRB arrangement i.e. the one that failed but can't say so for legal reasons. Hopefully all will be made clear by a future report. The corner they have backed themselves into is that previous statements, especially the suspension rod debacle, has undermined credibility somewhat. So trust has been eroded. This cloud is going to hang over the type unless and until the AIBN are able to give us something more definitive
The simplest answer is that AH has acted to close off the most plausible causes of this accident, but has no special knowledge beyond that.

Perhaps AH could show their confidence in their fix by offering very substantial free life insurance to all 225 passengers. If the payout were set at a few million pounds sterling per head, people might be less troubled. Also, the underwriters might be more motivated to find the answer than the authorities.
Separately, afaik all components involved were properly certified and operated, so if there is a deficiency, it is a regulatory problem, rather than a corporate liability.
etudiant is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2018, 13:16
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
It seems that market uncertainty in this segment is such that AH has delayed the launch of the X6 replacement until it can make a better commercial case and the suppliers can deliver more disruptive technologies. It would seem that AH will concentrate on military customers in this segment for the time being at least.
birmingham is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2018, 07:55
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 783
Seems the H225 is coming back. Albeit in other Markets than NS O&G:
https://www.verticalmag.com/news/air...di07BQQg%3D%3D


Particularly interesting for me that there were 54 orders in 2017.
henra is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2018, 14:59
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 5
Think Kuwait armed forces ordered around 50?
As332l12 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2018, 07:47
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Long way south
Age: 55
Posts: 27
225

All good points, the downturn in oil n gas was good timing to drop the most successful long range option from the game -leaving the rest to fill the gaps whilst reducing long range projects, and rejigging to reflect $50/$60 oil.
I believe the 225 / 725 will fill the military market,and some niche slots-SAR and perhaps UN type roles, but only the financially brave would suggest it as an offshore option for a good while yet-shame , i am a fan , and a lot of experienced offshore types came around to it as the better option-begrudgingly .
CopterDoctor is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2018, 07:58
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offshore
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by CopterDoctor View Post
All good points, the downturn in oil n gas was good timing to drop the most successful long range option from the game -leaving the rest to fill the gaps whilst reducing long range projects, and rejigging to reflect $50/$60 oil.
I believe the 225 / 725 will fill the military market,and some niche slots-SAR and perhaps UN type roles, but only the financially brave would suggest it as an offshore option for a good while yet-shame , i am a fan , and a lot of experienced offshore types came around to it as the better option-begrudgingly .
Who for? certainly not for the poor souls squeezed in the back. In some of the seat there is so little leg room that it is virtually impossible to walk after a 2 hour flight.
Even before the fatal accidents there was a growing objection to their use.
S92PAX is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2018, 08:41
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: NW
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by S92PAX View Post
Who for? certainly not for the poor souls squeezed in the back. In some of the seat there is so little leg room that it is virtually impossible to walk after a 2 hour flight.
Even before the fatal accidents there was a growing objection to their use.
On a puma, you numb your legs for two hours. On a 92, you shake your spine for 2.5 hours. One have insignificant higher per hour cost compare to the other. The other flies longer hour to cover the same range. Did not see any trend suggest what you claimed.
Mee3 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2018, 11:09
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 88
The design has serious flaws, and needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

They can fly massive Mi26’s around without their gearboxes having catastrophic failures and I would imagine the maintanence standards of those aircraft being somewhat diminished compared to western types.

With the budget and resources of Airbus, this should be something easily rectified with an appropriate amount of development and money.

What happens when the next one loses it’s rotors?
MajorLemond is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2018, 11:25
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: offshore
Age: 59
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by Mee3 View Post
On a puma, you numb your legs for two hours. On a 92, you shake your spine for 2.5 hours. One have insignificant higher per hour cost compare to the other. The other flies longer hour to cover the same range. Did not see any trend suggest what you claimed.

I haven't really noticed a vibration problem on the S92 - I remember the early Pumas before the pitch reduction shook that much you couldn't read but the S92 cabin is spacious and comfortable.
You wouldn't see a trend about people complaining, you would hear it if you worked amongst them
S92PAX is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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