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 11th Jun 2018, 17:06
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,065
Originally Posted by helicrazi View Post
Spare S92's, but no surplus of type rated pilots and companies reluctant to pay for the ratings. Industry is on its head, anyway I digress...
if you’ve scratched that itch enough flying helicopters, now is the time to switch to the airlines.
havick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jun 2018, 20:12
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 69
Posts: 14,829
if you’ve scratched that itch enough flying helicopters, now is the time to switch to the airlines.


If you can.... GO....GO....GO.....GO!

If you do....don't waste a second looking back!
SASless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2018, 21:14
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,148
Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.

Two types with a substantial period in service (14 yrs), shine out above all that has gone before in terms of the raw numbers concerning accidents and fatalities. These are the S-92 and EC225. Maybe the 7 and 8 tonne newbies will match and exceed the standards set by the 92 and 225 (let's hope they do), but that remains to be proven. Other comparable aircraft have had hundreds of accidents including hundreds of fatalities. In particular, doing 12 years of intense CAT service without a fatality is pretty outstanding.

The numbers are out there.

" when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it"
William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)


[Helmet, body armour, take cover.]
jimf671 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2018, 02:07
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 327
Originally Posted by jimf671 View Post
Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.


The numbers are out there.


Is there a link to the numbers that you can share?
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 16th Jun 2018, 11:23
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,148
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
Is there a link to the numbers that you can share?
ASN is a really good starting point. Clearly, through the manner of how this site operates, rather like Wikipedia, one needs to be sceptical and look for corroboration in news articles and regulators' websites. The thing about the 225 and 92 is that so little has happened to these types that it is relatively easy to join up all the dots.

It's a while ago now so I don't remember all the details of where and how, but in 2013 I set about trying to get some perspective on this. ASN wasa major part of that. Once you start looking back at things like S-61, 330, Mi-8, and 332 accidents, the numbers stack up in a way that is no longer happening with modern types. Take the Mi-8/17, which have been produced in very large numbers compared to most types. The number of accidents is large, though not very large in relation to the number built, but when you get to many thousands of fatalities and then can't keep count, it's quite chilling, and the contrast with modern types could not be greater.
jimf671 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jun 2018, 17:04
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 245
Progress or no progress

Originally Posted by jimf671 View Post
Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.

Two types with a substantial period in service (14 yrs), shine out above all that has gone before in terms of the raw numbers concerning accidents and fatalities. These are the S-92 and EC225.


" when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it"
William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)


[Helmet, body armour, take cover.]
From what I can tell of the figures from the North Sea the numbers for helicopter safety the numbers are far from encouraging ...
  • In the first five years of NS ops there were 18 helicopter related fatalities
  • In the most recent five year period there were also 18 helicopter related fatalities
  • The safest period of operation 1987-1996 had not a single fatality despite this being the period of peak activity.
  • In the first 20 years (1975 - 1995) there were around 76 helicopter related fatalities over four accidents
  • In the last 20 years (1997-2018) there have been around 62 helicopter related fatalities over ten accidents
So in what way are things safer?

Also we need to debunk the myth that most accidents are pilot related. Of course, in aviation in general that is true. But in the NS the vast majority of these 144 deaths were attributed as having a primary mechanical cause.

So why has the Puma been singled out;
  • It's the most common type so unsurprisingly has been involved in more incidents
  • The workers and unions have lost confidence as the accident rate increased
  • AH have failed to win them over
  • The Puma is an older design which is smaller and arguably less comfortable than the new machine (S92)
  • Despite a nasty scare the S92 has yet to have a fatal accident in the North Sea
  • The specific causes of the epicyclic related accidents is similar but remains unattributed awaiting the final report - so doubts remain
birmingham is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 18th Jun 2018, 21:23
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: amongst the clouds
Age: 48
Posts: 13
Slight correction, there were fatalities in the period 1987 to 1996, Cormorant Alpha 1992, Brent Spar 1991, to name a couple of fatal accidents.
vee_why is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2018, 09:34
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by vee_why View Post
Slight correction, there were fatalities in the period 1987 to 1996, Cormorant Alpha 1992, Brent Spar 1991, to name a couple of fatal accidents.
Thanks it is hard to spot them all
birmingham is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 19th Jun 2018, 18:22
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 24
(Probably a partial) list here, from O&G UK, from start to 2017
​​​https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/wp-content...dents-2017.pdf
Watson1963 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Jun 2018, 17:58
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: balmedie
Posts: 40
I was walking around Alnwick last night about 5pm when a 225 circled around. Red paint scheme with silver flashes (Bond/Babcock) ?. Disappeared from sight wondered if it went into Bulmer? Driving to Dyce tonight caught a quick sight of possibly the same aircraft landing at Dyce. Are they flying again? Anybody have any info. Thanks, Ken
ken knight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Jun 2018, 18:28
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 5
Think you will find that was AS332L2 G-REDM on airtest supposedly going to Spain firefighting?
As332l12 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Jun 2018, 22:27
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 546
Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd.
industry insider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Jun 2018, 08:54
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,065
Originally Posted by industry insider View Post
Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd.
yes some companies and lessors are letting them go for marginally more than a B3e A-Star. Some utility operators are starting to snatch them up and the companies/lessors have been happy to get them off their books and call it a day.
havick is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Jun 2018, 12:41
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 327
Originally Posted by industry insider View Post
Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd.
Surely the lessor retains the responsibility for the airworthiness of the item.
It seems unreasonable to have the lessee pick up the responsibility for leasing a deficient unit.
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 24th Jun 2018, 18:47
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: LGW
Posts: 3
There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status..
bombdoorsopen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Jun 2018, 09:39
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 546
etudiant

Surely the lessor retains the responsibility for the airworthiness of the item.
It seems unreasonable to have the lessee pick up the responsibility for leasing a deficient unit.
No, it is the Lessee's responsibility to maintain the aircraft in accordance with the OEM maintenance schedule and in an airworthy state. Remember, most leases were taken out way before the 2016 fatal accident. Airbus does not accept that the 225 is deficient of faulty, after all, its no longer grounded and regulator groundings are excluded from lease arrangements.

bombdoorsopen

There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status..
CHC did return non-airworthy 225s aircraft to lessors but that was under the provisions of Chapter 11, not the lease agreements themselves.
industry insider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Jun 2018, 13:44
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Paro
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by bombdoorsopen View Post
There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status..
SonAir also shed a few airframes..
Bhutan_H130 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Jun 2018, 14:52
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 69
Posts: 14,829
Who are the Lessors of the 225's and how big a bath did they take when the 225's fell from grace?
SASless is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Jun 2018, 15:31
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 546
Milestone, Waypoint LCI and Bristow who purchased through its Brilog Leasing subsidiary to then lease at inflated prices to its various business units and to contract on to clients. There is quite a fight going on between Airbus, Financiers (BNP Paribas for many of the 225s) Lessors and Lessees.

It was all good living high on the hog for the short time it lasted but the oil industry has structurally changed and the oil and gas helicopter business is going to be a diminishing one from now on.
industry insider is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 25th Jun 2018, 23:35
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 327
Originally Posted by industry insider View Post
etudiant



No, it is the Lessee's responsibility to maintain the aircraft in accordance with the OEM maintenance schedule and in an airworthy state. Remember, most leases were taken out way before the 2016 fatal accident. Airbus does not accept that the 225 is deficient of faulty, after all, its no longer grounded and regulator groundings are excluded from lease arrangements.

bombdoorsopen



CHC did return non-airworthy 225s aircraft to lessors but that was under the provisions of Chapter 11, not the lease agreements themselves.
Thank you for setting me straight.
It seems logical that the lessee be required to maintain the aircraft appropriately, but I am surprised that this would include AD responses as well. If I rent an apartment, I don't assume responsibility for repairs due to building code adjustments.
Aircraft leasing clearly has some pitfalls for the unwary....
etudiant is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service