EC 225 Crew question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 579
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC 225 Crew question
Hiya,
Just wondering if any EC225 crews on here can offer constructive feedback on thoughts to flying the aircraft again in aerial work capacity - NO pax - ie would you take a job flying one again? Interested to understand pilot willingness to fly as long as the epicyclic gear mod has been done etc.
Thanks
JS
Just wondering if any EC225 crews on here can offer constructive feedback on thoughts to flying the aircraft again in aerial work capacity - NO pax - ie would you take a job flying one again? Interested to understand pilot willingness to fly as long as the epicyclic gear mod has been done etc.
Thanks
JS
Helped an operator round up some crews a short while ago, did not find any past pilots that would not fly it again, in an instant. Popular aircraft with both pilots and operators - except in the NS. Their loss.
The numbers, the numbers, the numbers. If anyone is looking for a large rotorcraft that has gone 12 years and over half a million CAT hours before its first fatality then they are going to struggle unless they get in a 225.
Great AC to fly - I hope I’m never asked to fly it again.
Airbus propaganda is worth nothing to me - It would be a sick feeling, the whole time airbourne, wondering if the MR was going to depart with no warning.
Airbus propaganda is worth nothing to me - It would be a sick feeling, the whole time airbourne, wondering if the MR was going to depart with no warning.
How many years/hours between the first, and the second?
How many hours till the next one? (Rhetorical)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's loss is it then?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Where I'm sent
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be reluctant to take it back into a hostile environment regularly taking off at MTOM with a full load of passengers, but if operating at lower weights and with solid land below to put it onto incase of an issue I'd be fine with it. It is a brilliant aircraft but I think the design ended up being pushed too far.
It was a fine aircraft. 147kts TAS at 10,000ft with full fuel and full load of PAX.
Then large lumps fell off the inside of the MGB and caused 2 aircraft to ditch as a result of failure (indications) of the emergency lube system. Then the head came off the Norwegian aircraft and it was the same failure mode as the Bond L2 where the head also came off the aircraft.
After the Norwegian crash, Airbus Helicopters told untruths regarding the nappy pins holding the MGB on and blackened the CHC engineers name before the truth came out.
At that point it was no longer a fine aircraft.
Anyone who says they loved it and would happily fly it again are clearly not thinking too deeply about the facts.
I flew it for many years and appreciated its abilities but I would never fly one again.
Then large lumps fell off the inside of the MGB and caused 2 aircraft to ditch as a result of failure (indications) of the emergency lube system. Then the head came off the Norwegian aircraft and it was the same failure mode as the Bond L2 where the head also came off the aircraft.
After the Norwegian crash, Airbus Helicopters told untruths regarding the nappy pins holding the MGB on and blackened the CHC engineers name before the truth came out.
At that point it was no longer a fine aircraft.
Anyone who says they loved it and would happily fly it again are clearly not thinking too deeply about the facts.
I flew it for many years and appreciated its abilities but I would never fly one again.
P3. I thought (without trying to search reports on my phone) that it wasn’t really an indication problem. One factor was that the P3 (P2.5?) bleed air used to pressurise the glycol was coming from engines at low power, Vy in descent, rather than cruise - which was a wrong assumption by ECF when setting the thresholds for the warning. Plus tolerances in the transducers were greater than expected.
Interesting comments from pilots prospective, any ideas how many 225’s are still grounded, returned to lessors or to Airbus and the costs involved? Additionally what applications are the ones currently flying tasked to?
Last edited by Jimmy.; 30th Apr 2020 at 00:37.