EC 225 Crew question

[Jetscream 32]

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

[Special 25]

I think you'll find most 225 pilots would still fly it - Aerial work, passenger work, VIP.

Its still probably the best aircraft out there!

[bigglesbutler]

Give me the keys and where, when and what are we doing? The 225 is still my favourite aircraft and I would happily fly it again.

si

[malabo]

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.

[Jetscream 32]

Wow, thanks for that positive response - can’t get much fairer than that!

cheers -

[helicrazi]

I'd be hard pressed, whilst there are other options it wouldnt be my preference but never say never.

[jimf671]

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.

[Twist & Shout]

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.

[Twist & Shout]

Originally Posted by jimf671

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.

The first “multiple” fatality? (Every time the MR comes off - everyone dies.)
How many years/hours between the first, and the second?

How many hours till the next one? (Rhetorical)

[MajorLemond]

Originally Posted by malabo

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.

Yeah nah. I doubt you'd have the same opinion when your warning panel lights up like a Christmas tree followed by the sound of rotors impacting the tail boom and the sheer horror experienced by all as you realise what's happening.

Who's loss is it then?
​​
​​​​​​

​​​​

[budgie2007]

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.

[Fareastdriver]

To much new wine in old bottles.

[Twist & Shout]

Originally Posted by Fareastdriver

To much new wine in old bottles.

MTOW
7000kg (330?) - 11500kg

[Fareastdriver]

The 330C/Puma HC1, started off at 6,400kgs.

[P3 Bellows]

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.

[Bravo73]

Hear, hear.

[212man]

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.

[nomorehelosforme]

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?

[Jimmy.]

Originally Posted by nomorehelosforme

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?

In Brazil I saw 2 225 flying offshore for a short period of time after the 2015 grounding was over and after that they were flying external loads for other customers.

[berlioz]

Spain still uses the 225 in they´re SAR operations. I believe they have 2 SAR bases with the 225.