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

EC 225 Crew question

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

EC 225 Crew question

Old 28th Apr 2020, 13:44
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 577
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

Jetscream 32 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2020, 13:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Norwich
Posts: 239
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!
Special 25 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2020, 14:02
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
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
bigglesbutler is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2020, 15:06
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 629
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.
malabo is online now  
Old 28th Apr 2020, 15:17
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 1000ft above you, giving you the bird!
Posts: 577
Wow, thanks for that positive response - can’t get much fairer than that!

cheers -
Jetscream 32 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2020, 16:17
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 358
I'd be hard pressed, whilst there are other options it wouldnt be my preference but never say never.
helicrazi is online now  
Old 28th Apr 2020, 19:45
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Inverness-shire, Ross-shire
Posts: 1,296
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.
jimf671 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2020, 22:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 221
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 is offline  
Old 28th Apr 2020, 22:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by jimf671 View Post
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)
Twist & Shout is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 01:37
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by malabo View Post
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?
​​
​​​​​​

​​​​
MajorLemond is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 10:11
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Where I'm sent
Posts: 8
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.
budgie2007 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 11:16
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,076
To much new wine in old bottles.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 12:29
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by Fareastdriver View Post
To much new wine in old bottles.
MTOW
7000kg (330?) - 11500kg
Twist & Shout is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 15:09
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,076
The 330C/Puma HC1, started off at 6,400kgs.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 18:10
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 83
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.
P3 Bellows is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 18:25
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,827
Hear, hear.
Bravo73 is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 21:26
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 54
Posts: 4,807
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.
212man is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 21:49
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London/Atlanta
Posts: 335
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?
nomorehelosforme is offline  
Old 29th Apr 2020, 22:06
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Atlantic Ocean
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by nomorehelosforme View Post
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.

Last edited by Jimmy.; 30th Apr 2020 at 01:37.
Jimmy. is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2020, 08:15
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Blue planet
Posts: 73
Spain still uses the 225 in they´re SAR operations. I believe they have 2 SAR bases with the 225.
berlioz is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.