Will H225 return offshore?
The following users liked this post:
The following 2 users liked this post by 212man:
The following users liked this post:
I can't see the 225 returning in any form. The S92 is expensive to operate and the requirement for 19 pax is not what it used to be; Sikorsky seem to have little interest in supporting it beyond the bare minimum. The H175 and (eventually) AW189 will come to dominate the N Sea, probably from both sides.
Anyone know what was actually being polled by Unite?
If I recall correctly, quite sometime after this accident Airbus determined the root cause of the gear failure, but elected not ro publish the information. Was that correct, or did I miss something in the intervening time?
The following users liked this post:
But the airframer has continued its own analysis of the event, says H225 programme director Michel Macia, leading to identification of the root cause and a successful replication of the failure in testing. That work has been externally validated, he says.
Findings from that effort were subsequently shared with Norway's SHT accident investigation body, regulators including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and other manufacturers, says Macia.
"Everyone now knows that the root cause is understood and has been reproduced," says Macia.
Although he declines to detail the failure, he says the safety barriers put in place to enable the H225 to return to service deal with the underlying issue.
Findings from that effort were subsequently shared with Norway's SHT accident investigation body, regulators including the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and other manufacturers, says Macia.
"Everyone now knows that the root cause is understood and has been reproduced," says Macia.
Although he declines to detail the failure, he says the safety barriers put in place to enable the H225 to return to service deal with the underlying issue.
Well....were I to be confronted with a decision to climb into a 225 based upon that explanation I know exactly what my decision would be......HELL NO!
Laid out the full explanation, show exactly how the analysis was done, the "root cause" replicated.....several times not just once.... and that multiple testing of the aforementioned methods to prove they work......and I would consider it.
I was around when the 76 A slung a couple of rotor blades and know how heartbroken some folks were that they failed to get it right despite their every no holds bar effort.
The 225 might one day return to the North Sea but I very much doubt. this effort shall succeed due directly to the way the Maker is going about proving they have fixed a very fatal design failure.
The onus is on them to prove beyond a doubt they have it right this time and just saying in so many words "trust us".....just ain't gonna fly.
Does anyone have access to this "proof" and if not....why is it. not in the public domain?
I would think that would be the very best first step in regaining lost trust.
Laid out the full explanation, show exactly how the analysis was done, the "root cause" replicated.....several times not just once.... and that multiple testing of the aforementioned methods to prove they work......and I would consider it.
I was around when the 76 A slung a couple of rotor blades and know how heartbroken some folks were that they failed to get it right despite their every no holds bar effort.
The 225 might one day return to the North Sea but I very much doubt. this effort shall succeed due directly to the way the Maker is going about proving they have fixed a very fatal design failure.
The onus is on them to prove beyond a doubt they have it right this time and just saying in so many words "trust us".....just ain't gonna fly.
Does anyone have access to this "proof" and if not....why is it. not in the public domain?
I would think that would be the very best first step in regaining lost trust.
The following 2 users liked this post by SASless:
Why on earth should it be in the public domain? Apart from commercial confidentiality and IP issues, the travelling public are (in the most part) not metallurgists or aeronautical engineers, so the information would largely be meaningless. The people that need to know, do now know - the regulators and other OEMs.
I was told, on my 76 conversion, that the speed with which Sikorsky introduced the fix indicated that they already knew about the issue, and had been working on it. Without telling the operators. This was why Alan Bristow cancelled (most of) his 35 aircraft order. That might be apocryphal, but the source was around at the time.
I was around when the 76 A slung a couple of rotor blades and know how heartbroken some folks were that they failed to get it right despite their every no holds bar effort.
The following users liked this post:
I really doubt the oil companies will allow the 225 back in the N Sea - they have a very low tolerance for bad news these days and it would be seen as an unacceptable risk - they know what sort of headlines the journos will write
Why on earth should it be in the public domain? Apart from commercial confidentiality and IP issues, the travelling public are (in the most part) not metallurgists or aeronautical engineers, so the information would largely be meaningless. The people that need to know, do now know - the regulators and other OEMs.
I was told, on my 76 conversion, that the speed with which Sikorsky introduced the fix indicated that they already knew about the issue, and had been working on it. Without telling the operators. This was why Alan Bristow cancelled (most of) his 35 aircraft order. That might be apocryphal, but the source was around at the time.
I was told, on my 76 conversion, that the speed with which Sikorsky introduced the fix indicated that they already knew about the issue, and had been working on it. Without telling the operators. This was why Alan Bristow cancelled (most of) his 35 aircraft order. That might be apocryphal, but the source was around at the time.
As an EC225 pilot, I followed the “rectifications” carefully. Airbus put out a “film” that said things like: “It might have been due the gearbox being in a traffic accident, so we put shock sensors in the packing now”. “It might have been an undetected deterioration, so we shortened the inspection period”. “It might have been…”
Not really good enough. It might have been something else. I don’t want to be the one that finds out.
Well....were I to be confronted with a decision to climb into a 225 based upon that explanation I know exactly what my decision would be......HELL NO!
Laid out the full explanation, show exactly how the analysis was done, the "root cause" replicated.....several times not just once.... and that multiple testing of the aforementioned methods to prove they work......and I would consider it.
I was around when the 76 A slung a couple of rotor blades and know how heartbroken some folks were that they failed to get it right despite their every no holds bar effort.
The 225 might one day return to the North Sea but I very much doubt. this effort shall succeed due directly to the way the Maker is going about proving they have fixed a very fatal design failure.
The onus is on them to prove beyond a doubt they have it right this time and just saying in so many words "trust us".....just ain't gonna fly.
Does anyone have access to this "proof" and if not....why is it. not in the public domain?
I would think that would be the very best first step in regaining lost trust.
Laid out the full explanation, show exactly how the analysis was done, the "root cause" replicated.....several times not just once.... and that multiple testing of the aforementioned methods to prove they work......and I would consider it.
I was around when the 76 A slung a couple of rotor blades and know how heartbroken some folks were that they failed to get it right despite their every no holds bar effort.
The 225 might one day return to the North Sea but I very much doubt. this effort shall succeed due directly to the way the Maker is going about proving they have fixed a very fatal design failure.
The onus is on them to prove beyond a doubt they have it right this time and just saying in so many words "trust us".....just ain't gonna fly.
Does anyone have access to this "proof" and if not....why is it. not in the public domain?
I would think that would be the very best first step in regaining lost trust.
There has only been one accident caused by mechanical failure - nasty and catastrophic. But actually most helicopters crash due to pilot error, and the 225 has very good flight envelope protection making it very safe overall. By the way, I’m discounting the L2 accident because that was a maintenance error.
The passengers always disliked the 225 because it seemed very cramped, even though the 92 was only slightly bigger in terms of floor space. It had a lot more space above one’s head though, so it appeared to be much more spacious. For that reason I’m sure the voters will vote against the 225 even though it is safer than most.
The following 3 users liked this post by HeliComparator:
HC has a long well known antipathy to the 92 and placed all of his chips on the 225....as we who have attended this forum for a long time can recall.
The Cougar tragedy identified the problem with the 92 Oil Filter that led to the loss of oil....but also uncovered some pilot issues that resulted in an uncontrolled crash into the sea rather than a controlled ditching had the proper procedures been followed.
Granted such a ditching was something that wast fraught with its own serious risks.
The fix for the oil filter was easy, clearly defined, and well publicized.
I defy anyone to say the same about the 225 loss of the rotor head being such a straight forward exercise or handled in such a transparent manner.
The issue is not why the 225 is no longer in use on the North Sea but rather shall it be allowed to return as a result of the strong feelings many of the future passengers might hold.
Look back to the Chinook crash that resulted in that type aircraft being returned to the United States where they still labor on in the forestry, construction, and utility market.
Public opinion plays a very large role in the types of aircraft that will be found acceptable no matter the desires of the operator, oil company, or the civil authorities.
Look to Boeing's problems with the 737 Series Airliner of late......passengers get the Hebbie Jeebies and quit flying on a particular airplane and airlines stop buying them....same in the oil patch.
The Cougar tragedy identified the problem with the 92 Oil Filter that led to the loss of oil....but also uncovered some pilot issues that resulted in an uncontrolled crash into the sea rather than a controlled ditching had the proper procedures been followed.
Granted such a ditching was something that wast fraught with its own serious risks.
The fix for the oil filter was easy, clearly defined, and well publicized.
I defy anyone to say the same about the 225 loss of the rotor head being such a straight forward exercise or handled in such a transparent manner.
The issue is not why the 225 is no longer in use on the North Sea but rather shall it be allowed to return as a result of the strong feelings many of the future passengers might hold.
Look back to the Chinook crash that resulted in that type aircraft being returned to the United States where they still labor on in the forestry, construction, and utility market.
Public opinion plays a very large role in the types of aircraft that will be found acceptable no matter the desires of the operator, oil company, or the civil authorities.
Look to Boeing's problems with the 737 Series Airliner of late......passengers get the Hebbie Jeebies and quit flying on a particular airplane and airlines stop buying them....same in the oil patch.
HC has a long well known antipathy to the 92 and placed all of his chips on the 225....as we who have attended this forum for a long time can recall.
The Cougar tragedy identified the problem with the 92 Oil Filter that led to the loss of oil....but also uncovered some pilot issues that resulted in an uncontrolled crash into the sea rather than a controlled ditching had the proper procedures been followed.
Granted such a ditching was something that wast fraught with its own serious risks.
The fix for the oil filter was easy, clearly defined, and well publicized.
I defy anyone to say the same about the 225 loss of the rotor head being such a straight forward exercise or handled in such a transparent manner.
The issue is not why the 225 is no longer in use on the North Sea but rather shall it be allowed to return as a result of the strong feelings many of the future passengers might hold.
Look back to the Chinook crash that resulted in that type aircraft being returned to the United States where they still labor on in the forestry, construction, and utility market.
Public opinion plays a very large role in the types of aircraft that will be found acceptable no matter the desires of the operator, oil company, or the civil authorities.
Look to Boeing's problems with the 737 Series Airliner of late......passengers get the Hebbie Jeebies and quit flying on a particular airplane and airlines stop buying them....same in the oil patch.
The Cougar tragedy identified the problem with the 92 Oil Filter that led to the loss of oil....but also uncovered some pilot issues that resulted in an uncontrolled crash into the sea rather than a controlled ditching had the proper procedures been followed.
Granted such a ditching was something that wast fraught with its own serious risks.
The fix for the oil filter was easy, clearly defined, and well publicized.
I defy anyone to say the same about the 225 loss of the rotor head being such a straight forward exercise or handled in such a transparent manner.
The issue is not why the 225 is no longer in use on the North Sea but rather shall it be allowed to return as a result of the strong feelings many of the future passengers might hold.
Look back to the Chinook crash that resulted in that type aircraft being returned to the United States where they still labor on in the forestry, construction, and utility market.
Public opinion plays a very large role in the types of aircraft that will be found acceptable no matter the desires of the operator, oil company, or the civil authorities.
Look to Boeing's problems with the 737 Series Airliner of late......passengers get the Hebbie Jeebies and quit flying on a particular airplane and airlines stop buying them....same in the oil patch.
So I would be fairly confident that the EC225 won’t be coming back to the N Sea any time soon, but it won’t be down to a rational decision.
The following users liked this post:
I don’t fly the S92, but my understanding is: It never did fly, or promise to fly for 30 min with a total loss of MRGB oil
just like sas has always been known to hate ec for whatever reason.
all modern helicopters have their safety design in, is just a matter of which aspect being emphasize more or frankly speaking, where they put their bet on for the limited budget.
all modern helicopters have their safety design in, is just a matter of which aspect being emphasize more or frankly speaking, where they put their bet on for the limited budget.
The following users liked this post: