Have you ever considered the possibilty that Shell want the EC155 because it is far cheaper than the AW139 and because the PC2E requirements have changed there is no problem with using it now?

Reassuring to read the evidence for the depth of technical knowledge held by some posters, today.

The EC155B1 complimentary flight manual, section 7.5, page 2, has two tables. 1.2.1 is for standard tanks; 1.2.2 is for crash-worthy tanks.

Crash-worthy tanks were one of several special options fitted to all Bristow B1s, at the request of Shell, that mostly added weight. In this case it also reduced fuel capacity by approx. 41kgs. Some options, but not all, were later fitted to some other operator's B1s (such as external liferaft release). However, Bristow's 155s are probably unique as a result.

Another option that Shell required was eventually dropped before delivery. EC designed a mod for crash-worthy floors, but they were cancelled to prevent an extended delivery delay, and also as the final design was going to be very heavy. I expect the risk assessment was that fitting them would lose a passenger on every flight, so requiring more flights, leading to an overall increased exposure to incidents happening...

EDIT: For anyone who doesn't believe that Bristow's 155B1s have these tanks installed, just ask a CHC refueller at EHKD what's the most fuel they've ever been able to get in one, compared with everyone else's fleets. So much for comments such as "Crash-worthy tanks are not installed on any 155 flying commercial as per today" - total BS!

@ Mazda Driver - I could try and talk myself out of this but let's just admit that nobody is ever old enough to learn:uhoh:

The crashworthy floor was not compatible with size of the team necessary to intervene in a blowout on a NUI.

The EC155 also has the advantage of a fenestron tail rotor.

So economics over principles again.
I don't mind a choice for economics but please be honest about it. I get so tired of listening to all the PC safety nonsense that is then quickly disregarded as soon as it starts hurting the bottom line.

I'd rather deal with a consistent rogue than a company that keeps changing their tune. At least with the known rogue I can take a calculated risk or decide to decline it.

Does tend to make one rather cynical I agree. Which is why when I read drivel like this:

I shake my head at the naivety of some in this industry.

Is a fenestron an advantage?

Well its a little bit harder to walk into, and its more forgiving when bouncing backwards off the railings.

I wonder if NHV´s aircraft will be equipped with FDM recoders. Anyone know ?

CHC Netherlands spent a lot of time and money putting this into their aircraft the last 2 years, because the "customers demanded it" ... so let´s see if money talks and bull**** walks

and what´s this about PC2 with exposure time coming back into the dutch sector, I´ve missed it completely, please tell me more

?¿
 

JulieAndrews, What do you know what we would like to know?

Tune in tomorrow to find out....:)

Yeah tomorrow...... We'll see :rolleyes:

Ok it's the 16th, where is this announcement ?

SNS anouncement
 

....wait fot it........................

Don't hold your breath....

If you choose to do so give me your adress and I'll call emergency services:)

PHI !!! I didn't even know that they were shortlisted! This will cause some upheavals. WOW!

So who has Shell.......

Epiphany.

What are you sinking about? :confused:

I.e. Who is shortlisted and what will cause some upheavals?

Epiphany was simply trying to "wind up" someone with the idea that PHI have been awarded the Shell contract.

Nice try!

Yaaawn
 

Yo Julie,

Tuned in.... but a rerun of Eastenders is more exciting