do you think that it will make authorities look at the way the 30 min dry run demonstration is done?

More good news on the 225 design.....why only the sound of Crickets from the EC Lovers?

I am not knocking the Helicopter....just the lack of impartiality on those who love to criticize the 92 all the while bragging on the 225.

As I have said recently.....the Certifying Authority that approves the Type Certificate need to do a better job of things.

If one is to assert a "Run Dry" capability....it must be "Run Dry"....no liquids of any kind.....the worse case scenario and not some construct that affords the MGB a "Crutch" to meet the requirement.

Neither the 92 or the 225 would pass the test.....and probably never shall if an actual dry gearbox condition was the criteria.

So it is possible for the crew to understand the HUMS as suggested if there is enough commercial pressure & corporate angst.
"For aircraft equipped with HUMS, our aim is that the on-board shaft monitoring will in itself be sufficient to enable the authorities to lift the flight restrictions over hostile terrain."

SASA, I suppose its because we all knew there were some issues with the Emerg Lube, this is no surprise. Yes its frustrating that EC seem to have got this wrong in a number of ways, on the other hand at least they tried, unlike their opponents to tried to bull**** their way around it!

I am with you on the qualtiy of the certification process. Very slow, expensive and bureaucratic but with no guarantee of an airworthy helicopter at the end of it. Why bother?

You should however bear in mind that there is no requirement for "run dry" in the certification rules, merely continued operation after a major oil leak resulting in loss of all oil. Whilst you might think run dry is a good idea, for large helicopters heat dissipation is a big deal. To make the gearbox able to cope would almost certainly require big compromises in design in terms of weight, complexity and cost. If you bear in mind that in the entire history of the Super Puma family there has never been a total oil loss event, just how much extra complexity do you want to introduce to make it "dry run". You might find that in terms of overall safety, your requirement actually reduces safety taken in the context of dry run never actually being required. Anyway, surely it would be better to expend your energies ensuring that the heli doesn't lose all its oil in the first place?


500e - Yes, I think so. The plan is for a warning light and plain text message to illuminate showing the threshold value and the current value (greater than the threshold value presumably), perhaps with the time of detection or time elapsed since detection. There will be no judgement required, it will be "black and white".

How would G-REDL be viewed?

Not how AAIB reported last btw:-

Page 3 of their S2-2013 report...

" MGB certification requirements
The EC225 LP was certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) against the Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR) 29. The regulations require the helicopter to continue safe flight, at prescribed torque and main rotor speeds, for at least 30 minutes following the loss of the MGB lubrication system. This is met on the EC225 LP with an emergency lubrication system thatuses a mixture of glycol and water, called Hydrosafe 620, which cools and lubricates the MGB."

and doesn't CS29 state:-

"Category A. Unless such failures are extremely remote [1 x 10-7 per FH], it must be shown by test that any failure which results in loss of lubricant in any normal use lubrication system will not prevent continued after operation, although not necessarily without damage, at a torque and rotational speed prescribed by the applicant for continued flight, for at least 30 minutes after perception by the flight crew of the lubrication system failure or loss of lubricant."

So what happens now?

There is no way ANY modern gearbox can run for thirty minutes without any lubricant. They might have done decades ago when they were built by Swindon Railway Works but not now.
Should you want to run it for thirty minutes you have got to put in an alternative lubrication system which as far as I can see the EMERLUB is as a good attempt as any. The design caters for both pressure failure and quantity failure and it has worked on both of the recent ditchings. The only problem was that the crew were told it wasn't working which is why they ditched. With a serviceable system both aircraft were likely to have made landfall and this whole scenario would not have arisen.

They did not ditch as a direct result of oil pressure failure.

You have a situation now where an aircraft is not permitted to fly because of a failure of an emergency system when other aircraft without any comparable system are deemed safe to continue.

The mistake was putting both pumps on the same driveshaft. They should have left the main pump on the LH Accessory drive as it is on the 330.

AgustaWestland demonstrates 50 minute gearbox ?Run Dry? capability to EASA | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source

Some of the time is of course with lub, but for how long? I would say max 5-10 min.

HC; I am amazed at your change of stance. As SASLess said, there was a lot of (justified) uproar when the S92 did not show compliance with the rule.

A total loss of oil may not have happened with the 332 fleet (yet) but it did happen to the S92 - twice. Equally, the S92 has not had a main shaft fracture but there have been two with the EC225.

SASLess; as you well know, 'run dry' is a colloquial term for continuing to function after losing the oil in any one of the qualifying gearboxes. Showing compliance with an 'auxiliary cooling system' is well within the rules.

As you have both pointed out, the acceptance of a 'failure to show compliance' on one hand and a failure to 'demonstrate' compliance with a fitted system on the other, does not show the Certifying Authorities in a good light.

The bottom line, however, rests with the manufacturers who should have satisfied themselves about the efficacy of their systems before offering them, as compliant, to the Authorities.

The expertise is contained within the manufacturer's organisation, not in the Authority's.

The usage of the "colloquial 30 Minute Run Dry Capability" may very well have led to the fatalities in the Cougar Crash off Newfoundland....and the Industry, Operators, Builders, and Certifiers all need to settle the issue with finality and very accurately define what "Run Dry" capability a Gearbox actually has using the Worst Case Scenario....and not some contrived notion that shows a capability that is not always accurate.

For anyone interested in the general topic of how OEMs justify these claims, Kawasaki Heavy Industries presented a paper on Upgrade of Loss of Lubricant Operation Capability for EC145T2 (BK117 D-2) Main Gearbox at last week's AHS Forum 69, bascially an explanation of the testing done to demonstrate a 30-minute dry-run capability. The paper should be available via the AHS online store shortly.

I/C

Fareastdriver, there is some work going on with superfinishing gears that may render your opinion moot. As I have only partial knowledge, I'll let it go at that.

Pitts - I suppose you could say REDL was a total loss of oil event, but that was the least of the problem and of course no run dry capability would have made the slightest difference.

Jim - no change of stance from my perspective. My beef about the 92 was primarily about the deceit in pretending it was the safest helicopter ever built and fully compliant with the relevant version of FAR29 when in fact there was fudging going on. And a reluctance for the then programme manager to tell the whole story.

I was quite happy flying the 332L for many years. And of course a facet of the current 225 debacle is that our crews are now flying around in 332Ls again, with no pretence of 30 mins "run dry". They are unhappy because of the step backwards in automation, speed, comfort and range /payload but not for the lack of 30 mins dry run.

I see 30 mins run dry as a "nice-to-have", not the be all and end all. 30 mins at 80kts doesn't necessarily get you to somewhere dry to land. Better to avoid loss of oil in the first place, eg by well designed oil systems (and filter housings!)

With great sadness, and in no way shape or form connected to this discussion. What a crass comment :ugh::ugh:

As that accident was from a completely different MGB failure it is still relevant to the MGB issues confronting EC currently.

Public Opinion....especially that of the people who ride as passengers in the aircraft is influenced by all of these events and has to be considered when Operators consider all the issues surrounding which aircraft to buy, offer on contract, and invest very large sums of money to field.

HC
Thanks for reply.
"500e - Yes, I think so. The plan is for a warning light and plain text message to illuminate showing the threshold value and the current value (greater than the threshold value presumably), perhaps with the time of detection or time elapsed since detection. There will be no judgement required, it will be "black and white".

18 months or so ago when I made the suggestion regarding some form of HUMS information for the crew & was told much to complicated for them to understand, now that it impinges on the bottom line of a multinational it would appear to be doable.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/safety-an...ort_5-2011.pdf

From that report:-

7.4.1 Civil approach to certification of lubrication system

Would be interesting to know what the 'area of the flight envelope' is to better understand its probability and criticality.

500e - I think the difference is that this refers only to one of the many (over a hundred) of HUMS parameters, and points to a now well understood and non-critical failure where the action will be something along the lines of "Land as soon as practicable, max flight time 2 hrs" (or maybe 3 hrs or whatever) so the risk associated with false alarms (which we are told will be very few, FLW!) is one of inconvenience rather than real hazard.

Thanks, I'm quite familiar with the certification standard, and the content of that report (and have seen G-REDL in its final state a number of times) but fail to see your point!

Thats great 212. I'm not sure why there is some dramatics being brought into play here but still.

The comment was made (I think) that no super puma had suffered a leak resulting in the loss of oil...

As you will be aware that report in fact cites G-REDL under the title:-

"Table 15 - Accidents and incidents involving helicopters MGB lubrication systems (all catagories)" page 38 relates.

So I guess the various Doctors and a Professor thought it relvant enough to a specific report to EASA to include. Complain to them if you think otherwise.

Although one truely wonders with this whole story. Whilst one can clearly accept that any dry run capability would have had no impact on the outcome of G-REDL (where I don't believe there is a definative cause), that outcome was clearly undesirable.

Personally I don't think the failures with this type are extremely remote, however it does seem that many (and I have no idea what your own views are) seem to try and make the EC225/Super puma relationship more or less depending on the issue.

Ultimately (and sadly) I would agree nothing great can be takein either G-REDL or subsequent EC225 accidents. It is incredible just how many issues the latest events have shaken out and yet still there seems to be this underlying spin when really it might be better to be a little more open.

One might notice how the latest EC release plays to the 20K FH on the fleet since, etc, etc... Somehow I don't think it judges the mood at all well.

skastdk-

Just got around to reading the Safety Notice from EC you posted, and the two bullet points shown above really caught my attention. If I read these statements correctly, EC is claiming that the corrosion problem resulted (at least in part) from moisture becoming trapped against the inner bevel shaft surface due to an accumulation of metallic debris created by fretting wear of the adjacent spline joint. Based on what I have seen from publicly available information regarding the design of the EC225 main rotor gearbox, these two comments brought up a couple issues.

First, while I don't have detailed knowledge of the EC225 MGB design, I do know that it is common engineering practice to utilize desiccant breather systems on rotorcraft transmissions. These breather systems are very effective at removing any moisture content within the air volume contained inside the transmission housing. If EC followed the common industry practice of utilizing a desiccant breather system on this MGB, then there should not be much possibility of humidity condensing into droplets and accumulating on the vertical inner bevel shaft surfaces during the cooling period occurring after shut-down. On the other hand, if EC does not use a desiccant breather system on this MGB design, I would ask why they chose not to.

Second, after reading the statement about the problem of spline debris (or "mud") accumulating on the inner surfaces of the bevel shaft, I went back and took a closer look at the cross-section drawing of the gearbox that someone on this thread posted. And indeed, what I saw is that the design of the spline's lube oil flow had a serious flaw. While the oil feed into and through the spline joint is OK, the oil discharge location, to the inside of the bevel shaft, results in the debris-ladened oil flow being quickly slung back against the inner shaft surface due to windage and CF effects. The higher density of the metallic debris results in it separating out of the oil and eventually migrating to large radius, re-entrant features on the inner shaft surface where it becomes trapped. Ironically, there is this exact type of feature located directly at the weld joint.

Very interesting topic!

riff_raff

Jake Molloy column: The return of Super Puma EC 225 - Jake Molloy - Daily Record

They couldn't make this harder work if they tried.

Given the RMT view one wonders why Eurocopter didn't feel for the mood before EC Aberdeen set out their press release with June/July timescales.

Whilst in the middle of all this is the HSSG and they last published "news" early May.

Pitts, I have to tell you I and many others on Rotorheads are utterly sick of your snivelling sanctimonious remarks on this thread.

If you purport to be a real helicopter pilot you would be saddened by the situation which has affected not only a very large part of our industry, it's passengers but also a great flying machine that those of us who have been lucky enough to operate it, appreciate very much.

You have no idea of what you are talking about and like most nimrods that sound off on these threads, your caustic comments do nothing for the industry to which the proffessionals amongst us are part of.

The situation with the EC225 is complex and multi faceted but has been approached by Eurocopter in a wholly transparent manner. In fact Jake and a whole multitude of others were hosted at Marignane and given unrestricted access to all areas of production and the EC225 investigation team. No other aviation Company has ever done that.

Your parasitic addiction to trawling through anything you can to stick the knife in Eurocopters ribs disgusts me. Like all one dimensional empty vessels you make the most noise when rattled.

Do me, the dedicated EC225 pilots and most of all, our passengers a favour and sod off back to whatever hole you crawled out of. I am sick and tired of reading your rubbish on this thread. It does not add value. Comes across as utter self interest and insults the many proffessional people in the CAA, the AAIB, the HSSG, RMT, the Operators, the Oil Companies and Eurocopter who collectively have left no stone unturned in their pursuit of the causes and contributory factors to this complex problem.

If you take a moment to remove you head from your arse you might recognise, that whilst the EC225 has suffered some serious technical issues, it has to date, not harmed a single passenger or crew. This cannot be said for any other helicopter flying offshore today. Your remarks offend me mostly as they are forged in the bowels of utter ignorance. Bacteria are more informed than you.

You add nothing.

DB

Yeah very professional so after picking my way through the noise of your post maybe you can engage in a more normal way.

The communication around this has been frankly shocking, its both confused and un-coordinated. To give just some examples. You have had Bristow CEO give a timescale for back to service, later back tracked upon and then portrayed as media spin by HSSG.

You have Bristow and EADS give a conference calls (to the people that own the companies I might add - so having legal consequences) suggesting they could not give a timescale for being back in the air, then Eurocopter Aberdeen sends a press release with the June/July date (which was actually 1 day after the Bristow call).

Then CHC and Bristow can't agree when might be suitable and now you've got the RMT banging its drum. Oh and somewhere along the way EC's CEO left!

You have had a slow bleed of information over the issues of which there have been numerous and then we come to the real crux is the endless attempt to put this positive spin on everything.

In the early days it was you telling anyone who would listen Eurocopter know what they are doing, etc, etc and belittling anyone and everyone who dares to speak out.

I'm not interested in what button does what in an EC225, I'm not interested in you giving me a sales pitch. You know why I'm interested in this and as I said the current mood is not very well judged.

You are right I'm not a ATPL, EC225 qualified pilot but lets be honest anyone with an ability to read is able to see this situation is a shambles.

It seems to me that not one of the organisations can talk to the other organisations and co-ordinate and execute a plan. The CAA can't agree with EASA. The HSSG and RMT talk about better communication, yet you look at the HSSG website and it was last updated a month ago. The AAIB are obviously feeling a little on the back foot after reporting the "fix" of the first accident and then a 2nd one went in. Eurocopter can't communicate with its operators (thinking June/July date PR here) and have been put back in a box once by the CAA, and so it goes on.

Then to top it all you have pilots claiming everyone is being mean to the helicopter and talking rubbish when actually its you and other with similar views that are bending things. The first thing you all like to do is claim the EC225 is a Super Puma when you talk about hours flown; then you all like to forget its a Super Puma family when it comes to issues.

So is it a Super Puma or not?

In the end I couldn't care less if I offend you or not but I'm pretty confident that I've not threatened you or made continued childish remarks. You completely misjudge me because you have this loyalty to a machine. Of course I don't want bad things to happen to the people flying in a 225 or the 225 itself but it is a very interesting story and unfortunately the ignorance ball very much seems in EC's court at the moment.

Tell me how do you see things from here?

wow!!
 

Jake Molloy was correct. I was at the same presentation and can testify to the ignorance/naivety/arrogance of the oil and gas industry (and I don't mean O&G UK).
When Joe Bloggs reads about a Press Release describing part of the problem being due to corrosion - they then imagine a huge rusty gearbox - it is as simple as that!
unsurprising results of the survey but what about this......a proportion felt an increased confidence in helicopter travel - I would imagine due to the spotlight shining on the subject right now.
Molloy did sound quite comfortable listening to his own voice and he represents nothing more than the view of his union members. He has no experience in aircraft certification and ignored the fact that his very same members cause more concern amongst each other when they sit next to a rather large colleague on any type of helicopter which only offers 'push out' windows for escape.
So yes, 225 confidence is an issue but it is not the only issue. If only all NS helicopters experienced the same attention for what, after all, was an indication failure which led to 'Land immediately' directive. I do not fly the 225 but feel it will return as the 'safest' type to fly on after all that is said and done...............

My Guess: Journo fishing for bait, trying to generate his own story.
Simply make sure you don't feed him.

Oil workers ?shaken? by Super Puma ditchings - Top stories - Scotsman.com
As read on VR

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

With regard to "the Pitts":

http://images.mmorpg.com/images/avat...-the-troll.jpg

I typed a response to the Pitts but then I realised that would simply feed the delusions.


Si

Pitts,

The only good thing about your last post was that you completely copied mine. That gives everyone's second chance to read my dissitation on you!!

Your biggest gripe is seems to be the timing and flow of information. In fact communication. Your bio- data indicates you are PPLH. Therefore you should have learned some UK air law. You would therefore know that the AAIB has control of all information relating to any reportable incident or accident in order to protect the integrity of the investigation. You would know that all stakeholders involved are bound by law to conform to this simple protocol. As you singularly fail to appreciate this you are either not a qualified pilot, which makes you a liar, or you are a bit thick and cannot understand simple concepts.

Whatever. You do not seem to be able to string a few words together so your career as a journalist must also be circling the drain.

As proffessional pilots our number one concern is the safety and well being of our passengers. We want them to have as much information as they can take about our machines, procedures, training and especially when things go wrong. The offshore helicopter industry is the most regulated, transparent and scrutinised part of our industry and we not only welcome that, we are proud of it.

Your one dimensional comments, serving only to upset those most vulnerable in our industry, our passenger, are not the comments of an aviator. This is why you are vilified on this thread.

Now I know you are unable to help yourself and us by not posting your drivel. However, all I am asking is that as a Journalist you go elsewhere for a while and irritate someone else. As a parasite you should recognise when your host can no longer tolerate your presence.

The EC225 is already flying around the globe. It will fly again on the North Sea and much sooner than you think! Then we will be rid of you Pitts and the misery you try to peddle.

There I wiz thinking it wuz what was sat on my Wallet stuffed with all those pounds of Quids!

I always assumed if I made it home safely....so did everyone else.

SAS, sitting on our fat wallets is likely to cause a slight twist in the lower lumbar region leading to acute spondylitis (or spinelessness) later in life. Like joining the management! Also you are clearly not a victim of the UKs stealth taxation policies. Wuz wallets iz not as fat az they wonce wuz.

Good to see you are still awake on the other side of the globe. As an ex S61 pilot, I am also greatly heartened by your efforts today to resist the opportunity to have a go at the poor old EC225. She needs a bit of a break!

If you are ever in Aberdeen come and have cold one with the opposition!!

DB

Imagine a 61 with the 225 avionics, engines and modern blades etc .............. now THAT would be a machine. LOL

Sorry thread creep.

Si

Biggles, for a little while back in the late 90s we nearly had one. I cannot remember to name of the project but SAS would probably know.

DB.

You are thrashing and you are wrong.

Eurocopter Aberdeen released the mid June/ July date nothing to do with the AAIB. For example. Neither does it explain the information that has been released as I highlighted before.

Of course the helicopter will fly again and it will be safe when it does again I'm sure. However you are dangerous to try and dismiss a problem that has been a thorn of circa 8 months and counting. Sorry you just dismiss me because you are rude and arrogant to those without an EC225 poster on the wall or without an ATPL which might fit your view of a proper pilot... Yes there were threads about that not so long ago... Then it wasn't funny anymore after a crash.

Anyway let's not distract things from the points I asked before. You might think when someone talks nonsense you'd be able to answer the points but you can't. The next fight/battle is how Britow return to service with there mind on the zero accident pledge and how CHC deal..

Remember this??

UK CAA plays down chances of early return for grounded EC225s

I bet that CHC will return the EC225 to service first, probably somewhere that it is not effectively grounded and where it is non hostile....Oz?

Pitts, seeing that you now focus on chaotic comms and press releases from EC/operators/AAIB/CAA/or who ever you are blaming now, are you actually in a position with any of the companies and/organisations involved to have access to all the info released and shared in order to know what all was released when and by whom?