Pitts, I dismiss you because you are an irritating Troll.

You are spouting complete rubbish. You think you understand the subject but really you have no clue. Given you clear lack of aviation understanding I very much doubt whether you hold the PPLH you claim to hold.

You cannot even rant in clear English! I suspect you are not ICAO level 6 then!

Italian perhaps?

Now now everybody play nice.
Ranting and flaming will get us nowhere and makes us look silly.

VP - no but you have the ability to read? So read that flight international story... Something everyone wanted to backtrack from later. Then the latest release from EC Aberdeen; do you call that well judged? Do you think the communication has been good overall??

DB - still thrashing. Do you have an opinion of your own or still only able to roll out the company PR??

Pitts, I am a pilot. I do not investigate incidents. The AAIB do that. I do not fix gearboxes. The manufacturer does that. I do not set aviation rules, limitations or policy. The regulator does that. I do not control the release of information. PR and lawyers do that. I get paid to fly. When the AAIB tell the CAA that the AC is cleared for unrestricted flight I fly!! My opinion simply does not matter. Neither does yours.

You are still an irritating Troll. Probably a Cad and a Bounder to boot!

Option 1: stop the personal abuse and get back on thread
Option 2: carry on and accept the resulting ban

The choice is yours, really :rolleyes:

I like VP's thread.

Industry Insider is just proving that he is an Industry Insider.....;) As indeed I will be soon......

I dont need to read articles in magazines and avoid them especially on the 225 situation. I much rather enjoy the official notices from the horses mouths.

Think it's clear by the lack of support for your argument that there are a lot of people who are actually involved and affected by this sad event who are not uninformed or who feels alienated by the process as it unfolded-that includes a lot of people who does not prefer the 225 yet are not biting at your statements.

...err no your opinion does matter. If you fly the EC225 why don't you see your opinion as valid? No doubt there is feedback to be given? Just like the guy sat in the passenger seats has an opinion and needs convincing. The AAIB telling the CAA it looks OK this time, the CAA lifting limitations is only part of it. Hence my comments, which are far from nonsense.

Eurocopter Aberdeen produced the press release with the June/July date. I know because I spoke to the guy who then went on to write a story using the release as part if it. I did that because I didn't know if his story was real as only the day before on Bristows conference call they gave a Q4 timescale...

So communication has been lousy and when the RMT or HSSG talk of better communication - don't talk about it, just communicate, etc,etc.

One thing that can be overlooked here in amongst the technical chatter is guess what? Somebody actually has real money invested in these companies. Bristow, EADS - somebody owns these companies....

Which is easier said than done when something said one day from a credible source gets completely denied or backtracked upon the following week/month (I.e the CEO of EADS getting slapped down by the CAA or the CEO of Bristow, his remarks get backtracked upon later).

I think one might class a CEO of a billion $ entity pretty official?

As for EASA, AAIB or CAA notices great I would agree if the other noise didn't exist. The problem comes when Eurocopter start briefing operators etc in private and then as said above things suddenly change. Like I said on the prior post you have Bristow talking Q4 on a Thursday and on Friday EC Aberdeen talking June/July with CHC in agreement.

In that situation it's hard to know what's going on.

SP I am banning myself for two weeks. I cannot bear any more of the Trolls drivel. Goodnight Vienna!!

DB

They state in the article that this result was achieved through engineering the distribution of residual oil. Nothing much has changed. Those of us who fly these aircraft (no I don't fly a 225 but I would happily go offshore in one tomorrow) realize that they are fallible and always will be.

Those that succumb to the hype and fear being perpetrated by the journalists, self-proclaimed experts, and anonymous pprune posters will need to grow up and take a hard look at where this fear is coming from.

Personally I would say, as has been alluded to on here but not stated that I have seen, that with an improved emlub sensing system, put it back to work. Others may disagree and they are entitled to. It is a robust design that will be made more robust through the scrutiny it is getting, not a flying disaster.

In basic I agree with you, paa....., by the way I am pretty impressed by the AW MGB.

Why haven't anyone discussed the possibility of putting limitations on the 225 operations like: sea state, daylight ops over water only, water temp etc?

It sends out two different signals, but if I were a passenger, "afraid" of going on the 225 even with CAA removing restrictions, I would be easier talked into a daylight flight only sea state: lets say below 5 (WMO Sea State Code).

It would be an opportunity to get it flying again, building up passenger confidence, and that will take time no matter....

Just my opinion....

TANGO, in respect of your comment on day/ night operating limitations:

Whilst the current work on enhancing the HUMS and interim MGB modifications and NDT inspection protocols are specifically aimed at preventing another ditching, the EC225, modified with the Light Ground Speed mode (all O&G models), is capable of an emergency landing or ditching in zero/zero visibility. That is to say, in the dark with absolutely no visual references. Fully automatic capability. It can also do this in whiteout, brownout, blackout and at the bottom of an ILS.

Just so we are clear. NO OTHER HELICOPTER IN THE WORLD TODAY can do this.

The only variable remaining is the Sea State. The AS332 family has been operating for many years with over 4m flight hours. There have been several intentional and one unintentional ditching on the design over the years. Not one has rolled over!! No one has perished in a 332/225 ditching.

We have had one CFIT with loss of life. The Cormorant Alpha disaster. Eurocopters response to this was to design the most advanced AFCS in the world today with full flight envelope protection. With the AFCS deployed correctly, the EC225 will not allow the crew to fly into the ground or Sea. In fact,

Airspeed is protected
Altitude is protected
Vertical Speed envelope is protected
The free wheels are protected
NR is protected when OEI even uncoupled
Power is protected AEO even uncoupled
Flight path is protected by the Go-around
With TCAS 2 option fitted, if the crew fail to react to an airborne threat of collision, the AFCS will automatically couple up and fly the helicopter out of danger.

Neither Sikorsky or AW helicopters have such protections or a zero/zero landing capability.

If you are an EC225 pilot reading this and do not recognise any of the above, go to your employer and ask for more training or PM me and I will help.

Eurocopter has invested in, and deployed, 3 x EC225 Full Flight Simulators around the globe in recognition that these advanced systems are pointless if the crew are not properly trained. More simulators will follow. Crews can be exposed to scenarios in a safe training environment to help them exploit the maximum benefit from the safety systems that have been developed. To achieve this properly it is vital now, more than ever before, that simulators built for this purpose carry the OEM data pack so that simulator behaviour matches exactly aircraft behaviour. This is why Eurocopter build simulators themselves. It is not to exploit the training market. It is to enhance the training capability to support the product in service.

EC225 crews can now be better trained. More aware of their aircraft systems and most importantly, have a vast array of safety systems at their disposal to complete their mission.

If you are a passenger in Aberdeen and have any questions about the capabilities of the EC225 or are worried that what I have written is salesman BS PM me and I will happily demonstrate all I have written to you.

DB

Or ask your aviation provider, there will be training captains, line pilots and chief pilots who can confirm what DB has said.

Si

Thank you Biggles.

May I also add, if you are an EC225 TRI/TRE and have not been afforded the time by your employer/ manager to see these protections OR fly a fully automatic approach/forced landing/ditching under Zero/Zero conditions in the simulator please feel free to PM me or contact me on +44 (0)7876 351133 and I will arrange this for you.

It is very important now that the EC225 training community gets connected and we are all able to teach and demonstrate the full capability of the EC225 as she comes back to service.

The EC225 is capable of very safely operating far beyond the operational limitations imposed by Regulation. This, in some cases, has inhibited the operator from training in these areas. However, if we are to recognise ALL the lessons that last years two ditchings can offer, surely our desire to fully appraise our crews of the full and complete capabilities available to them in an emergency is one of the most important.

I promise you that I will make every effort possible to assist any Instructor who may be trapped in the gap between legislative limitation and the EC225s operating capability.

DB

Very interesting DB. How does it cope with the variability of the sea state during an "auto ditching"?

The fact is, no matter how clever it may be, my drilling department don't want to fly in it until it has a new shaft installed and has had at least 1 year of operation without a ditching...and the EMLUB is fully functional. There are other OGP companies (not all) who have the same view.

II understood just make sure you are not ignoring the the fact that every other offshore type has suffered fatalities, except the EC225.

To your ditching question. The Ec225 will establish into a zero Groundspeed hover at 30 feet automatically from the cruise by the pilots simply using trims. It then can descend vertically, in a geostationary descent, to the surface. After that a degree of luck needs to be on the crews side IF they are truly zero/zero visibility.

Ditching statistics are in the Pumas favour but we have to be realistic. There is always risk as there is to all other types.

Please remember you are gifted with a 30 min emlube system in the EC225. No other type except S61 has this. The 92 Newfoundland accident demonstrates the severe danger of attempting to continue runnin dry.

We forget that in both EC225 ditchings, the integrity of the warning systems, multiple in dependant indications, left both crews in no doubt as to the action they subsequently took which arguably saved the lives of all on board. This is in itself inherent safety. This is not the case in many of the other types flying.

The interim solution for the current shaft is robust, has redundancy in application and will prevent any future shaft failures in actual flight provided of course the AAIB and CAA agree with the details ofthe analysis. On paper it is bombproof.

There a thousands of issues like this affecting aircraft all over the world. I suspect you do not think twice about climbing on board an A380. It is a very poor day indeed when we all lose faith in the integrity of the AAIB and the Regulator. What do you then follow. rumour, gut instinct or hysteria.

We, the flight crew, trust the systems that are in place to keep us safe within the very best possible intentions. For that reason I fly the EC225 today, even with its restrictions.

I have the greatest respect for our offshore workers but I know most of them recognise the risks associated with offshore work and the helicopter flight is just one off them.

Your department should take some comfort, that should the route back to service be certified by EASA and CAA that for the time being, the EC225 Will be the safest helicopter on the North Sea.

There is no place in this industry for fear or scare mongering. It is far to technical to be treated with such one dimensional emotive responses.

II PM me and I will arrange some face time with you and your colleagues and we will happily show you any aspect of the EC225 as discussed.

Best Regards

DB thanks for replying, but the fact is that there will be guys like ii, his colleagues and other passengers who really don't care about all the features, all the assurances from Eurocopter etc. It is what they feel that matters, not statistics, not a technical description, not guarantees not an analytic way of dealing with this. For most or may be all of these guys, the transportation to and from the rigs, is just a necessary evil.

The 225 needs to build up hours in the NS, before gaining the confidence it really deserves.

DB, I have flown the 225 and I like it (not that many hours) but I do have thousands of hours in its 332L predecessors on the NS from the very earliest days of its introduction in April 1982, even when we had to fly it at 145 knots and do double North West Hutton flights with the daily MGB Chip lights.

The 225 is good aircraft, remains so and my company contracts it (albeit with a shrinking fleet which may soon shrink to zero).

I will have to disagree with you about EMLUB, it has not worked and even the latest AD from EASA says it probably won't work. In terms of land or ditch immediately, the 225 is now no different from the S-92.

My company also contracts the S-92. Right now, the S-92 has settled down somewhat, reliability has been good and our passengers feel safe in it. With the introduction of IDMGB, the S-92 will have an internal aux lube system.

"I will have to disagree with you about EMLUB, it has not worked and even the latest AD from EASA says it probably won't work." Wrong ! Out of date information.

Having attended the briefing at Bristow last Wednesday, it was explained to us that the EMLUBE has been receiving just as much investigative effort as the bevel gear shaft. There is only one final aspect about the system to be addressed.

In certain warm ambient atmospheric conditions which we seldom experience in the UK, the flow rate of glycol to certain parts of the gearbox is a bit lower than intended, although still plentiful. This is being resolved now by fitting a somewhat more powerful pump.

False warnings of emlube failure have been obviated and the system is now very well capable of meeting the original design requirements.

Eurocopter have everything to lose by being anything less than completely open/honest/up front. I would feel as safe flying the 225 now with the original shaft and the bomb-proof preventive and monitoring measures in place, as after the new design of shaft gets introduced.

The new design of shaft addresses the root cause of the cracking in such a comprehensive way that everyone involved should feel confident that they're flying in the safest helicopter ever to grace the North Sea.

Any indication as to when this IDMGB will be available? It has been announced since years now.
On the CH-148 SAC still seem to be fighting an uphill battle with the 30 mins.

Colibri

I think II is right...whatever Bristow may say

From the 2101-113E EASA AD issued May 28th 2013

I for one don't care what Bristow think, they are just an operator with a commercial vested interest, this is the current EASA AD as far as I know.

It wasn't Bristow doing the presentation. It was a Eurocopter engineering expert and if he hasn't done so already, he'll shortly be giving the same talk at CHC and Bond.

"and pending a Eurocopter modification to the Glycol pump" seems to be the relevant bit from your quote above. He didn't allude to the pressure switches, which I take to imply from his statement that now only the pump needs to be stronger.

DB.....I guess the way you describe the 225 AFCS....it would be perfect to take for a Pub Run....it would buy every Round and take the Ugly Bird!:E

What pump does the Emlube use? I thought it was p2 air from the the number 1 engine.

So no number 1 engine no emlube.

Or am I talking bollox?

There are pressure-sensing switches for both p2.4 pressure and glycol pressure, which means that there is a separate pump for the glycol.

Low fat. You are correct. It only uses air from the LH engine. If the engine is not running we Have no EMLUBESYSTEM capability BUT this is a multiple failure scenario that the system is not designed to accommodate.

Like I said it is the only aircraft flying that has an EMLUBESYSTEM.

The discovery during extensive testing that they pump may not deliver an optimum flow under certain conditions has led to EC issuing the ESB because there are EC225s currently operating around the globe.

My understanding is that new pumps will be fitted ASAP as part of the mod package to support the route back to service for those not operating.

SAS.......yes I think she probably would. In fact if Carling made a helicopter it would be a 225

DB

Then...

It only uses air ....but needs a new pump?

P2.4 air is used to spray (atomise?) the glycol into the gearbox but the pump takes it from its container to the spray mechanism.

Si

Purely as a matter of interest. When they were scrabbling around for helicopters after the 225s were grounded, did they look at resurrecting GBMCX from the hanger it was marooned in in Libya.

Yes they did, flying at Aberdeen today.

CHC Scotia also flying an AS332L G-BKZE today as well.

Have tthe offshore unions advised all their members not to fly in Boeing 777s yet?

That would be far too measured a response - 'ban all boeings' would be more likely.

Have you checked Facebook?

http://i.imgur.com/1293fmK.jpg

I/C

Airbus Helicopters accept responsibility?