Or maybe I just have a sense of humour and don't take myself too seriously?

HC
 

I think that is how we all remember you here in NL... Mr M!
;)

Well I'll certainly bear that in mind whenever I read your posts - not to take them seriously :ok:

BBC news is reporting that the pilots ditch because they thought the MGB had failed.

BBC News - Ditched Super Puma pilots 'feared gearbox problem'

fats

The comment above on cost of boat charter lead me to think about who is actually responsible for recovering the aircraft.

The operator, the insurance company or the AAIB.

Normally once an aircraft has had an accident it becomes the property of the insurance company I base this on having recovered a couple for insurance companies.

If the beast is going to be scrap does an insurance company want to spend a couple of days boat charter £100,000?

Just curious as to the process.

I see Bond have at least 1 flight going today.

Is it one of their AW139's?

3 flights on a 139 I believe. Seems to be the bel-air that was working for them after G-REDW ditched.
Hearing word that there are N3s on their way up from Bond's bases down south.
Also a 155 from Dancopter (not sure who it will be flying for).

Thanks. I remember seeing it help with the catch up after REDW.

It will fly for MOG and Dong/Hess in Denmark, (DanCopter has 4 EC225s not flying)

I was at a Eurocopter presentation last week and we were told that a 225 gearbox had a 30 min run dry capability. It had been proven by running a geabox drained of oil for 58 minutes, past the 45 minute running time required to prove the 30 minutes. This run dry capability has been banded around enough recently but is the 225 actually certified to be able to use that capability?

Its a part of the certification requirements, what Eurocopter has done to pass this is to install a emergency lubrication system that lubricates and cool the MGB in case of full run dry situation

And when the MGB lubrication fails and the emergency lubrication system fails(or indication of working system fails) you would like to land while still in control

Are we talking days or even weeks, before the NS operators will have their 225s up and running again, and Eurocopter will guarantee the cooling of the MGB?

The system has never been tested as a whole:

The emergency lubrication system was certificated by the EuropeanAviationSafetyAgency(EASA). Certification included a test on a ground rig in which the oil was drained from a MGB and bleed air and Hydrosafe 620 were sprayed into the gearbox. The test demonstrated that there was no significant damage to the MGB after over 30 minutes of operation. Although the emergency lubrication sub-systems were tested individually, no test was carried out on the complete system, either on a test rig or installed on the helicopter type.

from the G-REDW AAIB report

Not familiar with the geography, but just how far were they from the nearest possible dry landing area? Not talking instrument approach, offshore you can chop and drop until you see water. From reading the AAIB report, if this case were similar ( how sad would that be: Bond sinking a perfectly good 30 mil helicopter and nobody learning a lesson) for a "land immediate" they would have required a failure of the EMERG cooling system, otherwise stopwatch it 30 min and consider options. I don't fly the EC225 or L2, so if this sounds ingnorant (in the literal sense) go ahead and say so.

Malabo,

So you are saying you would elect to continue flying with a gearbox with no certified run dry time and a failure of the emergency lube, to the nearest land 14 or so miles away on the assumption that you have the exact same problem as a previous ditching because of a report you have read? Brave man!

If the EMERG Lube was working, then yes I would drive the 14nm (thanks for that figure) or 7 minutes to a dry feet landing. If it was not working then I'd likely ditch on a flat sea, or maybe still drive 7 minutes if night and sea state 6 because I am not a brave man.

After the Bond incident recently, I cannot believe there would be any question that the EMERG Lube would absolutely work. No self-respecting operator, airworthiness authority or OEM would have taken the chance to dispatch without ensuring it works.

The Bond 225 had a short history of telltales that were discounted until the incident. Did the CHC one have the same? We can wait for the AAIB report, unlike other countries they are accurate, thorough, and eventually publish their findings.

Malabo,

See AAIB report link in my previous post, interesting reading ...

So, an exact copy of the REDW ditching it seems. As far as I can make out from the report, the HUMS system detected the problem before the incident flight, but CHC did not look at the data - they were not required to do so, but best practice...

Whilst this might put CHC in a difficult place, it at least means that for the rest of us, we can be confident that HUMS, when rigorously utilised, can prevent a recurrence.

For the record, Bristow downloads the HUMS data at each return to base, and an aircraft is in not despatched until the HUMS data has been checked and found to be "green". That process takes less than 5 minutes.

Going to get some stick from VL now...

And as I understand it, its also standard practice at Bond to do the same, looks like CHC are on their own on that one!

CHC aside, where are the rest of the faulty shafts? EC said they knew where they all were, which is obviously not the case. I don't think we should completely reliant on HUMS data to find components prone to failure. I'm sure there will be a lot of head scratching going on at the moment.

Cyclic, I agree - clearly the shaft in question was not subject to the 4 hr mandatory download, so something is wrong with the list of shaft numbers in the ASB. I suspect we will be back to all shafts being subject to the AD/ASB. As you say, that should be short term measure and fixing the underlying problem the closing action.

I see from the beeb article that our friend JF gets it completely wrong as usual!

From the BBC website:

Wrong again Jimbo :ugh::ugh:

Malabo,

So, as PIC, you're happy to gamble with the lives of everyone else aboard, and to continue flight, despite 'Land Immediately' being the correct course of action?

The aircraft cost is of no consequence in comparison to the lives of those aboard!

Complaint sent to the BBC
 

Let's see, 14 miles at the maximum allowed speed of 80kts in 7 minutes - must be a very strong tailwind!

Anyway, if Emerg Lube was working, maybe. If not, definitely not unless you want to die and take everyone else with you. You stand a fair chance ditching in SS6, you stand no chance if the gbx gives up in flight.

To be fair HC, that might be the answer to the wrong question.

When the emergency started, the aircraft was not at the ditiching site but was a few miles further south and at 3000 feet. Out to the right of the flightpath was a piece of land that was not 14 or 11 or whatever NM further away than the ditching site. On the closest part of that land is a lighthouse and at lighthouses you find a big H.

Of course, Fair Isle does not have the world's most inviting coastline and staying the hell away from it cannot be faulted.

New EC ASB out requiring HUMS download every 3 hrs for EC225. Bit of a pain but at least it gets us flying again.

Historically HUMS can detect 50% or so of impending failures. It has generally been good at detecting the second occurrence. In this case it failed for whatever reason. HUMS is decent as a second line of defense, it should never be elevated to a go/no go system.

Conclusion should be all shafts inspected (and replaced if needed) prior to next flight and in case of a loss of oil pressure ditch. If the emergency lube is so problematic to give off false failure warnings, it can easily give no indication of a real failure. This would be the Cougar 92 crash all over again.

TC

Yeah, let's do that.

Inspecting that shaft (visually) is a very long, laborious, and difficult task, especially considering the number of aircraft / flights we're talking about. Replacing it is an overhaul function.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but that certainly isn't it.

CVB

Making sure it did not happen the first time is the most cost effective approach. Having a second identical set of multiple failures is inexcusable. We have seen in this case relying on HUMS is not a substitute for airworthy components.

Also, I do not see a one time visual inspection to keep aircraft out of the drink is unreasonable in light of the current events.

TC

TM

Original reports on the first event indicated a detectable manufacturing defect. Visually inspect for that! If it can not be inspected for then yes they all should be grounded until a replacement shaft is available.

If the back up lube actually worked with no false alarms this would be just a minor issue, but it now has a proven 100% failure rate which leaves no choice but to ditch. It will be interesting to see if the lube warning is miswired or has a CWA logic issue.

TC

well maybe the logic that is when something has physically failed no about of lubrication is going to heal it??? I guess in the design of this system if there is other data that over rides the suggestion that lubrication is working OK it gives warning?

At Pitts
 

Please say again, you are coming in garbled.

I'm afraid I have had to join HC on this one:

Sir, I have just read your news article concerning the ditching of a Superpuma helicopter in the North Sea on Monday ("Super Puma inquiry finds helicopter fault"). Why does the BBC insist on trotting out the buffoon Jim Ferguson at every opportunity whenever helicopters in the North Sea are discussed? Once again he has proved he is not nearly as qualified as he thinks he is to comment on such issues. His remarks on this event, plus his comments on a recently released report on the May 2012 Bond ditching, are blatantly wrong, yet will be believed by many as they has been given by an 'expert' on the BBC. Surely it is possible to find someone in Aberdeen who actually knows what they are talking about?

Regards

Obnoxio f*ckwit

Minor Issue?
 

Don't forget the Bond ditching had a chip warning as well because the shaft moved and teeth started to break up. That doesn't appear to have happened here but the origin of the problem appears similar. Hardly a minor issue.

yes I'm sorry, haste and speed.

My point being that in the case of mechanical failure within the gearbox at some point no amount of lubrication is going to help. The false readings given in the case of REDW were suggested as

"it was concluded that a bleed air pressure sensor at the
top end of the specified tolerance could generate an MGB EMLUB caption, even though all the parts of the emergency lubrication system are operating within their specifications."

I'm not sure what the logic is with the system vis if the Emergency Lube is functioning very well when that is not the thing thats going to save you.

Edited to add:- perhaps the error and MGB EMLUB caption was a blessing when the bevel gear vertical shaft has failed.

North Sea heli ditching: Oct 2012
 

Who designed and manufactures the MGB and Emer Lube system, is it EC or some other company?