UK CAA say no to This type carrying out AOC work over hostile environment TFN
 

HC....tell us again how the EC products are so vastly superior to the 92.

Interesting! I guess this doesn't apply to the Mk1. Mind you I don't know how many Mk1's there are still around

As I am no longer flying, I don't have a technical opinion on either type, but hasn't the S92 had its fair share of MGB problems too?

And before I get blitzed I was a high time pilot on both Sikorsky and As332L's :ok:

SAS
 

I think the nation that gave us solid rocket boosters that go 'pop' should at least avoid sticking their necks out quite so far.

You know the old saying, what goes around comes around. Crow now if you want but beware of having to eat crow pie sometime later.

G. :}

FYI, AS332L, L1 & L2 are all included if "equipped with Main Gear Box (MGB) bevel gear vertical shaft Part Number (P/N) 332A32.5101.00, P/N 332A32.5101.05, P/N 332A32.5101.10 or P/N 332A32.5101.15, all Serial Number (S/N".

Sorry, I've not understood properly so clarification would be appreciated but - did I read in the previous pages that Eurocopter are now saying that with regard to the 225 vibration (HUMS or whatever it is called these days) analysis must be conducted after every flight as Bristow (apparently) already do?

Isn't every 25 hours? I think I saw that at the other thread (G-REDW)

Aircraft with the affected Drive Shafts, which include 225, and some L2's and even 332's are subject to varying levels of scrutiny.

332's can fly for 6 hours between HUMS checks
L2's 4.5Hours
225's Just 3 hours between checks

So effectively after every flight. But even if allowed 6 hours flying, why wouldn't you do it after every flight???


In addition, the CAA have just effectively banned flights on these aircraft types (fitted with the suspect part) from flying over a Hostile Environment.

Lets hope for the benefit of the whole North Sea industry that we sort this issue out quickly, safely and permanently

Geoffers....twas not I crowing about the 225 back when Brother Lappos and HC were arguing the various merits of the two aircraft.

As you rightly say....what goes around....comes around.

I anticipate the same folks that were so critical of the 92...rightly so in a lot of regards....should also rightly hold EC and the 225 to the EXACT same standards they did of the 92.

The key difference between the two situations is the 92 was a new design and being fielded without a long history of good service to allow for generating a historical data base for comparison purposes, encountered some very unforeseen problems, and seems now to have overcome its initial problems.

The 225 on the other hand....did just the opposite....used legacy engineering based upon a well proven design and just recently has encountered some very severe problems that are the result of tinkering with a basically sound design (in most regards) despite having some adverse design issues.

I just like to see some fair play when it comes to discussing the relative merits of two very different designs....each has its strong points and each has its not so strong points.

If they had not altered the main gearbox shaft on the Super Puma none of this would have happened.

Well SAS, for a start how many have been killed in S92 vs 225? Anyway, a heli is only as safe as its weakest part, for 92 it was the gbx oil system (filter) and for 225 it seems currently to be this shaft. S92 had a head start on catastrophe, now it is 225's turn to catch up a bit, but now that the fleet has effectively been grounded this problem will be fixed and without loss of life. Apart from these weak points in each fleet, the 225 remains by far the best from the HMI point of view but since you have flown neither, you wouldn't know.

Everyone else - SAS loves to throw bait at me and if I didn't bite on it, I would be depriving the old chap of his only pleasure in life, so I just have to do it because I am such a nice chap and hate to see a grown man sobbing...

Realistically, what replacements are there for the EC225?

I disagree. Although no-one wants to end up in the drink, chances are that in a controlled ditching, everyone will be OK even if the weather is not as good as it was for these events. IIRC no-one has ever died from a controlled ditching in N Sea in its entire history, and that is an important concept for everyone, especially our passengers, to bear in mind.

Its called "needing a wash" got one in the end!!

On Point
 

That you are, P3.

Especially so if, with rough seas, the pilots chose to ignore the published procedures.

With regard to the frequency of HUMS downloads...EC allow up to 25 hours without data. I presume this will now be reduced to, as mentioned before, somewhere in the region of 3/4 hours/between flights

Where are EASA and the DGAC?
 

So the UK CAA have unilaterally grounded NS Puma's. Shouldn't this action have come from Cologne, EASA HQ?

Are EASA scared of upsetting Eurocopter or possibly the French DGAC? So prevaricate and choose to do nothing more than rehash an old AD!

At times like these you want strong leadership from the authorites and congratulations to the UK CAA for taking the lead. :ok:

HC, this is true but one of our 332 family accidents was fatal. It wasn't just the passengers that were killed, some were our colleagues. There still isn't a positive conclusion from this accident that was MGB related. Just because it didn't happen at Bristow doesn't mean that it isn't very much still in our minds, particularly in the light of recent events. At the time, EC were very keen to lay as much blame as possible with the operator to protect their reputation - ironic doesn't even get close.

I think that if you do a little digging you will find a close connection with EC at EASA. Well done to the CAA for taking this decision, it renews your faith.