Again, not a 225 guy, but would that not at least lead to high oil temp, chips or some indication?

Pablo, are you referring to the upper bearing where the mast comes through the top of the housing? Unfamiliar with this aircraft, but I think I understand that there are oil jets that keep lube coming to that bearing. If the lube doesn't get there, how does a rising temperature get detected? (I think I see your point on an impending bearing failure being picked up by a HUMS sensor).

Mitchaa,
Thank you for that detailed answer. I understand it is a steep hill to climb, but at the end of the day its just 2 variables, freq, and amplitude. Computers excel at matching patterns. There would be a lot of parameters to learn (storms, etc as you mention) and a lot of people against it because it would cost some jobs, but at the end of the day, it would be pretty amazing.

A sad thread indeed but this was funny:

500 guy,

As Mitchaa has mentioned, the HUMS in a super puma (any variant ... Unless someone can tell me it's different in a 225) already learns its caution threshold based on data collected over a period of time. When a major component is replaced, most HUMS indicators of that component are put into learning, during this period only the max/red threshold is set (which is a set max from manufacture for that indicator/gear). After a set number of data points are collected the HUMS will set the caution/yellow threshold based on the average of the points collected (ie. mean plus .1 g). The yellow caution will vary for each aircraft while the red threshold is a set number and applies to all.

As far as cockpit awareness, I think Mitchaa has summed it up there as well.

Surely grounding is the safety default and they need evidence to continue flying? Requiring evidence to support grounding is the commercial default.

A petition to remove the EC225 Super Puma helicopter from service, started by an oil worker following the crash, has now been signed by more than 14,800 people - some of them relatives killed in other incidents.

https://www.change.org/p/civil-aviat...edium=copylink

AIBN announcement of press conference tomorrow (Tuesday 2016‑05‑03) at 14:00 CEST.
Includes photos of recovered wreckage.

This is not true (see attached pic)...

:confused:

"A bad copy of NH-90"?!?! Have you ever seen a AW101???

On the Aviation Investigation Board Norway are pictures of the wreck.

The Helicopter Accident: Invitation to Press Conference at Haakonsvern naval base in Bergen Tuesday 3 May at 1400 hours

Think we shall not get answer before that time.

Looking close to the Picture IMG_0093 of the AIBN Announcement link from post #315: According to the damage of the tailrotor blades it seems to me that the tailrotor was still spinning on impact. Wouldn't the TR stop rotating when the MGB seizures?

Looking close to the picture IMG_0093 of the AIBN Announcement link from post 315:

According to the Tailrotor blade damage it seems to me that the TR was still spinning on impact. Wouldn't the TR stop rotating when the MGB seizures?

The two photos on the AIBN site don't seem to include further closeup of main rotor gearbox or the rotor. The first photo on the other hand may be showing us one of the lifting struts still attached to airframe, unless that is something else. Tail blades smashed, evidence of full speed rotation when they hit something. I would guess secondary, but shortly after the main rotor, possibly even a main blade or two as the main head peeled off.

On the 225 the MRH shaft is supported in the lift housing by 2 taper roller bearings. The bearings are lubricated by internal drillings in the lift housing and MGB Flared housing.

All should become a lot clearer tomorrow.

.. Just hit the refresh button on the AIBM site thinking they would add more, and now it only has one photo, the second one. Did they remove a photo?

Sad duty

The fuselage has been totaly destroyed. How investigators are they going to make the diffecence between what caused the accident and what has been torn away by the impact on ground or sea surface?

You are right, they removed 2 pictures

In the left background of picture post 323 you can see the MGB, it looks like it is upside donw with the input shaft of engine n° 2 visible

Yes it's true but if you want to keep the full range you put only 16 little Chinese inside...but sorry for this "the fat oil worker" you can put only 12 to keep the full range of the aircraft...352 (12 pax) km

Sorry but is true Bristow don't like this aircraft i don't know why but is fact...

For the SIN of Airbus if he write this type of SIN 48H after the grounded is certainly because the design of 225 is safe and the cause of accident is certainly not an aircraft problem...I don't imagine to write this type of document with a part of doubt...

But i think is too late now the 225 share the same history of the main frame "Super Puma" if you really look the crash of 225 it's only three 2 ditching (no injurie) and 1 crash of OJF...all the other incident it's L2 or L1 in total of 8...and nothing impacted Airbus ou Eurocopter or Aérospatiale only maintenance defect....You can impact Eurocopter only for the design of mgb shaft with result of 2 ditching and no injurie....

But a the END of the story, for OJF the price is very high, 13 life and depend of the following of story "maybe 5000" People lost their job in factory. Certainly all the oil & gas cancel their next order of 225 and certainly ask a compensation for their aircraft grounded or because nobody want to flight again with this aircraft just CHC is 40 225. You can imagine the following.

And it's was certainly interesting to calculate how many flight hour has the super puma family in a world to have the ratio flight hour/incident and compare with other aircraft (when you remove the maintenance defect).

closer from the middle, the grey component in the backward, with the rounded silhouette of the accessory module perfectly visible

Picture of the MGB with what seems to be the RH servo control still attached