CFIT(W) is appropriate whenever a fully serviceable a/c is flown into the water or land....

Type certificate starts with AS330
Proponents love to refer to the full fleet hours of all puma variants, it is a variant, certified to those standards as a variant. Frankly OK with that, as long as there is consistency. If the argument is that it is separate, then talk about the fleet hours on this version alone.


A variant is certified as a "change" in the certified product, whether small or large. What that also includes is the ability to not address things that are not changed. One would need to know details of that process to know what extensive work was done when the design grew each time.
Clearly the recent tragedy raises questions on the design which is similar to previous versions.
On other hand, a corrective action is sure to follow - it may take more substantiation to convince customers than it takes to convince authorities. Overall the situation is not good for the industry, a mixed fleet is essential for the overall health of the industry. No going back to boats.

The demise of the Chinook has been discussed here, but let's not forget the Wessex. This accident saw the type immediately and permanently withdrawn from service by Bristow. https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...983_G-ASWI.pdf

There is also the SA330J Puma in the Gulf of Mexico operated by PHI. Had a number of accidents, then disappeared from service.

Kommisjon har tre teorier etter Turøy-ulykken ?

Havarikommisjonen trekker i rapporten fram tre scenarioer for hva som kan ha gjort at hovedrotoren løsnet.

Det ene er feil i sluttsteget på girkassen (omtalt som epicyclic failure). Nummer to er feil ved stagene som forbinder rotorsystemet med skroget (lift struts), mens nummer tre er feil ved veksel mellom girkasse og rotormast (MGB conical housing).

– Dette er områder som vi jobber videre med, forteller avdelingsdirektør Kåre Halvorsen i Havarikommisjonen til NTB.


If this is correct, then I believe the 225 is history in pax transportation offshore role.

T

That lists three possibilities under consideration. Are you suggesting the model is doomed if any of the three turns out to be the cause?

I think we can be fairly sure that the crash was caused by one of those things. But the question is, why did one of those things fail? A design weakness, or a maintenance error?

OnePer,

I cannot quote accurate flight hours for each type and I don't think many on here really can ... Beside what Wikipedia tells us! However, I can state that as of April 28 2016, it was the only helicopter type currently in serious competeion for this role (I don't consider the AW189 there yet) that had NOT had a fatal accident(s). This includes the AS332, S76, S92 and/or AW139. Having said that, as of April 28th, despite the number of hours it was the only aircraft to have zero fatal per X number of flight hours. Obviously now, after 11 years of holding that LONELY title, things have changed. My point earlier, I thought was clear, I am simply saying that legally, Airbus must be holding their own that this is again the FIRST fatal occurrence in the 225. I'm sure they know they will be in for a fight over that but I bet that's what they hold on to. Also, trying to come up with any other possible cause that would put this as a first for the entire family.

You are right though, I am a proponent of the 225 and of all its previous family. It has had many many safe flight hours and I have had many safe flight hours in one. I'm sure they have saved at least an equal number of lives that have lost(again not going to spend the day searching mister Google to support this). In fact, I have been involved with the PUMA doing full rig evacs due to a very unsafe condition on board the rig. Nobody thought about jumping onboard that day. I am a proponent of any helicopter that can do what the puma has done over the years. Time will tell with the 92, its closest competitor ... I really do hope so because I am also a proponent of it as well, it has fed my family for the past few years!!

I love all kinds of helicopters myself, and am a proponent of safety improvements. When a deficiency is found, it simply needs to be corrected. S-92 box problems were addressed.
There are statistical ways to predict likelihood of occurrence of a given issue, based on a mix of factual history, assumptions and judgment. If problems are denied by OEM then you can make no mitigation improvement. Frustrating to see AH not holding more accountability for these issues.
And I would jump on one tomorrow as well but full disclosure I do ride a motorcycle.

Please wear your helmet, as your inputs are of value here. :)

Yes I do, and thank you!

... Maybe not tomorrow.
Unless with a parachute.
No worries about entanglement.

Too soon?? Maybe??

If I got a good look at the records yeah, and first hand inspection myself.
Most passengers can't though. And would not know what they are looking for anyway.
I do generally have a high confidence in the mechanics, despite seeing examples over the years of mistakes.
They don't know what they don't know. The manufacturer seems to be elusive in accountability on this and previous gearbox issues. While protection from liability is expected, they are in over their heads in the denial game.
In context of the thread, no it's not the end, but uphill battle for sure to get customers confidence.

It appears Bristow has suspended all flights on 225. Including SAR and Training flights.

Yep:

Bristow grounds its Airbus EC225 helicopter fleet - MarketWatch

Same with CHC......all flights now suspended.

It's pretty amazing...the complete rotor head on the Puma departs from the aircraft not one, but TWO times...and still some people here claims it is a safe aircraft. Unbelievable!

I do not know what agenda those people have, but on the Norwegian shelf I believe this aircraft has seen it's last flight. A majority of my fellow offshore workers has completely lost faith in this aircraft, and many has said that they will flat out refuse to board one. I am one of those people. Enough is enough!

Great, go fly in a new type or an S92. But can you explain why you think that would be any safer? But of course even if you continued to fly the EC225 for the rest of your career, you will almost certainly die as a result of something else.

Or to put it another way, please keep the emotive hysteria for Facebook.

Did you read my post? THE COMPLETE ROTOR HEAD HAS DEPARTED NOT ONCE, BUT TWO TIMES ON THE PUMA!!! How is that even possible?? Tell me, is that something that is to be expected, and accepted? Would the 737 be flying still if it lost its wings mid-flight twice in 7 years? I think not.

Look, I understand you obviously have some sort of agenda, maybe working in the industry, what do I know. But you can keep mocking people as much as you want, but the fact of the matter is, that as long as there is no faith left in this helicopter type it is doomed. It has been to many incidents and lives lost. After 20+ years offshore I can assure you I know a lot of people in that industry...and the majority feels the same as me.

It won't help a bit that you claim it is hysteria. Because it is not, it is simply eliminating risks, as we are taught offshore every day. Maybe you have a different perspective on the HSE bit, i dunno.

I see the Aberdeen Press and Journal is full of EC225 doom-mongering this morning. Amongst other bits of foolishness it links the AS332L2 Sumburgh crash into the anti-225 pot. In its ignorance it fails to understand that the type of event that caused the accident could equally apply to the S92 and in fact we know of several very near misses on the S92 that very nearly did. However that type of accident could not happen on the EC225. But of course it is not newsworthy to report anything good about the 225 at the moment!

We don't yet know what caused this latest catastrophe. Only when we do will it be time to decide whether the EC225 should be kept in service. Any ranting and hysteria in the mean time is just a reflection of the travelling public's foolishness and ignorance. And probably a general dislike of going to work by helicopter because they don't like being squished up.