Just curious but what are you using for fuel burn and TAS when comparing the 225 and the 92? As an aside are you using PC2 for both aircraft? ISA?

II, thanks for the patronising attempt at a lecture. I'm sure you know that Heli Union had a 225 in Angola with Sonangol until last year. I'm also sure you knew that Tullow didn't pay NHV for the 175s, it was just a PR exercise to get the SM into Ghana and give NHV a launch customer in O&G outside Europe. You think the 225 is dead globally. I disagree with a global view. I don't like it but that is commercial reality. Let's revisit this in 12 - 18 months.

"Payload? We can't fill a 225 or a 92 out to 170nm IFR at 32c" - You can't with a 92, that was my point. Maybe 'we' need to get back in the books on the 225.

Albatross, my data was from 100kg per pax, ISA +15. not going to reveal my PBH and burn rates but the 225 PBH was slightly higher but the fuel burn overtook it for the S92 for hourly charges overall. It was very close. S92 issue is the swapping of pax for fuel as you go further (135nm plus). 225 takes more people further for basically the same money. I stand by the figs I quoted below. Let me know by PM if you want to discuss further. PC2 yes.

Having spent all day yesterday crying, I'm now over it II... :)

Fair point but where, and on whose, credibility? There have been a few bites of a few cherries and little by way of explaining even the past oversights.

EC/AH225 sighting?
 

Unless I am very much mistaken, I saw an EC225 (as a retired 225 driver, it will always be an EC225 to me!) flying over Seaford and Newhaven yesterday lunchtime. It was overhead for around 30 minutes at an estimated 2000ft or so. It did not appear on Flightradar24, so I assume it was on a VFR flight plan.
Does anyone know any more about this?

bondu :ok:

Bondu, new glasses needed. Your aircraft did show on FR24 at 1230 and was showing callsign "164114". FR24 showed the hex code as 406D62 which G-INFO decoded to AS332L G-BWMG which is now registered to Airbus Helicopters. Guess it may have come out of Fleetlands on an air test.

ABZSpotter

New glasses indeed needed! It certainly looked more like a 225, rather than a 332L! But I definitely didn't see it on FR24.

bondu :E

Airbus fumes over UK ban
 

I read in the news that Airbus went:

"Frankly we have to understand why they are not following EASA: is that an anticipation of Brexit or is that due to other evolutions or influences? We need to understand that."
Airbus fumes over UK ban on Super Puma helicopter flights | Daily Mail Online

It looks to me that they are making a technical problem a political issue, which doesn't look very good to the public. If just the guys at AH read a bit around, there is a clear answer in:

"However, the report states: "Although the ‘interim action’ could reduce the frequency of spalling, spalling with the potential for catastrophic failure remains an inherent characteristic of the Puma family for which no long term solution has yet been identified (...) Despite the EASA decision, both the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority have kept bans on Super Pumas flying in their airspace in place.
The two organisations are awaiting the final report into the crash near Bergen, which is expected to be several months away."
Super Puma has 'potentially catastrophic' design failure, report claims (From HeraldScotland)

While I can understand the HS could not be the main read around Marignane, AH basically says nothing more about the report, other than denying.

So somebody seems to be telling us we would be safer with a single-sourced new design than with an evolution that we now know a huge amount about.

I'm not sure I can go along with that.

Heard that bristow Australia has pulled their 225's from storage and potentially getting them ready to fly? anyone know anymore?

Good news for AH and Boeing
 

Good news for AH and Boeing, looks like in Singapore they've hit the spot:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...opters-431238/

Military it's a totally different situation

Yes, they are expendable.

I hope you are kidding and even then it's not funny...

Actually, no trained resource is expendable, especially in aviation, for a matter of costs AND tactics. True is that military ops are based on different parameters: while in civil aviation you have a scale that's normally safety-economicity-tempestivity, I guess in military you have effectiveness at first. Plus, very different safety margins, since the aircrafts fly essentially much less than in commercial environment.

As a military pilot you cannot say no without repercussions.

What military are you flying for? It can be a lot easier than saying no in a commercial environment.

Most people on this site know military usage is a lot different from commercial.
Military aircraft usually do a few hundred hours/yr, commercial operators schedule a few thousand for jetliners.
So it is eminently reasonable for military operators to keep using the 225, it is a very good performer, it has a well established support structure and it is very reliable, plus it is available at a good price currently.
The fatigue issues that dog commercial operators are unlikely to be of concern to the military buyer. The revised overhaul life AH offers is about 10 years service for the military. That means it is unlikely to drive the economics for the military.

When the SA 330, the 225's predecessor, entered military service the TBO for the gearbox was 800 hrs. There was a concentrated trial in the 70's to extend this to 1,800 hrs. not for the benefit of the military but to make it acceptable for civilian operators.

It will be quite possible to focus on the military versions, they will be new build, will mostly not be delivered until after the completion of the accident report and will be fitted/retrofitted with whatever recommendations that brings. They can use the epicyclic which did not feature in the accidents and adopt stringent TBO and operating procedures.
This has been so from day one. I very much doubt however if, as some have suggested, it can slip back into widespread operation in Oil and Gas

If you do not think mil personnel are 'expendable' (tongue slightly in cheek) then you must not be aware of the 'second-class citizen' mindset that pervades the corridors of power.
That is why the UK mil at least were decades behind HSE and airworthiness regulations. If you ever thought otherwise I'm afraid you were very much mistaken.
The list of examples is effing endless and now we have slipped the surly bonds of this topic and danced the skies of thread creep........

Actually I'd say this thread has come to a plausible conclusion.
The AH fix for the 225 is sufficiently suspect to keep the type out of high intensity commercial service, but is adequate to give good confidence for much lower time military operations. The 225 continues to sell only to military operators.
Given the current state of the oil patch, demand there is still a good ways from recovery, so AH has time to come up with either a successor model or with a more convincing fix to the 225.

Don't kid yourselves. The O & G companies will secretly be desperate to get the 225's back in service because they know that the next accident will be a S92 (because that makes up 99% of the existing helicopter capacity). If it is a technical failure which it could well be and they are forced to ground it they will be up the creek without a paddle.

But then Bell's new wonder machine shall be ready to go.
And the AW239 of course.

A new type will of course solve all the world's problems. I shall put aside time in my diary for reading the 600 posts on that subject.

Which one? V-280 Valor or 525 Relentless?

Last thing I heard: it crashed... 😬unless you mean the new jet ranger?

Remember where you heard it first. :ooh:

North Sea helicopter in emergency landing at Sumburgh - BBC News

Jim

Don't worry, the AW139 and AW189 will ride to the rescue in those areas where they have the legs. Where capacity is short you can aways increase the number of flights.

G.

Not the Valor for sure because it's only military, and there's already the AW609 which is still a Bell aircraft; The jet ranger only sits 5 ppl; He's indeed talking about the 525, which unfortunately just crashed in a bad way.
Looks like there's not much on sight as far as new machines.
Fortunately, as Geoffers said :ok:, we don't really need what we already have.

In Brazil, H225 back to service yesterday flying with passengers. Very good news.

Yes, c'est fantastique, a French Helicopter flying for a French oil and Gas company using a Brazilian helicopter operator. Mainstream 225 service just around the corner it seems.

I hope there aren’t too many people on board the next one to lose a main rotor.

T&S your life is just about venting hate towards EC?

One thing for sure...a third fatal crash due to loss of the rotor system and the 225 is as dead as all the people it killed.

The manufacturer, the operator , and the 225 will all go as a package.

The authorities being government will keep right on as nothing happened.....as they will say it had nothing to do with them!

Totally agree. We know that the type of epicyclic now fitted to all the machines has never failed. So the (unspoken) conclusion seems to be either; the type used on the fatal accident flights had some undiagnosed design flaw or, the design was solid but subject to some form of undiagnosed externality which caused the accidents. So government has determined that the new regime of inspection and restriction will provide sufficient protection. If so I hope they are right. Of course, they may have access to information to support the decision that can't be in the public domain for legal reasons. That might make them less nervous than me.

Weren’t they the same folks that said the 225 was safe to fly twice before the second crash....once during certification then again after the first crash.

Now we should trust them a third time?

For sure someone is betting their life on that and it is not the bueauracrats.

Yup.
As desperately as you're hoping for this, it ain't gonna happen.
(Hint: They are the biggest Heli Manufacturer in the World - the Puma is a total niche product for them)
doubtful but possible.
in all likelyhood.

My life is about getting home from work alive so I can enjoy life.
I feel I’m a little lucky to be alive after flying EC225s and being particularly close to one of the MRGBs that later failed killing all on board.

Further, as SASless and others have pointed out: EC have incorrectly twice told us the MRGB won’t fail and kill all on board.

That, and they way they have handled the second fatal incident, causes me to hold that organization in disdain. This is obviously reflected in my attitude and posts.


“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Third time lucky?

Sorry to be pedantic but, only one 225 gearbox has failed catastrophically the other failure was a 332L2 which is very very similar but slightly different. Yes the architecture is very close but they are different, before I get flamed by all and sundry.

Well, destiny will catch you, where ever you are....

With Helicopters, normaly the Crew will kill you...

Looking through the accidentreports you will find, that about 90 % of the accidents are Human failures.....

Airbus has done quite a lot to prevent further incidents/accidents involving gearboxes. Which is a pain in the a.., cause I have to fiddel with the gearbox mag plug on a daily basis, even without any warning and on a different helicoptertype, just because of the similaritys of the gearboxdesigns....

It is good to prevent risks, but you also need work/live and take risks, which you can think you can handle.

The 225 has flown for years over years without major problems and I would rather get a lift in an 225 before getting in any Robinson helicopter....