But it's not between a 225 and a Robinson is it.

Destiny will catch you wherever you are!?!

I’m finding I’m perhaps not thinking like the majority of pilots.
I prefer to rely on facts and logic.
For eg:I’d rather follow the ECL than bleed a goat, in an emergency.

We all understand that flying Helicopters is not now, or ever going to be, risk free. The differences from what we usually accept, and the EC225 risk include:

-It is a known and demonstrated (unfortunately) fatal fault.

-Nothing the pilot can do, can predict, or mitigate it’s occurrence.

-If it occurs, no amount of skill or luck can prevent a terrifying last few seconds of life.

No one has claimed they know why two similar MRBs have failed in almost identical ways. Some things have been done that might make reoccurrence less likely. This is good enough for some people. Not good enough for me.

If you are flying an EC225, and are happy - good on you, and I wish you all the best. They are a great machine to fly.

I hope never to fly one again.

Viv le difference

lol when you said relying on facts and logic, you are doing the opposite.

@T&S - causes were found, rollerbearings from one Manufaktura were within limits but slightly different in shape and in both incidents within the gearbox.
These are withdrawn and no longer appoved.
Second was a rough handling (drop) of the gearbox recorded.
Gearboxtransport is now closely monitored and gearboxes, which suffer rough handling or i.e. a lightning strike are withdrawn from service.
Additional Checks to discover metal are brought in, the runtime of the gearboxes are reduced.
What else do you want?
A new gearbox design?
Nearly every helicopter has planetary and sun gears and therefore could have the same failure- where as in a 225 the fault was analysed and the risks reduced as far as possible.
With the rollerbearings now only permitted was no accident so far, with the ones withdrawn two.
Even with a high pressure behind getting the 225 airborne again, I‘m quite sure, that Airbus knows what will happen, if a similar accident happens again and won‘t take that risk...

.
At the present time, there are more than 250 H225, EC332L2 and KAI Surion (all with the same MGB) flying every day around the world.
.

According to a recent briefing by Airbus at the present time there are more than 120 H225s that remain grounded by their operators and customers.

That's the problem Flying Bull, Airbus has proven itself to be cavalier taking risks with the L2 / 225 gearbox since 2009 and I for one don't trust what they say, at least until the final AIBN report is issued.

That's right.
and they're not alone. According to Westwood’s annual World Offshore Helicopter Market Forecast, global helicopter fleet utilisation hit a low of 54% in 2017 due to falling demand. Oil companies required fewer journeys offshore and as a result, many airframes were put into storage.

Care to support your claim?

You see, it is openly admitted no one knows why these gearboxes came apart.
If they knew it was one of these reasons, they would have fixed the ONE reason.

Basically for eg, AH are saying “we use two manufacturers of the gear, only one has failed, so maybe, that’s the issue.” (Allegations that the other manufacturers gear has been found with spalling, but none have actually failed have been reported on this forum, but not addressed. )

The first failure occurred in a gearbox that hadn’t had been reported as exposed any unusual shock. But that might have been the reason the second failed in an almost identical way. Where is the logic in this?

After the first failure of this design in the AS332L2, AH said similar things: “increased inspections might prevent further catastrophic, fatal failures”. They were proved, at great cost in human life, to be wrong that time.

Some of you guys are falling for a propaganda campaign of smoke, mirrors and a scattergun approach. Perhaps reading comprehension is an issue for some.

Stay safe my friends. (Avoid believing what proven liars tell you.)

Playing Russian Roulette with 1000 chambers empty and only one loaded with a +P hollow point. Statistically quite safe, but the next flight could be the last.

To continue with this colorful analogy:
The rest of the industry is doing the same thing, but 1001 chambers were checked and empty before the game. Doesn’t mean you can’t drop the gun on your toe, or be hit in the head with it, or even have a bullet slipped in after the inspection. But it’s not the same as pulling the trigger, knowing there is a loaded chamber.

AH have tightened the trigger, cleaned the grips, painted the muzzle orange, and checked some of the chambers..might have fixed it....this time.:ugh:

I would like to think that AH know definitively that the problem is confined to a single type of MRB arrangement i.e. the one that failed but can't say so for legal reasons. Hopefully all will be made clear by a future report. The corner they have backed themselves into is that previous statements, especially the suspension rod debacle, has undermined credibility somewhat. So trust has been eroded. This cloud is going to hang over the type unless and until the AIBN are able to give us something more definitive

The simplest answer is that AH has acted to close off the most plausible causes of this accident, but has no special knowledge beyond that.

Perhaps AH could show their confidence in their fix by offering very substantial free life insurance to all 225 passengers. If the payout were set at a few million pounds sterling per head, people might be less troubled. Also, the underwriters might be more motivated to find the answer than the authorities.
Separately, afaik all components involved were properly certified and operated, so if there is a deficiency, it is a regulatory problem, rather than a corporate liability.

It seems that market uncertainty in this segment is such that AH has delayed the launch of the X6 replacement until it can make a better commercial case and the suppliers can deliver more disruptive technologies. It would seem that AH will concentrate on military customers in this segment for the time being at least.

Seems the H225 is coming back. Albeit in other Markets than NS O&G:
https://www.verticalmag.com/news/air...di07BQQg%3D%3D


Particularly interesting for me that there were 54 orders in 2017.

Think Kuwait armed forces ordered around 50?

225
 

All good points, the downturn in oil n gas was good timing to drop the most successful long range option from the game -leaving the rest to fill the gaps whilst reducing long range projects, and rejigging to reflect $50/$60 oil.
I believe the 225 / 725 will fill the military market,and some niche slots-SAR and perhaps UN type roles, but only the financially brave would suggest it as an offshore option for a good while yet-shame , i am a fan , and a lot of experienced offshore types came around to it as the better option-begrudgingly .
:ok:

Who for? certainly not for the poor souls squeezed in the back. In some of the seat there is so little leg room that it is virtually impossible to walk after a 2 hour flight.
Even before the fatal accidents there was a growing objection to their use.

On a puma, you numb your legs for two hours. On a 92, you shake your spine for 2.5 hours. One have insignificant higher per hour cost compare to the other. The other flies longer hour to cover the same range. Did not see any trend suggest what you claimed.

The design has serious flaws, and needs to be redesigned from the ground up.

They can fly massive Mi26’s around without their gearboxes having catastrophic failures and I would imagine the maintanence standards of those aircraft being somewhat diminished compared to western types.

With the budget and resources of Airbus, this should be something easily rectified with an appropriate amount of development and money.

What happens when the next one loses it’s rotors?

I haven't really noticed a vibration problem on the S92 - I remember the early Pumas before the pitch reduction shook that much you couldn't read but the S92 cabin is spacious and comfortable.
You wouldn't see a trend about people complaining, you would hear it if you worked amongst them

Yes but look at it from AH point of view..

1. Despite some green shoots the E&P market for heavies is down and recovering only very slowly. Most think its halcyon days are gone. The accidents have left the /2 and 225 with a damaged reputation. Only 20 something have yet returned to E&P.

2. It is not economic to embark on a complete redesign at this stage in the product lifecycle. This is compounded by the inability to track down a definitive cause of the current problem.

3. The 225 is selling well in the military/quasi military arena with 54 orders last year and production being scaled-up to meet demand

4. The successor project has been suspended as AH don't think the technology or demand for it is sufficient yet

So it is easier and cheaper for them to play second place in E&P and try and prevent further accidents with the measures they have introduced. They seem to believe they can sleep easily with that and they have much better knowledge of the problem than I. i hope for everyone's sake they are right.

Hopefully the AIBN will find a definitive cause but at the moment their silence is deafening.

But the S-92 has hardly been without its own gearbox failures....

Of course you are completely correct ShyTorque but I would prefer to travel to my demise in reasonable comfort than squashed like a sardine in a tin.

The Puma, and its successors, has always been a military helicopter. Narrow, so it can fit on to a railway truck, low, so that with the gearbox removed it is tactically air portable with a cabin designed for squaddies to sit in for fifteen minutes before they go to war.

Not a lot has changed over the years.

The cabin is still cramped, the passengers have to surmount a step to get in and it must be the last commercial aircraft in the world where the crew have to climb up the outside of the aircraft to get into the cockpit.

Its day has gone; like me, I flew them for thirty six years and they have had enough of the civilian world.

Militarily is different. The specifications haven't changed a lot and they are abreast with the electronics and systems so there is still a future.

Its like the Comet and the Nimrod.

What he said. Except I didn't fly them anywhere near as long as Fareastdriver, thankfully.

NEO

New home for some of the ex-CHC machines:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...opters-449103/

Interesting. One wonders how they can afford this ?

That's because you don't know the price of a second hand 225 (ex O&G) !
.

on contrary, 225/725 are selling slightly lesser price tag but definitely no where close to 50%. Actually been a good sell for 2 consecutive years.

Ooo, so much spin I'm feeling dizzy ;)

ICG Icelandic Coast Guard is getting two H225 Þyrlur Gæslunnar endurnýjaðar langt á undan áætlun: ?Stórt skref fram á við? - Vísir

Earth is round and spinning. Hold on tight!

Just thinking out loud...Would the French oil companies be interested to use "their" machines in future offshore contracts?

Who said the 225 would never fly commercially on O&G again? Obviously Total E&P seem happy to take them on board. I am sure these flights will be watched like a hawk by others

I'm not sure anybody did, and in some countries they never stopped (Vietnam), however I don't think anybody seriously thinks they will appear in the N. Sea again.

Tip Cap wrote:

There is a lot of background to this. C'est Team France in action.

As time goes on, more aircraft are being returned to leasing companies. The market is still down, Super Mediums are becoming established where they make sense, in some cases replacing what were 225 contracts. There are spare S-92s available on the market. Many new tenders no longer include the 225 as a qualified type.

Spare S92's, but no surplus of type rated pilots and companies reluctant to pay for the ratings. Industry is on its head, anyway I digress...