Originally Posted by helicrazi
(Post 10170686)
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...
|
if you’ve scratched that itch enough flying helicopters, now is the time to switch to the airlines. If you can.... GO....GO....GO.....GO! If you do....don't waste a second looking back! |
Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.
Two types with a substantial period in service (14 yrs), shine out above all that has gone before in terms of the raw numbers concerning accidents and fatalities. These are the S-92 and EC225. Maybe the 7 and 8 tonne newbies will match and exceed the standards set by the 92 and 225 (let's hope they do), but that remains to be proven. Other comparable aircraft have had hundreds of accidents including hundreds of fatalities. In particular, doing 12 years of intense CAT service without a fatality is pretty outstanding. The numbers are out there. " when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it" William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) [Helmet, body armour, take cover.] |
Originally Posted by jimf671
(Post 10173909)
Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.
The numbers are out there. Is there a link to the numbers that you can share? |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10174015)
Is there a link to the numbers that you can share?
It's a while ago now so I don't remember all the details of where and how, but in 2013 I set about trying to get some perspective on this. ASN wasa major part of that. Once you start looking back at things like S-61, 330, Mi-8, and 332 accidents, the numbers stack up in a way that is no longer happening with modern types. Take the Mi-8/17, which have been produced in very large numbers compared to most types. The number of accidents is large, though not very large in relation to the number built, but when you get to many thousands of fatalities and then can't keep count, it's quite chilling, and the contrast with modern types could not be greater. |
Progress or no progress
Originally Posted by jimf671
(Post 10173909)
Some people need to swot up on the raw numbers of rotorcraft accidents, and deaths.
Two types with a substantial period in service (14 yrs), shine out above all that has gone before in terms of the raw numbers concerning accidents and fatalities. These are the S-92 and EC225. " when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it" William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) [Helmet, body armour, take cover.]
Also we need to debunk the myth that most accidents are pilot related. Of course, in aviation in general that is true. But in the NS the vast majority of these 144 deaths were attributed as having a primary mechanical cause. So why has the Puma been singled out;
|
Slight correction, there were fatalities in the period 1987 to 1996, Cormorant Alpha 1992, Brent Spar 1991, to name a couple of fatal accidents.
|
Originally Posted by vee_why
(Post 10176190)
Slight correction, there were fatalities in the period 1987 to 1996, Cormorant Alpha 1992, Brent Spar 1991, to name a couple of fatal accidents.
|
(Probably a partial) list here, from O&G UK, from start to 2017
https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/wp-content...dents-2017.pdf |
I was walking around Alnwick last night about 5pm when a 225 circled around. Red paint scheme with silver flashes (Bond/Babcock) ?. Disappeared from sight wondered if it went into Bulmer? Driving to Dyce tonight caught a quick sight of possibly the same aircraft landing at Dyce. Are they flying again? Anybody have any info. Thanks, Ken
|
Think you will find that was AS332L2 G-REDM on airtest supposedly going to Spain firefighting?
|
Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd. |
Originally Posted by industry insider
(Post 10180310)
Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd. |
Originally Posted by industry insider
(Post 10180310)
Leased 225s are also required to be airworthy before being returned to lessors. There are quite a few leaving operator fleets and being returned this year. Lessors are not happy about being stuck with them. No one wants to be left holding a turd. It seems unreasonable to have the lessee pick up the responsibility for leasing a deficient unit. |
There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status..
|
etudiant
Surely the lessor retains the responsibility for the airworthiness of the item. It seems unreasonable to have the lessee pick up the responsibility for leasing a deficient unit. bombdoorsopen There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status.. |
Originally Posted by bombdoorsopen
(Post 10180867)
There are 225 returned by CHC in various states of maintenance...all abandoned.. Left for someone else to pick up the bill to return to airworthiness status..
|
Who are the Lessors of the 225's and how big a bath did they take when the 225's fell from grace?
|
Milestone, Waypoint LCI and Bristow who purchased through its Brilog Leasing subsidiary to then lease at inflated prices to its various business units and to contract on to clients. There is quite a fight going on between Airbus, Financiers (BNP Paribas for many of the 225s) Lessors and Lessees.
It was all good living high on the hog for the short time it lasted but the oil industry has structurally changed and the oil and gas helicopter business is going to be a diminishing one from now on. |
Originally Posted by industry insider
(Post 10181265)
etudiant
No, it is the Lessee's responsibility to maintain the aircraft in accordance with the OEM maintenance schedule and in an airworthy state. Remember, most leases were taken out way before the 2016 fatal accident. Airbus does not accept that the 225 is deficient of faulty, after all, its no longer grounded and regulator groundings are excluded from lease arrangements. bombdoorsopen CHC did return non-airworthy 225s aircraft to lessors but that was under the provisions of Chapter 11, not the lease agreements themselves. It seems logical that the lessee be required to maintain the aircraft appropriately, but I am surprised that this would include AD responses as well. If I rent an apartment, I don't assume responsibility for repairs due to building code adjustments. Aircraft leasing clearly has some pitfalls for the unwary.... |
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.