EC 225 latest ......so quiet
 

It has been a few weeks since we last heard Anything from Airbus or EASA or anybody else. I wonder what is happening either in Airbus (maybe they are secretly testing a new gear!) or the investigators. This silence is deafening for those of us who are 225 drivers.:ugh:

Anybody knows or has heard any good or bad news?

How close are you to Retirement?:E

ex-225
 

We have availability for 139 or 189 type ratings at your local friendly factory school. First come first serve.

G :)

Or perhaps Airbus are busy trying to negotiate a merger with Leonardo :ooh:

AH will have to wait for the accident report before they can finally address this. Those things take a while at the best of times and this one is very complex. I'm sure they are discussing with interested parties behind the scenes as whatever the fate of the 225 AH the lessors, operators etc will have to find a way forward. The solution may involve a fix for the 225 or take another path. Unfortunately it is going to take a while to work through.

Problem is the longer it is quiet the more people are going to mentally move on from the 225 and the job to get it airborne and people confident of it will be even harder. Sometimes a bulletin saying "No new news" helps ease the nerves.

Si

I agree entirely but there are two distinct markets. The E&P market has gone Perfect storm of no confidence, no demand, no future. Time to move on.

The military is another story. That hasn't gone yet and can be fixed in the longer term if an engineering solution can be found.

Although this pertains to the original grounding, I'm sure other operators may have similar issues with their customers?
Boustead's MHS Aviation seeks RM42.7m in damages from Petronas Carigali - Business News | The Star Online

I hope the topics under discussion after the obvious one will include AH inability to supply the glycol for the emergency lubrication system and the lunatic man hour eating inspection of the life rafts mechanism every 6 months.

Insider,

The 225 is DOA when it is put back "into" service as the Bears have turned their collective noses up at the thing.

I suppose Management at the Oil Companies could "force" their employees to ride in the things but I suppose such and edict would not be well received by the Unions.

What Admin, Safety, Labor, Legal hurdles would the Oil Companies have to get over to enforce such a policy?

SASless, it would be a good way for the oil companies to reduce their wage bills or am I being cynical.

By the time the 225 gets back in the air the labour situation for offshore people will have stabilised.
Which will mean a lot of people will have left and finding replacements will cost money, if only for training etc. It has been like this after each price slump. People are generally reluctant to re-locate, retrain when the memories of the last slump are still current and to some extent that protects the remaining workforce that has survived the culls.
In that environment any level of 'coercion' really costs money - if only through not having people to do the things that have to be done.
Bear opinion killed the 234 and it seems likely it will do the same for the 225

Here's some news:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...m-deal-429120/

So did you have that chat?

If we accept the "Damaged in Transit" theory for the one....what is the explanation for the other one?

'Damaged in transit'....really? Do Airbus realise their customers are grown ups?

This tragedy warrants a lot more than that. Whatever the final cause, the confidence of the people flying them and reputation of the 225 is pretty much shot!

Don't believe everything you read on these rumour forums (or the press for that matter). It could be malicious rumour, it could be from sources who don't know anything about it, or it could be just good old fashioned gossip based on hearsay of dubious source.

Wait for the official report.

I don't think it matters what the root cause actually was i.e. damage caused by a road accident and the subsequent repair by the OEM not correcting any issues.

The worrying part for industry is that HUMS did not detect damage and deterioration in the epicyclic such that it resulted in a catastrophic failure.

Or so the reports to date have indicated!

Indeed! That story is not nearly confidence inspiring enough to return it to service. There must be a clear way how to make sure this doesn't re- occur in future. Hoping that no one ever dings a gearbox again does not fulfill that. Besides the obvious question if the MGB od G-REDL was also damaged in an accident.
I seriously hope this is mis- information.

Il take a stab and say that's probably Bristow...

Or even the good old fashioned 'making metal'.

In the second failure....was there metal made to be detected?

There was a document at some point, in which Airbus removed from service any gearbox that had suffered an unusual event, this included impact damage, but also lightning strike, which the gearbox fitted to DL had previously suffered while fitted to another red aircraft.

Noiseboy-

That point about lightning strike damage to a main rotor gearbox is interesting. There are a couple way lightning strikes can damage main or tail rotor gearboxes.

Rotor blade lightning strike damage can produce sufficient dynamic imbalance force to damage mast bearings or even load bearing housing structures. I believe this occurred with an AS332 TR gearbox a few years back.

If the electrical bonding devices of a helicopter rotor system are poorly maintained and not performing properly, the next best electrically conductive path between the rotor and airframe are often the contacts between the rollers and races of the gearbox bearings. This can produce arcing at the very small roller/race contact areas, and pitting of the race surfaces.

Lightning strikes to turbine engine compressor blades occasionally cause damage to the shaft bearings. Here is an interesting report of one such incident.

A lot of Airbus Helicopter's future is tied up with the 225 program. They will find a cure for the gearbox problem and they will continue with strong military sales.
In a few years, especially if the the oil picks up and distant oilfields become viable, then a long range transport system will become necessary. Those that work in this environment will step into the back of a 225 with no qualms whatsoever.

I would be interested to see the opinions of the rig workers on that prediction. A bad rep can be tough to overcome.

Their opinions will count for little. Their taxi will turn up and they can either get on it or not!

No doubt some will. Remember though you are talking about 2 different cultures, the UK one and the Norwegian one.

Even in the UK the workers opinions will have an effect. It will not be visible in suited up passengers refusing to board the aircraft when it turns up outside the departure lounge (although personally I have been very close to that scenario, ironically with a Chinook at Sola in the 1980’s). They will usually have made their decision long before that, having considered work prospects, income, family,and many other personal considerations.

The oil company may fill the seats on the aircraft but the sum total of experience on the rig or platform will decline. That erodes confidence in safety levels offshore that leads others to then leave too. Experienced workers may already be disillusioned at having to work longer rotas, often for the same pay or less. Reactively, oil companies may then improve pay and conditions to try to arrest the decline (we have seen this before) and will wind up spending more (closing the stable door too late) just to keep one type of helicopter flying than they would have paid for an alternative type with slightly reduced but often adequate load/range.

By that time perhaps it will not be a Helicopter that is put into use for that long distance transport.

it doesn't look good for the super puma,
even the swiss military have grounded there super puma after another puma crash of one of theirs

Initial reports on the Swiss accident speculate that it hit powerlines.

Your comments on the military sales are spot on. The military have not moved on and there is time to restore confidence. In oil and gas, long short and medium range it's dead Jim. They have moved on and aren't coming back - no need to take my word for it ask the pax and the customers. Operators don't really come into it I'm afraid as however willing they may to resume operations be it is the client who ultimately decides.

The military may not have moved on, but they are not oblivious.
South Korea is making AH pay for deficiencies in the 225 derived Surion, notably replacing the gear boxes:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...box-gr-429923/

And more bad news for them.

Poland says ended talks with Airbus on helicopter deal | Reuters

Not good for Airbus but I imagine that is just a matter of taking a nationalist position to get a AW149 order for Świdnik rather than part of the 225 story that we know so well?

Is it correct to assume the EC725 Caracal uses the same gearbox as the EC225?

Someone told me the 225 may be flying again pretty soon! Anyone else heard this rumour too?

AD will be in a day or two. If you are from UK or Norway, you can forget about it.

But you may wait longer due to epicyclic time max

Any one care to decipher the above statement for me?