225 cleared to fly in UK & Norway
 

Super Puma 225 helicopters, which were grounded after a crash in Norway, are to fly over the North Sea again.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Norwegian authorities have allowed flights to resume if operators meet new safety conditions.
These include more frequent inspections and earlier replacement of components.
A crash involving the helicopter off the coast of Norway killed 13 people, including Iain Stewart from Aberdeenshire, in April 2016.
CAA head of airworthiness John McColl said: "This is not a decision we have taken lightly. It has only been made after receiving extensive information from the Norwegian accident investigators and being satisfied with the subsequent changes introduced by Airbus Helicopters through detailed assessment and analysis.
"The safety of those who travel on offshore helicopter flights is a key priority for both the UK and Norwegian aviation authorities.
"We would not have made this decision unless we were convinced that the changes to the helicopters and their maintenance restore the required airworthiness standards."
The CAA said that helicopters will not begin flying immediately. A plan of checks, modifications and inspections needs to be undertaken before any flights take place.
These include:
Change in the design by removal of the components that were susceptible to premature deterioration
Earlier replacement of component
Design change to introduce an improved maintenance inspection method to detect any deterioration at an early stage
More frequent inspections
Reduction in the thresholds for rejecting components based upon early signs of any deterioration
Mr McColl added: "We continue to work with the helicopter operators, the offshore industries, international regulators, unions and pilot representatives to enhance offshore safety standards still further and all these parties are actively involved in ongoing discussions."
Les Linklater, executive director of the offshore industry safety group Step Change in Safety, said: "At this time, there is an ongoing Airbus survey for pilots and passengers regarding these specific helicopters' flight safety and comfort, which was issued just one week ago. It's our understanding that this survey still has a further three weeks to run.
"Given the importance of the workforce's opinion regarding this highly emotive subject we do not feel it's appropriate to make any further comment until Airbus has gathered, and shared, the survey's results and can demonstrate how they intend to address any concerns raised by the workforce.
"We would encourage all members of the workforce to participate and have their voices heard."


Norway crash helicopter type cleared to fly - BBC News

Has anyone seen the survey yet? It was going to workers and pilots apparently.

Its on the O&G people website under the news section, and on the airbus website or here:

Airbus Helicopters Survey ? Outreach to oil and gas workers

The survey studiously avoids any controversial topics.
The nearest it comes to intersecting the real world is when it lists the 4 corrective actions taken wrt the gear box and asks whether the respondent was aware of them.
Possibly the meat is the questions whether the opinion of the employer, the union, the pilot or the fellow workers are very important in deciding to use the aircraft.

"We would not have made this decision unless we were convinced that the changes to the helicopters and their maintenance restore the required airworthiness standards."

The measures don't seem all that different to what was proposed when the European regulator approved flying 225s some months back. So it would help if some of the detailed analysis could be published. If we accept (and I do) that the regulators are independent, ignoring any political or commercial pressure; then, presumably, the detailed analysis has been based on examining the condition of a large number of both types of epicyclic used in the 225. Is it the case that the results of such a study have "convinced that the changes to the helicopters and their maintenance restore the required airworthiness standards"? While I am sure it will be discussed in the final report, some details of this analysis would help support the decision to go flying. The problem Unite, the pax, operators etc. have, is that unless they have seen the details, all they do know for sure is; (1) this issue has killed twice and (2) both these regulators got the decision wrong once before.

You made an assumption that many experts tried hard to proof to exist.

So far the so called solution had been introducing more idiot proof maintenance and has no impact to the design a part from adding an extra mag plug.

If politic has no place in the final report, it will be very interesting to see how they turn the "findings" early in the preliminary report into a non issue.

Isn't this all moot given that everyone has moved on from the 225 (almost everyone anyway)?

Well it is in the sense that even if it had been possible to find an absolutely definitive failure mode and remove it, the H225 or any other heavy for that matter, would still struggle. The market for that class of a/c in the E&P sector has certainly peaked. The S92 has gained share since the accident but, otherwise we would be seeing quite a few of those permanently withdrawn too.

The accident, the oil slump and the maturity of the North Sea have created something of a perfect storm here.

I think the future for these types is largely a military one.

Those who have 'moved on' are in serious danger of the numbers coming back and biting them in the ar5e.

That's partly because the numbers tell us that a highly popular type that does a huge proportion of the work and goes that long without a fatality is ground-breaking. It's also because there are competitor types out there that have been involved in hundreds or thousands of fatalities.

Seriously ??? Care to share which type has killed hundreds or thousands of people ????

Jim..........

I have told you a million times........... stop exaggerating :rolleyes:

Can you point to any evidence to support your claims?

What is it the 225 can do that the 92 can't?

I'm biting my tongue at that one...

The 225 had more pax/payload over longer distances than the 92 (in part due to the external fuel tanks rather than the 92s internal ones). It was also about $5-7m cheaper to purchase, which resulted in lower costs to the operators and customers.


But like many had said about, moot point now. No major operator will use them for O&G work again.

... that the 92 can't?

Not shake your teeth out?
Not deafen the Captain?
Range-Payload?
Autopilot?
Escape windows?
Float?
MGB run dry time?
...

Return to service.
I enjoyed flying the EC225. I hope I'm never asked to fly one^again.

I've seen nothing to suggest Airbus knows why* the failures that saw the rotor system detach, occurred. How can they seriously claim to have mitigated the risk of another rotor detachment causing the death of all on board?

^ or an AS332L2 with the same failure history.
* My understanding- they know what failed, not why.

V the S92
I'm amazed the payload/range debate is not settled.
I'm unfamiliar with the S92, but used to fly an EC225 on a contract which also had S92s. On occasions, we couldn't carry the required payload, and the S92 could. Some conditions must favour one machine. From memory, it was the high ambient temp that was a major factor in the S92s advantage in that relatively long range OS operation.

Reminds me of the Comet-Boeing 707 situation in a way.

A couple of Comets made like their namesake and it got grounded....in the meanwhile the 707 was out there flying and gaining buyers/Users.

When the problems got sorted on the Comet it was simply too late for it to recover its place in the World Market.

In all fairness he is maybe slightly exaggerating but not much:

S-61:
Civil: >181 Fatalities
Incl. Mil: >458 Fatalities
S-76:
>181 Fatalities


P.S.:
I don't have the figures for the Mi-8 but that will be easily in the Thousands.

Your fuel tank placement is incorrect.
92 has external tanks in the sponsons.
225 has internal tanks circa 4000lbs plus and additional 500lbs in each sponson. Same fuel uplift in both machines

I think what he meant was that for the S92 to compete on range, it requires the internal fuel tanks in the cabin which then reduces the space available for the pax. I'm pretty sure he knows about the sponson tanks......

No exaggeration required at all. I lost count on the Mi-8 family around 2700 and estimate the total must be between 5k and 10k (in RECORDED accidents).

Around 12000 built across many decades though.

From this week's Flight International ....

While expressing “deep regret” for the 2016 accident, Airbus Helicopters says it welcomes the lifting of the flight ban, but adds: “We understand that this will not necessarily result in immediate passenger flights as there is a lot of work to be done to restore confidence in the aircraft.”

Interesting statement especially with the sudden interest in surveying the users.

There comes a time in the life of all helicopter projects where for a variety of reasons the manufacturer decides to call it a day. I can see why it was necessary for AH to take this to the point where their machine was cleared to fly. Whether there is a commercial case for doing much more beyond that is something AH must have considered. It is a very different market now to when the H225 and indeed S92 were launched.

It would perhaps be very interesting and enlightening to see the same numbers for the entire Puma/Super Puma family. And then perhaps to equate all these numbers into a reasonable analysis of fleet size and hours flown. Anyone? Or are we all just satisfied with half an answer and a pretty meaningless statistic?

670/890 in 2014. I couldn't tell you how many they have killed through mechanical reasons.

Fareastdriver: Do you mean that through 2014, from birth, Puma/Super Puma have contributed to 890 fatalities? I find it hard to believe that in one year that many people lost it in that model/family.

You make a somewhat relevant point here. Except I would compare this EC225 helicopter problem to that experienced with the horizontal tail surface actuator jack screws on some MD-80 commercial aircraft. Basically a combination of design and maintenance issues occurring at just the right time to cause a catastrophic failure.

Lessons learned, right?

I didn't write that very well. That was the production figures up to 2014.

From 1971 I can remember eight fatal write-offs. Three of them mechanical, the others mishandling.

The difference between those two fixed wing examples and the L2/225 failures is that the reason for the fixed wing failures was determined and rectified.

Re-reading original post, I see that now :ok:

After reading comments from the not-so-informed on social media regarding all things rotary, you can forgive me for wanting to clarify!

Finally some common sense

BP will not reintroduce fatal crash helicopter - BBC News

I don't have the figures with me but the pattern for the majority of large types is that across a few decades if you put 1000 helicopters out there working then they will typically have hundreds of accidents and one or two hundred people might die in those accidents. Some more, some less. Generally, the more military stuff they do and the more they operate in poorly regulated territories, the more people die.

What seems pretty clear is that the S-92 and H225 stand out from their parents (S-70/H-60 and AS332), and the rest, in their low rate of mishap and fatality so far. Anything that fails to acknowledge that is regrettable.

We can hope the H175 and AW189 will make a further 'step change in safety'.

I have not looked at any numbers separating Mi-171 from the 8 and 17. That might be pretty interesting.

But when you click on that link just below the headline it says:Once that is established and the other oil companies start using the EC225 the economics will come into play and they will follow. Everybody knows the EC225 gives better payloads / range in most cases so the operating cost will be lower and this bottom line is what the beancounters are interested in.

Quite possibly, but I think what most have the issue with is the 'smoke and mirrors' and the ban being uplifted without understanding the root cause which is exactly what has happened. Im not getting into the S92 vs H225 argument because for me it isn't about that, its about yet again the aircraft being brought back into service without knowing what actually caused it. Putting chip detectors in place and reducing TBO and increasing inspections is simply not good enough. Stick a plaster on it, it will be fine, and if its not we will catch it in time. yeh right :ugh:

BP for me have taken the right decision, review the evidence when we understand what caused it. Only then can a proper informed decision be made.

I think that the 175 / 189 will fill the medium range market at a lower seat mile cost. The S-92 will continue to fill the longer range heavy requirement as it now does reliably. Contrary to what many think, the workforce does have a voice and won't welcome the 225 back if the stats are true. The return of the 225 is potentially therefore commercially irrelevant. Even if it came back at half price, which oil company aviation department is going to take the cost vs safety risk?

You might be right on all the above except when you say the offshore workforce has a voice in the UK sector. They do and stick together on the Norwegian side (still working 2 on -4 week off roster) but sadly not to the same extend on the UK side (same goes for the pilots & engineers).

The future will tell if the 225 will return or not, I think it might (but it will take some time) because sadly money talks.:ugh::ugh:

Shell and other supermajors say ‘no plans’ for return of Super Pumas


https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...n-super-pumas/

Last month, Petronas and it's contract partners issued a 90 day termination notice for the utilization of their 225 contract with MHS. This one does specifically identify ExxonMobil as terminating their utilization of the type on this contract.

Petronas' partners want to terminate MHS Aviation's helicopter service too | The Edge Markets

People keep speculating on whether the 225 will 'come back'.
Let's not forget that, in other parts of the world and with other operators, it never went away!

Could you be so kind to remind us of the Operators and Fleet sizes that continued to operate?