PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)
-   -   G-REDL 10 year anniversary. (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/620039-g-redl-10-year-anniversary.html)

VeeAny 1st Apr 2019 07:25

G-REDL 10 year anniversary.
 
Today is the 10 year anniversary of the G-REDL crash.

I for one shall raise a glass to all onboard this evening.

May we never forget them.

industry insider 1st Apr 2019 07:44

Agreed, a terrible tragedy followed by another one 6 years later with the same cause. 29 lives lost, a massively life changing event for the families and a still recalcitrant OEM.

212man 1st Apr 2019 08:18

2009 was a horrible year for the industry, starting on the 4th Jan with the PHI S76, Cougar 491 on the 12th March and then G-REDL, plus the G-REDU CFIW event that had no injuries.

Hedski 1st Apr 2019 09:03

Yet airbus still refuse to accept any responsibility for anything ever.

212man 1st Apr 2019 09:32


Originally Posted by Hedski (Post 10435533)
Yet airbus still refuse to accept any responsibility for anything ever.

Even the report on 9M-SSC (the SA330J that had the MGB failure) had an addendum from them saying they disagreed with the findings and suggested it may have been caused by the pilot's door opening and his brief case hitting the TR!

(Strangely enough, in looking to see what there is online about the accident I see that the registration has been reallocated (to MASWings on a Twin Otter). I'm surprised.


Mee3 1st Apr 2019 13:23

ah, another EC bashing thread.

SASless 1st Apr 2019 13:43

Is it "bashing" or recounting the truth?

Twist & Shout 1st Apr 2019 22:40


Originally Posted by SASless (Post 10435800)
Is it "bashing" or recounting the truth?

I’d go for “truth”
Airbus admit they don’t know why it happened, but assure us they have fixed it.

Personaly, I think the industry has fixed it, by keeping the fleet hours so low the next rotor separation might not occur for a significant time.

SASless 2nd Apr 2019 00:56

212Man.....do you recall anything remotely official that would suggest the initial failure could have begun with the tail rotor?

We are talking about the aircraft that was on takeoff and was video'd right up through the loss of the Main Rotor Blades before crashing behind a building out of view of the camera?

The one that had just completed some sort of engineering maintenance work just a few flight hours before the crash?

industry insider 2nd Apr 2019 03:51


We are talking about the aircraft that was on takeoff and was video'd right up through the loss of the Main Rotor Blades before crashing behind a building out of view of the camera?
No, its not that one SAS, its the Miri 330J Puma 9M-SSC which had an MGB epicyclic failure on 16th Dec 1980. I think it was carrying wives on a Christmas shopping trip.

SASless 2nd Apr 2019 05:34

Thank You!


212man 2nd Apr 2019 08:42


Originally Posted by industry insider (Post 10436266)
No, its not that one SAS, its the Miri 330J Puma 9M-SSC which had an MGB epicyclic failure on 16th Dec 1980. I think it was carrying wives on a Christmas shopping trip.

Yes, it was. Seen the photos - horrendous.


SASless 2nd Apr 2019 13:22

When the two most recent fatal crashes occurred that ended the 225's service in the offshore industry.....it was said that it and the first of the two crashes.....did not involve the same transmission design as in the 330/Puma.

Am I right to assume the crash being discussed has been the only such crash resulted from a MGB failure or have there been others that remained under the radar?

One such failure in all the millions of hours the Puma Fleet has flown is not a bad record I am thinking although any such failure and subsequent fatal crash is a real tragedy.

The two fatal crashes from similar causes without a proper determination of cause and a refusal to admit that is very worrisome.


212man 2nd Apr 2019 13:58

The fundamental difference with the SA330 was that there was an abundance of evidence of the deterioration - in fact it was amazing it lasted as long as it did given the amount of metal it was making. The issue was that the Chief Engineer did not know the difference between 7square millimeters, and 7 millimeters squared and was sticking the debris on his graph paper waiting for it to get to 49 square millimeters.........

In fairness (for want of a better term) the AAIB did a poll of the UK CAA surveyors and found about a 50/50 split.

SASless 2nd Apr 2019 14:14

I am that typical Yank that can barely convert Miles to Miles.....Statute/Nautical....but even I can grasp that difference even when given in Metric.

Time for a big dollop of Bailey's in my second cup of coffee to celebrate being able to do so.

50/50.....makes you wonder what all else got lost in the translation over the years!


RVDT 2nd Apr 2019 18:06


The two fatal crashes from similar causes without a proper determination of cause and a refusal to admit that is very worrisome.
Root cause is not definitive yet in all cases of these failures there is evidence of what happened yet it is circumstantial.

Sometimes you need to read between the lines.

Twist & Shout 3rd Apr 2019 00:57


Originally Posted by RVDT (Post 10436896)
Root cause is not definitive yet in all cases of these failures there is evidence of what happened yet it is circumstantial.

Sometimes you need to read between the lines.

Didn’t the same gear, in the same MRGB fail, leading to the same result?: Rotor separation/certain death to all on board.

Why the gear failed has not been determined.

This is what I read in the reports.

Oldlae 3rd Apr 2019 06:36

212man, to be pedantic, it was 5 mm, not 7, I talked to the C/E about it. The CAA wrote an Airworthiness Notice on the subject.

212man 3rd Apr 2019 07:28


Originally Posted by Oldlae (Post 10437240)
212man, to be pedantic, it was 5 mm, not 7, I talked to the C/E about it. The CAA wrote an Airworthiness Notice on the subject.

Ah ok - it was about 10 years ago that I read the report (original hard copy). I recall that actually the MGB was flushed at one point and the counting restarted from zero, so the actual accumulation was even greater than the error, so possibly that's where my own error stems.

Fareastdriver 3rd Apr 2019 09:25

When the Puma first entered military service the main gearbox was lifed for 800 hrs. between overhauls. In the early 70s Aerospatial decided to launch it into the civilian market but 800 hrs. was far too short to be accepted by civilian operators.

There then came a project known as the CAAP (Components Advanced Ageing Programme).

Five aircraft were involved. Three from the French Army and two from the Royal Air Force; one from each squadron, ours was XW203.

The plan was simple. Fly each one for 100 hrs./month, an horrendous number for a military aircraft were the rate was more like thirty. When a component came up for overhaul remove, inspect and replace in the aircraft. In this way the components could be proved to be able to have their lives extended.

This would lead to endless hours hovering in thick fog or, more satisfactory, using the aircraft for jollies to burn off the hours. Macrahanish for kippers, Gutersloh to stock up on German wine for functions, some even used it to travel for job interviews.

XW203 came to a sudden end in 1974 when an autopilot malfunction put it into an uncommanded barrel roll after take off of which it only managed 70% before coming back to earth. Both crew exited through the front of the aircraft with only minor burns.

However the project had been declared successful by then so the civil gearbox attained an 1,800hrs. overhaul life.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.