Keke, thanks, its always interesting to hear the views of the passengers on relative merits.

On the subject of aircon, the 225 can of course be fitted with aircon and our fleet in Australia is so fitted. Its an option that UK oil and gas companies don't want to pay for. However it must be admitted that when so equipped, the weight of the 225 increases to the point where it can't carry 19 with full fuel.

On the subject of cabin space, its interesting that the actual cabin floor area of a 92 is only a little greater than a 225, and they are closer still if the window recesses of the 225 are taken into consideration. If there is an inch in each of width and length per passenger, that is about all. Of course the 92 has a much taller cabin and this gives the impression of more space, but space that is not used when the passengers are sitting down. However, whether imagined or not, it does seem that the space of the 92 cabin pleases the passengers!

I won't mention the tiny S92 windows!

From an earlier discussion.....




So what is the truth here on Windows.....between the 225....and the 92?


http://img8.custompublish.com/getfil...nterior.jpg%22

If the floor is slightly larger on the 92 and the cabin is much taller....it is a bigger Cabin....spin it all you want HC....but Sardine Cans are known for being wide, flat, and very not-tall.

Pity the same can't be said about their bags :p

Have you ever worked offshore HC? It is a pampered life of luxury but the walks are awful!

No, the Nimrods were all new airframes, not conversions.

Plenty of room on the line as the Comet was not exactly a commercial success.

Comparisons again!
 

SAS,Ii don't need to do any research to work out which person with a commercial vested interest you are quoting! Do we really want to drag up the old battleground? Well, you started it!

S92 windows 38cm x 49cm
EC225 windows 44cm x 71cm. 68% larger area.

Cabin floor size

S92 width 6.6ft, length 20ft

EC225 width 5.9ft, length 19.5ft, although the width tapers for the back 2 rows, hence only 2 seats at the back.

Cabin height

S92 6ft

EC225 4.8ft

So big difference in height which gives the perception of big increase in space, but space that is mostly only usable when embarking and disembarking.

VL, although I don't fly much, I can't remember ever having to bump bags, although I admit it can happen with a heli full of divers etc. It doesn't happen for a "normal" crew change.

Sorry Mate.....but you are completely wrong in that assumption.

As I only pulled part of a long post.....so did not attribute the small portion to the original poster.

May I assume you refer to Optional Windows on the 225 and not to the standard fit?

Somehow....I seem to see the additional cabin height to be of value no matter the manner of entrance/exit used....and whether it is a Normal procedure or one done under water in the dark....that extra height makes a world of difference not matter what.

.

Reminds me ;) :


http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2013/...2333250967.jpg
.

SAS, there is only one size of windows on all 225s used for oil and gas, its not an option. IIRC in the very early days (2005) EC decided to make the enlarged windows standard. I suspect that the military EC725 and maybe some early VIP config aircraft don't have them, but then they have different types of door and are not designed to spend their lives over water.

Lets see, finding a tiny window in a huge cabin vs finding a huge window in a tiny cabin - which would be easier?. Not sure, though not finding oneself under water is obviously the preferred option.

HC and SAS can argue all they want about windows. The fact is our passengers like (almost) the S-92. Its recent reliability and on time readiness means that they trust it. Conversely, they don't want to ride the 225 with the interim shaft fix.

Terminus, I think it depends on when you asked them! In the early days, the 92 was pretty unreliable and there were a lot of adverse comments about noise and vibration. Then they were scared after the fatal accident and the gearbox foot issue. Now that has settled down, the reliability as you say is better and since they are now scared of the 225, the S92 seems the better option to them. However these things have a habit of cycling round and at some point the 92 will probably scare someone again. Meantime the 225 having had a long absence will perhaps make its mark again!

On the subject of reliability, I think SKY were quicker to tackle annoying reliability issues, but EC are hopefully catching up and there has been a lot of work going on in the background, even whilst they are grounded, to tackle some of the recurring unreliability issues on the 225. Hopefully when it returns, the reliability stats will show its been worthwhile.

You can stretch and pad the 225 as much as you like but the girth will remain the same.
The 225 shares the same basic fuselage as its predecessor, AS330 Puma, which was built to a French Army requirement. Two of those requirements were:
To fit into the back of a C160 Transall.
To fit on a flatbed SNCF truck.

For the Transall there was a portable crane that attached to the side of the aircraft that enabled a team to remove the engines and gearbox in 30 minutes. A trolley arrangement that the aircraft was pushed over and then the mainwheels retracted so that the pylon canted down as it went in the back. A feature similar to the present 'kneel' facility and used for the same purpose.
For the SNCF it had to be narrow. Fans of armoured vehicles will know that French troop carriers of the period were famously high and narrow for the same reason.

I would support the reasoning that there was no point in designing a larger fuselage. It hits the military market, the S92 does not have one, and you are only adding space that is not used. I have spent a lot of time on operations where I am in direct social contact with my passengers and I have never received any complaints about lack of space, trust in the aircraft or anything else.

Really? You really saying that EC kick out transmission components that are corroded to such a degree you only get 167hrs out of them?

In any event what drives the TBO number?

Isn't it reasonable to expect a manufacturer to have undertaken enough of a test program to capture such faults that might occur within that timescale? (167hrs).

The problem here would seem that the two accidents threw up a host of issues that clearly they had the capability to fix and were so fundamental that one wonders why they were even issues in the first place.

Did something squeak?

Nope, Trolls grunt not squeak.

Si

P.S. good luck and thanks for the help.

Come on BB you can do better than that... the old troll thing, feed the troll etc blah is getting so predictable.

HC - so just to be clear you cool with everything. Its just one of those things and frankly the fact anyone should make any comment is a surprise?

Nope, Trolls grunt not squeak.
 

Are you sure, I just heard another squeak? Maybe its my corroded helicopter needing oiling.

Perhaps....if they flew more often there would not be all that corrosion nee rust on them!:p

That's the problem SAS, the CHC one had and the Bond one hadn't and yet they apparently had the same corrosion failure but one caused by a bad angle shamfer in a plug hole and one caused by sludge, all manifesting itself on one shaft.

Part of the explanation is that some of the stresses on the shaft were underestimated at certification, but this is not "believed to be a major factor"

Management and passengers (many of whom are non aircraft engineers) say "let's just wait for the new shaft".

When the S-76 first came out....it had two fatal accidents due to rotorhead failures. I was at the factory when that happened.

The failure was put down to unforeseen stress on a threaded portion of the Blade Retention system.

Sikorsky figured out what the problem was...and made the necessary changes in the design to make the aircraft safe.

It is now a very successful aircraft....with a long service record.

There was a time you could not give a 76 away.....but those days are gone.

It will be the same for the 225....the problem will be cured and the aircraft will probably go on to a long service life as well.

With as much riding on this....EC is surely going to do what ever it takes to cure the problem.

How long it takes is the issue.....not "if".

Meh, I started a post to respond to the Pitts but then I realised, you're probably an old soak with too much time on your hands. A legal background perhaps but a waste of space in aviation so MEH, go troll somewhere else with your flat cap, cocao and slippers.

I was about to respond to others but as usual Pitts ruins it so I'll not bother.

Si

BB - I've got more jobs in the 5 mins I've been posting here than anyone could have in tow lifetimes.

Anyway TM sums it up pretty well and so I don't spoil it for you - post away. I'll not comment again.

Go, go, go the field is clear....

Terminus Mo! For a professional aviator your last post is a disgrace. You know there are many aircraft flying today with managed defects (term used loosely), that are mandated by SB/AD requirements. You also know that this is entirely normal in modern complex aviation.

You are starting to believe the bull!!!! spread by the unaware of an industry regulatory system we must trust and support......or the alternative is rumour, gossip and supposition.

SAS, for what it's worth I think you are correct. The S92 cabin is more attractive to the poor pax who fly the long routes.

This EC225 issue has been dissected, analysed and risk assessed by so many reputable agencies that I have no problem flying the EC225. In fact I flew it today. Did not even think about the shaft!!

We are aviators. The call comes in, we have the necessary approvals, licences and certificates and we respond and fly. Pure and simple. The rest is crew room bull!!!! best left to the SMEs paid to do their jobs. We are paid to do ours. Lets get on with it!!

DB

.
Hello DB,

You're right and may I add that I've got friends who fly their 225 and 725 for heavy lift or real combat missions every day without any problem due to their aircraft.

On that thread, everybody is talking about grounding or RTF or "what is going to happen if the 225 returns to fly one day" like if all the fleet was not flying but the reality is that there are as many 225/725 flying that grounded.

And please don't answer as before "Not flying over hostile terrain" because first : a desert full of 4X4 Toyota with 50' machine gun is an hostile terrain if you're not in the car and second : failure don't wait to be over hostile terrain to happen and nothing happened in nearly 30 000 hrs at the present time.

I'm not saying that everything is perfect about this subject (far from it) but I would like you to remind that 225/725 are flying every day. That is the reality.
.

Good point, and it has to be asked "if the 225 had continued flying for oil and gas, would another one have ditched due to a failed shaft in the 9 months since they have been grounded?" And the answer, now that we know the cause, is almost certainly not.

I know all about that; I was flying them at the time and it killed Jerry Hardy. IIRC we already had armour around the turbines to keep the blades within their respective engine bays and the temporary fix to stop the rotor blades flying off were......












Tie Wraps.

At that time the S76 was prohibited from using Shell decks.

That was a very sad and tragic day. It was one of those events that mark one's Life in an indelible manner.

I admire your optimism Sir and unfortunately have to disagree.

Let me put it another way to you.

The oil and gas environment probably brought something to light a lot earlier than it would have in other operating climes.

Be careful with what is painted on the inside of your goggles.

You Sir are the biased one and your response is B-ll-cks.

If you had attended the recent presentations by Eurocopter, based on the independent opinions of a slew of world-leading experts, you might not be so hasty in your conclusions and personalised criticisms.

They have got the whole matter sorted out, down to a "T" and with hindsight, Helicomparator is absolutely correct in his assertion.

I've had over 3000 hours in the best helicopter in its class, now and for years to come. I can hardly wait to get back into her and several colleagues now flying the S92 would jump at the chance to get back into proper 21st century technology.

Odd that.....there seems to be a majority of two or three so vocal about the miracles of EC problem solving and design expertise....are there hundreds more merely lurking we hear nothing from?

I would swear some of you own Shares in EC or have some Shares in your Operator that might suffer as a result of any more bad news.

They say "Seeing" is "Believing" and I think the Jury is going to wait a bit before they pass judgement on this situation.

As well they might too.

Is that why Bristow is taking it so slow to join in the Amen Chorus? After all....they were accused not so long ago of letting commercial pressure affect Safety Decisions by not replacing a couple of Management Types that wandered off with visions of lush green pastures in their eyes.

Do you have any technical justification for that, or is it just your gut feeling?

No SAS, I don't have any shares in EC, although rumour has it that you have shares in SKY! Bristow is doing well with or without the EC225 so there is no financial influence in my position. Can you say the same thing?

I did a bit of historical research and I note with more than a little amusement how little this thread has changed since 2001.

Yes, post #20 is deja view (or whatever the reverse of that is!). But then the truth is timeless!

Sorry....no Shares in United Technologies.....although they do build some great Elevators.....and Turbine Engines.

As far as I read -

1/ The material of the shaft was changed?

2/ Manufacturing anomalies have come to light?

3/ Corrosion was the initiating factor that pointed to the above?

4/ Fatigue cycles were not apparent factors

5/ How do you define the in service exposure to corrosion without visual inspection?

6/ Usage Monitoring will give you ~ 6 hours notice (based on 2 samples in service and one test sample)

7/ is a bold statement seeing that it has taken this long to figure out what happened.

30 years as an LAME on helicopters and 30 years flying them. Yes I have read the AD and the SIN.

I have some experience with "reading between the lines" of documents like this. Read very carefully.



As the saying goes "Who knew?"

DB, I don't fly them now. But I do sign and pay the bills which pay your company which pays the wages. If Management is not satisfied, you will be flying your EC225 for pleasure, not hire and reward.

RVDT

1/ No, the material of the shaft wasn't changed on the 225. It was changed compared to the L and L2. But we have been operating with the "changed" material since the EC225's first inception in 2005. Well in fact the material wasn't changed, just the surface treatment I think.

2/ I did hear some mention of tooling marks, but was that ever actually confirmed in the various reports?

3/ Corrosion was the initiating factor, but not sure how it "points to the above"

4/ Surely it was a fatigue failure, brought on by cycles, but very prematurely due to the stress hotspots caused by the corrosion?

5/ Visual inspections were carried out and as far as I know, no other 225 was found to have a significantly corroded shaft

6/ Yes, although I think a lot more than 1 sample was tested to destruction in the lab.

7/ I say that because the primary trigger seems to have been corrosion, and (I think) it transpired that no other 225 had such corrosion. I don't see that the fact that it has taken a long time to figure out what happened makes my statement bold. Quite the reverse in fact. It would only have been bold if I had made it at the beginning of the process when the cause was not understood.

Or maybe flying for a customer who is better informed!

Bristow lost a lot of Shell business one time over a minor swimming pool incident as I recall. Oil Companies can be very fickle sometimes!

Not completely out of the woods. Read between the lines.