Thanks for the response HC

HC, i think you are being selective with your corrosion!

Corrosion would not have been visible in that location on REDW with the naked eye as it would have been obscured by the plug.

Not sure whether the other corrosion on the main shaft was 2 thou deep and I frankly doubt that it is visible to the naked eye if it only became apparent on the CHC shaft after microscopic inspection.

TM yes I was talking about the corrosion on the inside surface of the shaft, not corrosion in the drill hole which as you say is obscured by the plug and probably difficult to see even if the plug is removed. However the photos that were published showing the corroded shaft internals against a shaft with internals in good condition (mirror machined finish) surely indicates that corrosion to that extent was easily visible?

I just checked the photos again (SIN 2600-S-00 on TIPI) and it doesn't make it clear what level of magnification is being used, however I wouldn't have thought it too difficult to visually check for corrosion with the appropriate degree of magnification.

Pablo, 2 thou depth doesn't sound a lot but in the context of a machined mirror finish, its obvious to the naked eye.
Just out of idle curiosity, have you looked into one of these shafts?



Post edited to make it less confrontational.

No, however 2 thou depth of pitting on a mirror finish is easy to see. Inside the shaft, not so easy to see without some gear, but with the right gear, easy to see with optical magnification as portrayed in the image in the SIN.

HC stay in the cockpit and stop pretending you have a clue about inspecting gearbox components in situ or on a bench.

Stop commenting on processes you have not done.

Lowfat, thanks for your advice but I shall continue to comment on whatever I want to comment on, especially when its a matter of common sense.

Rather than telling me what to do, perhaps you would care to make a positive contribution to the discussion by explaining how the photo in the SIN was obtained including how difficult it was? That is presuming of course that you have any idea.

What some of you might need to appreciate is that HC is far more than just a pretty face flying various aircraft. He has academic qualifications far beyond what is required to be a mere glorified bus driver.

But more to the point, his many talents and capabilities include much hands-on and in-depth experience with mechanical, electrical and electronic equipment.

There is very little that people formally qualified in those areas could surprise him with and had he chosen a career in any of those disciplines, he would have excelled.

So if he says "however 2 thou depth of pitting on a mirror finish is easy to see" then I suggest that you ought to believe it.

I await the predictable storm of snide comments from the usual suspects.

All true of course, although I think I would have substituted "fantastically handsome" for "pretty".

Colibri

Not being snide but I don't think I have ever read a more ridiculous post.

You may well know HC. So do I, in fact I have known him for 33 years. I sincerely appreciate his technical knowledge, opinion, pilot skill and even humour, which some don't always get.

But you have no idea of the qualifications, knowledge, prettiness or position of those who engage with him or their reasons for doing so. Until you do, I would be inclined to keep quiet.

I.I. On the contrary, from the way that certain personalities keep repeating the same worn-out criticisms, it is clear to me that some of them either aren't very bright, or just want to argue from their same old corners for the sake of arguing, or have agendas seemingly arising from jealousy.

I don't need to know anything about the backgrounds of other contributors to be able to pick up from what they write some clues as to their particular specialisations.

As for "ridiculous", yes I agree, but as for keeping quiet, it's a free society and how boring life would be without buffoons like me to periodically toss something outrageous into the mix.

HC is more than just a pretty face....other's words and certainly not mine....but he does bring much to the discussion based upon his extensive experience and unique insight to the EC-225.

One may not always agree with him....but he bears listening too....closely!

One thing is for sure here at Rotorheads.....issues get discussed....viewpoints get attacked....but we show respect to those that by merit of their background, abilities, knowledge and experience deserve it.

HC does in all regards.

As an aside....I would never accuse him of being pretty....as that would a purely false accusation!

Come on chaps, much as I love being the centre of attention, should we get back on topic?

But have you got down and dirty with the chaps poking about trying to inspect said shaft?

I think not, until you have done it stop surmising .

Your not helping. stick to what you know.

Colibri 49, I for one, as someone to whom you probably obliquely refer, have enjoyed debating in the interests of stimulating some discussion to counter the ease with which some seem to accept effete explanations of EC. The debate seems to be getting under your skin.

There can be no better example of a lack of real world testing, even if it only happens at speeds >125 knots on descent, than the MOD45 acquisition with the now 17 spurious MOD45 warnings.

Had this been properly tested in the aircraft by EC, it would and should have been known and software corrected before the modification was released.

It's all very well to say never mind, there there, it is only a software issue or a question of slowing down and changing the descent profile. But how such a lack of real world testing was missed by eminent experts, the OEM and the European regulators shows insufficient application of rigorous procedure and questioning and an acceptance of the EC spin.

I am not jealous nor do I have an agenda other than to be able to honestly answer passengers' questions and right now they are not impressed with the helicopter industry's explanations. Lastly, I don't care what you, HC, or anyone else thinks of my intelligence or perceived lack of it.

lowfat, no, but then neither have you. If only certainties were posted on this rumour forum, it would be a dull and postless place.

I am however aware that minor imperfections are easily visible in a mirror smooth surface, that the shaft has a relatively wide internal bore and is relative short (from the end to the area in question), and that a photo making the corrosion plainly visible is already in the public domain. Therefore I conclude that it is quite feasible to check other shafts in the same way, and to not do so would seem foolish. If you can't see all that, it is you who is posting from a position of ignorance.

To hear some tell it....HC has never seen a 225 up close....and knows naught of the machine or has never had any contact with those who design, build, and/or maintain the machine!

That is a very false Premise. How many times must we remind said Party of the fallacy of his suppositions?

Perhaps we need to expose said Party to the American Comedian who has made famous the saying....."Here's Yer Sign!"!



As HC can attest....in the past I accused him of knowing nothing else but the 225.

The poor Sod seems to be in a crossfire!

Just home from 2 days back on the 225. Just over 10 hours, 8 sectors, 4 instrument approaches and everything worked fine. Great to be back. Admin day tomorrow; wish I was flying.

Nice to see you back in the air. Any unexpected MOD45 indications? Or modifications of procedures required to
avoid unwanted MOD 45 warnings?

Post edited for clarity

Hi Hugh,

I flew 26 hours last month in extreme conditions and the machine behaved perfectly. You are right. It's great to get back in the saddle and enjoy the machine again.

DB

DB
26hrs, any observations on the MOD 45 light in service?

Hi Pablo

We watched the Mod45 messages quite closely to ensure they appeared as advertised ("Test Running", "Test Done" etc etc ) and the system performed exactly as advertised.

That’s good to hear. One or two people around the world appear to be having the odd problem getting used to the way it works.

As the 225 is the last commercial aircraft left in the world where the pilot has to climb up the side of the aircraft to get into the cockpit they have probably forgotten how to get in.

Ah....but it is such a short climb.....compared to real Helicopters....perhaps it will only take a few moments for them to recall how to do it!


Part of "Monkey Skills" was remembering which foot to lead off with on your climb to the Top.



http://avia-dejavu.net/G-BCTX.JPG

Real men had to climb into the cockpit of these; from the inside.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/e...ps829c3456.jpg

Some of us understand that concept......walking a long way up hill to the front office!



http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/hi...234_wood_c.JPG

Someone post a photo of the prewar HP Heyford or the Convair Pogo or Lockheed XFY 1 VTOl, or if you want helicopters the Mil Mi-10. That'll stop this thread continuing!

Such nostalgia, it’s a pleasant break from the current woes of the 225.
But it does focus the mind on the fact the BV234 which on paper ( I don’t have the paper to hand and I’m probably wrong) could be a more capable airframe was consigned to history due to a gearbox problem.
Back on topic, any one flying offshore with a 30 min rating after M Lube MODS?

Gearbox problem.....oh my....but only after a PR campaign to kill the introduction of the machine before it ever saw service. Just the opposite of the current situation.

SAS

The 234 never saw service? 40+ souls would beg to differ.

The Sultan

SAS. Can we call a truce and get back to subject.

Yes...who is flying the EC225 again on the North Sea?

I and some of my colleagues are.

a 234 did do the bad deed
 

The Sultan is correct, a 234 did release several souls, I have the report and you can too if you just google it. It was not PR the killed it, it was reality and it could have been fixed. IMHO it was a mixture of corporate cost cutting pressure and engineering ignorance or lack of due diligence. Bench testing does not a good product make. Good judgment is hard to define and find.

Back on topic.

Any new MOD45 indications not covered by previously published explanations?

Haven't seen any yet. All boringly predictable.

This is what we want to hear.

Seems that flying > 60kts and > 60Q and avoiding prolonged climbs and descents > 125kts keeps the mod 45 software happy.