|
You are right Pablo, in descent keeping a speed below 125 Kts will prevent a "MOD45 FAIL" message. See the new Information Notice 2611-I-63.
Cheers |
As I posted avoid prolonged descent >125 kts.
|
Yes Pablo and drakkar, just as I posted in #496. I hope there is a software fix, we will not accept the EC225 back with operational limitations. Our staff are much happier with the S-92 which has been very reliable.
|
.
ERA returns EC225 to service : " Era Group Inc. has returned two of its Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico to service, and plans to resume operations of two other EC225 helicopters in the Gulf of Mexico by the end of August, the company reported on Tuesday. " http://www.verticalmag.com/news/arti...ers-to-service . |
I hear CHC is also operating EC225s again out of Aberdeen,and in Australia.
|
Originally Posted by heli1
(Post 7999473)
I hear CHC is also operating EC225s again out of Aberdeen,and in Australia.
While for Bristows, From Bristow's Press Release 30 June 2013: The current situation will continue until the necessary modifications are made to the EC225 fleet and we are confident that the interim modifications will allow us to operate the aircraft safely, which could result in our return to revenue service for the EC225 aircraft in the third quarter of our fiscal year 2014. |
Originally Posted by HeliComparator
(Post 8008713)
Yes, but if I did I'd get flamed!
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...1cb4871ebc.jpg :ok: |
Can anyone explain the cause of the differential between the return to service dates for the CHC and Bristow fleets? |
Some fairly oblique comments have been forthcoming. Let me put it another way, is there any significant difference in the maintenance regimes operated by CHC and Bristows or are they pretty much on a par?
If however the answer is that they are very similar, this still does not answer the matter of the discrepancy in the return to service dates. :confused: |
Q3 fiscal = Q4 calendar
|
Colibri, how does Bristow's financial year affect the the physical difference in return to service dates?
|
AS, it may be that Bristow have an alternate view to CHC vis risk and shareholder/public perception.
|
diginagain, Meaning they are simply holding off for PR reasons and not because they are undertaking additional exploration of the problem or employing additional technical precautions?
|
I wish I knew, but I'm just a punter at the SLF end of the business.
|
Bristow return
I don't think this is a result of any additional works been carried out at Bristow but more just giving themselves room to move. Unfortunately for Bristow their quarterly business reporting period is within days of EADS. As we know earlier in 2013 certain comments made from Bristow CEO seemed to suggest their view on return to service was different to the "reported to shareholders" view.
Obviously it's one thing to be casual with remarks to the press and another to have your words recorded on an earnings conference call with the people who own you. Which is important to remember - whilst operationally it might not figure at some point in the chain somebody has real money invested. I think after the various backtracking in the early part of the year Bristow came up with the line which was "return to revenue service" by the end of 2013. Giving them time to bed system and process and allow them room in conversation to align and not seem to contradict Eurocopter. One element which was very poorly managed by Eurocopter through the 225 issues was consistent communication. They would report one thing to (for instance) shareholders which was totally different to that being presented to the oil and gas industry and operators. Because there was nothing officially released by Eurocopter it was easy to see how rumour and misunderstanding could spread. For example one large US institution advising investors thought at one point ALL eurocopters worldwide were grounded! Sadly for a while it demonstrated Eurocopters poor relation position in the EADS group. Clearly the recent accident isn't going to help matters re: clarity of the issues although the new 225news website is a big step although my only complaint is that should have been available as a single point of reference in Q1 2013. |
Sorry just to add:- the co-ordination with operators should have been managed better too because frankly you have a situation where despite Eurocopter suggesting the interim fix of 225 is valid you can see how it looks when one operator still isn't flying.. I have no idea on the differences at CHC and Bristow but you can see how it looks. Also there needs to be better co-ordination with Eurocopter and the AAIB because you currently have an odd situation where the manufacturer seems on one hand to have to be sensitive to it's place in the process - re: what it can or can't say whilst at the same time having huge engineering resource and providing a lead in terms of expertise and putting up solution - whilst we have had nothing from the AAIB still in conclusion to the 225.
This clarity and speed of accurate reporting is going to be even more important after events of yesterday. |
Actually it's two operators not flying, Bond are also not yet flying the 225.
|
Pittsextra, can you please tell me the date and time of last comms between EC and industry and lets incl the L2 incident! Can you tell me what it was and entailed? I will give you a clue-got a email3 hrs ago! Lets see whether you even on the mailing list before we read your posts of no comms from EC and continuous accusations!
|
Pittsextra-good morning! You figured out the email yet and no EC comms? I woke up to another email alerting me to go and read the latest................? I really hope after your statements you can tell us how EC communicate with the operatorsby telling us whether you got mails to and what they refer to.
|
Good morning to you VP.
I'm not sure what part of my post you think your emails from EC contradicts? As I said the communication is inconsistent in 2013 you had a situation where Bristows Bill Chiles was on record with an earnings call whose remarks were dismissed as press spinning a story at a HSSG meeting. You had the CAA slap Eurocopter down after comments from their now ex-CEO. There was even a rediculous situation where operators had a document detailing the pathway for return to service whilst weeks later EADS/Eurocopter and Bristow executives going on record saying they could not comment on the return to service of the 225. Now maybe if you spanner these things you get a smug feeling getting some forward detail but that misses the point on several levels. Of course the masses (be that passengers, family, investors, owners, executives) don't need to know every last engineering detail but it helps if everyone can agree on the basics. Anyway that's my view. What's yours? There was a view suggested by someone that they knew why CHC pushed to get their 225's but the post got deleted after the accident on Friday. Anyone that hasn't grasped the notion that the future of the 225 in this region is as much about good PR as it is solid engineering is oblivious. To that end I do feel the co-ordination between operators returning these things to service has been poor. |
Your statement in your second post was that EC should communicate more and better with the operators. My point is that you dont know what gets communicated when and how and your statement above prooves that you have no right to critisize what you are not party to.
The 2 mails I received the last 24 hrs referred to was what all registered operators would have received too via TIPI to alert us there is a new Safety Alert Information Notice from EC for us to read. These alerts can be for ASB's, general Information notices, amendments etc. These 2 specific ones were regarding the L2 accident to update us as to where EC stands, what they know, what they suggest etc. We got the same for the 225 regularly with full technical reviews, photos, progress etc. My point thus is if you want to confuse yourselve with speculative journalism, do not blame the OEM and assume us who are registered operators do the same and make statements according to that speculation. We are informed by the horses mouth even though you are not. Surely it is not just the OEM's responsibility to update the operators clients as I for one would prefer the OEM updating the operator and spend the rest of their time getting me flying safely instead of getting involved in speculative journalsim and trying to explain what will never be fully understood by non aviation personnel! I dont proclaim or even try to suggest I understand a oil rig and its issues, so why does so many assume they understand aviations? |
VP I really don't know why you have your knickers in a twist over my 2 posts. The 2nd post of mine suggests better "co-ordination" between parties. What part of that do you disagree with? CHC flying, Bristow and Bond not. Someone asked why they thought that situation existed. I suggested that my feeling Bristow were not currently was to give more time process wise, wiggle room and set as accurate picture for investors.
WTF has any of that got to do with journalism? If you have a different view why Bristow are yet to return go ahead, let's hear it. Beyond that the communication has been poor which is why the current mess exists. For example one thing people will say about Fridays accident is "let's wait for the AAIB to do their job" by which rational we are still awaiting their view on the 225 despite Eurocopter and operators suggesting it's wrapped up. Quite why you feel communication in some way detracts from the engineering I have no idea. |
.Hello Pittsextra,
I really admire your consistency in this thread and the 225 ditching. More than 400 posts critizising in each one either EC, operators, unions, pilots, EASA, AAIB etc ... and that on each matter (safety, engineering, communication, regulation, flying etc...). I hope you'll reach your goal and you'll unveil the conspiracy fomented by these aboves. . |
No conspiracy theory here, but it has been handled very badly which is why you are where you are. Even at the very end after an interim fix has been signed off and it really, really, really does work this time there is still on going "fixes". Not withstanding the fact in cockpit HUMS was specifically rejected after G-REDL which is now something EC are all in with now..
Anyway 18 months on, many still not in service and one un related accident sees calls for the whole family to be grounded. Got to say if you think that's a well handled event I'd hate to see your version of a bad one. Good luck. |
CHC 225 sleeps overnight on North Alwyn platform after 'indicator' illumination
The helicopter, an EC225, which was only recently returned to service after being banned by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), had an indicator light come on as it was set to take around 15 people to shore. They were forced to remain on the platform overnight and wait for an engineer to come to clear it for flying. A spokeswoman for CHC helicopters said: “We can confirm there is an aircraft on the Alwyn platform overnight after an indicator light came on during a series of routine checks. It was not a warning light and this is not an emergency scenario. “There is an engineer going out this morning as, for logistical reasons, it was not possible to travel there last night. If it had happened earlier in the day, there would have been no need for the aircraft to remain overnight. |
Another much ado about nothing!
The P & J would be better employed reporting old ladies locked in the lavatory! With all the rubbish that has been talked by people who know little except how to write a story I'm surprised they didn't come back on the back of a workboat. |
.
Bristow Returns Two Eurocopter EC225s to Service in Norway : "Bristow Group said Wednesday that it returned two Eurocopter EC225s to service for energy platforms in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea". "it plans to return the remainder of its EC225 fleet earlier than expected" Bristow Returns Two Eurocopter EC225s to Service in Norway - WSJ.com . |
.
HELITECH: Avincis signs for three more EC225s : "Eurocopter's under-pressure EC225 has received a vote of confidence from operator Avincis, which has placed an order for three of the heavy twins for its Australian operation. This adds to a recent commitment from fellow offshore firm CHC Helicopter, which has ordered an additional four EC225s." HELITECH: Avincis signs for three more EC225s, despite ditchings . |
EC 225 freewheel problem
Hi I don't know if there are other operators that has freewheel problems. Our relatively young fleet has had three such problems...two of which was felt and reported by me :O A third one experienced a flameout due to the slippage. All the three cases are from the No 2 engine.
In the previous two cases I felt a pronunced increase in the yaw when No 2 eng is engaged ( No 1 eng in flight) . It is really difficult to tell how much is too much and always leads to some debate with the engineers! |
Yes this can be an issue. For some unknown reason the #2 freewheel seems to wear more quickly than the #1. We did have a problem with what EC call "late engagement" - a slight overswing of N2 above Nr on engagement - which caused us to replace I think 2 MGBs before their overhaul life, although in both cases the MGBs were close to end of life (2000 hrs IIRC).
EC has been working on an improved freewheel unit for some time now and it must be close to being available, if not available already. Of course it can only be fitted when the MGB is sent for overhaul. A factor may be where you get your MGBs overhauled. If done by a third party they may or may not have a policy of replacing the freewheel units regardless of condition. Since Bristow has EC "power by the hour" all our MGBs are overhauled at the factory. Anyway, if there is a hint of late engagement the MGB should be replaced. It is indicative of excessive freewheel wear and the next step might be freewheel slippage under load with corresponding over speed shutdown. You may be aware that, if you start the second engine by going straight to "flight" the engagement is fairly harsh, whereas if you start by going to Idle, then move to Flight once it has stabilised at idle, the engagement is softer. However I suppose this might help to mask the signs of freewheel wear and thus not be a good thing! |
Eurocopter-Video about EC 225 MGB Issue
|
HC,
Thanks for the response. Actually my super sensitive butt felt another indication of late engagement of the No 2 eng. Last week on one of our machines .The advice from the tech rep was " Start No 2 Eng first and if there is no kick/ yaw on the engagement you can go for your mission " ! Anyway I did the ground run and sure enough there was no yaw but when I put No 2 eng to idle and then to flight a yaw was felt. Engineering did not find any yaw or Nf / Nr mismatch when the Hums was downloaded. I am not convinced by the tech rep s advice and had a good debate over it with the engineers. Trouble is the pilots doing the runs after me do not have sensitive butts ! The last time when we had an over speed due to the freewheel it was during an EPC check which was at MCP. In the early S61 N days we had several freewheel problems and finally we had a procedure to lubricate the system via the emergency lube prior to starting and we always start no 2 Eng first. By the way we are on the power by the hours for our components so it is no question of third party. However, the airframe hrs is about close to 2000 hrs so I presume it must be on the original gearbox. |
Brazil resumes EC225 operations, marking the return to service of all operators worldwide with the Eurocopter helicopter. http://www.ec225news.com/site/docs_w..._EC_Pecchi.jpg With the resumption of EC225 commercial flights by BHS Helicopter, OMNI and Aeróleo Taxi Aéreo in Brazil, all operators using this Eurocopter helicopter around the globe have now reinstated service. The EC225 oil and gas fleet’s return-to-service began in July 2013 in Angola, and now has been completed with all three Brazilian operators back in crew change operations for Petrobras. These companies join other oil and gas industry operators in restoring EC225 missions: CHC Helicopter, Bristow, Bond, Sonair, Blueway DanCopter, Era, and MHS Aviation Berhad. Collectively, they cover the world’s major regions for offshore heli-lift for the energy sector – from the North Sea and Asia to Africa, the Gulf of Mexico and South America. “Our teams remain totally committed to supporting our customers as they regain the full availability of their helicopters worldwide,” said Guillaume Faury, Eurocopter’s President & CEO. “The EC225 has been the industry’s most examined aircraft, and we are proud to have it back as a key player in the oil and gas sector – continuing to safely accompany our customers in their challenging missions.” The EC225’s return-to-service is continuing according to plan, as more than 75 percent of the fleet used globally for oil and gas duties is now flying, including eight EC225s that continued without interruption in Vietnam and China. As a result, more than 85 percent of the worldwide EC225/725 fleet is now in service – representing a total of 144 aircraft, which encompasses those used for oil and gas missions as well as other operations. Eurocopter developed preventative safety measures that were approved by airworthiness authorities for the return-to-service, and the company has equally undertaken a main gear box shaft redesign for retrofit on the entire EC225 fleet starting from the second half of 2014. The EC225 is an 11-ton-class rotorcraft in Eurocopter’s Super Puma family. With more than 300,000 total flight hours logged to date, it is deployed in civil, military and parapublic operations that range from offshore transportation and cargo airlift to search and rescue duties. Globally, the Super Puma family accumulated more than 4,8 million flight hours to date and is operated by some 100 customers for a wide range of missions, often in very difficult conditions. |
I have a question concerning the rear auxiliary fuel tank available for the EC225. I understand it is installed in the aft baggage compartment and does not take away main cabin space. However, does it extend downwards into the external fairing? Also, is fuel transferrable to and from the other fuel tanks?
On this EC725 cutaway the rear fuel tank is even described as jettisonable via a hatch at the bottom of the tank fairing, but I guess this is not implemented in civilian h/c :p However, the EC725 has an additional refueling port on the starboard side which I guess is to allow for gravity refueling of the rear fuel tank when pressure refueling is not available. Goof thing for a mil h/c, but I have yet to see an EC225 - even SAR configured - having that refueling port. Is it optional, or is the rear fuel tank a too uncommon fit? |
Big EC 225 announcement coming at Heli Expo I hear. The S-92 with its poor hot weather performance had better watch out as the 225 will soon keep MTOM up to ISA +20
|
Really - this I gotta hear!
|
Hippolite
The S-92 with its poor hot weather performance |
Seems like the 225 isn't popular in Greenland.....
Milliontab på helikoptere | Sermitsiaq.AG Air Greenland og producenten af EC225 helikoptere Eurocopter har indgået aftale om annullering af køb. Helikopterne blev ellers bestilt ved forventning om øget aktivitet på prøveboringer efter olie og gas. Investeringen har nu givet Air Greenland milliontab. Air Greenland og Eurocopter underskrev købskontrakt til 380 millioner for køb af to fabriksnye helikoptere i 2011. Men Air Greenland mangler kunder, der vil chartre de bestilte helikoptetere. Undgår yderligere tab - EC225-helikopterne er meget velegnede til offshore aktiviteter og til Search-And-Rescue operationer, men der har ikke været den forventede vækst og udvikling i disse brancher. Da dette desværre ikke er en enestående situation for Grønland, men også gælder på resten af verdensmarkedet, er det ikke lykkedes at afhænde helikopterne til anden side, og for at undgå yderligere tab har vi som ansvarlig bestyrelse enstemmigt valgt, efter indstilling fra direktionen, at annullere kontrakten med leverandøren, forklarer Air Greenlands bestyrelsesformand Jens Wittrup-Willumsen. Annulleringen af købet betyder dog at Air Greenland skal omkostninger for annulleringen af ordren. Air Greenland skal nu betale 16 millioner kroner for at træde ud af kontrakten. Tango123, since most of us aren't fluent in Greendlandic and this is an English language forum: maybe you'd be good enough to post in English?! SP |
Da dette desværre ikke er en enestående situation for Grønland, men også gælder på resten af verdensmarkedet |
They were a bit more (over)optimistic 1/2 year ago:
Code:
Air Greenland forventer at kunne sælge EC225-helikopterne uden tab.Da Air Greenland for to år siden indgik aftale med helikopterproducenten Eurocopter om levering af to nybyggede EC225-helikoptere i 2014, var det med forventning om stigende aktivitet i olieselskabernes efterforskning og boringer. Dette er dog endnu ikke blevet realiseret, tværtimod har flere selskaber udskudt eller neddroslet deres aktiviteter ved Grønland. Det er baggrunden for, at Air Greenlands bestyrelse i dag enstemmigt har besluttet at sætte de to helikoptere til salg. - Vi bestilte helikopterne allerede i 2011 på grund af lang leveringstid for at være klar til operation, når olieselskaberne forventeligt ville igangsætte offshore aktiviteter. Vi har hele tiden været i tæt dialog med disse selskaber og fulgt markedet tæt, og desværre må vi konstatere, at det ikke har vist sig muligt at beskæftige helikopterne tilstrækkeligt i 2014. Der er heller ikke tilfredsstillende udsigter for årene derefter, og når de forventede kunder ikke er der, så tager vi som ansvarligt selskab naturligvis konsekvensen og tilpasser os markedet, inden omkostninger til fx træning og reservedele tager fart, forklarer bestyrelsesformand Jens Wittrup-Willumsen. Air Greenland forventer at kunne sælge EC225-helikopterne uden tab. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 16:19. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.