I didn't think the hotspots were a result of corrosion.

My take on it is that the hotspots are an independent factor in relation to the corrosion. I expect they are a variation in residual welding stress occurring around the weld. A number of cycles of variation in residual stress might occur around the path of the weld. This will include areas that are free of residual stress and areas that might have several times the average residual stress and which might be termed 'hotspots'.

I think we are well informed HC. Isn't your company talking about bringing back the 225 at a reduced power and speed of 130 knots. Perhaps you would explain the reasoning behind a reduced capability return to service plan?

TM, as far as I am aware nothing is decided. Reducing power is one option that might be seen as demonstrating a desire to maximise safety to placate those of a nervous disposition. On the other hand I would agree with you that this could be seen as showing a lack of confidence - anyway it would be a political decision rather than a technical one.

The person at the EC presentation who asked that question about flying at reduced speed and power, was told by the EC representative that there is no need for it. The factor of safety while flying at MCP will still be much greater than the regulatory design requirements.

However I think he might still push for it in the company, similarly to whoever dictated that the S61N should still fly at 110 knots, long after the short-spar blades had all been withdrawn from service.

He'd probably decree that reduced speed should be adhered to until all gearboxes get the new shaft. It would be a pity to penalise the aircraft with such a belts, braces and nappy pins approach when belts and braces will be more than adequate.

That's an interesting discussion. Even though it may be a conservative approach, wouldn't flying at a reduced speed (notwithstanding the additional flight times) show the aircraft to still be "sick"?

Excellent point. I hope he reads this. Perhaps HC might make that point with him.

Colibri, I know that the gentleman in question has no desire to see the 225 returned to service at reduced power. I think he asked the question in order to get the answer that there was no technical justification for it. However this decision will be taken higher up the food chain I suspect!

A ship sank about 150 miles offshore and survivors were clinging to anything that would keep them afloat in the rough seas. One devoutly religious man was hanging on to a small log, confident that God would look after him and that he would be saved.

In due course, a rescue helicopter arrived and the man told the winchman ‘rescue others first – the Lord will save me’. A second helicopter arrived and again the man told the winchman ‘rescue others first – I am confident the Lord will save me’

A short time later, the man lost his grip on the log and drowned.

When he eventually arrived in heaven (after all the paperwork was processed), he asked if he could have a word with God. He stood before the Lord and asked ‘Why did you not save me from the sea?’ God checked his records and said ‘I sent two helicopters to save you’ And the man replied ‘Yes, but they were EC225’s...’

It appears the CAA in Norway today issued a revised Safety Directive allowing the EC225 to operate in a hostile environment again.
It is published here.

I am not quite sure I get your humour rotorbody, its not witty really. there is no humourus reference to the 225. In any event, that kind of stuff belongs on Jet Blast.

Need someone to explain the humor in that for you?

It is very subtle......which appears to be quite lost on you.

I always heard said that it was three helicopters and two boats.......but oh well....even then that might confuse you a bit.

It must be a religious joke Sasless, which is why you God fearin' Americans would get it and I probably wouldn't. Tell it in church (or chapel) on Sunday and see if they laugh!

But please do explain the humor, as I really genuinely don't get it.

Did you hear the one about the humourless helicopter piot who tried to give a bunch of church-going Americans a lesson in humour and athiesm?

:rolleyes:

.

"CHC Helicopter has begun flight tests of aEurocopter EC225 fitted with the full range of EASA-mandated safety modifications from its base in Aberdeen, Scotland, as it attempts to return its global fleet of 32 of the type to operation"

"Now CHC is on track to be the first operator to get its EC225s back in the air, with the initial unidentified aircraft having received Eurocopter's safety fixes, following their approval by EASA on 9 July, and commenced flight trials on 18 July"

"Pan-industry organisation the Helicopter Safety Steering Group met on 17 July to discuss its position in relation to the EC225 and says it "fully supports" the plan to allow the helicopter to resume flights"

PICTURES: CHC flight tests fully modified EC225, targets rapid return to service

.

Will be interesting to see how the passengers feel about getting aboard again?

CHC mentioned a couple of days ago at an industry briefing that they had performed the NDI on all their aircraft with no more cracks found. They have completed the cleaning procedure, and are progressively installing the EMLUB, MOD 45 and oil jet modifications.

No cracks found on our aircraft either, which was pretty much a forgone conclusion. If we had found any cracks, that would be a major disaster because that shaft would then be a few hours or tens of hours away from failure.

Really? How?

Again I admire your optimism. Which part was concluded without an inspection?

RVDT, what I mean is that once a crack is formed, its a matter of a few hours or tens of hours before it fails. But since we have operated for 100,000 hrs without having a failure, the likelihood of finding a crack in progress was surely very low, on probability alone.

HC,

Since the reason for the cracks has now been determined I would be more suspicious of what has happened since the machines have been siting idle.

Even more reason to clean and eyeball the inside of the VBG shaft.

Just sayin'.