First H175 delivered to Mexico

http://www.helis.com/database/news/h175_pegaso/

skadi

So is there one or two H175s at Esbjerg ....the press release is confusing as it refers to H155s too!

More than likely they are plugging the gap from the EC225s. NHV/Dancopter were flying 3 of those which has so far been replaced by two EC155s. On top of that Maersk has been using Bel Air AW189s and AW139s since April.

Looking at the schedule Dancopter is flying it looks like they only have on H175 at the moment. There where no helicopters offshore, the hangar was empty and OO-NSI had just landed at 17:15 today.

Public Service Progress
 

http://www.verticalmag.com/press-releases/airbus-helicopters-launches-flight-test-campaign-h175-public-services-configuration/?utm_source=vertical-daily-news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=vertical-daily-news-10-12-16

Ec175 lips
 

Has Airbus recived certification for Lips on the H175 yet?

It has a clearance for flight in limited icing conditions. Such flight requires installation of the Winter Kit (some blanking over the intake grids, plus some adjustments to the engine internally), Windscreen Heater, Ice Detector, AC Alternator and the horizontal stabiliser protection plate.


If that's what you mean by LIPS, then yes, it's certified.

I wasn't aware it was already approved for flights in known Icing conditions. i only read in verticalmag.com That Airbus was hoping to get the approval in the end of 2016. But I haven’t seen any Easa document regarding approval for flight in limited icing conditions yet. Witch is why I asked ☺ PlasticCabDriver: would you know where I could find the EASA approval?

Flight Manual Supplement 4.

If you look at the type certificate for the H175 issue 2.
It is not approved for flight in icing conditions.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi..._18Dec2015.pdf
quote.
11.
Operating Limitations VFR day and night
IFR
Non-icing conditions

So there must be a type certificate issue number 3 with limited flight in icing right ?

The 189 type cert is recently at issue 7 and includes LIPS and FIPS details as well as various other special conditions and requirements. We might expect a similar approach with the 175. I expect there is a some interim paperwork that may not be available online.

EASA approved Supplement 4 (Flight in Limited Icing Conditions) on November 18, 2016, approval number 10060117.


No idea where the data sheet is.

Revised limitation
 

Just received Hairbrush update to limit ops <-15 Deg to 7500kgs - thank goodness for that!

Type certificate issue 3 now published on the EASA website

https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-...e-certificates

RFM Noise Levels
 

According to the FM, 175 noise levels have been determined under conditions prescribed in Chapter 8 and Appendix 4 of Annex 16 of ICAO, volume 1 etc etc
Understand using Chapter 8 methods but why Appendix 4?
Appendix 4 is for helicopters NOT EXCEEDING 3175 kg Max Certified TOW.

Or is it a case that they meant to refer to Appendix 2?

Where do you see that?

The TCDS says:
The Noise certificate (https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...0%20Issue2.pdf) says:
So is clearly referring to Appendix 2.

That is my point - EASA docs and databases refers to Appendix 2 but I am referring to the Regulatory Flight Manual
Page 39 of Section 5 in the RFM refers to "Appendix 4"....
page code 17-06

Latest RFM noise-related update TIPI lists is RN9_RCc dated 9/2/2017 - which updates EPNdb figures but not the header.
What does yours say?
Airbrush H yet to confirm.

Where would a typical BEM stand for 175 in clean config + maybe a hoist??

Does anyone have an explanation for the incorrect amount of grease being applied and causing a gearbox to make crunching noises? Sounds intriguing.
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...arbox-failure/OIL & GAS / NORTH SEA

‘Crunching sound’ on CHC helicopter in Aberdeen identified gearbox failure

Investigators have raised safety concerns after discovery of a gearbox failure on a CHC helicopter in Aberdeen after a “crunching sound” was heard.By Allister Thomas
23/04/2021, 10:51 am
https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/ene...file-150px.png© Airbushttps://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/ene...75-846x564.jpg
A CHC-operated H175 helicopter Investigators have raised safety concerns after discovery of a gearbox failure on a CHC helicopter in Aberdeen after a “crunching sound” was heard.

A report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said the problem, found last year on an accessory gearbox while the H175 helicopter was still on ground, would have constituted a “major” safety failing had it been during a flight.

Both CHC and AAIB underlined that the failure would not have led to a loss of control of the aircraft, but would have required pilots to land “as soon as possible”.

The AAIB said it would have led to a “significant erosion of safety margins” during a flight.

The failing, on an accessory gearbox in the helicopter, was found on September 23 in Aberdeen after a “crunching sound” could be heard coming from it, the report said.

It followed a scheduled replacement of the main gearbox, with the issue found during the first “ground run”, which always takes place before any aircraft is released for work.

Investigators said an excess amount of grease being applied led to the issue, despite this being the appropriate amount stipulated in the maintenance manual.

A method used by the maintenance team also played a role, AAIB said, who launched an investigation due to the risk of the component failure occurring during flight.

CHC said it welcomed the report, adding that it worked closely with the AAIB and manufacturer Airbus following the event.

It added that the “anomaly” had been rectified by Airbus and that CHC’s engineering team has “been fully briefed on the AAIB’s report findings to ensure the result of the actions taken are fully understood and followed”.

Airbus issued a safety notice following the incident and updated and clarified the maintenance procedure.

An Airbus spokesman said the AAIB “report is clear on the origin of this incident”, underlining that the incident took place during a ground run prior to the helicopter being released for service.

However, on March 9, the AAIB received a report of a second similar issue elsewhere, after the Airbus safety notice, and that operator has since said it would issue a reminder to its maintenance team.

Jake Molloy, regional organiser of the RMT union, said “it would have been a scary moment for the passengers”.

He added: “Gearboxes in helicopters will forever be the biggest single concern for anybody using helicopters.

“They are very, very complex technical pieces of kit and identifying system failures, such as the one the AAIB has reported on, continues to improve the performance of those gearboxes.

“This particular failure identified during maintenance, reading the report, wouldn’t have brought the aircraft down immediately. The crew would have had to land it somewhere as soon as practically possible.

“It continues to be one of the major concerns in terms of overall safety for offshore workers and, inevitably, will continue that way. It’s an inherent risk which cannot be avoided.”

I’m slightly surprised that Airbus didn’t initially claim they had found the required grease, still in a toolbox.....

The report provides a bit more context https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...-ec175b-g-emeb

It’s disappointing that the OEMs are still producing machines that are vulnerable to common maintenance procedures. (Ti studs that need lube, a prayer, and calming music played while torquing. Over greasing causing catastrophic failure.)

It’s the equivalent of having a door handle that snaps off if you try turning it the wrong way. (And mentioning it once during the type endorsement.)

unfounded hatred is not helping anyone.

Not sure this is aimed at me.

There is nothing unfounded about Ti Studs failing or catastrophic gearbox failures.
Nothing trivial about the multiple fatalities from both either.

But we are drifting off topic - this one failed on the ground, and it sounds like a tiny design change (vent) or specific, non intuitive, maintenance instructions will be a permanent solution.

G-EMEB?

Apparently, it had another incident offshore recently and while wheeling to one side of the deck to let another machine arrive with a maintenance crew the RH Main gear went through the deck.

Picture links on Helihub.

From the AAIB report. Did we just go back 50 years in time?

And there are some that don’t even make it that far...

LZ

Cyclic

Further than that I think. Airbus previously EC previously Aérospatiale don't have a great history building quality MGBs which are durable and long lasting.

I recall the short TBOH was already rumored just after EC225 disaster in Norway.
I did not believed it then because NHV was also operating 1 or 2 EC175 in Ghana at that moment.
It was then also rumored that Airbus had at least 1 dedicated mechanic stationed at NHV (Den Helder) but makes sense now.

Airbus support must have improved apparently.

There is a very interesting little snippet in the Helihub article today about the CHC/Babcock transaction. https://helihub.com/2021/09/27/compe...on-of-babcock/

12 months of corrosion remedial work provides for an enormous workscope, and if the activities are limited to airframe corrosion remediation, there must be virtually nothing left unaffected on this airframe at this stage. Does anyone have any additional insight into what is happening with this machine, or the background to how an almost new helicopter could require such extensive action if it hadn't been ditched in the sea?

Anyone?

As far as I know, this is an earlier machine that was built without the correct corrosion protection applied. The corrosion that resulted was kept in check and repaired as and when but was always planned to go back for remedial work including the maturity mods. It's an ongoing thing with another 175 having returned from Spain earlier this year.

I don't think you were alone in spotting that! Interestingly, I saw the ferry flight photos on Linkedin but didn't know the purpose

If those are early build then most probably a warranty. Some of the those had bad application of surface protection and need redo.

I guess they (AH) are a bit new to the offshore/Marine environment, so learning as they go........:E

that's not the reason. but cant say more.

Damn Chinese aircraft :}

The first three H175s delivered to Babcock did not have the necessary corrosion protection applied during the build process. All three machines were scheduled to go to Albacete in Spain to have remedial works carried out by Airbus, which takes approx 12 months. MCSE was the first to be completed. I believe MCSG has recently arrived in Albacete for the same treatment.

I hope Airbus is supplying Babcock (CHC) with a free backup aircraft to compensate for 3 cumulative aircraft years of downtime?

They are. It was known this was going to be needed, and was planned for. Must be costing Airbus a pretty penny though.