Isn't it two fatal crashes involving failures of this transmission? One L2, and one EC225. Hence both types currently grounded by some authorities. (Cause of failure still to be determined. Which might end up being the biggest problem.)

If the cause can not be 100% determined, it can't be fixed.

Satcomm,
Yes, oil loss meant input/babbet bearing failure, definitely a ditching immediately situation. However as I said as far as I know there was never a situation where the head and half the gear box split and departed, and this is when a/c were designed with slide rules. I would hope things would be better engineered today with the tools available now.

T&S - Was only referring to the 225 as that is the title of the thread. There has only been 1 fatal crash of the 225. Yes, I agree, this has always looked like a repeat of the L2 and now looks like the CAA may be going that route as well ... that said, it does not change the fact that this is still the only fatal crash of a 225.

The 92 has had a fatal accident and at least one other emergency landing for the same reason. Luckily, the aircraft that ditched was still at the coastline and was able to easily land on solid ground. Had they been off shore it may have been a different outcome. It took about 5 years for that oil filter issue to arise and we now have another 6 years on the new filter design. Who's to say we are not on the verge of seeing an issue there again. During the 92 incident, people wanted it gone ... Bring back the super puma.

The 61, the workhorse right, well, it has been responsible for many many lives over the years. Many of which were repeats of known areas of concern ... Maybe the 61 would not have survived in today's age of the Internet. There would have been Facebook pages and petitions calling for the 61s head .... People swearing they would never get in a 61 again .... Send me on the super puma. You could cycle a petition around Facebook on any topic and get 20000+ to jump on board. The problem is it holds zero weight, 90 % of the people signing wouldn't even know what they are "liking"

The list goes on and on from the the 76 to the 139 to the mils and everything in between. Flying in a helicopter will always come with a risk. It is a known risk but an accepted risk when you decide to step aboard ... Whether you are going to work, sight seeing, fishing, skiing, etc. The guys up front have accepted this risk as a profession everyday.

Again, sorry, but like what? The 92? The 139?

I assume you are referring to my statement that I would hope things would be better engineered today...
Yes, agreed, all of those types included.

I'll say one more time, my inital post was in response to the comment that the 61 MGB was weak, I don't know of any other type that could take the punishment that heli-logging put on a 61 MGB and survive. I do know that they tried logging with a Puma once and the bbq plate failed with fatal results.

No type is perfect, but the 61 gear box and its mounting is not weak

Outwest, I agree, the 61 is a beast. I have been involved with the 61 helilogging, fires and offshore. My initial posts were only to state that regardless of MGB, it has been involved in its share of incidents.

Having said that, If you've been involved in logging, you have seen plenty of MGB mounting (gearbox fittings) failures! Nothing catastrophic but you have seen plenty of fittings cracked and replaced .... Just saying! She's a beast, no doubt!

For sure, lots of cracks in logging machines, but lots of warning and always stayed attached to the airframe ;-)

Good post Satcomm.

Much agreement.

"I do know that they tried logging with a Puma once and the bbq plate failed with fatal results."

In CH we were logging with the first AS332c/c1 700-800 hours a year from mid '80s to mid-late 2009. Logging has tapered off. We did have our share of broken bbq plates in the early years. 1 or 2 of forward tangs are what usually broke. (I also had 2 AS332c models with broken plates in Nfld.) While logging in CH we were visually inspecting this area at lunch and in the evenings. Working rivets under the attachment points of the bbq plate were repaired as required at the 400 hour and later 500 hour inspections. Westland produced the bbq plates intially. AS brought the plate manufacture back in house after the Super Puma was lost on Vancouver Island. The new plate was stronger and there was new attaching hardware at the bbq plate airframe interface which was tq checked at 50 hour intervals. The transmission/bbq plate hardware was on a 25 tq check cycle. How AF cycles were counted was much clearer defined while logging: 20 cycles/hour. We had no more broken plates after that. Our logging machines were and are very well maintained.
A very strong, reliable well built aircarft IMHO that I was very happy to work on and fly in.
Marcus

The Norwegians has two 61's win the Spindle Chunking Contests as I recall....and it was put down to the Operating Procedures they used as compared to the Bristow Nr procedures.

It was never my intent to besmirch the integrity of any other a/c, I was only defending the MGB of the 61.

Can't run a thread about the end of the 225 without comparing it to the competition. Old and new!

Rumor has it that Shell and Woodside in OZ have dropped the 225 regardless of the outcome of the investigation and 225 pilots are being given the option of 92, 139 or 332 re-training.......

Maybe the BELL 525 will be the EC225 replacement now?

Between the new tools and the competitive nature of the industry as it necks down, one of the things that the tools do is aid and abet attempts at optimization, which among other things allows for new and interesting ways to chase the weight bogey with an over all aim to (among other design objectives) increase effective payload? One wonders if, in the slide rule era and only three significant digits, more components didn't get a rounding up in erring on the side of robustness. The other thing I wonder is, from those who have been involved in design and test, is how much and how many tests to ultimate load (deformation or failure) you'd see in the slide rule era versus now? Don't know, and am thinking out loud a bit.

The Chinook crashed off Sumburgh in '86. The offending pieces still lie with RGU in Aberdeen for student case-studies.

The Chinooks stopped flying to the Shell offshore installations as soon as the telex was received from the Brent Charlie stating that the next Chinook landing there would be flipped over the side by use of the crane. Almost immediately we were into S-61's that were well liked - even after the Brent Spar disaster. Puma's were always distrusted, particularly after the Tiger variant ditched off the Cormorant Alpha. I was close by on the horrific night.

I do wish people would us the word "ditched" correctly.

The Tiger (AS322L) off of Cormorant Alpha was flown into the sea and therefore "crashed". It was pilot error and nothing to do with the aircraft. The aircraft did what the pilot asked it to do.

The press often use "ditched" when in fact the aircraft "crashed".

The two EC225s that lost lubrication to the MGB and conducted a precautionary water landing "ditched". All of the other recent helicopters in the North Sea "crashed"

Just because water is where the aircraft ended up is no reason to use the word ditched.

P3

Since many of us have always referred to an unplanned water arrival as a ditching, I fail to see your point. Whether it is an uncontrolled crash or a water arrival as a result of a mechanical failure, it's a ditching.

Hence the standard call in the dunker (HUET): "Ditching, ditching, ditching"

As you revolve upside down, blindfolded and last man out :p

I agree with P3. Websters defines 'ditch' as "to make a forced landing of (an airplane) on water" which does not reflect the cases of G-TIGH or G-REDU, for instance, and in both cases there was no warning to the pax (as per your HUET example).

We'll have to agree to differ, but I'll lend you a razor blade to split the difference!

Even Dad refers to ditching after a pack of Me109Fs used him as target practice at 20ft above the Aegean........