Bergensavisen - Dette fikk bilistene til å sperre opp øynene

Nice pic of a 225 on lorry out of norway

Gasax are you referring to the grandfathering of the Black Hawk family technology into the S92?

This 'grandfathering' is how everything works these days. Literally.

Thirty or forty years ago when the Japanese were making reliable cars that were putting European and American stuff in the shade, people wanted to know how. The fact that it was copied from something was perceived as a negative but that was the secret. 80% proven technology and 20% new. :ooh:

It doesn't matter whether it's aircraft, cars or mobile phones, the facelift model is actually half of the new model under market test without the new fancy bodywork and the new model is the facelift model with the barely consequential glitz added. :cool:

This is so ingrained in the engineering profession now that those of us who have real ideas and want to do something new are seen as weirdos. :(

Airbus being sued over EC 225 situation
 

Three owners/ operators are now suing Airbus Helicopters over the current situation of the EC 225.

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/air...225-situation/


Was actually wondering why it took so long and why it's only those three so far.... :confused:

Fully agree!
Worse than the pretty unconvincing concept of why this now should not occur again is the handling of previous significant issues.
So you have a manufacturer that delivers a very slim explanation that a different Part# of a bearing of rather similar design will prevent this from re- occurring and this from a manufacturer who has prematurely and pretty aggressively denied the cause that later came out a s the real one and all this after similar behaviour in the past.
It is about time for massive and rigorous cleansing in the two upper management levels of AH (France). Starting at the Top.
This will not help the 225. That one is Dead. But unless they throw out all current top managers the successor Modell to the 225 will face the same fate.

From the Vertical mag link above , I find this quote troubling :

" Further, Era claims that, following the AIBN’s last report, it undertook its own investigation to explore the condition of the second stage planet gears inside its EC225s.

“Multiple second stage planet gears in at least one of Era’s 225s exhibit characteristics of degradation and spalling associated with the design defect that has been identified as a causal factor in the catastrophic failures involving Super Puma helicopters,” the company claims in its petition.

“While there are indeed fundamental differences between the two planet gear configurations, the characteristics of degradation are evident on both the parts identified for replacement (i.e., the ‘bad’ parts) and the parts identified for retention (i.e., the ‘serviceable’ parts). Era has determined that even those parts identified by Airbus Helicopters as ‘serviceable’ exhibit the same symptoms of failure that have necessitated the immediate removal and disposal of the parts that Airbus Helicopters has now admitted are defective and unsafe.”

- See more at: https://www.verticalmag.com/news/air....esg0Blh2.dpuf

We have to assume the ERA findings are correct (until proven not to be...) as they challenge the assertion that a simple change of similar parts cures the problem.

I am waiting to hear AH's full detailed explanation on the exact cause for the problem....not the evidence of the problem....but the actual cause of the problem.

Perhaps I missed something over the past year or so but I am not sure they have done that in a degree or level...that would allow for a "Peer Review" process by a completely independent third party.

Then....I want them to fully explain why the current methodology for "catching" impending failures is sufficient to provide timely and completely unambiguous warning of an imminent failure. (Like....at the end of a flight and prevent future flights with the pending failure.)

Anyone disagree with that kind of "Soul Bearing" by AH?

SASless

Have they (AH) ever even admitted they were wrong about it being a maintenance issue?
Like an actual statement that apologizes for trying to throw the maintainers under the bus.

(I can't begin to understand how the maintenance personnel felt at the loss of their colleagues and passengers to begin with, then have AH put out the statements they did. It could have easily resulted in loss of life. Seriously.)

Or do AH just start a new line/lie as the last becomes untenable?
Want to bet the next one is: "we have a third, supplier/process for the part that is failing". "A new one that no one can prove isn't up to the task, yet."?

Then a new gearbox.

Then another name change.

(They may have issued retractions, and I just haven't seen them.)

One issue that will raise its head in any future explanation will be the how and why any conclusions or investigational pathways become different now to before. After all unless there is a specific thread of analysis that wasn't available to the investigators (including AH engineers) previously the logical extrapolation is for interested parties to ask - why wasn't this apparent before?

It also raises further questions at EASA..

It’s a shame that the original 225 accident thread has disappeared, it was a useful resource for who said what and when.

Can anyone remember how soon after AH wrongly pointed the finger at CHC on the 27/05/16 that CHC came out with the we are returning all our leased 225s and will not operate another one unless expressly specified by an oil company statement?

Which thread? There have been three and they are all still open: indeed, you have posted in all of them, multiple times.

No 225 accident thread has been removed from Rotorheads.

Not aware of a single crack event on a phase III gearbox, has there been any that you are aware of? The 50hr check requirement is aligned with the standard check and seems sensible to continue indefinitely. The gearbox is inspected visually at every daily.

fc80/ukv1145 - Apologizes, have to retract that statement. Confirmed today from my original source that what they thought was a crack turned out to be NDT'd as superficial. So no, I am no longer aware of any phase III cracks.

Disgraceful
 

This is the sort of announcement I'm wondering was ever officially retracted or explained:

SIN 3031-S-00

"Considering the additional information gathered during the last 48 hours, Airbus Helicopters’ decision, at this stage, is to not suspend flights of any nature for the EC225LP."

In two days, AH had decided there was nothing wrong with the machine, and the blame lay elsewhere.:=

I believe that statement was made because at that point they had confirmed that at bare min that it was not an issue with the bevel gear .... hence not a repeat of anything that had ever happened to the 225 before. Arguably a very bold move not to suspend flights at the time due to the fact that they did not know what happened but really, that's aviation. We do not ground every 206 in the world every time one goes missing in the mountains. Likewise, the fix wing world does not ground the type worldwide if an aircraft crashes ..... at least not until a definitive reason is determined or a pattern has established.


Obviously just my opinion and I have been back and forth with whether I believe airbus handled the situation suitably however, hine sight is 20 20.

Totally agree with this comment. I made this comment before... and was just laughed at....

FAA approves return to flight of the 225.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...copter-432469/
Am somewhat surprised that they endorsed this in light of the thus far unrebutted assertions made in the 3 plaintiffs lawsuit.

The FAA will argue the Civil Suits are underway and have not been decided thus have no bearing on the matter unless and until all the evidence is heard, argued, and a Decision is made by the Judge or Judge/Jury.....then there will be Appeals...and again the FAA will point to an on-going Legal Process and refuse to act until the matter is settled in Court once and for all.

A separate but related issue....As an Insurance Company providing coverage for an Operator of 225's....how do you countenance the banning of flight by the two Authorities and the approval for flight by other Authorities?

As an Operator.....if you return an aircraft to service...comply with every single additional requirement....and another Fatal Event occurs due to the MGB failing in a similar fashion....then what?

This is not a far fetched question.....remember the 787 Electrical Fires....the 737 Rudder Hard Overs....the DC-10's Cargo Doors.....and several other air worthiness issues that have had similar impacts on the Aviation Industry?

We have to recall....the cause of the latest crash has not been determined with certainty by the Norwegian Accident Investigation.

Exactly. The risks seem inordinately high.
I have a hard time seeing a US operator blithely relaunching the type into service under these circumstances. After another accident, it would be hard to explain to a jury.
Still, the FAAs 'nihil obstat' may open the door in other jurisdictions that rely on the FAA to set their standards. Don't know however whether any of those care at present.

I think there are only 5 225s on the N register?