PPRuNe Forums - EC 225 Return to REAL Service

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)

- - EC 225 Return to REAL Service (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/587860-ec-225-return-real-service.html)

Sultan sure knows so much....that is not true.:rolleyes:

Wonder how Airbus Helicopters will persuade offshore workers after this survey then?

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news...-pumas-return/

TTFD:

You believe they will get a choice? Unless you call "get on this aircraft or stay at home and we will employ somebody else" a choice. Sadly money talks and fact is the EC225 performs much better than a S92 in payload & range terms.

Quote:

The unsatisfactory safety record in the North Sea — which is not solely due to technical problems, Faury noted — has led Airbus to do some brainstorming.

Can someone interpret what the above statement means? Are there other issues at play?

- See more at: https://www.verticalmag.com/news/air....GuvajtO8.dpuf

Dying to see how they'd react if somebody presented them with the unknowns involved in navigating wells or mooring rigs and objectively compared those with aircraft design and manufacturing processes.

The lower number of events; wells or rig moves; allows the cracks to be papered over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rotor-rooter (Post 9662604)

Can someone interpret what the above statement means? Are there other issues at play?

- See more at: https://www.verticalmag.com/news/air....GuvajtO8.dpuf

Probably something to do with two perfectly servicevable aircraft being flown into the water!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimf671 (Post 9662639)

Who exactly are "they"? Do you have a particular stereotype passenger in mind? "They" could be the directional drilling specialist who knows more about what is happening 15,000ft below him than the flight crew know about what is going on in the MGB. "They" could be on their way to a semi to control and manage that rig move. In any single day's NS flying there are usually more technical specialists in the back than in the front (no disrespect intended). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and to make their own choices, even the hard ones. For many that is an educated choice. And not just those who upgrade themselves to 'Business Class' beside the bigger escape window or the door jettison handle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SASless

Which Model/Type of "Puma" did they have to reduce Cruise Speeds on to stop their going through MGB's like unsupervised Kid's going through the contents of a Cookie Jar? It was told to me that getting to TBO on the Gearboxes was impossible until Power Settings (thus cruise speed)were reduced then all was well.

A similar thing has been done with the 92 so I'm not sure that can really be held as a black mark against the Puma.

A certain operator that did cruise at 80% Q is now using 70%, commensurate with most other operators - allegedly due to a higher number of rejected MRGBs in comparison.

Of course the RFM says you can sit at 86% all day... :hmm:

'They' are the 90.1% in that survey who are not happy for the aircraft to return to service.

Quote:

A certain operator that did cruise at 80% Q is now using 70%

The 80% SOP never made sense. Not only did it result in more stresses on the powertrain, more importantly it resulted in a much worse specific fuel consumption.

Commercially it was plain dumb :ugh:

FC80,

The point I was hoping to make is....and you reinforce is operational practices have a direct effect upon reaching TBO targets. That a specific TBO is published initially it is based upon a "model" that overtime might have to amended as real life results are obtained. That applies to every new make/model/type of aircraft.