Helicopter Crash North sea
Discussion
The Super Puma is by far the most prevalent machine in the north sea. They came in various models, the Mk 1 which was slower and did not have the range to reach the furthest away platforms without refuelling (Sumburgh!!)Then came the Mk 2 which could reach the furthest out in good weather. In poor weather, it was Sumburgh again for fuel. These machines were built by French company Aerospatiale, initially, I think as military machines, but then adapted for the north sea.There are now a number of newer machines the EC225, built by Eurocopter (Aerospatiale under a new name I reckon!!)These are faster and more powerful than before and can reach the furthest points.
To answer the question, I reckon the Bond fleet will be entirely Super Pumas, and with two going down in as many months, I'm pretty sure they will now be under some intense scrutiny by the authorities.
The other two main (larger) companies CHC Scotia and Bristows do have large numbers of Super Pumas on their books, so if the decision is made to ground the model, then it will wreak havoc with offshore transportation.
HTH
Phil
To answer the question, I reckon the Bond fleet will be entirely Super Pumas, and with two going down in as many months, I'm pretty sure they will now be under some intense scrutiny by the authorities.
The other two main (larger) companies CHC Scotia and Bristows do have large numbers of Super Pumas on their books, so if the decision is made to ground the model, then it will wreak havoc with offshore transportation.
HTH
Phil
Eurocopter is indeed, a new name for what had been the helicopter division of Aerospatiale. It also includes the German company, Messerschmit-Blohm-Bolkow (MBB).
The Puma was originally designed by the French company Sud Aviation and the prototype first flew around 1968 or so. Sud Aviation was merged with some other French companies (Nord, Sud-Est) in 1970 to form Aerospatiale.
Westland obtained a licence to build Pumas for the RAF back in the 1970s.
The Puma was originally designed by the French company Sud Aviation and the prototype first flew around 1968 or so. Sud Aviation was merged with some other French companies (Nord, Sud-Est) in 1970 to form Aerospatiale.
Westland obtained a licence to build Pumas for the RAF back in the 1970s.
I was offshore when a Sikorsky S76 went down a mile from our rig about 5 years ago in the Southern sector and Bristows then grounded their fleet of Sikorskys worldwide. I'm surprised Bonds hadn't done the same after the accident last month although i think it's been put down to pilot error??.
I also worked with one of the guys on the helicopter that went down last month, although there are hundreds of thousands of guys and girls working in the industry it is still a fairly small community.
I'm currently offshore Egypt and it makes you wonder about the standard of maintenance on helicopters out here when there have been two incidents in the last six weeks in the UK where the maintenance program will be far superior.
RIP.
I also worked with one of the guys on the helicopter that went down last month, although there are hundreds of thousands of guys and girls working in the industry it is still a fairly small community.
I'm currently offshore Egypt and it makes you wonder about the standard of maintenance on helicopters out here when there have been two incidents in the last six weeks in the UK where the maintenance program will be far superior.
RIP.
Eric Mc said:
Eurocopter is indeed, a new name for what had been the helicopter division of Aerospatiale. It also includes the German company, Messerschmit-Blohm-Bolkow (MBB).
The Puma was originally designed by the French company Sud Aviation and the prototype first flew around 1968 or so. Sud Aviation was merged with some other French companies (Nord, Sud-Est) in 1970 to form Aerospatiale.
Westland obtained a licence to build Pumas for the RAF back in the 1970s.
I thought the Puma was a 'joint' venture? as with the Jaguar, Gazelle? The Puma was originally designed by the French company Sud Aviation and the prototype first flew around 1968 or so. Sud Aviation was merged with some other French companies (Nord, Sud-Est) in 1970 to form Aerospatiale.
Westland obtained a licence to build Pumas for the RAF back in the 1970s.
Very sorry to hear about this tragedy, one too many...The CAA need to be a bit more 'active' on this!
Over the years the incidents with Squirrels/Twin Squirrels v number of flights should have raised a number of alarm bells at the CAA.
Edited by forza whites on Thursday 2nd April 09:26
Never a week goes by here, where a helicopter fails to take off / turns back / diverts due to technical problems. Haven't made my mind up if this is good or bad. i.e. good that they are responding to minor technical faults or bad that the faults are appearing in the first instance.
Generally when there are delays due to tech problems etc, the personnel waiting to go home get extremely pee'd off. I'm sure this will be tempered for a while until the shock wears off.
Generally when there are delays due to tech problems etc, the personnel waiting to go home get extremely pee'd off. I'm sure this will be tempered for a while until the shock wears off.
King Herald said:
THX138 said:
I notice lots of calls in the press for these Super Pumas to be grounded until the cause of crash can be established.
If the authorities did ground them is there any alternative machine with the range/passenger capacity they have that could be used for these flights or would it mean effectively closing/lowering production on the rigs as well, assuming such trips are not practical by boat?
What I am saying is, is 'Bond' under financial pressure to keep these things in the air even with something 'unknown' happening, bit like the old De Havilland Comet disasters from the 1950's?
I heard that the first chopper that went down, a few weeks back, just landed on the water near to the rig, as visibility was so bad, hence why all 18 guys survived. No idea how true that is though.If the authorities did ground them is there any alternative machine with the range/passenger capacity they have that could be used for these flights or would it mean effectively closing/lowering production on the rigs as well, assuming such trips are not practical by boat?
What I am saying is, is 'Bond' under financial pressure to keep these things in the air even with something 'unknown' happening, bit like the old De Havilland Comet disasters from the 1950's?
The ones we use in the GoM are 12 seater Sikorskys, and I'd hate to do an emergency ditch in one of them as the windows seem somewhat sparse compared to the quantity of people who are going to be rushing to get through them, especially if it rolls.
forza whites said:
Very sorry to hear about this tragedy, one too many...The CAA need to be a bit more 'active' on this!
Over the years the incidents with Squirrels/Twin Squirrels v number of flights should have raised a number of alarm bells at the CAA.
Trust me the CAA are 'Active' They were on a plane to Aberdeen within hours with an investigation team. Seeing as the last one was due to bad visibility why would they ground all their other aircraft?? Over the years the incidents with Squirrels/Twin Squirrels v number of flights should have raised a number of alarm bells at the CAA.
Edited by forza whites on Thursday 2nd April 09:26
That said i would take some pursuasion to get on a Chopper.... really not a fan!! Give me wings any day!
Bond have suspended all flights today. The chopper that came down at ETAP was an EC225 and flying of them and not the 5 L2's that bond have were stopped for a few days to confirm there was nothing mechanical wrong.
Bomds fleet was 5 puma L2's 2 or 3 ec225's and 2 SAR ec225'S.
My thoughts go out to all involved as chances are I will know some of the lad's as they live close to me is what I have heard.
Bomds fleet was 5 puma L2's 2 or 3 ec225's and 2 SAR ec225'S.
My thoughts go out to all involved as chances are I will know some of the lad's as they live close to me is what I have heard.
S3_Graham said:
forza whites said:
Very sorry to hear about this tragedy, one too many...The CAA need to be a bit more 'active' on this!
Over the years the incidents with Squirrels/Twin Squirrels v number of flights should have raised a number of alarm bells at the CAA.
Trust me the CAA are 'Active' They were on a plane to Aberdeen within hours with an investigation team. Seeing as the last one was due to bad visibility why would they ground all their other aircraft?? Over the years the incidents with Squirrels/Twin Squirrels v number of flights should have raised a number of alarm bells at the CAA.
Edited by forza whites on Thursday 2nd April 09:26
That said i would take some pursuasion to get on a Chopper.... really not a fan!! Give me wings any day!
philmccann said:
Have flown in hundreds of chopper flights in the North Sea. Nothing else to say about them but that they are terrible. For those who don't know, they hold around 19, when there is real space for around 14, you are trussed up like a Xmas turkey with survival suit, full size lifejacket etc, the seats are too small (to make the space-saving)They are noisy (you have to wear ear defenders for the whole flight (no in-flight entertainment here!!)no teas/coffees etc. Ours in particular is around a two hour flight. All in all a thoroughly horrible experience as I'm sure most people who have experienced it will know.
I know there will be calls like "Well don't do it then!!", however it's a means to an end, and for some of us it's all we know.
There have been many issues over the years with helicopter flights. At one time there was to be a central hub, Sumburgh Airport, on Shetland, where lots of platforms are dotted around within a short hop flight.Then it would be onward to Aberdeen by conventional aircraft. But as usual, Sumburgh saw this as a money making exercise and upped the rates accordingly. The oil companies then responded by demanding aircraft (helicopters) that could fly direct offshore, missing Sumburgh completely. This is where we are at the moment. The helicopter in question the L2 Super Puma can service most platforms in the north sea directly.However, the penalty paid is that the workers,(and let's not forget the two crew members)have to spend much longer suspended under a spinning rotor.
As usual all these things are subject to monetary issues, but it's at times like this that it all strikes home.I am in the north sea right now (not literally!!) and the mood is very sombre. Although we probably don't personally know any of the casualties, we all have sympathies with their respective families who will now have to try and deal with this.
Statistically, with thousands of men changing out every week, on hundreds of chopper flights, it is probably one of the safest methods of transport, but it still hits home like a dagger, when anything like this occurs.
That's it, rant over....I'll get my coat....
Phil
It's no worse than the commute many of us have to put up with in to London everyday, admittedly we don't have to wear all the gear though, but at least you don't have to stand!I know there will be calls like "Well don't do it then!!", however it's a means to an end, and for some of us it's all we know.
There have been many issues over the years with helicopter flights. At one time there was to be a central hub, Sumburgh Airport, on Shetland, where lots of platforms are dotted around within a short hop flight.Then it would be onward to Aberdeen by conventional aircraft. But as usual, Sumburgh saw this as a money making exercise and upped the rates accordingly. The oil companies then responded by demanding aircraft (helicopters) that could fly direct offshore, missing Sumburgh completely. This is where we are at the moment. The helicopter in question the L2 Super Puma can service most platforms in the north sea directly.However, the penalty paid is that the workers,(and let's not forget the two crew members)have to spend much longer suspended under a spinning rotor.
As usual all these things are subject to monetary issues, but it's at times like this that it all strikes home.I am in the north sea right now (not literally!!) and the mood is very sombre. Although we probably don't personally know any of the casualties, we all have sympathies with their respective families who will now have to try and deal with this.
Statistically, with thousands of men changing out every week, on hundreds of chopper flights, it is probably one of the safest methods of transport, but it still hits home like a dagger, when anything like this occurs.
That's it, rant over....I'll get my coat....
Phil
And I can make the comparison as I've done both, having been in all manner of helicopters travelling offshore, in the North Sea, Angola, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Libya and Thailand.
It does make you think though, and I always made sure I got a window or door seat on a helicopter and made a point of locating the tab to pull to release the window or looked at the door release instructions as at least then you had some hope of getting out if it all went wrong.
RIP those guys, one minute happy to be going home and then game over.
Popeyed said:
philmccann said:
Have flown in hundreds of chopper flights in the North Sea. Nothing else to say about them but that they are terrible. For those who don't know, they hold around 19, when there is real space for around 14, you are trussed up like a Xmas turkey with survival suit, full size lifejacket etc, the seats are too small (to make the space-saving)They are noisy (you have to wear ear defenders for the whole flight (no in-flight entertainment here!!)no teas/coffees etc. Ours in particular is around a two hour flight. All in all a thoroughly horrible experience as I'm sure most people who have experienced it will know.
I know there will be calls like "Well don't do it then!!", however it's a means to an end, and for some of us it's all we know.
There have been many issues over the years with helicopter flights. At one time there was to be a central hub, Sumburgh Airport, on Shetland, where lots of platforms are dotted around within a short hop flight.Then it would be onward to Aberdeen by conventional aircraft. But as usual, Sumburgh saw this as a money making exercise and upped the rates accordingly. The oil companies then responded by demanding aircraft (helicopters) that could fly direct offshore, missing Sumburgh completely. This is where we are at the moment. The helicopter in question the L2 Super Puma can service most platforms in the north sea directly.However, the penalty paid is that the workers,(and let's not forget the two crew members)have to spend much longer suspended under a spinning rotor.
As usual all these things are subject to monetary issues, but it's at times like this that it all strikes home.I am in the north sea right now (not literally!!) and the mood is very sombre. Although we probably don't personally know any of the casualties, we all have sympathies with their respective families who will now have to try and deal with this.
Statistically, with thousands of men changing out every week, on hundreds of chopper flights, it is probably one of the safest methods of transport, but it still hits home like a dagger, when anything like this occurs.
That's it, rant over....I'll get my coat....
Phil
It's no worse than the commute many of us have to put up with in to London everyday, admittedly we don't have to wear all the gear though, but at least you don't have to stand!I know there will be calls like "Well don't do it then!!", however it's a means to an end, and for some of us it's all we know.
There have been many issues over the years with helicopter flights. At one time there was to be a central hub, Sumburgh Airport, on Shetland, where lots of platforms are dotted around within a short hop flight.Then it would be onward to Aberdeen by conventional aircraft. But as usual, Sumburgh saw this as a money making exercise and upped the rates accordingly. The oil companies then responded by demanding aircraft (helicopters) that could fly direct offshore, missing Sumburgh completely. This is where we are at the moment. The helicopter in question the L2 Super Puma can service most platforms in the north sea directly.However, the penalty paid is that the workers,(and let's not forget the two crew members)have to spend much longer suspended under a spinning rotor.
As usual all these things are subject to monetary issues, but it's at times like this that it all strikes home.I am in the north sea right now (not literally!!) and the mood is very sombre. Although we probably don't personally know any of the casualties, we all have sympathies with their respective families who will now have to try and deal with this.
Statistically, with thousands of men changing out every week, on hundreds of chopper flights, it is probably one of the safest methods of transport, but it still hits home like a dagger, when anything like this occurs.
That's it, rant over....I'll get my coat....
Phil
And I can make the comparison as I've done both, having been in all manner of helicopters travelling offshore, in the North Sea, Angola, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Libya and Thailand.
It does make you think though, and I always made sure I got a window or door seat on a helicopter and made a point of locating the tab to pull to release the window or looked at the door release instructions as at least then you had some hope of getting out if it all went wrong.
RIP those guys, one minute happy to be going home and then game over.
I'm also one of the few people on commercial aeroplane who actually take any notice of the safety brief.
A controlled dunk in a fake chopper in a swimming pool is scary enough, so in the panic and chaos of a real ditch that training might give you the edge you need to get out alive.
It's not so much the getting out that worries me, it;s the bobbing about, in the freezing waters, with an ill-fitting survival suit, and possibly hours until you will get picked up. Hey herald, what do you think of the rebreathers? I hated them. I'd rather do the holding of breath till I get out, rather than the kerfuffle of breathing into the bag.
creationracing said:
To be honest, the rebreathers are in theory a perfectly sound idea and if nothing else, a psychological reassurance.
But I bet in the event of a real ditch and rollover, the guys who get out alive would be the ones who concentrated on getting out ASAP as opposed to deploying their rebreathers. Just a personal opinion though, I reckon if panic and coldwater shock were gripping me I'd be more capable of pulling out an escape tab and hauling ass out a window than managing to open, inflate, then deploy the airpocket.
We basically agreed that last week at the HUET course; none of this waiting for the chopper to stabilise and stop moving. Soon as we hit the water the windows would be out, and I'd be through one of them. If somebody in front of me got stuck on the way out I'd be up their arse and out through their mouth before they could say ouch. But I bet in the event of a real ditch and rollover, the guys who get out alive would be the ones who concentrated on getting out ASAP as opposed to deploying their rebreathers. Just a personal opinion though, I reckon if panic and coldwater shock were gripping me I'd be more capable of pulling out an escape tab and hauling ass out a window than managing to open, inflate, then deploy the airpocket.
THX138 said:
I notice lots of calls in the press for these Super Pumas to be grounded until the cause of crash can be established.
If the authorities did ground them is there any alternative machine with the range/passenger capacity they have that could be used for these flights or would it mean effectively closing/lowering production on the rigs as well, assuming such trips are not practical by boat?
What I am saying is, is 'Bond' under financial pressure to keep these things in the air even with something 'unknown' happening, bit like the old De Havilland Comet disasters from the 1950's?
Nope, most of the airframes servicing the North Sea are Pumas of some sort or their Tiger equivalents. There are not many other airframes and would certainly be nothing like enough capacity if all Pumas were grounded. You should bear in mind the two incidents whilst being referred to as "super pumas" are completely different aircraft of different generations. The ETAP one was an EC225 which is latest gen/tech the one yesterday is a Mk2 original airframe, which is pretty uncommon in the UK sector (Bristows have none in the UK sector).If the authorities did ground them is there any alternative machine with the range/passenger capacity they have that could be used for these flights or would it mean effectively closing/lowering production on the rigs as well, assuming such trips are not practical by boat?
What I am saying is, is 'Bond' under financial pressure to keep these things in the air even with something 'unknown' happening, bit like the old De Havilland Comet disasters from the 1950's?
Vessel transfers are very risky as well and are pretty much outlawed (in the North Sea) as an option due to the risks involved. If the Pumas were grounded then the North Sea would pretty much grind to halt.....
I doubt very much if there is a financial angle here, Bond had a good, long-term exclusive deal with BP that had significant investment in new airframes at the front end of it (and no I have no connection to BP or Bond). I work for another oil company and we use Bristows.
creationracing said:
sjp63 said:
I suspect they hit the water Very hard. died on impact not drowned. We will see
Overhead someone in the galley tonight saying that if it was indeed a catastrophic gearbox failure, then its likely that parts of that gearbox will have entered the passenger cabin at high speed. Some of the lads may have been dead even before the chopper hit the water.May be speculation or may be fact, can any rotary-wing tech people confirm/deny? Flying home a week tomorrow, probably on some flavour of Super Puma/EC225.
Bottom line is there are a lot of very quickly rotating pieces of metal only a few feet from the passenger cabin so I'd say it's a possibility given a catastrophic enough failure mechanism.
Doesn't really bear thinking though.....
Need to keep a sense of perspective, it is a very low probablity but unfortunately can be a very high consequence event - as we've just seen. Over 40,000 chopper flights a year....
Cut and paste straight from the AAIB interim report. Bottom line, main gearbox catastrophic failure followed by a rotor head detachment which then struck the fuselage and broke off the tail section, to make matters worse one of the power turbines burst also. Very, very scary 
AAIB said:
The helicopter was operating a return scheduled passenger flight from Aberdeen to the Miller Oil
Platform, situated in the North Sea approximately 145 nm north-east of Aberdeen. When it arrived
from its previous flight to the Bruce Platform, approximately 190 nm north-east of Aberdeen, a
‘rotors running’ crew change was carried out. The helicopter was serviceable except for a deferred
defect affecting a part of its ice detection system. The daily in-flight checks had already been
completed satisfactorily by the off-going crew. The helicopter was refuelled, the passengers
boarded, and it lifted off at 1040 hrs. The helicopter landed on the Miller platform, after an
uneventful flight, at 1149 hrs, where it was refuelled again with the rotors-running. Fourteen
passengers boarded the helicopter for the return flight to Aberdeen when the refuelling was
complete. The weather conditions were benign with light south to south-easterly winds, good
visibility with generally clear skies but with occasional broken cloud at 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Flying
conditions were reported as smooth and the sea was calm.
The helicopter lifted from the Miller Platform at 1203 hrs and climbed to 2,000 ft, tracking inbound
towards Aberdeen. Recorded information on the combined Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorder
(CVFDR) shows that the crew were engaged in routine cockpit activities and there were no
operational abnormalities. At 1254 hrs the co-pilot made a routine call on the company operating
frequency stating that the helicopter was serviceable and the ETA was 1314 hrs. Twelve seconds
later one of the pilots made a brief MAYDAY call on the ATC frequency. This was followed by a
similar call, that included some position information, from the other pilot. The radar controller at
Aberdeen acknowledged the MAYDAY call and tried unsuccessfully to contact the crew of G-REDL.
He then asked the crew of another helicopter, outbound on a similar routing, to examine the sea in
the area of the last radar position.
Recorded radar information showed the aircraft flying inbound towards Aberdeen at 2,000 ft,
climbing momentarily to 2,200 ft and then turning right and descending rapidly. Surface visibility
was good and an eye witness, working on a supply vessel approximately 2 nm from the accident site,
heard the helicopter and saw it descend rapidly before it hit the surface of the sea. Immediately after
impact he saw the four main rotor blades, still connected at their hub, strike the water. Around this
time, he also heard two bangs close together. He immediately raised the alarm and the ship turned
towards the accident site, which by now was marked by a rising column of grey then black smoke.
The ship launched a fast rescue boat whilst making way towards the scene. The crew of the fast
rescue boat and the helicopter arrived promptly on the scene to discover an area of disturbed water,
roughly 150 m in diameter containing debris from the helicopter. Other search and rescue vessels,
aircraft and helicopters arrived on scene within 40 minutes. All persons on board were fatally
injured.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was notified of the accident within minutes and a
team of inspectors, including engineers, pilots and flight recorder specialists deployed to Aberdeen
that evening. In accordance with established International arrangements the Bureau d'Enquetes et
d'Analyses Pour la Securitie de l'Aviation Civile (BEA), representing the State of Manufacture of the
helicopter, and The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the Regulator responsible for the
certification and continued airworthiness of the helicopter, were informed of the accident. The BEA
appointed an Accredited Representative to lead a team of investigators from the BEA, Eurocopter -
the helicopter manufacturer, and Turbomeca - the engine manufacturer. The EASA and the UK
Civil Aviation Authority also provided assistance to the AAIB team.
Floating wreckage from the helicopter was brought ashore towards the end of the search and rescue
phase. As a priority, the CVFDR was located in the debris field and transported to the AAIB as soon
as it was raised from the sea bed on Sunday 5 April 2009. By Monday 6 April 2009 the helicopter
fuselage with the engines and main rotor gear box attached, the separated rotor head with the main
rotors blades still attached and the separated tail boom had been recovered from the sea bed and
transported to the AAIB facilities at Farnborough, Hampshire. The CVFDR was successfully
downloaded at the AAIB and contained 24 hours of flight data and one hour of cockpit voice
recording. A large number of parameters were recorded including engine data and some system
warnings which are still being analysed. The CVFDR recording ceased just prior to the first
MAYDAY transmission.
In common with similar helicopters operating in the North Sea, the helicopter was additionally
equipped with a Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS), which comprises a system of
sensors around the engines, airframe and drive train. Recorded information includes vibration levels
together with gearbox chip detection from a series of magnetic plugs. The data accumulated during
helicopter operations is transferred, usually on a daily basis, to the operator’s ground-based computer
system. The data is then subjected to mathematical processes that establish basic signatures and
enable trends to be monitored for individual components. The HUMS data for the day’s operation,
including the accident flight, has also been recovered. As the result of the discovery of a particle on
the main rotor gearbox epicyclic module magnetic chip detector on 25 March a daily inspection of
the epicyclic gearbox magnetic chip detector was initiated. Also, the HUMS data was downloaded
and analysed each time the helicopter returned to its base at Aberdeen for the next 25 flying hours.
No further abnormalities were identified during this period.
Examination of the wreckage indicates that the accident occurred following a catastrophic failure of
the main rotor gearbox (MGB). This resulted in the detachment of the main rotor head from the
helicopter and was rapidly followed by main rotor blade strikes on the pylon and tail boom, which
became severed from the fuselage. It is apparent that there was also a rupture in the right hand (No2)
engine casing, in the plane of the second stage power turbine. This is currently believed to be a
secondary feature. Investigations are continuing in order to understand completely the accident
sequence.
The investigation has so far revealed that the MGB had suffered from a major failure within the
epicyclic module. This is supported by HUMS data; however, this is not yet fully understood. The
examination of the MGB is continuing in conjunction with detailed analysis of the HUMS and other
recorded information
Platform, situated in the North Sea approximately 145 nm north-east of Aberdeen. When it arrived
from its previous flight to the Bruce Platform, approximately 190 nm north-east of Aberdeen, a
‘rotors running’ crew change was carried out. The helicopter was serviceable except for a deferred
defect affecting a part of its ice detection system. The daily in-flight checks had already been
completed satisfactorily by the off-going crew. The helicopter was refuelled, the passengers
boarded, and it lifted off at 1040 hrs. The helicopter landed on the Miller platform, after an
uneventful flight, at 1149 hrs, where it was refuelled again with the rotors-running. Fourteen
passengers boarded the helicopter for the return flight to Aberdeen when the refuelling was
complete. The weather conditions were benign with light south to south-easterly winds, good
visibility with generally clear skies but with occasional broken cloud at 5,000 to 6,000 ft. Flying
conditions were reported as smooth and the sea was calm.
The helicopter lifted from the Miller Platform at 1203 hrs and climbed to 2,000 ft, tracking inbound
towards Aberdeen. Recorded information on the combined Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorder
(CVFDR) shows that the crew were engaged in routine cockpit activities and there were no
operational abnormalities. At 1254 hrs the co-pilot made a routine call on the company operating
frequency stating that the helicopter was serviceable and the ETA was 1314 hrs. Twelve seconds
later one of the pilots made a brief MAYDAY call on the ATC frequency. This was followed by a
similar call, that included some position information, from the other pilot. The radar controller at
Aberdeen acknowledged the MAYDAY call and tried unsuccessfully to contact the crew of G-REDL.
He then asked the crew of another helicopter, outbound on a similar routing, to examine the sea in
the area of the last radar position.
Recorded radar information showed the aircraft flying inbound towards Aberdeen at 2,000 ft,
climbing momentarily to 2,200 ft and then turning right and descending rapidly. Surface visibility
was good and an eye witness, working on a supply vessel approximately 2 nm from the accident site,
heard the helicopter and saw it descend rapidly before it hit the surface of the sea. Immediately after
impact he saw the four main rotor blades, still connected at their hub, strike the water. Around this
time, he also heard two bangs close together. He immediately raised the alarm and the ship turned
towards the accident site, which by now was marked by a rising column of grey then black smoke.
The ship launched a fast rescue boat whilst making way towards the scene. The crew of the fast
rescue boat and the helicopter arrived promptly on the scene to discover an area of disturbed water,
roughly 150 m in diameter containing debris from the helicopter. Other search and rescue vessels,
aircraft and helicopters arrived on scene within 40 minutes. All persons on board were fatally
injured.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was notified of the accident within minutes and a
team of inspectors, including engineers, pilots and flight recorder specialists deployed to Aberdeen
that evening. In accordance with established International arrangements the Bureau d'Enquetes et
d'Analyses Pour la Securitie de l'Aviation Civile (BEA), representing the State of Manufacture of the
helicopter, and The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the Regulator responsible for the
certification and continued airworthiness of the helicopter, were informed of the accident. The BEA
appointed an Accredited Representative to lead a team of investigators from the BEA, Eurocopter -
the helicopter manufacturer, and Turbomeca - the engine manufacturer. The EASA and the UK
Civil Aviation Authority also provided assistance to the AAIB team.
Floating wreckage from the helicopter was brought ashore towards the end of the search and rescue
phase. As a priority, the CVFDR was located in the debris field and transported to the AAIB as soon
as it was raised from the sea bed on Sunday 5 April 2009. By Monday 6 April 2009 the helicopter
fuselage with the engines and main rotor gear box attached, the separated rotor head with the main
rotors blades still attached and the separated tail boom had been recovered from the sea bed and
transported to the AAIB facilities at Farnborough, Hampshire. The CVFDR was successfully
downloaded at the AAIB and contained 24 hours of flight data and one hour of cockpit voice
recording. A large number of parameters were recorded including engine data and some system
warnings which are still being analysed. The CVFDR recording ceased just prior to the first
MAYDAY transmission.
In common with similar helicopters operating in the North Sea, the helicopter was additionally
equipped with a Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS), which comprises a system of
sensors around the engines, airframe and drive train. Recorded information includes vibration levels
together with gearbox chip detection from a series of magnetic plugs. The data accumulated during
helicopter operations is transferred, usually on a daily basis, to the operator’s ground-based computer
system. The data is then subjected to mathematical processes that establish basic signatures and
enable trends to be monitored for individual components. The HUMS data for the day’s operation,
including the accident flight, has also been recovered. As the result of the discovery of a particle on
the main rotor gearbox epicyclic module magnetic chip detector on 25 March a daily inspection of
the epicyclic gearbox magnetic chip detector was initiated. Also, the HUMS data was downloaded
and analysed each time the helicopter returned to its base at Aberdeen for the next 25 flying hours.
No further abnormalities were identified during this period.
Examination of the wreckage indicates that the accident occurred following a catastrophic failure of
the main rotor gearbox (MGB). This resulted in the detachment of the main rotor head from the
helicopter and was rapidly followed by main rotor blade strikes on the pylon and tail boom, which
became severed from the fuselage. It is apparent that there was also a rupture in the right hand (No2)
engine casing, in the plane of the second stage power turbine. This is currently believed to be a
secondary feature. Investigations are continuing in order to understand completely the accident
sequence.
The investigation has so far revealed that the MGB had suffered from a major failure within the
epicyclic module. This is supported by HUMS data; however, this is not yet fully understood. The
examination of the MGB is continuing in conjunction with detailed analysis of the HUMS and other
recorded information
Edited by Steve996 on Friday 10th April 23:05
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff