G-REDU EC225 LP Bond Offshore ditches in North Sea

Rockville · Post by **Rockville** » 18 Feb 2009, 20:42

A helicopter, understood to have up to 20 people on board, has ditched on approach to an installation in the North Sea.

The Super Puma was believed to have ditched on approach to an installation 120 miles east of Aberdeen. The alarm was raised just before 1900 GMT.

Three helicopters - including two in-field aircraft and a Sea King from RAF Lossiemouth - are heading to the scene.

A Nimrod from RAF Kinloss has also been scrambled.

The alarm was raised just before 1900 GMT.

There is currently no information on those on board the ditched aircraft.

Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/02/18 19:36:28 GMT

Rockville · Post by **Rockville** » 18 Feb 2009, 22:02

All rescued as helicopter ditches

All 18 people onboard a helicopter which ditched in the North Sea have survived and have been rescued from two liferafts, say coastguard.
The Super Puma came down near a platform in the ETAP field 125 miles east of Aberdeen. The alarm was raised at about 1840 GMT.
Four helicopters, including three in-field aircraft and a Sea King from RAF Lossiemouth, took part in the rescue.
A Nimrod from RAF Kinloss was also scrambled.
British military spokesman James Lyne, from the RAF base at Kinloss, told the BBC the helicopter would have been equipped with life jackets, which carry electronic transmitters.

Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/02/18 20:54:02 GMT

Post by **Jack** » 19 Feb 2009, 11:39

The aircraft involved in this incident is Eurocopter EC225 LP c/n 2690 G-REDU.
The 2008-built EC225 LP Super Puma G-REDU was operated by Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd., Aberdeen.
The G-REDU was registered as chartered to Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd., Aberdeen, on 23 May 2008.

Rockville wrote:All rescued as helicopter ditches

All 18 people onboard a helicopter which ditched in the North Sea have survived and have been rescued from two liferafts, say coastguard.
The Super Puma came down near a platform in the ETAP field 125 miles east of Aberdeen. The alarm was raised at about 1840 GMT.
British military spokesman James Lyne, from the RAF base at Kinloss, told the BBC the helicopter would have been equipped with life jackets, which carry electronic transmitters.

Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/02/18 20:54:02 GMT

Pete · Post by **Pete** » 19 Feb 2009, 13:03

Rockville wrote:All rescued as helicopter ditches

British military spokesman James Lyne, from the RAF base at Kinloss, told the BBC the helicopter would have been equipped with life jackets, which carry electronic transmitters.

Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2009/02/18 20:54:02 GMT

Those lifejackets are standard issue to the offshore personnel, they all get these lifejackets on check in together with their survivalsuit.

fortunately Eurocopter has equipped the puma family with a good floatation device and liferafts, this in combination with highly qualified offshore pilots contributes to a happy end to these stories.

BTW any cause of the situation leading to this ditch already known?

topgun1984 · Post by **topgun1984** » 19 Feb 2009, 14:52

it was their newest puma wich they recieved in May of 2008...

credits http://www.abpic.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aviodromefriend · Post by **aviodromefriend** » 19 Feb 2009, 15:35

Pete wrote:fortunately Eurocopter has equipped the puma family with a good floatation device and liferafts, this in combination with highly qualified offshore pilots contributes to a happy end to these stories.

Our dutch professor of safety van Vollenhoven has a quite different opinion about these "good floatation device". (see G-JSAR).

ABZSpotter · Post by **ABZSpotter** » 19 Feb 2009, 18:24

Our dutch professor of safety van Vollenhoven has a quite different opinion about these "good floatation device". (see G-JSAR).

And what exactly was wrong with the flotation device on G-JSAR? It did what it was designed to do and and kept the aircraft upright and afloat. So much so that the aircraft drifted for several hours before ending up on Texel beach still the correct way up. That to me means it worked fine and as advertised by the manufacturer. It also allowed for the crew and passengers to leave the aircraft without injury.

Now, if he was referring to the dinghies, that was a different matter and no doubt all will be revealed when the Dutch authorities eventually publish their report on the G-JSAR accident, whenever that will be.

The flotation gear is the same on the EC225, although the dinghy mechanism is different, and all appear to have worked fine by TV footage that I have seen. However, again, I will wait with interest to see what the accident investigators find and will not speculate - unlike most of our UK press!

Steve
(ex G-JSAR pilot)

aviodromefriend · Post by **aviodromefriend** » 19 Feb 2009, 22:09

ABZSpotter wrote:And what exactly was wrong with the flotation device on G-JSAR?

According to an initial report, not all devices had inflated. Actually this was blamed in that report to be the reason why that airframe was damaged too much for repair. Besides, that could also clearly be seen at regional TV footage about G-JSAR being stranded.

Rockville · Post by **Rockville** » 19 Feb 2009, 22:53

aviodromefriend wrote: According to an initial report, not all devices had inflated.

The mentioned report: read here .

ABZSpotter · Post by **ABZSpotter** » 20 Feb 2009, 10:29

And as I said in my post, the FLOATATION equipment worked as advertised, that is the equipment that is designed to keep the aircraft afloat. The deployment of the dinghies (life-rafts) did not as referred to in the letters. However, the statement

The helicopter was equipped with two automatic inflatable life rafts

is incorrect as they are not automatic, i.e. they do not come out automatically on landing on water. They must be deployed using one of three methods:

1. A handle in the cockpit.
2. A handle on the outside of the cabin aft of the main cabin door
3. If 1 or 2 do not work then two catches on the sponson must be released to lift a panel and then a handle on the dinghy itself is pulled.

By pulling either items 1 or 2, the sponson panel is opened and the dinghy inflates out of its hold to be placed by the cabin door. Item 3 is if the other two methods fail. I have seen film as to what the problem was with the deployment of these dinghies, and the EC225 has a completely different (and better) mechanical system, although the same three methods are used for deployment of these dinghies.

There is nothing in the links that I can see that

this was blamed in that report to be the reason why that airframe was damaged too much for repair

I think there is some misunderstanding here as to what are floatation devices for the aircraft and what are life-rafts for the passengers and crew.

From what I was told, the aircraft could have been re-built if it had been both fresh-water washed regularly after being recovered from Texel beach, and released relatively quickly by the Dutch investigators. However, as far as I know they have still not released G-JSAR and it currently sits in a hangar in Marignane awaiting a decision from them. Corrosion will definitley have taken its toll on the airframe and I doubt this aircraft will ever be rebuilt now.

Glidepath · Post by **Glidepath** » 20 Feb 2009, 11:12

Salty water and sand from the beaching stages of the incident could have done damage sure enough. However, the suggestion coming from Steve that it was not rinsed (with fresh water or distilled) would mean all involved had already given up the helo and / or are slighty 'ignorantious' to the corrosion factor.

consider this, it DID float, as Steve says "as advertised". One could more succesful argue it floated to good instead of 'not so' good.
But
it is said nobody was aware of itsbeyond expectation floating capabilities. And that's where the danger lies. It could have ended up banging agaist a drilling or prod. rig prior to being noticed.

Any probelems with dinghies and the likes, SHOULD IMO have been vitually NON-existant, after lessons learned from other indidents, in particular such as the aftermath of the lost KLMH S-76 and recommendations made in the air accident investigation report.

Post by **Jack** » 20 Feb 2009, 15:34

Some pictures of the helicopter after the incident. In this BBC news item is shown how the crash happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/uk_news/s ... 901124.stm

Jack wrote:The aircraft involved in this incident is Eurocopter EC225 LP c/n 2690 G-REDU.
The 2008-built EC225 LP Super Puma G-REDU was operated by Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd., Aberdeen.
The G-REDU was registered as chartered to Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd., Aberdeen, on 23 May 2008.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » 20 Feb 2009, 16:42

Jack wrote:Some pictures of the helicopter after the incident. In this BBC news item is shown how the crash happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/uk_news/s ... 901124.stm

The aircraft involved in this incident is Eurocopter EC225 LP c/n 2690 G-REDU.
The 2008-built EC225 LP Super Puma G-REDU was operated by Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd., Aberdeen.
The G-REDU was registered as chartered to Bond Offshore Helicopters Ltd., Aberdeen, on 23 May 2008.

It is clear the helicopter has overturned after a relative long period of time it had been afloat in upright position as could be seen on coastguard footage after the crash. The upright periode was long enough to disembark the helicopter in safety. ( the floatation device did work fine. ) It is built to last for a small periode of time only to allow safe escape of the helicopter. It is not build to sail the helicopter to a safe harbour 125 miles from the crashsite. Regardless of what people might say about the floatation device of the G-JSAR ( that managed to stay afloat in an upright position for about 24 hours beforeit washed on texel shore.) i say this is the second example of a puma/cougar/ec 225 perfect floatation device.

By the way the tail section of the helicopter came loose after the ditch.

the footage of the BBC shows in my honest opinion a straight in autorotation which is common practice in such an event. It says nothing about the cause of the ditch

Regards Pete

ABZSpotter · Post by **ABZSpotter** » 20 Feb 2009, 19:03

Hi Pete

the footage of the BBC shows in my honest opinion a straight in autorotation which is common practice in such an event. It says nothing about the cause of the ditch

The local paper in Aberdeen has quotes from one of the passengers saying that he thought it was a slightly heavier than normal landing and didn't think much more about it until he saw water coming in to the cabin. That makes it sound that all was normal and that the landing was not really anything unusual as far as the passengers were initially concerned. With the weather as it was, the aircraft would not have been that high where it was close to the platform, about 300ft amsl (100m), so not a good height to start an autorotation. Had it been an autorotation, it would have landed on the water quite heavily I would suggest and that does not appear to be the case from reports so far. However, why the tail came off is still a bit of a mystery.

Steve

Post by **Jack** » 01 Apr 2009, 17:23

According to BBC News: A height warning may have failed to activate on a helicopter which ditched in the North Sea after it hit a bank of fog, a report has revealed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scot ... 963790.stm

ABZSpotter wrote:Hi Pete

The local paper in Aberdeen has quotes from one of the passengers saying that he thought it was a slightly heavier than normal landing and didn't think much more about it until he saw water coming in to the cabin. That makes it sound that all was normal and that the landing was not really anything unusual as far as the passengers were initially concerned. With the weather as it was, the aircraft would not have been that high where it was close to the platform, about 300ft amsl (100m), so not a good height to start an autorotation. Had it been an autorotation, it would have landed on the water quite heavily I would suggest and that does not appear to be the case from reports so far. However, why the tail came off is still a bit of a mystery.

Steve

Scramble Messageboard