Talk:CHC Helikopter Service Flight 241

Registration

Sources that are not useable on Wikipedia claim the aircraft involved is LN-OJF. Can we find a useable source to verify this please? Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

BBC to the rescue! Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary

The summary states that the helicopter crash landed. I think it would be better suited to state that it crashed. Crash landing implies some sort of successful accident avoidance or mitigation. Sources later in the article state that the main rotor completely detached from the helicopter, which would cause a complete loss of control. MordeKyle (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I agree, and have amended the infobox and lede. Initial reports were of a crash landing, now apparent that it was a crash. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Extent of grounding

The Norwegian CAA states that Airbus Helicopters has grounded all EC225LPs worldwide, with a link to Airbus SIN 3030-S-00. However Airbus SIN 3030-S-00 is somewhat vague, stating that "we are allied with the decision taken" to ground commercially-operated EC225LPs, while also stating that the document affects AS332Bs, -Cs, -Fs, -Ls and -Ms; all models of AS532 Cougar; and EC725APs as well. (The Norwegian CAA statement is here; SIN 3030's text is identical to this Release, with models affected listed in the SIN's header.) So the question is, can we take it as read that all of the aforementioned models (presumably sharing the same components) are grounded worldwide? YSSYguy (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That's my interpretaton too. Have added the info to the article. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source from The Guradian, although it just says "type". Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC) ... not that one can ever trust The Grauniad, of course.

Technically Airbus Helicopters (AH) are not in a position to 'ground' the type, that is up to the individual national aviation authorities, however what they (AH) are able to do is to agree with the Norwegian CAA decision to ground the type within Norway and to recommend all other operators elsewhere cease flying them until such time as the cause of the accident is found and its implications for other helicopters of that type assessed. This they appear to have done.

When a type is officially 'grounded' by a national aviation authority the order has the force of law and this makes it unlawful to fly or otherwise operate the type for hire or profit until the grounding order is lifted. This is to protect the public, i.e., the passengers that may be carried, and to a lesser extent, members of the public on the ground.

An operator may himself/herself 'ground' his/her fleet of a type if he/she has suspicions about its safety, and Freddie Laker in fact voluntarily 'grounded' his entire DC-10 fleet on hearing of the 1972 Paris Accident, some time before the type was officially grounded in the UK. BOAC did the same - with de Havilland concurring - after the first Comet accident, although as the cause took some time to find, they later resumed flights thinking the cause was something other than it actually was, and that it had been fixed in the interim. After the second accident the type was then officially grounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As the official source" says "... put all commercial EC225LP passenger flights on hold", then I guess we should reflect that wording. I've added quote marks in the text, as I think it's a technical term, and I can't find any definition for on hold. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't criticising the text, merely trying to clarify the position, Re: Airbus Helicopters. They have no authority to stop operators using the aircraft. That is up to the national aviation authorities in each country, which they do by issuing a grounding notice/order. All Airbus Helicopters (or any other aircraft manufacturer) can do is recommend operators cease flying the type until further notice - which is, in fact, what they appear to have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one wonders why the Safety information notice doesn't just say "recommend all operators cease flying the type until further notice". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The notice is probably written by a publicity department, so their choice of wording used may be aimed at the general public.

Sorry - can't help with the red links. I only know some basic principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Such a notice would definitely not be written by a publicity department, and would definitely not be written for the benefit of the general public - it would be sent as an Alert to maintenance organisations and operators, as evidenced by the two logos in the "For the attention of" box in the top left. However I am at a loss to explain the vagueness of it, "on hold" is not a technical term that I am aware of. I was aware when I posted earlier that Airbus Helicopters is unable to ground aircraft, I was trying to ask "what should we do", guess I wasn't clear enough. I also think that the SIN affects the other Models that I earlier listed above as well. I think the gist of the SIN is "an EC225 lost its main rotor, all you people operating and maintaining EC225 and derivative aircraft should consider ceasing operations until we know why". As yet there appear to be no grounding orders in place for Australia, Canada or the USA. YSSYguy (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have an article for NOTAM. Perhaps we need to add something about manufacturer's safety instructions, either there or perhaps at Aviation safety? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Notice is in-effect an initial advisory from the manufacturer to cease flying the type until further notice pending more information from the accident investigation. At this stage, this is the only, and most prudent - losing a complete main rotor head with all the blades is non-trivial and non-survivable - thing that they can do. The vagueness of the wording may be due to translation, as, I would suspect, it would originally have been written in French.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Um , the Norewgian luftfartstilsynet.no parent site for our pdf source is quite unequivocal saying "Airbus grounds EC225LP worldwide". I can't find any on-line version in French. Martinevans123 (talk)

Unfortunately they are wrong - "issued a safety directive which grounds all machines worldwide." - for the reasons I stated earlier. The Notice itself doesn't actually do this. It is merely a recommendation to operators elsewhere taken in conjunction with the Norwegian CAA's decision to ground the type in Norway. An operator elsewhere would be extremely unwise to ignore the Notice and recommendation, however.

Airbus Helicopters IIRC is based in France and so I presume the Notice would have been written in French first and then translated into English for the English PDF version. But that's just a guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Manufacturer name

The machine is listed on a (non-RS) website as being manufactured in 2009, and someone has added to the article that it was manufactured by Airbus Helicopters. However Airbus Helicopters did not exist in 2009. YSSYguy (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. The company is owned by Airbus only now. I think someone was probably trying to find a compromise with the anon IP editor who has kept adding "Airbus" to every instance of the helicopter type name. Martinevans123 (talk)

I think it is correct to name the manufacturer by their current name Airbus Helicopters. The company page says "Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter Group)" and it is clear that it is the same company with a new name. Also, they officially renamed the actual helicopter model to "H225 Super Puma" so the wiki page on EC225 is a bit outdated. The confusing part is that AH themselves are using the model name EC225LP in the safety notice.Treehugger76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"H225" is just a marketing name. If we are talking officially, then all helicopters marketed as H225s are EC225LPs, just as all Hughes 300, Schweizer 300 or Sikorsky S-300 helicopters are actually Model 269s. The machine was made by Eurocopter and the text should say that; something like "manufactured by Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters)". YSSYguy (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Investigation

"On 1 May the BBC revealed that the helicopter had been forced to land days before, over fears of a technical problem, when a cockpit warning light had illuminated, a few minutes into a flight to an offshore platform on Tuesday 26 April.[18]"

This is not really part of the investigation, it is a speculative newspaper article. This and similar cases dug up by the media about the aircraft's recent history has been in Norwegian media the last days, but there is no proof that maintenance have been handled poorly by the operator. Alarm lamps and part replacements happen in the flight industry every day. I think this and similar speculations should be left out from the Investigation section. Treehugger76 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There's a rebuttal from the operator CHC, saying much as you have said here, which could be included to balance. No strong view, so would not object to it's being removed. What do others think? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw that in the BBC article, but most people will not click the link, they read the information on wikipedia. The section is about the investigation and this is in my opinion just "noise". Treehugger76 (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Just for info, the warning panel of the EC225 is located at (4) on page 9 of this Technical Manual. But the BBC source doesn't actually say if the warning light was on that panel. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's speculative, but it may prove later to have some (ahem) bearing on the investigation; this aircraft has some history of showing warning lamps when one of its two oil pumps fails, & on several occasions the pilots of these aircraft have ditched them unnecessarily. that may be why the writer saw fit to include the mention. duncanrmi (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Worldwide flight suspension lifted

It seems from this edit that the worldwide "suspension" of flights was lifted sometime on 1 May. The Main Page ITN blurb currently says "All EC225LP Super Puma helicopters worldwide are grounded .." Does this now need to change? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am, like others who have discussed above, not sure what authority a manufacturer has. But the wording in the last AH press release is that they have "decided not to suspend" so maybe there are some built in rules about manufacturer recommendations in the flight industry that I am not aware of? "All EC225LP Super Puma helicopters worldwide are grounded .." is not precise anyway since for at least Norway and UK SAR flights are excepted and there is also a number of military EC225LP's that are not covered by "commercial passenger flights".Treehugger76 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess we could suggest removing the offending words and leaving just "A EC225LP Super Puma helicopter crashes near Bergen, Norway, killing all 13 passengers and crew". Any better suggestions? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It would save us from the vague information about the grounding.Treehugger76 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Has now been updated. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Much of the confusion has been due to most of the available information being written by, I would presume non-aviation news journalists, who are unaware of the the technicalities involved, or of many of the precise and accurate terms used. Hence the rather vague use of language. This of course, might just be due to the typical lack of information usually present at this stage. Or it may be because of translation from another language.

There is no international means by which an aircraft type may be 'grounded worldwide' and there never has been. Neither is it possible for a manufacturer to 'suspend' flying of a type. That is up to the national aviation authority (e.g., the CAA in the UK, or the FAA in the US, etc.,) or the aircraft's owners - once bought from AH, or leased or whatever, the aircraft being private property, unless prohibited by the national aviation authority, the owners may do what they wish with them.

Generally if an accident is serious, and raises questions of a type's airworthiness, the relevant national aviation authorities will co-operate in assessing the implications of the accident usually via their respective equivalents of the AAIB, and then, if serious enough to affect safety, usually issue grounding orders for their respective countries within a short time of each other. Thus one usually hears news of one country grounding a type, followed shortly after by a succession of announcements that other countries have followed suit. This delay from the other countries is due to, the time taken for the information to be transmitted to their country, e.g., possibly different time zones, for the national aviation authority to then assess the information received and to decide that grounding is necessary and to decide to then issue a grounding order, the necessity for a legal department to examine and arrange the order, and for a government official to then sign the actual grounding order. At this point the type is then officially 'grounded' and it then becomes unlawful for any commercial operator to fly the type in that country. The government official involved will usually be someone quite high-up, a Minister or equivalent, as the financial implications to a commercial operator of being unable to generate revenue should a possibly substantial part of his/her fleet be grounded could run into losing millions of pounds/dollars if the type is a large commercial airliner.

If the accident relevant to this article is wider-ranging in its implications for the type's safety then I would expect a series of national grounding announcements for the type over the next few days. If not, then the accident cause may have been isolated to that particular aircraft, and so no general grounding is necessary. The earlier AH announcement being a responsible manufacturer 'playing safe' until more is known.

Note: the above is a rough guide FYI only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"The U.K. and Norway say they’ll soon lift a 17-month ban on the use of two models of Airbus Super Puma helicopters to service offshore oil operations." However, many oil-rig workers indicate they will never get on a Super Puma again. [1] EditorASC (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Shell

Apparently Shell have suspended their contract with CHC in the wake of this accident. Article is in Norwegian to I'm not 100% sure. Is this worth putting in the article? Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. I wonder is there an English source. Shell is hardly a Norwegian company. Except that it looks like it's just a suspension of flights: [2] not the entire contract? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspension of flights to the Draugen platform and the Knarr FPSO, and only temporary suspension of CHC Helikopter Service awaiting clarifications, not CHC worldwide.Treehugger76 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. So maybe that's not really significant enough. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Image

@Flerg:, would you please explain why you removed an image from the article, apparently without good reason. I note that you gave "removed by copyright owner" in the edit summary. The image in question, File:A Bond Offshore EC225 at Aberdeen airport.jpg, has been released by you on a Creative Commons 4.0 licence. You are credited as the author on the image, which is all that is required. You do not get to dictate where the image gets used on Wikipedia. Pinging Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) for confirmation that the situation as described in italics is correct. If this proves to be the case, the I propose that the image is restored to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots:, The photograph in question is of a Bond (now Babcock) aircraft. This company has nothing whatsoever to do with the tragedy and linking it in an authoritative article such as this - in which there is only one image - can only provide opportunities for confusion among the readership. The aircraft involved in the tragedy was operated by CHC. In my view an image of a CHC aircraft - or one of the many images that have already appeared of the crash itself - would be the only ones appropriate at this stage of the investigation. Creating links with other aircraft or operators will only encourage potentially damaging and misleading speculation. I believe there are images of the specific aircraft involved available.

User:Flerg, if you uploaded that image to Commons, although you are still the "copyright owner", you surrender control (see comment below from Moonriddengirl. You may have reasonable concerns to ensure that the Bond (now Babcock) company is not implicated in any way in this accident, by this article. But the image is for illustrative purposes only - to show the type of helicopter involved. The caption clearly says: "Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma helicopter, similar to the helicopter involved in the accident". I don't see how this can be taken to implicate Babcock, or indeed any company, in any way. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Flerg: - if there is an image of the accident aircraft availble on a licence compatible with use on Wikipedia then of course it will be used. I'm not aware of such an image. Mjroots (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, image donors remain copyright owners; they release license to their images but retain copyright. :) However, that license does allow liberal reuse - it's main point. There are non-copyright restrictions on image reuse, but I don't believe that this would be an issue where that applies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But just to be clear - loading to Commons is a one-way process - once it's released into the public domain, an image can't be dragged back into private ownership or deleted, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps something like File:20100717 EC225 6.jpg could be used instead? It's a better angle of the aircraft anyhow, and not in the livery of any specific commercial operator? (Addendum: There are actually quite a few images at Commons:Category:Airbus Helicopters H225 Super Puma 2 that show the same type of aircraft from superior angles.) Courcelles (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that one is the same basic helicopter (although it's a SAR, not a LP variant), but it's a military one (French Navy SAR). Might suggest the accident was in the military sector? But I see what you're saying, at least it avoids any other company livery. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

More my point is that a profile image is, in my opinion, a better choice than the angle the current image was taken from. (and just pointing out an example, rather than recommending that single one). Moonriddengirl is entirely correct (I came here as a Commons admin to agree with her!) that File:Eurocopter EC-225 Super Puma MkII.jpg is being used entirely within the license the photographer released it under; I just think the angle is lousy for the intended purpose (compare the images chosen for Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma). Courcelles (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Courcelles: the disputed image is File:A Bond Offshore EC225 at Aberdeen airport.jpg. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought the angle of File:Eurocopter EC-225 Super Puma MkII.jpg was lousy as well, which is one reason why I replaced it with the image (File:A Bond Offshore EC225 at Aberdeen airport.jpg) that Flerg found objectionable; the other reasons being that it was a civil EC225 operating offshore oil rig support and that it was from slightly above (an atypical angle for a helicopter image), offering a good view of the main rotor. It wasn't selected at random, and if there was a suitable image of a CHC Helikopter EC225 - there are no categorised images of CHC Helikopter EC225s on Commons at all - I would have used it. Now I see it has been replaced by another image, of an EC225 operated by a third company operating offshore oil rig support. @Flerg:, are you equally unhappy that this other image is being used now, or just "your" image? YSSYguy (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@YSSYguy: I have witnessed significant confusion in other local and social media recently, particularly in the Aberdeen area, where the helicopter types and operators are being conflated and confused in respect of this tragedy. It is a highly sensitive and emotional issue, as you would expect, for the thousands of oil workers who regularly travel by helicopter to the North Sea, so avoiding any potential confusion among local operators - CHC, Bristow and Bond - is really important for everyone involved. The 'new' picture appears to clearly be none of these operators, which may well reduce the opportunity for confusion. I'm grateful, too, for the information about copyrighting and Commons. This has been a really useful exchange for me, a relative Wikipedia newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flerg (talk • contribs)

I think most of us would hope that "thousands of oil workers who regularly travel by helicopter to the North Sea" would not rely on Wikipedia to tell them what's safe and what's not (?) I'm glad that an acceptable compromise seems to have been reached here with the info box image. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There is an excellent photo of that Super Puma model on page 10 of the 5th Prelim Report. I could find no claim of copyright in that report. Can we use it? [3] EditorASC (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The image used now is again not representative of the content of the article. There are numerous photos online that are relevant: https://www.google.com/search?q=chc+225&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTsqbr6KHdAhWB6YMKHRWHDEUQ_AUIDSgE&biw=1366&bih=673 --Taylorjlong (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CHC Helikopter Service Flight 241. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/caa_no/The_Norwegian_CAA_issues_Safety_Directive_on_EC225LP
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160505062640/http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SD2016001%20Limitations%20of%20Operations%20Due%20to%20a%20Fatal%20Accident%20in%20Norway.pdf to http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SD2016001%20Limitations%20of%20Operations%20Due%20to%20a%20Fatal%20Accident%20in%20Norway.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.luftfartstilsynet.no/incoming/16-05616-9_SAFETY_AND_OPERATIONAL_DIRECTIVE_-_Airbus_Helicopters_EC225LP_and_AS332L2_-_Limi_1170234_3_0.pdf/BINARY/16-05616-9%20SAFETY%20AND%20OPERATIONAL%20DIRECTIVE%20-%20Airbus%20Helicopters%20EC225LP%20and%20AS332L2%20-%20Limi%201170234_3_0.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617071900/http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyDirective2016003..pdf to http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyDirective2016003..pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)