Experts: Impossible To Determine If Aberdeen Super Puma Accident Was Preventable | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-07.07.25

Airborne-NextGen-07.08.25

AirborneUnlimited-07.09.25

Airborne-FlightTraining-07.10.25

AirborneUnlimited-07.11.25

Fri, Jan 31, 2014

Experts: Impossible To Determine If Aberdeen Super Puma Accident Was Preventable

Gearbox Pieces Critical To Investigation Never Recovered From The Ocean Floor

It may be impossible to determine if an accident in 2009 that resulted in 16 fatalities in the North Sea was preventable, according to an inquiry being conducted in Aberdeen, Scotland.

The accident occurred when the main rotor gearbox on a Super Puma aircraft reportedly failed during flight and the aircraft went down in the water. But divers were unable to recover a critical piece, a gear that may have failed, from the ocean floor.

The Evening Express newspaper reports that the accident inquiry board was told that without that critical part, it is likely impossible to know if the accident was preventable. AAIB inspector Mark Jarvis said that because "we fully don't understand the failure mode," he could not say with certainty that the accident was avoidable.

But after inspecting what was recovered from the seabed, Jarvis said “What we do know is that if the gearbox had been removed from service and sent to the manufacturer then during their overhaul procedure this gearbox would have been rejected.”

He said there was evidence of spalling, or metal-on-metal contact, in the recovered gearbox, but there was not the usual amount of debris that would normally be found in such a situation.

An attorney for Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter) which made the Super Puma said that it was unlikely that the gear failed, because if it had been defective, that would have shown up in previous inspections. But Jarvis said that, as unlikely as that may be, "the possibility remains it … may have contributed to this accident.”

FMI: www.aaib.gov.uk

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (07.12.25): Secondary Radar/Radar Beacon (ATCRBS)

Secondary Radar/Radar Beacon (ATCRBS) A radar system in which the object to be detected is fitted with cooperative equipment in the form of a radio receiver/transmitter (transponde>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (07.12.25)

Aero Linx: Australian Society of Air Safety Investigators (ASASI) The Australian Society of Air Safety Investigators (ASASI) was formed in 1978 after an inaugural meeting held in M>[...]

ANN FAQ: Turn On Post Notifications

Make Sure You NEVER Miss A New Story From Aero-News Network Do you ever feel like you never see posts from a certain person or page on Facebook or Instagram? Here’s how you c>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: Of the Aeropup and its Pedigree

From 2023 (YouTube Edition): Barking up the Right Tree Australian-born, the Aeropup is a remarkably robust, fully-customizable, go-anywhere, two-seat, STOL/LSA aircraft. The machin>[...]

Airborne 07.07.25: Sully v Bedford, RAF Vandalism, Discovery Moving?

Also: New Amelia Search, B737 Flap Falls Off, SUN ‘n FUN Unveiling, F-16 Record Captain Sully Sullenberger, the pilot who saved 155 people by safely landing an A320 in the Hu>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC