G-WPAS

[cptjim]

Can anyone shed some light on this photo please?

http://images3.fotopic.net/?iid=yu9v42&noresize=1&nostamp=1&quality=70

I'm guessing it has to do with the recent grounding of the 902 fleet but just curious as to why the tail number would be covered up like that.Thanks

[Newforest2]

Direct linking not allowed for this photo!:ugh:

[Whirlygig]

If you copy the link above and paste it into your address bar, you'll get the picture!!

Here it is, incognito!

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a228/Whirls/2008_0220gloucestershire0123.jpg

Cheers

Whirls

[PANews]

WPAS was taken from Wiltshire to Staverton by road just a few days before the general grounding, this may be it. I understand that it was an engine problem.

I have noticed before that PAS tend to obliterate the registrations of their road runners as part of the readying for the journey so this it not unusual.

As they left the aircraft titles untouched its nothing to do with secrecy. Perhaps someone thinks it may get mistaken for the registration number of the low loader if it jumped a red light!

[500e]

Thought have they would have cleaned it, then people would think it was being delivered :E

[widgeon]

Surprised they did not remove the Flir , some of the mounts are quick release.

[Newforest2]

Wasn't going to Liverpool was it?:D

[widgeon]

If it was they would have locked up all removable parts I'm sure.:)

[John R81]

Couldn't be Liverpool - the skids are still there

[Newforest2]

Not much skiing in the Liverpool area is there?

[quichemech]

It is quite normal to cover the registration of an aircraft when it is being transported by road, most maintenance companies do it. Even the military do it.:D

Nice photo of it going into Gloucestershire airport, was someone at the Aviator having a cuppa?

[ericferret]

The only good reason for covering a registration is to annoy the plane spotters!!!!!!!!!

[Whirlygig]

It's not to annoy them; it's to set them a challenge!

Seriously, why cover up the reg?

Cheers

Whirls

[Northskycop]

In my experience, they cover up any insignia to identify the aircraft - who wants to advertise to the 'customers' that the aircraft is off line, and unwanted publicity. Seems to me that someone did not understand what they were doing and only did half a job.

[Skidkid]

It's probably because GWPAS is owned by PAS and not Wiltshire Police.

PAS don't want bad publicity about themselves but are not bothered about their customers!

[quichemech]

Skid kid. Don't be silly, despite what some people think or say PAS are a professional company, as for why only some bits where covered, give them a bell and ask if it's that important.

01452 857999.

[Skidkid]

Thanks, but why not tell us the reason here?

[quichemech]

Because I don't work for them.

Maybe the covers fell off due to all the rain we have had lately:rolleyes:

[Pandalet]

I've never been close enough to anything produced by MD to verify this, but I believe the NOTAR system includes a duct along the tail boom, which provides (via the Coanda effect - thanks Phil!) anti-torque force. Presumably, when transporting by road, especially in the wonderfully wet excuse-for-a-summer we're having, you don't want water and things blowing in via the duct, so you stick some bin-bag over the hole. As someone's helpfully painted the reg over the duct as well, this has some side-effects.

Just guessing here?

[Skidkid]

Pandalet

Good guess but no. The NOTAR intake is on the top of the main aircraft body between and slightly rear of the engines. The out-ducts, which create the Coanda effect, are on the starboard side of the tailboom.

quichemech

Sorry, but from the way that you defended PAS I thought you worked for them.

Of course PAS is a professional company, I am not saying otherwise, but let's go back to the point raised before - "why cover up the reg?". It is obvious that they have made a deliberate attempt to cover up the registration which clearly identifies it as a PAS aircraft. It has been suggested, and I can think of no other reason, that this is to avoid bad publicity. But, they have made no attempt to cover up the customer's name in order to avoid bad publicity for them.

[quichemech]

Skid kid,

Read my previous reply please.

When I did work for them we would cover all identifying marks as a matter of course.

[PEASACAKE]

Does anybody apart from PAS really think the MD900 in any form, has a future compared to the EC135.

[PANews]

Well I guess I had to take that pitch on....

I must admit if you asked me that question a month ago I would have put my hand up [somewhat meekly] and said yes they look like they may be getting better, but time and tide change all things and I now have done a complete u-turn in the wake of two major AD events in the space of a fortnight.

It would all appear unsustainable by the customer [who after all is the important figure in this question who is not flying, flying within a restriction, and paying for the loss of business or replacement airframe]... now we have an FAA Emergency AD that is reducing all NOTAR aircraft to 100kts while MD gets the repair kits manufactured some time next month.

I guess the US market was not too bothered when the small Explorer fleet got grounded for a week but they may just get agitated when the whole NOTAR fleet [250 airframes?] is zipped down to 100kts because of another branch in the same sorry 'No-tail' saga turning up.

NOTAR should be sorted by now, its not a young programme and yet time and again it is seen as the Achilles heel of the MD product line.... when was the last major event [as in fleet grounding] on the thousands of conventional tailed MD500E, Agusta 109 or even the EC135?

That says it all I am afraid.:(

[quichemech]

PA News, nice to see you rise to the occasion.

Dreadful AD issued by the FAA, it is a great shame that the Notar system hasn't had the support it needs, it is a great system and so much safer when operating as an air ambulance.

As an aside, have a look on the EASA website and see how many AD's have been issued for the 135, there are even a few for the tail rotor system as well!

Having said that I do think that the 135 is a good machine that has had decent product support, unlike the poor old 902 which has not.:ugh:

[PANews]

At the root of the problem is the dire product support and level of investment in the technology. Great aircraft but just how long can the customer carry it? And they seem to be carrying it on a day to day basis.

Its been ten years now and its been a lurch from one thing to another. If its not the NOTAR its the rotor head etc etc..

The big mistake along the way was probably that decision not to let Bell buy into MD. That decision has undoubtedly hurt both parties. Would the 429 have seen the light of day were Bell to have had the 902 - with or without the NOTAR - to play with and develop? I doubt it.

Those 135 tail rotor problems [and I am not sure whether they actually led to a general grounding as such] were way back ten years when the first 135 was introduced to UK police service. The low numbers in service then may have masked a grounding.

I accept that we are currently facing the demise of the 135 Classic in police service because it has no autopilot... the difference though is that this is planned two years away and was not a requirement when the aircraft was bought.... That said - perhaps thanks to good development support - the 135 has had a charmed history. I can recall BO105 groundings but never yet a 135.

I do not buy helicopters, but the people who do buy vote with their wallets and we both know that that vote says something like 100 Explorers, 600 EC135s and a similar number of that ancient mariner of the light twin market the 109 [depending on whether you include the 109A].

[What Limits]

Interestingly, product support is a big factor when buying aircraft and over here in the frozen North, EC is dire. We just had to write off a set of AS350B3 blades after hail damage and its going to take 3-4 weeks to get a new set.

On the other hand you can get almost everything for a Bell in a matter of hours, except 206 main rotor blades !!

[Skidkid]

PANews

You do write a lot of rubbish.

There have only ever been two Emergency Airworthiness Directives issued by the FAA concerning the MD902 since it came into service over 10 years ago. Unfortunately, both occurred during last week which has given rise to the recent bad publicity.

Only the first one, issued on 14 Aug 08, relates to the NOTAR and most affected aircraft were flying again two days later. MDH should be praised for their fast response in issuing SB900-108 and getting the aircraft back online so quickly.

The second one, issued on 20 Aug 08, does not relate to the NOTAR but concerns the Vertical Stabilizer Control System (VSCS). The issue revolves around a recent batch of adapter tubes that have "not been manufactured to the required specifications". It is a quality control issue for the supplier of the adapter tubes and not a safety issue relating to the design of the system.

MDH have very sensibly, and speedily, issued SB900-109 which requires that the VSCS be switched off until adapter tubes of the correct specification have been fitted. It is because of this that the aircraft has been restricted to 100 knots and it is nothing to do with the NOTAR.

quichemech is absolutely right - "it is a great system and so much safer when operating as an air ambulance."

PANews

Stop knocking MDH and the 902 and get your facts right.

[PANews]

Skidlid,

Where did I say here were more than two Emergency AD's?

I must be suffering from short term loss of memory and you from dislexia.

What I did say was that the system had 'two major AD events in the space of a fortnight' ... the rest was about problems, one after the other. Regular groundings of the type whether attached to an AD or a spares issue put customers off. And matters not one jot whether its a bad production batch or please sir its 'not my fault' .... down is down. And this is whole fleet affected.

On its own nothing to worry about, cumulative it is a big problem.

It does not matter where the problem comes from .. NOTAR, rotor head spare parts the fact remains that no matter how quickly PAS gets the fleet together [and they did particularly well this time] this programme is still lurching from one event to another and the perception for the potential customer is that they can see this and avoid it by buying an alternative.... and take the risk presented by backing into trees [which is not that common] on the chin.

And talking about writing rot [and I know I have been guilty of a few] why did you write 'not a safety issue' ..... this is a safety issue, read the AD again last line of the first paragraph. 'loss of control of the aircraft' that sounds a teeny weeny bit unsafe...

So MD... are they totally at fault still? Well maybe not. What the customers are coming back to buy in Mesa now the support problem is near sorted is the MD500E. That may also be something of an ancient programme but it does what it says on the label without a great song and dance - and without relying on a handful of disciples in the Old World to constantly gird armour and fight its cause.

Take a few steps back.... Yes the Explorer is a great concept, yes it works well [when it works]... its super quiet, fast and small enough to put in restricted spaces, pilots love it, paramedics love it, trees love it because its kind to them .... BUT

[Skidkid]

Read it in full:

not a safety issue relating to the design of the system.

[Legalapproach]

I presume that the police covered up the reg same as is done when transporting car wrecks to stop the ID from being used to "ring" a stolen 900 - possibly a "cut and shut".:ok:

[willantis]

Skidkid

Correct me if I am wrong but I think the FAA website shows 3 concurrent AD's affecting the MD902. For an aircraft which has been in service since the early '90's this does not instill me with much confidence that airwirthiness is well under control. The 3 AD's deal with fatigue failures of a weld adjacent to the yaw pedals, the famous Bowden cable of last week, and now the VCSC problem. The latter AD would seem to prevent night flying as my reading of the AD is that the AP cannot be used.
Rumour around Bucks is that the Explorer on the low-loader (G-WPAS ?)suffered a significant engine failure. Rumours are often wrong but occasionally right.
Shouldn't the safety of an ambulance aircraft be beyond question?

[Skidkid]

willantis

I was referring to Emergency Airworthiness Directives (EAD) of which there have only been two since the MD900 series came into service.

The other one that you refer to is an Airworthiness Directive (AD) that was issued in June 2008. There have actually been 17 other AD's that relate to the MD900 series but this is not unusual. Most types, both fixed wing and rotary, have a number of AD's that have affected them at some time or other.

[winchman]

So whats PA news story with the 902 and PAS, i've not seen a single nice word said about them since i started reading these threads..... Did they turn you down for a job or something?:ok:

[Rigga]

AD's are not unusual for any type of aircraft, rotary or fixed winged, and quite normally are issued before a new aircraft takes to the air for the first time.

Some C of A's I have done have involved checking the compliance of 100+ pages of AD's listed against a single aircraft registration (B737).

99.9% of AD's are called up to inspect something first and the next step is to replace it in due course of time or cycles.
In all cases there is a Lead-Time to get all the spares available - though MD seem to have more spares troubles than most other manuafacturers.

However, all manufacturers are a bit 'lazy' when it comes to doing these seemingly urgent things - it all costs money - and even 'they' don't like paying for open-ended overtime!

[quichemech]

Only 3 concurrent ADs, since the 90s and you're worried?

Have a look at the AD tool on the EASA website for any given European aircraft or engine, infact just flip open Cap 747 to section 3A and pick Rolls Royce Trent for instance, 3 would be lovely. Don't look for Diamond Aircraft though, you won't have time to read them all.

As for WPAS, wait for the CAA monthly flyer. We'll all find out then won't we:ok:

[VfrpilotPB/2]

The photo of the Heli in the well of the low loader, indicate's a less than secure metheod of holding the craft to the trailer to enable totally safe road transport, the straps used will exert a force of nine tonnes each, but in the configuration they have been applied they would not stop any sidways movement in some sort of sudden movement of the trailer, just hope that the PAS have plenty of ins cover .:= Or to make sure the haulier had an absolute massive GIT insurance cover!

Peter R-B
Vfr

[gixer6]

all decals were covered up on the a/c when it was put on the lorry!! it is due to the weather that they did not last the journey

[Skidkid]

Thank you and all is now clear. It does, however, raise the question of why the decal coverings did not last the journey?

From looking at the photograph I assume that a fairly large sheet of bin liner style plastic was used to obscure the 'Wiltshire Ambulance' and 'Police' markings, and that the sticky tape has not been strong enough to hold it onto the aircraft. What has happened to that sheet of plastic? Presumably it has become detached from the aircraft during the journey.

What would the consequences have been if it had then wrapped itself across the windscreen of a passing vehicle? A serious accident could have occurred possibly causing injury or loss of life. Fortunately, that does not appear to have happened but it certainly puts the vehicle driver at risk of prosecution for having an insecure load.

Whatever the circumstances, it has caused a photograph to be widely publicised that no doubt embarrases the Wiltshire Police/Ambulance Air Support Unit.

Also, VfrpilotPB/2 is absolutely right that the aircraft is badly secured. I'm sure that a C130 loadmaster would be horrified by what he sees in that photograph. Also, did anyone consider the consequences of wrapping the straps across the the rear skid dampers, the casings of which are fairly delicate I seem to remember.

Come on PAS - If you wish to maintain your professional reputation then you should be paying more attention to detail or supervising your contractors better.

[Rigga]

I love the Thread Drift here...So i'll just add to the rubbish!

At 30mph and above, airflow over car windscreens is 99.99% enough to prevent any fabric "Floating" around roadways from joining or attaching to the screens.

Although the Load Straps were enough to restrain the 900 in fore-and-aft movement what you didn't observe was the 12x 9-inch nails through the Skids!

[Skidkid]

At 30mph and above, airflow over car windscreens is 99.99% enough to prevent any fabric "Floating" around roadways from joining or attaching to the screens.

Not with several metres of 'high quality' sticky tape attached!!

Although the Load Straps were enough to restrain the 900 in fore-and-aft movement what you didn't observe was the 12x 9-inch nails through the Skids!

Aaaah yes, apologies, couldn't see the invisible nails in the photograph!!!