Nick....
Thanks for responding...
The issue we are dealing with is the difference between Standard Category Certification, and Restricted Category Certification. Flight Safety raised the issue of the CT7 engine in the 214ST as being an engine that is currently not in production....due to the fact that the only civil helicopter to use the CT7 engine was the 214ST, and that ship is out of production, GE stopped producing the engine.
However, the military is still a customer for the engine, and that is why the S70 Type Certificate was amended, allowing the use of the military engine...
The issue related to the engine maintenance requirements pertains to the engine cycle limits. These limits should be similar for RHL operations...the basic design of the engine is the same between the civil and military engine....
What I wanted was an answer about was why GE changed their requirements for this engine design between the 214 and the Firehawk.....
Just because an engine is no longer in production does not justify a difference in finite life requirements.... or factory support...(did PHI have problems with GE on parts?). Justifying the engine does not require different life limits for RHL due to the Restricted Category Certification of the engine does not explain why GE allows RHL without an amendment to the military maintenance requirements.....except that they are not involved with the FAA approval for the engine...
Can your company justify the fact that GE will not allow RHL operation for the 214, but Sikorsky allows RHL for the Firehawk? Since Sikorsky is responsible for the certification of the engine in the Firehawk, I would think that the issue of RHL would be addressed by your company to assure safe operation, because of GE's attitude towards RHL operation with the standard category engine.....
During our conversation with GE for the 214ST, I asked specifically if the ship would be supported for just fire fighting operations, since our company was considering acquiring the ships for only firefighting after GE responded with their concerns about logging operations. They stated that they could not support any operational profile that exceeded 12 engine power cycles per hour.
A comparison can be shown on the S61 ....there is a different requirement for the installed engines (both military and civilian, according to GE) related to engine finite life limits, depending upon which mission is performed by the aircraft....
Can you offer any facts, and not just opinion and conjecture related to this subject? Does the restricted category certification of the engine really offer an equivalent level of safety as you stated?
Do the military cycle limits require shorter finite lives for the engine components during RHL operations? Or does the usual "only one or two people in the ship" attitude justify the lack of maintenance requirements?
As far as operation of the aircraft in Canada, I have never heard of that country accepting restricted aircraft from the states as being acceptable for operation in their airspace.....
[ 01 September 2001: Message edited by: rotormatic ]