Rotormatic said (see >>> for his stuff)
>>>Thanks for responding...
NL- No sweat, this is the cool thing about the web. However, as I read down your post, I realize you are quite sensitive about stuff, and I will chose to answer only some of your questions and thoughts. That is my choice.
>>>The issue we are dealing with is the difference between Standard Category Certification, and Restricted Category Certification......
NL - Yep, and that is a sensitive subject. Also, the LACFD operates the aircraft, which some dislike because they don't pay civil operators to do it. This means that some folks are talking about profits and contracts when they are saying safety and mom and apple pie. My town owns the fire engines, and if they hired a contract civil FD, I'd move, because I want the guy coming in to pull my kids out to want to do it because he is a paramilitary professional whose job it is to risk his life to save my kids. Face it please, rotormatic, restricted vs public use, public vs contract is your agenda.
>>>What I wanted was an answer about was why GE changed their requirements for this engine design between the 214 and the Firehawk.....
NL - I can only give you an informal read on what I know. If you want reasons for GE's position, ask them. If you wonder why you can buy a Sikorsky and do something, but you can't do it in a Bell, try not to get testy with Sikorsky (BTW, please realize that I speak only for me, and do not in any way reflect an official Sikorsky position). What did you ask Bell during the problem? What did Bell say? That is probably more relevant, don't you think?
>>>Can your company justify the fact that GE will not allow RHL operation for the 214, but Sikorsky allows RHL for the Firehawk?
NL - I don't think I have to justify anything, do I? What do you mean by justify?The only thing I can say is next time, find a manufacturer that can help you get the job done.
>>>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?
NL - Sounds like you are hosed, rotormatic, if you think I have to respond to that attitude! I have better things to do with my time!
>>>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?
NL - Boy, you are really getting going! I have seen the S-70 maintenance manual, I wouldn't want anyone to drop it on me! What makes you think there is no maintenance on a restricted catagory aircraft? I think I hear your cash register ringing, not your thoughts.
>>>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.....
NL - Maybe so, rotormatic.
