Nick...
After a time, I thought about your recent responses to this topic, and thought I might be able to offer some insight on were I am coming from with my opinions on these aircraft.
Understand, I am hesitant to continue this debate, due to the topics I have seen you involved in on this forum with an un named helicopter maintenance person, and my strong feelings on the subject....I wish to continue this discussion in a professional manor to clarify my opinion on restricted category aircraft, and the issues being ignored by the manufacturers and the type certificate holders for these helicopters.
You stated:
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.
My agenda is not public use vs commercial operators....my position is that these aircraft should have the same maintenance requirements, because the restricted ships do the most demanding work....the company I use to work for almost exclusively operated restricted category aircraft for external load work...I got pounded by manufacturer's for operating these aircraft without taking into account RHL ......the firehawk represents a reversal in the normal manufacturer's point of view on this subject (we had a military 61 for a while, just so it does not look like a bell thing).....
Next point:
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?
Bell did not understand GE's position on the subject, since their airframe was set up to do RHL.....the only problem was that Bell could not supply GE parts.....
This is where I think you thought I went over the line...I just feel strongly about the subject..
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.
The point I was trying to make here was that since Sikorsky is responsible for the engine certification in the firehawk, why does there not seem to be any special consideration for RHL operations...on other topics in the forum, you have provided an insight to these kinds of questions, due to your ability to review design criteria for the subject aircraft.....
Next...
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!
Hosed...hum...well, have to admit, a lot of emotion with the response that got this answer....just on a rant about the engine certification....
And , the last one I think should be explained....
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 category aircraft? I think I hear your cash register ringing, not your thoughts.
I have no cash register anymore...I no longer work for an operator....and also, I did not say that restricted ships have no maintenance requirements....the question you responded to was centered on cycle limits for the engine components....
Hope this clarified my agenda...
RM
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: rotormatic ]