Thanks Gents some very interesting feedback. Most of it I have heard before…the beans explanation is a new one to me and a nice way to describe it … reminds me of life at Club-Med… and I appreciate the ‘Sunday drivers’ perspective as much as the guy who flies in the part of Mexico that is as hot as the Jalapenos.
I also understand the argument that a machine that is worked very hard will not get to TBO, and I like to think that in those cases the power assurance checks, SOAP programmes, chip lights and similar safety features and techniques will assist operators to arrange for timely premature removal of the components that have taken a hammering before the safety margin has been significantly eroded. After all we don’t tell the guy with the mallet not to hit so hard because he might have to buy a new one during his lifetime. Nor do we let Hertz tell us that we can’t drive faster than 45 mph. To many of us a helicopter is a tool to be used in business, to make money, as is deemed appropriate by the owner, not something to be taken out for a ride around the block on a Sunday morning and the view that retaining its resale value is paramount. But we do insist that the machine be operated and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s limits and recommendations.
I am looking at the legal considerations of pilots, that for operational and contractual reasons, are having to use power in the takeoff range for periods in any one flight that are longer than the ‘5 minute limit’ stipulated in the Flight Manual.
I am sure that there are a number of pilots who have flown military or law enforcement missions, and probably ENG missions too, where they have been required to remain in an OGE hover for extended periods of time. If these pilots use ‘take-off’ rated power in excess of the 5 minutes for a continuous period then it would seem that they are operating outside flight manual limits. If they move into forward flight and do a large orbit allowing air flow through the coolers etc. before they return to the OGE hover are they now back to operating within the flight manual limits?
If takeoff power is for takeoff purposes only why do the ‘hover ceiling’ graphs specifically state ‘takeoff power’? Why do we not have hover performance graphs to use for the maximum continuous power rating?
Does the takeoff range on the Bell 206 torque gauge, which we are told is connected with a KIAS limitation and mast moment, have any real implication with regard to hovering flight?
Why is it that if the same old questions get asked every year, come summer time, the manufacturer doesn’t do something to clarify the situation once and for all. If a flight manual amendment isn’t commercially viable there must be other ways that they could get the message across; Ski’s ‘HeliProps’ is one example that comes to mind.
Bell’s representatives, in face to face meetings, are unable / unwilling to provide the ‘party line’ answer, probably because of legal and liability issues. Is it possible that someone from Bell could use the medium of an anonymous forum such as this to clarify the issue?