Virginia Airshow (Bell 407 loop & roll thread)

[Gunship]

Any feedback from the Virginia Airshow ?

Nothing in the Sunday Newspapers ? :E

[DualDriver]

Hi There Gunss

Apparently quite a good one... AS ALWAYS.

Don't know how accurate the following statement is, but someone APPARENTLY Rolled and Looped a 407. (???)

Any comments?

[Gunship]

but someone APPARENTLY Rolled and Looped a 407. (???)

Any comments?

Yes - he /she / it is :mad: in the head :p

;)

.. or :mad: good ... :ok:

[CaneRat]

APPARENTLY rolled and looped a 407????

If true, it must have had something to do with the tail rotor......???

Hur hur hur:p

[Sir Cumference]

Great Airshow! Virginia does have the finest location for an airshow in the world. Full program and yes the 407 was looped and rolled much to the amazement of everyone present and on completion to the disbelief of the guys at Bell who were contacted.

They obviously cannot give the OK to such a display as it would set a huge precedent and open them to massive potential claims. The pilot on the day apparently did not exceed 60% tq, speeds were calculated and the manouvres were all done at 1 G. If this was in fact the case then there should be no stresses to the machine, however the possibility of things going wrong could have led to a mess.

I think that we can all see that if Bell were to give this a nod, then we would have many barely qualified people starting to do aerobatics and the resulting potential liability for Bell would be huge.

Airliners in the form of 1-Time (DC-9) and Nationwide performed some great flypasts. SAA were missed especially since they have gained a reputation worldwide for fantastic displays yet are unable to perform at a local event.

Silver Falcons had only one member present as the others have flu?! In days gone by, I am almost certail the show would have continued but the new generation....Bleat!

Sasol Tigers in their L-29's had bit of a touch on Saturday brining their display to an early end. Earlier they had given a very good formation display.

All in all a great day. The best thing about Virginia is the great weather in the middle of winter and the fact that it draws people for all over the world for the day and it is a great venue to sit back and meet old buddies, toss back a few cans of neck oil and revel with other genuine aviation junkies. (Like 4holerpoler who came half way accross the world for the show) I never miss the show!

[CaneRat]

Can anyone tell me who the pilot of the 407 was?

On one hand, this guy deserves a hand shake and on the other, i would say he must be partially insane....

Next thing we will have Tom, Dick and Harry trying to duplicate these moves.....

Cheers

[Gunship]

Sir Cumference,

Thanks for a great update. :ok:

I must admit the "rolling" of the 407 is a worrying fact to me as well.

Being an "old bold' pilot - it aint good for any youngsters to see this - especially if illegal.

I remember in 94 when I was asked to roll a BK 117.

I went through the correct channels and DCA dis -approved as Lansav dis - approved and of course BK dis - approve unless changes on the tail boom was made (cutting of the vertical stabilizer if I remember correctly).

Well CAA reads this and I am sure they will have something to say ... :ouch:

[Sir Cumference]

The show was part of the Starlight/Flashlight/Glow worm/Broken torch display. The driver and I am not sure if I can mention names on this site would be known to Guns as he was once in charge of a local Air Force in times when homelands were made independant.

If that makes sense, then you will know who it was.

SC

[clipboard]

The Manual on the 407 prohibits these manouvers, so I'm not surprised that the Bell guys condemned it.

The pilot may be a highly skilled aviator, but what did he intend to prove with these manouvers? To show how good he is.......?

If it is indeed true that the helicopter was rolled and looped, one can only but wonder if the CAA approved the manouver?Permission is required from the CAA when any manouver, conducted or performed outside of the normal category of operation is intended.

If it was my helicopter, I would fire the pilot immediately, as irrespective of what he (the pilot) or anyone else says about the manouvers, that no G's were pulled etc, one will never know.

What if damage was done, and something goes wrong in the future? Who is to blame then???

I would say that it is nothing other than irresponsible!

[francois marais]

Sir Cumference, from your posting it appears you know the pilot. Maybe you can ask him to tell us how he conducted the manouvers. If he won't, maybe he will tell you, and you can tell us.

Would be really interesting to hear more about this.:ok:

[ou Trek dronkie]

You know, breaking the rules, especially in front of a large crowd, is not only stupid, but is irresponsible as it can provoke others to do the same thing. "If he/she can do it, I'm sure I can too."

I remember a well-known pilot who nearly killed himself at Lanseria some years ago when he tried to imitate the brilliant display of another pilot earlier in the programme. I especially remember the noise the crowd made when he disappeared from sight. Horror.

When will these "aces" learn ?

Shaking my head sadly, as I remember friends who have killed themselves on a sudden inspiration.

oTd

[HedgePig]

To answer a few of the burning questions, not all, here is what i KNOW to be true, not assumed.

You will all know that a special flight permit is issued by the CAA for EVERY routine performed at an airshow. The deisgnated CAA chap is a highly respected and experienced head of helicopter ops in SA, who approved the routine. This is an exceptional case, where the heli was rolled and looped the day before too.

Bell prohibits the maneouvre, for exactly the reasons named before, to prevent youngsters hopping into dads R22 and going large. A rigid-semi-rigid head is fully capable of 3D flight, as long as a load is always on the blades and the flight envelope is never exceeded.

It was a show-stopper, and even His Eminance was screaming about it never even being seen at Farnborough.

The pilot was VERY experienced, both 50% owners of the 407 were in the crowd and the insurers were informed. Bell, after hearing of the event, flew an inspector to Virginia and pronouced the heli undamaged and safe.

Anyone who saw it saw something unique. A civvie heli has NEVER been rolled and looped at an airshow, and i mean 360 deg turns, not rooivalk wing-overs. After all this noise, you can be pretty sure it aint happenin' again.

[Gunship]

:ok: mhhhh .. to this day I still get compliments about me , him and a Casa at the Tzaneen Airshow.

If it is the man I think it is ... he is way to professional not to get permission and everything in place ! :D

VIVA CE ... now please get us the video and pics man ;)

[Teignmouth]

I doubt that the insurance was told the 407 was going to do full-on aerobatics, in (apparent) breach of CARs, manufacturers specs, etc. And even if it was told, so what? If what he did was illegal, no matter how many times you tell some insurance idiot, who knows nothing about flying and cares even less, they ain't gonna pay when you break the 'plane! As far as I know, all insurance relies on what you're doing being legal, which is why you won't get paid if you wrap your car around a lamppost while you're drunk. It'll be interesting to hear what CAA have to say, if they actually care enough to say anything at all. Do I sound cynical? Surely not!

[bigmanatc]

Hey....if Brian could broadcast the drivers name to 15 000 spectators at the show, why the big secret here....?
For pilots ...you sure have a bunch of "moangatte" here ready to shoot him down in flames......
Well done that man.......a world first !!

[DualDriver]

Gunss

You're right. It was Mr CE. Highly respected pilot in my eyes. And I think he will go down in the books.

All I know is that I wouldn't try that at home.

DD:ok:

[warloc67]

Guns

I have it on very good authority that the CAA did not give permission for this display and that the CAA gentleman on duty nearly had a hart attack when it occured.

The matter has been forwarded to Bell and their reply was apparently to ground the aircraft and crate it back to the factory for inspection.

It seems that this might just be one of the most expensive displays we've seen in a while.:=

[Sir Cumference]

I have been in contact with people in the know this morning and the facts are as follows:

1. Bell or any representative of Bell have NOT inspected the machine.
2. Certainly one of the owners was not aware of the display and "was white with rage" after the event and wanted instant clarification from Bell as to where he stood.
3. The CAA would only have approved the show if they were convinced that Bell had given approval, which Bell had not.
4. Bell have requested a copy of the video which has been forwarded to them for investigation. They have received information from CE as to how he performed the manoeuvre. This has not been tested and would never be sanctioned by Bell.
5. Bell would only ever do something like this in an experimental machine and by the test pilots, which has not happened.

The official stance from Bell is that further operation of this machine is entirely at the owner's risk! Warranty issues down the road, I am sure that we are all on the same page as to how those requests will be treated!

A show stopper all the same and I was very glad to have been witness to it. I doubt that I would be happy to fly that machine and I would be mad if I was the owner, but hell have I gained respect for the 407!

[clipboard]

As time moves on, so the facts come to light. The information posted by Warloc76 and Sir Cumference, are factually correct.

Rumour has it that the pilot is in DEEP dwang, and may have his licence revoked and suspended.

Furthermore, the pilot was not very economical with the truth when questioned by the CAA official directly after the show.

Rumour has it that the pilot flew the sequence during his "validation flight" on the Friday, and the Airshow Director and Safety Officer authorized the manouver based on information supplied to them by the pilot that Bell and the CAA had approved the manouvers, which we now know, was not the case.

The fact that this pilot was trained in Germany by the factory pilots from MBB how to loop and roll a BK 117 and MBB 105, does not necessarily mean that he, as a "Professional pilot", is entitled to break the rules (and the law) by an act of such stupidity. Stupidity?? YES! The fact that Bell have withdrawn the warranties on the machine, theoretically renders it worthless. NO re-sale value! Zero. May just as well be dumped as scrap.

The 407 handbook clearly states NO aerobatic manouvers permitted, and this SHOULD be respected.

I don't care what anyone says, but this pilot should be brought to book. Not only has he given South African pilots a bad name (Which is clearly the case described on another forum here on PPRUNE) but he has caused huge financial harm to the owners of the helicopter.

The owners should sue him for the replacement costs of a new 407. I would if it was mine!!!:}

[francois marais]

Unfortunately I don't know the pilot, so I am therefore not at liberty to comment on his flying skills or ability.

What is however rumoured in this forum, is the fact that no authority or approval was granted by either the SACAA or Bell to execute these manouvers. Surely, a pilot of this man's calibre would have thought clearly about his actions or his intended actions, and ensured that all was above board? (Clearances, approvals, possible emergency, escape routes etc.)

It will be really interesting to see what action the SACAA intends taking against this pilot, if any.

Gunnzzz, maybe you can entice the pilot to post his version of events here for us.

I must admit that I am not a big 407 fan, but what is undoubtly true, is the fact that the pilot executed these manouvers, and lived for all of us to tell his tale. Interesting! So maybe I should re-evaluate my thoughts on the 407.;)

[Sir Cumference]

There is one very important aspect that we are overlooking here. This is that there must have been sanction from the heirarchy at the company for this to be done. One wonders if the pilot did not mention that he felt he could 'do it' and then for maximum airshow...

I do not imagine that this was not discussed at length in the lead up to the show, the Friday practice in the GF and then at the field. The pilot did not perform this on the spur of the moment and he must have had managemnt support before the time. I wonder if he still has the support or if that has mysteriously vaporized???!!

[ANVAK]

Couldn't be there and missed all the action - but which a/c was this? Anyone have the registration? Just for future reference in case I have to fly it someday...

[tiny52]

I understand that Chief Pilot and safety Officer for Torchlight Flashlight Broken light or what ever they are called, saw the validation on Friday. Why did he not stop the show taking place on Saturday in front of tv cameras, and 15,000 + people.
He obviously either has no backbone or no power!

After all that, it looked very good!

I hope CE was thanked by the management for putting his career at stake!

For those who wish to know the helicopter was ZS-RIB
dont see why its such a secret.

[Sir Cumference]

On SABC2 this morning as part of GMSA they had fantastic foorage of the Virginia Airshow and it included both the roll and the loop. On seeing them again, they were very well done!

[Deanw]

Yes, quite a bit of great footage of the show and I must admit that I held my breadth for that loop and roll, even though I knew of the safe outcome :\

They even mentioned the pilot by name and that it was the first time the loop and roll was performed at an airshow.

[CaneRat]

Goodday all....

15000 people saw the loop and roll at the airshow, another 15000 might have seeing it this morning on SABC2 but what about the other 50000 + that have not seeing it???

Does anyone know if there is a posting on the net or if/when they might show it on tv again?

Really would not like to miss out on it!:hmm:

[Helifan]

I have been following this thread closely and cannot help but notice the subtle change in attitude from those individuals posting who seem to know a lot more insider info regarding this incident than others – where are you getting all your info from?.
What started out as a request for more details from an interested PPruner, has now turned into a platform to discredit the pilot, his colleges and the company they represent – STARLITE AVIATION (spelt out for those individuals who have a problem remembering the name).

In my opinion, the real issues regarding this incident is slowly being overshadowed by those individuals who’s apparent interest is to discredit their opposition – a pretty cheap way of indirectly marketing oneself if this is the case.
This is what I believe to be the real issue here and not the fact that an extremely talented pilot looped and barrel rolled a very capable helicopter with prior CAA approval, albeit with only 1 of the 2 owners permission, and stole the show.

Let us not allow this incident to deteriote into yet another one of those infamous aviation political bun fights that always ends up running out of momentum and yet leave a trail of bad relationships amongst fellow aviators and forces authorities like CAA into positions where they are obliged to enforce even stricter laws and procedures.

And lets face it airshows are places where we got to witness extra extrodinary aviation manoeuvres calculated and performed by extra ordinary pilots. I bet that if we had to analyse most of the high profile displays performed at airshows today against the operational limitations of the aircraft used in these displays, we would find that most of the aircraft used would have exceeded there limitations somewhere during thier sorties.

[bigmanatc]

Touche` Helifan......:ok:

[DualDriver]

Helifan

I 100% agree with you about the talents of that pilot. I have known him for about 4 years now, and not only is he a GREAT pilot, but he is also a GREAT guy.

I just have one question, when did anyone "indirectly market" themselves. I can't see any.

As for the permission, I (and many others) have it on good authority that permission was NOT granted. :confused: :confused:

[ANVAK]

Whatever the preamble was guys, the bottom line is that this a/c is now grounded by the SACAA and Bell has advised that it would probably require the full drive train and possibly some airframe parts to be replaced, before considering it airworthy again. Weigh this up against all the niceties. No contest in my book - it should not have been done.

[B Sousa]

Geesh, I go up to Mozambique for a week and come back to all these neat threads....
Looped a 407, must be a great show, bet there will be big :mad: over that.
I want to see something in writing that Bell buys off on it, I cant believe you will see it in a million years. In which case the owners of said machine will no doubt own a pretty piece of aluminum that can probably be transported to the nearest school for a playground oddity. At least all the serialized components.
You South Africans must have lot of money, thats an expensive way to get an aircraft scrapped.
Rumor has it that the Pilot is a Super guy and great Pilot. He had to know that there would be big :mad: over this one. One Hundred times more than a whole fleet of Hueys in the Cape..
Had a friend looped a Cobra in Vietnam, in the middle of a shoot out. The Transmission Bolts streched over half an inch. Tailboom and airframe was so wrinkled, the Maintenance Officer had the whole thing crushed as combat loss. Older Bells didnt like loops..
Guess these new ones are much newer technology, only have a few hours in the 407 but I think the book says not to do that stuff, so am seriously waiting to see Bells response .....
Im sure other 407 owners are lining up to let this guy fly their aircraft.......worldwide coverage..

[clipboard]

Helifan, we all know who STARLIGHT is, who its owned by, who runs it etc. It looks like you're trying to do a bit of marketing here, and in the process you're trying to slate the others. Bad move!

The aviation industry in this country is very small, and an act such as looping and rolling a civilian helicopter, not certified to perform these manouvers, will of course, attract huge interest. Irrespective of what a great guy or how good the pilot is. The handbook says NO, the manufacturers says NO, so which part don't you understand?

Everyone in this business have been talking about these manouvers, and I can assure you the CAA has been inundated with calls from whoever has an interest. So the news are broadcasted by those in the know, and what remains a fact, is that the pilot had NO authority from the CAA to perform these manouvers.

Now whether he is a great pilot and great guy, which I'm sure he is, he screwed up, and this is what this criticism is all about. Think about it carefully! If it was your machine, would you have condoned the manouvers? Somehow I don't think so....

[DualDriver]

WELL SAID, CLIPBOARD!!:ok: :ok:

[Sir Cumference]

I have a disc with Airshow footage on it showing the Loop and roll. Problem is it is 31,5MB! How can I make this available for all to see?

[340_co-jock]

Sir Cumference. Please would you post the URL of where the footage is once you have posted it. There will be plenty guys wanting the video as SABC doesn't have the time to reply to our requests.
Thanks

Try posting it on www.flabber.nl
This is an open forum with lots of movies etc.

[clipboard]

Pete, you can contact Monitoring SA (Pty) Ltd. Don't waste your time with the SABC.

They monitor all the TV & Radio Broadcasts on a 24 hour basis, and have all TV footages shot daily and broadcasted by the SABC on hand/file.

Their telephone number is 021-975-5755. They'll gladly make you a copy of the SABC broadcast at a fee.

[340_co-jock]

Thanks clipboard. Have organised the video clip. Will uplift this afternoon.
Thanks once again.

[snothogg]

The pilot in question is, in my humble opinion, is one of the *top 5* on my list of chopper pilots! Flew with him a number of times, and yes he is one of the safest pilots i know.

He would have planned this well before hand.

Good on you mate, a pity i was not there!

[DualDriver]

snothogg, here's a quote for you... READ CAREFULLY

"Irrespective of what a great guy or how good the pilot is. The handbook says NO, the manufacturers says NO, so which part don't you understand?

Everyone in this business have been talking about these manouvers, and I can assure you the CAA has been inundated with calls from whoever has an interest. So the news are broadcasted by those in the know, and what remains a fact, is that the pilot had NO authority from the CAA to perform these manouvers."

Nobody is denying his talent and personality, but MANY people have been in contact with CAA and NO permission was granted.
:hmm:

[ou Trek dronkie]

Ja Gunzzz, you have certainly started something eh ! I thought this thread was winding down, but anyway, here’s another five cents worth, if I may.

It’s quite surprising and worrying how the certification process seems to be completely mis-understood by so many of you out there. It is a long and difficult process for all concerned, where the OEM (= Original equipment manufacturer (I think), the guy who makes the aerie) wants to have as much performance allowed as possible, within the realms of safety. The Civil Aviation Authority concerned wants to assist the OEM, but is by nature, very cautious. And that must be a good thing. Think about it.

When all the work is done, the aircraft is issued with several long pieces of paper which say what can and what cannot be done. These are often in the form of operational limits. For the pilot concerned, these are outlined in the Pilot Handbook, Flight Operations Manual, or whatever is the title. Again, these are limits. They may not be exceeded. Dis die Wet (van Transvaal and everywhere else).

Let’s take an example. If, say, flight into icing conditions is prohibited, you may not fly into icing conditions (deliberately, need I say). It’s illegal. Also stupid, dangerous etc etc. We all know that. We must, definitely, all respect and comply with Aviation Laws. If you live in a country where laws are not respected, you begin to understand where all this is coming from and how it affects daily life. (Of course, I did not even think of Italy, perish the thought).

The same goes for aerobatic manoeuvres. If the manoeuvre is forbidden, implicitly or explicitly, you may not do it. It’s wrong, illegal, unsafe and, probably, quite dangerous (unless of course, you are the world’s absolutely greatest and most wonderful staggeringly talented whirly bird pilot). The only error in this statement is ignoring the problem of how to describe it in the accident report, when your stomach is heaving and your mind is out of sight, you are so distressed at the pointless loss of good human life. He was a good friend (perhaps). It's not a thrill thing, although there’s a fair amount of that evident in this thread.

Let me make it perfectly clear, I definitely have an axe to grind. It’s called Aviation Safety and I want it to be honed to perfection, always, everywhere. I suspect most other contributors to this forum come from the same base. (ie, Helifan, you got it so wrong man).

Again, may I remind you, even if it’s true that “And lets face it airshows are places where we go to witness extra extraordinary aviation manoeuvres calculated and performed by extraordinary pilots.” (Helifan again) it’s also true that airshows have shown us some of the most sensational, rivetting and extraordinary pictures of human beings dying in flames that we have ever paid to watch. Sorry about that, but it’s a personal thing. You never forget. Nearly always avoidable.

Now, dear ladies and gentlemen, not being allowed to do it is not the same as not being able to do it, especially if you are one of the world’s very bestest plots (and a great guy into the bargain. WOW !!! Glad to know you man, may I have your autograph ? )

If you insist and persist in flying an illegal manoeuvre anywhere, you are illegal. De facto. De jure (look it up if you like). And, IMHO and experience, almost always unsafe (read DANGEROUS). Check the insurance implications. They are AWESOME. I promise. Even if you just managed to kill only yourself, very spectacularly, on SKY and CNN plus a few innocents).

Just because you get away with it once does not mean you are/were safe and very clever, it means only that you were (that time, anyway) just a bit lucky. Limits (like laws) are set to protect the innocent from fools (amongst other reasons).

If the handbook says it may not be done, it even means a particular manoeuvre may not be permitted for a particular pilot on a particular day. Not even by means of a letter from a particular person in a particular CAA for particular circumstances. That is the law. And a very good one I believe.

Of course, this is all very general musing and has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with events (or not, as the case may be, AT VIRGINIA).

By the way Sir C, you say “Great Airshow! Virginia does have the finest location for an airshow in the world.” Well man, you ain’t been to Stellies, or quite a lot of other fields, that’s for sure. Shame.

Another thing Sir c. You criticise the Falcons for not flying because of the flu. Big error. You are badly uninformed Sirc. It’s clear to me that you have never listened to a screaming pilot who had decided to fly with a cold, not the flu, but just a little itsy bitsy teeny weeny ordinary cold and later learned about Valsalva’s manoeuvre and pure pain the hard, hard way, on the descent, back to base. Believe me, never, I say again, never, ever, fly with a cold. I have the T shirt. Sounds to me that the Silver Falcons have not lost their consummate professionalism.

Also, you say “I was very glad to have been witness to it”. So what ? It’s like saying “ I saw a blind ou in a BM riding flat out down Commissioner Street and he didn’t hit anything”. I see this type of madness every day in Rome, desperate, desperate. Perleeeze man, grow up. Are you reeeeeeelly a pilot ??? Like watching the rules being flagrantly broken (if that is indeed the case) ?

Hmmmmm…..

Ok, so you also say “I would be mad if I was the owner, gained respect for the 407”. But, Ja, would you fly it afterwards ? With the family on board ??? Always the acid test. Come on man, get a life. Or an aviation job.

Clipboard, your thinking is immaculate. Well done. Thank you for your sanity. You have the right perspective. IMHO.

By the way, Hedgevark, it definitely has been done before, but I cannot for the life of me remember where or when. I still just don’t understand why some guys want to prove the book wrong though. What’s the point ?? “I am a better pilot than you ???” Is it a macho thing ?

On that topic, I remember what a well-known (I didn’t say good) SAA Training Captain said to me once “Luister, oTd, if you ask any pilot who he thinks is the best pilot in the world, do you know who he will say ?” ….. “Me”. Joke over.

Teignmouth speaks wise words too.

Remember, the world is reading all this.

I have never forgotten the moron who flew a B707 of Air Zim EXTREMELY low at an airshow in Harare a while back. Many applauded his efforts but some of us felt like weeping. It was very stupid, but so many raved over it. Same syndrome perhaps.

Bigmanatc – Think about it, it might have been a world first in an entirely different sense, grow up please.

Well. That feels better. Hope not too many of you fell asleep trying to make sense of all this, but I just feel so Ess Haitch One Tee when I remember the totally, totally unnecessary deaths at air shows. So often fabulous guys, brilliant pilots, but just went that little bit over the edge.

My wife and I gave up air shows when we saw aeroplanes taxying through the crowds at FALA a few year back. Ouch !

Sorry if I got too personal for anyone, just old feelings rose to the surface.

Buona sera from the oTd

[B Sousa]

Absolutely nothing to do with this thread but anyone who would go by the name of "Snotthog" is certainly entitled to a free beer at the Cape Bash on the 28th at the Francois "Chop and Dop"

(even though hes a lurker with only one post)

[tiny52]

Likely to make things worse but any truth in the rumour that 407 aerobat did his conversion on said helicopter the day before! :confused:

[ANVAK]

Don't know about the conversion - but to come back to the bottom line: This particular helicopter is now the most expensive paper weight in the world. Grounded by the SACAA and the manufacturer (refer my previous post), with the insurance laughing at any hint of a claim.
So who cares about how good the pilot is - in my book he's just plain stupid.

[Sir Cumference]

oTd the reason that I say that Virginia is one of the finest locations for an airshow in the world is not just emotional rambling, it is a statement made and justified as follows. Durban does have some of the finest winter weather in the world. The past 18 years of the Virginia Airshow have been 'perfect days'. Most of which have been clear blue skys and temperatures of around 23C and NO wind. The pilots have an excellent line feature, being the beach, they fly at sea-level, the crowd look down sun for most of the day (after about 10:30am), the crowd are close to the runway and to the action. This is obviously not great from a safety point of view but for the guys who pay the bucks (and we are there to promote aviation) they get their money's worth.

I have been to Stellies as you call it and it is a fine venue for an airshow with the mountains in the background etc and I have been to quite a few other venues worldwide. I stick to my statement and am supported by some of the world's best airshow pilots who have been to a lot more airshows than you and I put together.

Back to the 407 issue. Sometimes you are in the right place at the right time and you are witness to an event that may not be legal correct or proper but you are glad to have been on the spot. (no accident in this case - glad!) Do you close your eyes whilst driving in Rome if you see anything illegal? Methinks you will spend most of the day with your eyes firmly shut!

I would not fly the 407 after the incident as I believe that despite there not being any visible damage now (there might be?), my feeling is that someone else, later, might pay the price for this airshow stint!

Apparently there is a reply from Bell saying that the helicopter in question is "un-airworthy" in their opinion. The owner's must be livid! Who is responsible? As I have said before a lot of fingers are being pointed at the pilot, but his display was sanctioned and planned and approved by his emplyers and airshow officials.

Does anyone have any further input with regard to tiny52's post that the pilot did his conversion the day before? We all assume that he had LOTS of experience in the 407 to perform such a display!

[policepilot]

Did said pilot have anything in writing from the owners, airshow officials etc? If not we all know where the buck is going to stop, and everyone will want their pound of flesh.
As Sir C said, Virginia has to be one of the finest locations for an airshow (weather etc), but also anyone in SA who has been in aviation for even a short period of time must agree it is certainly quite a social event. Walking from end to the other takes forever as you bump into friends and collegues.
Recently went to an airshow with Lancaster bomber, Harrier jump jet, Red Arrows,, (long list) displaying, fantastic. Although it was a great show, one kept looking for a familiar face.
Must check roster for next year and see if I can make 2005, at least I know it'll be a lovely day in Durban on the day.
Pilots at our outfit can be expected to send out CV's if flying outside the parameters of the pilot's operating handbook.

[CAMSHAN]

The pilot flying the 407 is a highly qualified pilot with many hours experience and one of the best instructors I've ever had the privelige to fly with. At NO time was the aircraft or himself in any danger. Most of you try and get your heads out of your ar@#$ and realise that the manouvere was a very carefully planned and executed performance!!

Please don't make assumptions whether he had permission or not if you don't know. Most of these guys have extensive operational flying, something that most heli. pilots dream of.

Give a little credit where it's due guys. Any of you ever pushed the envelope.... even slightly!!

[Rhodie]

Camshan...

Little bit tense for your first post dontyathink...

May I suggest you READ all the previous posts again..

NOBODY has said that the man is not highly qualified and experienced - quite the opposite in fact.

At NO time was the aircraft or himself in any danger.

The reasoning behind the views expressed here, are that it is clear that Bell dont share your views and there is now a very expensive machine declared unairworthy. (see quote below)

Nobody is denying his talent and personality, but MANY people have been in contact with CAA and NO permission was granted.

This is FACT, not assumption.

As for pushing the envelope - yes, I am sure many have done so. But to disregard the POH and the manufacturer's clear instructions is a different thing altogether. To knowingly and willingly flout the rules is another.

Another time, another place, maybe with the factory 407 test pilot on board - well, who knows. Maybe it would be written into the POH and Bell have another sales pitch to use. This time however, this was not the case.

R

[warloc67]

This topic, in my opinion has been informative and helpfull to most prospective display pilots, however, I feel that it has been rehashed enough.

Here are the facts:

a. The B407 in question has been grounded pending clarification from the manufacturer on actions required to reinstate the COA.

b. The pilot in questions license has been suspended by the CAA pending remedial action ie. rewriting certain exams.

The pilot in question certainly is a nice guy, he is an experienced helicopter pilot and at the time of the incident had less than 10 hours on type.

I think the authoritues has sent the required message to all aircrew that this type of behaviour will be seen in a serious light and will not be tolerated at any time.

Cheers

Warloc67

[A.FLOOR]

Is there any where we can see the loop and the role.

Can it be downloaded anywhere?

[B Sousa]

Camshan writes:"Most of you try and get your heads out of your ar@#$ and realise that the manouvere was a very carefully planned and executed performance!! "

Just cant help meself. Another Lurker who also may be a pilot streching bolts on someones airframe.
"A carefully planned and executed performance" against the manufacturers instructions is something that costs money, luckily no lives.
Its obvious that it can be done, just as you can run across the N1 during rush hour traffic............sometimes.
The book just says NO, very simple. So now Camshan we all want you to got out buy a 407 (Rand is better now)and lets watch this guy loop it a few times as we know it can be done. The you dutifully note the loops in the logbook and we can say it was a great show while you try and sell your piece of junk.
By the way it also says about the same thing in the squirell manual and the 206 manual. Can we count on YOU to fly one of those in a loop. Let me know Im getting tickets.

[Life'sShort-FlyFast]

This has been a very interesting post. Are there any updates? What is the status of the helicopter, the pilot in question etc?
Have Bell given any further requirements to be satisfied?

[DualDriver]

Seems to me that old "CAMSHAFT" is or was a student at STARBRIGHT

:hmm:

[Life'sShort-FlyFast]

I agree DD. Very defensive of Starbright!
Other manufacturers have been known to perform 'aerobatic' manouvers in their helicopters using test pilots and the machines are equipped with g meters etc and then even if limits have not been exceeded, reducing all component life by 50%. Result - costs rocket!

[B Sousa]

Specifically MD before it was MD used a 500 . It was a factory airframe, not going to be sold to the public as used, and had major inspection capabilities readily available.

[Chimbu chuckles]

B Sousa you are correct. When chaps earlier in the thread were stating 'first even civvy chopper looped/rolled'..or words to that effect..I was thinking about the MD500E (from memory) that was looped and rolled on the practice day at an Oz airshow about 25 odd years ago. The Oz CAA guy went ballistic and the MD Factory Test Pilot was absolutely forbidden from performing those manouvers during the airshow.

From memory he didn't roll but did 'loop'...he just tilted the manouver over a little so it wasn't a 'true' loop...probably looked more spectacular as a result. Pissed the CAA guy off but I think nothing happened.

At the same airshow someone else aileron rolled a Lear 35 at low level...think he was in the **** too afterwards.

I'm afraid I have a foot in each camp...been guilty of hijinx in the long past, better behaved these days...aero confined to the sim during recurrent each 6 months. I am completely happy to appreciate a talented pilot doing such manouvering...but to void an aircrafts COA, insurance, warranties etc etc is unforgivable imho.

The 10hrs on type bit gives me the shudders.

Still would love to see the footage:E

Like I said...a foot in each camp.

Chuck.

[Teignmouth]

I have the video. Can anyone give me an address to post it to for general viewing?

[Christo]

you can upload it to ftp.up.ac.za in the /pub/incoming directory and I will move it to a public place and post the url here.

[Teignmouth]

Christo, I've uploaded the video as requested. It's quite big (about 5Mb). Over to you. Cheers. Teignmouth.

[Christo]

you guys can get it HERE (http://hagar.up.ac.za/christo/Bell407Loop.wmv)

thanx to Teignmouth

[Gauteng Pilot]

Great footage


Thanks

:ok:

[planecrazi]

Amazing! Footage is great!

[catalogue2]

I have reread the entire Virginia Airshow thread from back to front, including watching the videoclip about a dozen times, and I'm confused.

Perhaps there are experienced helicopter pilots and engineers out there who can help me understand something.

Let's forget for a moment that this was a deliberate manouevre in (apparent) clear breach of the manufacturer's performance limitations. Let's just think about what actually happened.

It seems to me that all aircraft, including helicopters and including Bell 407s, have been known to experience potentially-damaging stress from time to time.

You only have to think of mountain flying and encountering severe up-or down-drafts; how about a power-off autorotation, or a plain and simple hard landing that buckles the skids?

When these things happen, what does the manufacturer do? Immediately ground the aircraft and produce a list of required inspections, replacements and overhauls that effectively write-off the aircraft, without any regard for whether damage has actually occurred?

I don't think so.

As far as I know, there are standard, acceped, inspections that are required following such incidents that are designed to quickly establish whether stress-related damage has occurred. If so, further inspections and/or repairs are called for. But if not, the aircraft is returned to service. End of matter.

In this case, though, the difference seems to be that it was deliberate and this is what has got the aviation community into a self-righteous orgy of how the manufacturer suddenly has a public duty to ensure this aircraft never leaves the ground again, or how the pilot should be strung up by his toenails and tickled to death with an ostrich feather.

C'mon, guys, let's get real.

Show me a pilot who has never exceeded the manufacturers' performance limitations - whether accidentally or deliberately - and I'll show you a flying saint who should immediately be cast in bronze and displayed, stark-naked, in the Aviation Hall of Fame!

So what really is happening here?

It seems to me that someone, somewhere, is out to "get" either the pilot or the owner of this aircraft and is ignoring the fact that, but for the issue that it was a deliberate act (of stupidity in front of 10000 people, I'll concede), this is really no different to a multitide of incidents that have the potential to over-stress an aircraft, but for which there are accepted inspections that, if carried out, can determine whether damage has, in fact, occurred.

So now the dust has settled, so to speak, isn't there anyone out there who can offer some sensible, unemotional, un-let's-get-the-pilot comment?

Does anyone really believe that this aircraft is now so damaged that the only way forward is to scrap it?

I'd really be interested to hear some expert views.

Cheers

[A.R.M.505]

Hi,

I've been wanting to find more on this, and despite a google search and going back through the forums, I've missed it - do you have a link for info? Good question by the way.

Edit: For some reason, my browser only showed this post above for this thread. Have got all the info (and more, as usual!) I wanted now, thanks.

[Gunship]

There is / was a long thread on this topic a month or so ago ... my connection is very slow - otherwise I would have searched for you - just go back in time .. :D

[What Red Line?]

"Way-back-when" the regulators regulated, the looping and rolling of a non-aerobatic aircraft would have resulted in the immediate withdrawal of the C. of A. and the prosecution of such an un-disciplined pilot.

One can only assume that the S.A. regulatory authorities, (a) didn't see it or, (b) are unaware of the event or, (c) they feel the flight manual limitations are too restrictive.

In any case, one would not expect a professional pilot to expose the aircraft or himself to critisism by a such a blatant dis-regard of limitations

(It wouldn't have been so bad if the manouevres hadn't been so poorly executed. It looked sh$thouse. The roll looked like "Oh sh$t, what do I do now?)

(Apologies to Tony Draper for any possible mis-use of the word, "one")

[catalogue2]

WRL

That's really my point. There has been a good deal of debate as to what sanctions, etc., should be taken against the pilot for having done what he did. No question, he probably deserves to have his licence pulled, etc., etc.

But what about the aircraft itself? That's what I'm interested in. Has the aircraft been so badly stressed that it needs to be scrapped (or completely rebuilt, depending on which way you look at it)?

Or should the manufacturer have simply required the standard stress inspections to be carried out and make a decision then as to whether the aircraft could be put back into service or whether further tests, etc. are needed?

The reaction of the manufacturer seems, to me anyway, to have been based on more of a desire to "punish" someone, rather than to objectively establish whether the integrity of the aircraft has been compromised.

ARM505
The original thread is called "Virginia Airshow" and can be found by searching the African Aviation forum within PPRUNE with "Virginia" as the keyword. Sorry, I don't know how to insert a shortcut into this message to take you straight there.

The video of the helicopter doing the loop and roll is at:

http://hagar.up.ac.za/christo/Bell407Loop.wmv

[Gunship]

ARM 505 here goes : http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137083&highlight=virginia+airshow

ANybody knows what happened to the pilot ?

Maybe the most professional pilot I have worked with ... :ok:

[Sir Cumference]

The issue here is that Bell were contacted on the day and asked whether the machine was capable of doing the manoevre as described. They acknowledge that their test pilots do similar manoevres in the 407. The manual says that such manouvres are not approved.

Now if Bell were to sit back and say that after a brief inspection the helicopter could carry on flying, and after another couple of hundred hours some component should fail, maybe not even related to the incident, Bell would be liable for some HUGE claims.

The insurance and product liability mindset of the Yanks is actually to blame here. What is the solution? Change all the components that could possibly be stressed during such a manoevre and then you can claim that they could have no part in a subsequent failure.

[Gunship]

Sir Cumference what is the lastest on the machine ?

Was it send to the US as described previously ?

Is it actually scrapped ?

As catalogue says .. who has not gone past the normal. Surely the airframe / gearboxes and blades could take the bit of extra strain ... I am sure I have strained a few helicopters more by overloading / flying through a thunderstorm and hanging onto the roof in my straps ... thanks to some luvly negative g's .... oh just to fall back into my (by now dark stained) flying overall :E

Have a great Friday and a great BOKKE weekend ;)

Gunssss

[B Sousa]

Sir cumference has a point when it comes to liability in the states. But I think it would apply in Africa also. Lawyers feed on this stuff.
End reult will be interesting so heres hoping someone will keep us up to date.
You can also bet that no manufacturer would let one of their Demo aircraft hit the street without zero timing stuff after "unapproved" manuvers.

[DualDriver]

Last I heard the aircraft is parked in a hanger in Jo'Burg and CE is up and flying again. He had to re-write 2 exams, and needless to say, aced them both first time.

Gunss,

I'll get his number and e-mail address for you and PM it to you if you want it

[Gunship]

Thanks for the PM Sir Cum ... and thanks DD.

CE has left where he was and he flies for an old chum ;)

Well done CE and ... :ok:

Nothing wrong with the old boys net :E

[vince290]

Catalogue 2, thank you. Your comments are both insightful and thought provoking.

I agree that there should have been severe repercussions for the pilot (far more severe than was actually the case).

I further support the fact that the manufacturer needs to take a stance on the issue to protect their reputation and also as a precaution against the product liability issue which, as we all know, is big business in the States.

Also, there is a better than average chance that had Bell simply ignored the incident (as it has more or less been sanctioned by both the CAA and the show director) we would most certainly have a fair proportion of the 407 jockeys out there trying to better CE's performance, turning the 407 into a ground burrowing device.

Having said this, it brings one back to the burning question. Is Bell acting in a fair and reasonable manner considering the fact that firstly, in the video of the manoeuvre (which a number of us have watched over and over again) there is no indication of any undue stress being placed on the machine.

Secondly, neither the gauges nor the computer download of the data from the HMU indicated any exceedences.

Thirdly, that the same manoeuvres are regularly performed at Bells Canadian plant, where, sure, they are executed by test pilots and perhaps the machines are zeroed before being put on the open market.

However, fourthly and perhaps most importantly, it is common knowledge, to all who have trained at Fort Worth, that the instructors there are quitely getting up to similar antics albeit, without official sanction. Is it not strange then that these training machines find their way into the open market without any major rework or zero timing?

Is Bell overeacting on this incident? Have they decided to use it to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the industry as a whole? More importantly, are they beaing fair to the present owners, the insurance industry and all their current and potential clients by their actions?

You be the judge...

Detailed below is Bell's official response covering their requirement for returning the ship to service. The cost estimate so far is in excess of R4.7 million excluding the shipping, import and export costs, repair and inspection costs of the components (blades, etc) that have to be returned to Bell. A conservative estimate is that the final bill is going to be in the order of R6 million.

Gunship, for your info, the machine is currently with Alpine Aviation at Grand Central.



LETTER FROM BELL HELICOPTER

SPECIAL INSPECTION PROCEDURES

ATTACHMENT A to Letter August 30, 2004


The following actions will be required in order to evaluate the continued airworthiness of Model 407 Serial Number 53078

A. Permanent removal from service is required for the following components:

a. All metal components of the main rotor hub assembly including
the elastomeric components and blade bolts
b. Main rotor mast assembly
c. Boosted main rotor fixed and rotating controls, including the
swashplate assembly and support.
d. Main rotor control hydraulic actuators, and the support casting.
e. Flight control bolts in the boosted control system.
f. Drive system components to include tail rotor drive shafts,
bearings, hangers, flex couplings and splined adapters.
g. Input (Ka-Flex) drive shaft
h. Transmission top case
i. Transmission-mounted flight control bellcranks and support
brackets.
j. Tail rotor mast
k. Tail boom and attach hardware
l. Pylon support structure including the pylon side beams, corner
mounts, longitudinal pitch restraints, stop fittings and
associated attachment hardware.

B. Components requiring complete inspection and overhaul at
Bell Helicopter:

a. Main and tail rotor blades
b. Main rotor yoke assembly
c. Tail rotor yoke assembly

C. Components to be overhauled by a facility suitable to Bell (Bell
Tennessee/CSR):

a. Transmission assembly
b. Freewheel assembly
c. Tail rotor gearbox
D. Airframe inspection by qualified personnel suitable to Bell:
a. Fuselage structure for evidence of cracks or distortion
b. Instrument panel console for evidence of distortion
c. Battery and ballast weight supports
d. Cabin roof beam assembly
e. Roll-over bulkheads

Page 2:

f. Vertical control tunnel
g. Engine deck for cracks, distortion evidence
h. Tail boom attachment fittings and longerons
i. Horizontal stabilizer
j. Vertical and auxiliary fins

In support of the above return to service action, the aircraft interior shall be removed and other systems and controls as necessary to permit close and rigid visual inspection of the entire fuselage structure as recommended above. Prior to release
for return to service, items not listed above shall be inspected in accordance with the basic aircraft 300 hour / annual inspection.

Any material abnormalities or discrepancies identified during the conditional inspection are to be reported to Product Support Engineering - Light Helicopters, for evaluation.

Items listed above that are to be permanently removed from service are deemed unsuitable for use, and shall be destroyed, permanently marked or otherwise disfigured so as to prevent inadvertent installation on an operational helicopter.

Upon completion of the actions above, a written statement should be provided to PSE Light by responsible person(s). Upon review and agreement, Bell Helicopter will issue a Special Conditional Acceptance (SCA) statement to cover the continued
airworthiness of the helicopter. This SCA will be provided to the appropriate Regulatory authority with the recommendation to return the ship to flightworthy service.

Reference: Attachment A, JD2004-039

[Gunship]

A very informative post vince ! :ok: Thanks !

I have made my own judgement ... and will keep it to myself ;)

[Sandiron]

Gunss

I suspect yours is one of the few opinions that would actually be worth a damn, so why not share it with us?

[Herc130]

Vince290

As someone that was actually at Virginia during the show I can tell you that the display was definately not sanctioned by the CAA or the safety officer. The indemnity that all display pilots have to sign clearly states that the display have to be within the flight envelope as stated in the AFM. (Clearly not the case in this saga)

The CAA inspector at the show stated to a number of people after the event that it was quite possibly the most expensive display witnessed in a number of years.

As to the CoA, it is my understanding that if the manufacturer withdraws a type certificate, the CoA is automatically suspended pending rectification to the satisfaction of the manufacturer.

[Sandiron]

As I read Vince290's message, he's not arguing that the pilot was way out of line or whether Bell/SACAA had the right to ground the aircraft pending further investigation.

What he appears to be doing is following the line of comment made earlier by Catalogue2.

Cat2 questioned the severity of the reaction from Bell and asked whether this was entirely warranted in terms of establishing the structural integrity of the aircraft as distinct from "punishing" the owner of the aircraft and sending a blunt message to all other wannabee aerobatic pilots: "don't try it in any of OUR aircraft!".

If you read the list of requirements laid down by Bell, it makes you wonder why they didn't simply say:

(a) open fuel cap
(b) light match
(c) drop match into fuel tank
(d) Have a Nice Day!

I still want to hear what Gunns thinks about this!

[Teignmouth]

Seems like Vince290, Catalogue2 and Sandiron have struck a nerve. Suddenly, no-one has an opinion. Where are all those ppruners who climbed in when it was CE that was being torn apart, or praised, for what happened? "Silence implies consent", is the phrase that springs to mind, so I guess we're all agreed that Bell has grossly over-reacted in a cynical attempt to protect itself from future lawsuits and is prepared to consign ZS-RIB to the scrapheap if that's what it takes?

Nice one.

[Sir Cumference]

I think that it has been stated before, Bell are terrified at the prospect of being liable for ANY defect on the machine down the line. What better way of absolving themselves than by requiring an almost total rebuild. They can then claim that any subsequent fault was not related.

The American legal system SUCKS!! We as aviators have paid and paid and paid...... and in this case, once again there is a huge bill, why, because Bell needs to cover its a**e from a legal point of view!

[B Sousa]

Sir C.
Bell is not fully to blame. Lawyers have created their own employment. Example of a Piper Pilot a few years ago. Drunk beyond belief, crashes gets killed and who foots the bill?? Piper, big time. There are millions of stories like that.

[B Sousa]

Watched this thread for a long time as it buried itself and folks went on to other topics on Aviation in Africa. Well, the Fat Lady aint singin yet.
As was predicted, the fine aircraft is not darting through the skies, in fact I saw it a couple weeks ago sitting in a hanger striped of its blades gathering dust. It just sort of sits there looking at you like its trying to say " Why did you do this to me"
The owner must have a ton of money to go through this and the pilot is now probably working his magic on someone elses machinery. Certainly not much else has happened.
Someone in the know fill in the blanks. What has happened as I notice the last post on this thread is a year old.

[Gunship]

The pilot is working for someone alse.

He is happy and his new emplyer is even happier.

A very professional pilot who was stabbed in the back as things was said / promises made before the flight by senior people concerned and afterwards re-tracted.

I still look at the video and smile ... :E