Nick, S70 Question....

[rotormatic]

Nick....

Did you find anything out about the cycle limits for the GE engine in the Fire Hawk?

Did Sikorsky modify the military maintenance requirements for the engine to cover RHL operations?

[rotormatic]

Nick....

In the first S-70 thread, you stated...

"I will check on Monday with the Firehawk troops and get back here with some details."

I am very interested in your response...if you cannot further comment on this issue due to political considerations, I understand....

What is interesting is here in the states, the operation of restricted category certificated helicopters is an ongoing debate.... in this case, the original manufacturer of the helicopter is involved in the approval process for the aircraft, unlike the other examples used for utility work.

The thing I have never understood is how this system got to the point were we are today...the restricted ships are tasked with the most demanding operational profile a ship can be exposed to, yet the continuing airworthiness requirements, and finite life limits are less restrictive than Standard Category Aircraft.....

Another question....can you operate a firehawk in Canada?

[Nick Lappos]

rotormatic,
Sorry for the delay getting onto this, every now and then I have to work for a living!

The Fire Hawk S-70 has the T-700-701C's and has no restrictions on its power, cycles or use for fire fighting. In fact, GE provided a power by the hour plan for LA County!

The restricted catagory is one way of reflecting the military certification, and works very well for safety, I think.

I don't know of any reason why Canada would not allow it to be operated, but some other PPRUNER might have a better understanding.

[Flight Safety]

Rotormatic, I'm going to guess at this, but the 214ST uses the now obsolete CT7-2A. I stated in another thread that this engine is now out of production. The T700-701C on the other hand is still very much in production, which is the engine LA county is using in their S70s (as Nick said). It must be more difficult to support the obsolete CT7-2A, and this may be the reason GE is so reluctant to support it in the firefighting role. I also think the CT7-2A had a rather low production run, which contributes to this problem I think, but I could be mistaken about that.

What's interesting is that the early S-70Cs also used the CT7-2A. It might be interesting to find out what kind of support GE gives these engines in that airframe.

[rotormatic]

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 ]

[Flight Safety]

(Deleted this post)

[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: Flight Safety ]

[Nick Lappos]

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.

:cool:

[rotormatic]

Nick...

Again, thanks for your responce....I do agree this is a "sensitive subject".

Enjoyed talking about this issue with you....

RM

[rotormatic]

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 ]

[Nick Lappos]

Rotormatic,
Thanks for the clarification. I got going too, I'm afraid. The whole subject is a hot one, I admit. As I understand it, both sides have legit points.

Thanks for taking the time to square away your side.

Regarding how GE was one way and now is another, I can't say. I will ask the GE rep I deal with next time I see him.

[rotormatic]

Nick....just a thought....

The difference with the Firehawk is that there is no engine type certificate associated with the aircraft....So GE's only involvement with this installation is selling Sikorsky uncertificated engines, and supporting the operators who bought the ships...

The way the TC is set up, the approval for the engine is Sikorsky's responsibility...which means, if RHL is going to be addressed in the maintenance requirements (cycle life retirement parts), it is up to Sikorsky to amend the military maintenance program to address this type of operation....

Also, this amendment cannot be mandatory unless it is referenced on the type certificate, or on an Airworthiness Directive. A service bulletin will not be mandatory (Part 91 rules) unless it is specifically FAA approved and addressed as an airworthiness limitation....

RM

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Not contributing anything factually - I'd just like to compliment the 2 main participants on regaining exemplary self-control having both passed what they mutually agreed was an acceptable limit for online intolerance. Or to put it another way, after the dollies went supersonic whilst departing the pram (or stroller, or whatever you call it..), it's good to see a return to civil discussion.

I wonder if a certain other, long life-line and matching CV, PPRuNer could learn from this...