Bell 429
Name one of the countries above that is not a third world of aviation country or that does not have a direct interest in the production of this managing debacle.
Australia - ~2000
Brazil - 2000
Mexico - ~900
Sweden - ~260.
So I think those "third world aviation countries" probably know something about operating and certifying aircraft.
Australia - ~2000
Brazil - 2000
Mexico - ~900
Sweden - ~260
Brazil - 2000
Mexico - ~900
Sweden - ~260
Yes they all appear to have a "number" of helicopters designed and certified somewhere else and "accepted".
Why didn't Bell just design and certify it as a Part 29 aircraft?
Oh! Hang on a minute...................................there are a few bits missing that everybody else has.
The required equipment for the MGW increase are a joke. And "accepted" by jokers.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RVDT:
Even the FAA said (when raising the weight for part 27 to 7,000lb) that there was no particular reason for the 7,000 lb limit, and that they would entertain a further increase in weight in the future. Of course, now they've back tracked on that statement.
Sort of like the FW world accepting a far higher weight (19,000) for 'commuter' category aircraft (from 'normal' category limit of 12,500). Explain that one in comparison.
Seating capacity for 'Normal' Category rotorcraft is still the same. Performance still has to be demonstrated for the increased weight.
What's your problem again, exactly?
Even the FAA said (when raising the weight for part 27 to 7,000lb) that there was no particular reason for the 7,000 lb limit, and that they would entertain a further increase in weight in the future. Of course, now they've back tracked on that statement.
Sort of like the FW world accepting a far higher weight (19,000) for 'commuter' category aircraft (from 'normal' category limit of 12,500). Explain that one in comparison.
Seating capacity for 'Normal' Category rotorcraft is still the same. Performance still has to be demonstrated for the increased weight.
What's your problem again, exactly?
The problem is, as usual, Bell selling smoke to their customers. To which point one must start asking what customers are willing to continue to inhale that stuff.
Bell knew since 2005 that the 429 was going to have marginal payload in EMS configuration, yet they persevered in their intent to certficate the type under Part27.
Somewhat like taking a shortcut with the 210 for the LUH, and then pushing another tired horse when the bet did not play their way.
So they screw up and everyone else has to bow and adapt because of that?
Whatever.
Bell knew since 2005 that the 429 was going to have marginal payload in EMS configuration, yet they persevered in their intent to certficate the type under Part27.
Somewhat like taking a shortcut with the 210 for the LUH, and then pushing another tired horse when the bet did not play their way.
So they screw up and everyone else has to bow and adapt because of that?
Whatever.
And how is that any different than the EC145 being certified as a part 29 helicopter yet exempt from numerous aspects of 29 due to being grandfathered on a vintage 1983 type certificate?
SC,
I'm not the one with the problem it would seem.
Somebody tried to wag the dog.
Have you borrowed this guys goggles?
I'm not the one with the problem it would seem.
Somebody tried to wag the dog.
Have you borrowed this guys goggles?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
RVDT:
Sorry, but I don't get the subtle nature of your humor (or even your humour).
I was part of the certification team for the Bell 427, and have had lots of discussions with my former colleagues at Transport Canada on the 429 and the weight increase for the 429. It was very thoroughly investigated by them, especially in light of the implications vis-a-vis EASA and the FAA, and the decision to grant the increase was, in my opinion, a good one.
Sorry, but I don't get the subtle nature of your humor (or even your humour).
I was part of the certification team for the Bell 427, and have had lots of discussions with my former colleagues at Transport Canada on the 429 and the weight increase for the 429. It was very thoroughly investigated by them, especially in light of the implications vis-a-vis EASA and the FAA, and the decision to grant the increase was, in my opinion, a good one.
I get your humour RDVT.....
Interesting how Transport Canada does not even follow it's own rules re Part 527. These regs were in place long before the 429 was even in the concept phase. Very poor planning and execution by all involved.
Interesting how Transport Canada does not even follow it's own rules re Part 527. These regs were in place long before the 429 was even in the concept phase. Very poor planning and execution by all involved.
SC, I am wondering on which side of the table were you seated in that occasion.
"...especially in light of the implications vis-a-vis EASA and the FAA, and the decision to grant the increase was, in my opinion, a good one."
Thanks.
"...especially in light of the implications vis-a-vis EASA and the FAA, and the decision to grant the increase was, in my opinion, a good one."
Thanks.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what Shawn is eluding to and what the 429 certification has brought to light is that if there is not a change to bring Part 27 more in line with Part 23 then the 429 very we'll may be the last new design Part 27 SPIFR airframe you will see. I would suggest that weight is only the beginning. We need to seriously look at the MOC for 27.1309.
Shawn. I think what everyone wants is a "level playing field" and most people don't care whether the 429 is technically OK for 7500lb or not. I am sure Transport Canada did investigate it thoroughly, but they fall foul of nepotism just by being in Canada (ie, "they would certify a home-grown helicopter, wouldn't they?")
What we have here is a manufacturer taking the wrong decision (ie to start the 429 design with the FAR27 rulebook not the FAR29 one) - and plodding on relentlessly, sorry, regardlessly. They could have started with the FAR29 book and the issue never arisen. Yes, that may be a bit more expensive in the delivered price, but long term the difference reduces as volumes increase.
We will never know whether it was deliberate, naive, or the design "grew on the drawing board" but they must have known and decided to wade on with the FAR27 rules. Then they approached the FAA and EASA saying "look at all the sales we could theoretically get if you approve it to 7500lb" (as quoted in the FAA denial of exemption doc) when everyone else abides by the rules. Other manufacturers will definitely have something to say if FAA and/or EASA approve the 429 at 7500lb.
What really perplexes me is their choice of product number. Bell 427 was FAR27, so Bell 429 is.... There's a clue there somewhere...
So, take your choice on which of these apply....
Rules are made to be broken
- The trick becomes leading and managing with fair and proportional rules that are in right amount and to the right degree.
Rules can restrict us
- One of the worst things you can do to a person is imprison or bind them; take away their freedom.
Rules can liberate us
- Being secure allows us to focus on other things and move forward.
Rules can promote mediocrity
- Laziness is a hallmark of mediocrity.
Rules can stifle creativity
- With mediocrity comes a lack of energy, innovation, and creativity.
Rules can be relative
- The absence of rules leads us to chaos and only serves to help a few, while penalizing many.
Rules can get in the way
- Poorly constructed rules can truly get in the way and may be a barrier to moving forward.
Rules have a purpose
- One can't lead or manage anyone or anything in chaos.
Rules should be designed appropriately
- Rules should be about purpose, proportion, progress, and people.
What we have here is a manufacturer taking the wrong decision (ie to start the 429 design with the FAR27 rulebook not the FAR29 one) - and plodding on relentlessly, sorry, regardlessly. They could have started with the FAR29 book and the issue never arisen. Yes, that may be a bit more expensive in the delivered price, but long term the difference reduces as volumes increase.
We will never know whether it was deliberate, naive, or the design "grew on the drawing board" but they must have known and decided to wade on with the FAR27 rules. Then they approached the FAA and EASA saying "look at all the sales we could theoretically get if you approve it to 7500lb" (as quoted in the FAA denial of exemption doc) when everyone else abides by the rules. Other manufacturers will definitely have something to say if FAA and/or EASA approve the 429 at 7500lb.
What really perplexes me is their choice of product number. Bell 427 was FAR27, so Bell 429 is.... There's a clue there somewhere...
So, take your choice on which of these apply....
Rules are made to be broken
- The trick becomes leading and managing with fair and proportional rules that are in right amount and to the right degree.
Rules can restrict us
- One of the worst things you can do to a person is imprison or bind them; take away their freedom.
Rules can liberate us
- Being secure allows us to focus on other things and move forward.
Rules can promote mediocrity
- Laziness is a hallmark of mediocrity.
Rules can stifle creativity
- With mediocrity comes a lack of energy, innovation, and creativity.
Rules can be relative
- The absence of rules leads us to chaos and only serves to help a few, while penalizing many.
Rules can get in the way
- Poorly constructed rules can truly get in the way and may be a barrier to moving forward.
Rules have a purpose
- One can't lead or manage anyone or anything in chaos.
Rules should be designed appropriately
- Rules should be about purpose, proportion, progress, and people.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
You can be assured that Transport Canada did not approve the weight increase on the basis of this being a home-grown product.
Given that the weight limit is an arbitrary number (it was 6,000 pounds for a very long time) and that even the FAA said they were open to increasing it beyond 7,000 pounds, what basis would be needed to deny someone use of a higher weight?
It is very unusual (in my experience) for the FAA to use an excuse like 'unfair economic advantage' in certification. The FAA (and all other certification authorities, as far as I know) don't care whether an aircraft is commercially successful - only that it's safe.
The main difference between part 27 and part 29 is bird strike and performance and failure effects analysis - more than 10 seats in part 29 requires Category A. So by staying below 9 seats, and certifying to Category A (which pretty much requires using part 29 failure effects), the only major difference is the bird strike protection in the windshield.
So, please, let's stop all this discussion about Transport Canada favoring a home-grown helicopter.
Given that the weight limit is an arbitrary number (it was 6,000 pounds for a very long time) and that even the FAA said they were open to increasing it beyond 7,000 pounds, what basis would be needed to deny someone use of a higher weight?
It is very unusual (in my experience) for the FAA to use an excuse like 'unfair economic advantage' in certification. The FAA (and all other certification authorities, as far as I know) don't care whether an aircraft is commercially successful - only that it's safe.
The main difference between part 27 and part 29 is bird strike and performance and failure effects analysis - more than 10 seats in part 29 requires Category A. So by staying below 9 seats, and certifying to Category A (which pretty much requires using part 29 failure effects), the only major difference is the bird strike protection in the windshield.
So, please, let's stop all this discussion about Transport Canada favoring a home-grown helicopter.
Or this...
Rules should change over time and they should be changing faster.
New helicopters are regulated by the latest regulation, but other aircraft can continue on based on their legacy cert for years/decades. Sure, it would be great if all the major regulators could get together to change the rules together, but we've seen how slowly most of the regulators make changes (I'm sure EASA has no concern about "home grown helicopters" there.... look at the R-66 cert).
Our industry must change at a faster pace, especially with fly-by-wire and tiltrotor based aircraft nearing certification in the next few years. If we're truly concerned about increasing safety, these new technologies must be implemented... even if they cause increases in weight.
Rules should change over time and they should be changing faster.
New helicopters are regulated by the latest regulation, but other aircraft can continue on based on their legacy cert for years/decades. Sure, it would be great if all the major regulators could get together to change the rules together, but we've seen how slowly most of the regulators make changes (I'm sure EASA has no concern about "home grown helicopters" there.... look at the R-66 cert).
Our industry must change at a faster pace, especially with fly-by-wire and tiltrotor based aircraft nearing certification in the next few years. If we're truly concerned about increasing safety, these new technologies must be implemented... even if they cause increases in weight.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Resting in shade
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're truly concerned about increasing safety, these new technologies must be implemented... even if they cause increases in weight.
), the weight of it all will almost eat up that 500 pounds increase...No use... she's a fatty. Cute one though.
Shawn. It is Bell using the economic argument, the FAA are merely quoting their argument in the doc.
Canada - Your previous post (and your experience in these matters) had already assured me of Transport Canada's intentions - I'm just saying Bell are losing out in the public perception stakes in Canada and could use a publicist to get the right media angle for them.
I return to my central point. The industry expects Bell to play by the same rules that everyone else plays by. Whether the rules need changing is a separate matter entirely.
Canada - Your previous post (and your experience in these matters) had already assured me of Transport Canada's intentions - I'm just saying Bell are losing out in the public perception stakes in Canada and could use a publicist to get the right media angle for them.
I return to my central point. The industry expects Bell to play by the same rules that everyone else plays by. Whether the rules need changing is a separate matter entirely.
So Shawn was part of the certification team for the Bell 427.......well that was a raging success wasn't it!
As to the 429 debate, wouldn't a retrospective increase for other FAR 27 aircraft to 7500 lb solve the argument,or is that too simple?!
As to the 429 debate, wouldn't a retrospective increase for other FAR 27 aircraft to 7500 lb solve the argument,or is that too simple?!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Heli1:
If you're somehow inferring that Transport Canada's (and my) involvement in the 427 somehow was a contributing factor in it's relatively poor market acceptance, you're quite mistaken. We certified it to the existing rules (and certified some interesting safety features that were not covered by the rules) and had no issues with any of the other authorities.
Helihub -
so should we all return to the 6,000 pound limit?
If you're somehow inferring that Transport Canada's (and my) involvement in the 427 somehow was a contributing factor in it's relatively poor market acceptance, you're quite mistaken. We certified it to the existing rules (and certified some interesting safety features that were not covered by the rules) and had no issues with any of the other authorities.
Helihub -
so should we all return to the 6,000 pound limit?