UK Coastguard SAR - Bristow out??
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank Nick,
Some actual hard data from the RFM would be appreciated, especially if your mate Helicomparitor would do the same.
I think CHC are buying the EC 225 as well as Bristow. So far the EC 225 has sold better in the UK than the S92, 8 - nil is the current score, against about 10 - nil to the S92 in Norway.
Perhaps it is a cultural thing.
Some actual hard data from the RFM would be appreciated, especially if your mate Helicomparitor would do the same.
I think CHC are buying the EC 225 as well as Bristow. So far the EC 225 has sold better in the UK than the S92, 8 - nil is the current score, against about 10 - nil to the S92 in Norway.
Perhaps it is a cultural thing.
Perhaps it is easier to convert to the 225 from the Tigers than convert to 92's. That certainly must play a role in the decisions. There must be some value to parts commonality and availability that might offset some performance issues.
Having fleet commonality would make training a lot easier....re-learning which foot to put forward would also be something to consider.
Having fleet commonality would make training a lot easier....re-learning which foot to put forward would also be something to consider.
Do we really have to start the 92 vs 225 war again - I thought that had been done to death.
Oh, alright then....
I know that the heavier Bristow EC225 has an empty weight of 14112 lbs (6401 kg). That is including the 3rd generator, the 2 dinghys, floats, the "85dB trim", 4 landing lights, adelt, unusable fuel, documents, wingmirrors etc AND the crashworthy stroking seats and strengthened floor. I'll say that again because Nick has his hearing aid turned down again...IT INCLUDES THE CRASHWORTHY SEATS/FLOOR.
Add 2 pilots and you get 14506 lbs (6580kg). Gross weight is 24250 lbs (11000kg). So disposable is 9744 lbs (4420 kg). Full fuel is about 5050 lbs (2290kg) leaving a full fuel payload of 4694 lbs.
That is of course for the crew change configuration. How it would pan out in the SAR configuration I don't know. I would imagine that the extra weight of FLIR and hoists would be partially offset by taking out the seats, but it would still be heavier. The real extra weight comes from all the cabin equipment - endless medical stuff, throw-out dinghy etc but that is impossible to work out as it would depend on what the operator wishes to carry.
I know that the 92s delivered to Norsk ended up quite a bit heavier than expected. I don't know much about it but I understand that quite a bit of stuff that was expected to be standard turned out to be optional extras. Sea state 6 flotation is one that springs to mind and I think there was something about crashworthy floor which is surprising considering Nick's previous rants on the subject.
Perhaps someone from Norsk or CHC HS can enlighten us with actual figures?
Anyway I understand that, whilst we originally thought that the 92 would have the edge on payload, in fact the 225 crept ahead in the end. But of course both aircraft can take 19 pax, bags and full fuel so its a bit academic.
If you compare the RFMs (the one for the 225 I can confirm as being surprisingly accurate!) the 225 has marginally better specific fuel consumption at the faster cruise speeds, but again there is little in it. Both aircraft do a lot better at high altitude - not much use for SAR!
The story about engine variants for the 92 has changed so often that I have lost track as to what engines might be available in the future, but I know that the OEI OGE hover performance with the current engines is disappointing (though of course a lot better than the S61!). At low temperatures there is not a huge amount in it, but by +30 deg C the 225 is about 1200lbs - 1500lbs ahead (92 limits OEI on TOT from about 0 deg upwards, whereas the 225 doesn't)
But in fact both the aircraft are adequate in all the parameters I have mentioned so far. If one is 5% better or worse than the other, does it really matter for SAR?
Surely the other aspects are more important? The 92 has a clear advantage for the rear crew in terms of cabin height (about the only time its of any use, as in crew change config the pax are hopefully sitting down). But the door arrangement for SAR looks Micky Mouse. And not sure how much the sponsons will get in the way with stretchers etc?
I have tried the auto-hover on the 225. It is great with or without doppler (no more calm sea problems!). When I flew the 92 its autopilot did not seem to have autohover, and its upper modes seemed very poor compared to the 225 - but that was a couple of years ago and it might have improved since then.
Like everything, they will be as good as their weakest element, and until experience is gained in the SAR role, who knows what that will be?
Regarding the contract, as far as I am aware Bristow did not bid the 225. It was only a 5 year fill-in contract until the harmonisation thing, and I guess that didn't seem to justify the switch to new aircraft. Whether that was their mistake, or whether they would have been stymied anyway by CHCs loss-making get-a-foot-in-the-door bid, I don't know.
Anyway, I don't believe Bristow is against the S92 - as soon as an oil company wants them I am sure they be delighted to provide them. In the mean time I think the 225 has the edge in terms of performance (speed, payload etc) and doesn't seem to have the vibration-induced self-destruct feature nor so many design flaws that the 92 has. And up front the 225 has a massive advantage in terms of the grin factor for the pilots.
Bristow seems to agree as they have now ordered 6 firm. CHC Scotia will/have ordered another 2 and as someone said, no-one on this side of the N Sea has ordered a 92 yet - though I am sure they will eventually.
SAS
I don't think there will be a huge difference in terms of hours between converting to the 225 or the 92 from the 332L. Both the new aircraft have major new features such as EFIS, but in many ways the 92 is more conventional. The 225 has fundamental new ideas to grasp such as, when the engine fails you don't touch the collective. And if its in during the takeoff phase after TDP you don't touch the cyclic either - just press the go-around button.
But we were certainly delighted when JAR proposed that the 225 be a variant of the 332L - it saves a lot of hassle on the paperwork front!
However the 92 has a major advantage - its got a simulator, whereas the 225 sim will not be available until 2007! (0/10 to eurocopter on that one)
I don't think the spares have much overlap as the transmission, engines and avionics have virtually no common parts. Maybe the wheels are the same?
HC
Oh, alright then....
I know that the heavier Bristow EC225 has an empty weight of 14112 lbs (6401 kg). That is including the 3rd generator, the 2 dinghys, floats, the "85dB trim", 4 landing lights, adelt, unusable fuel, documents, wingmirrors etc AND the crashworthy stroking seats and strengthened floor. I'll say that again because Nick has his hearing aid turned down again...IT INCLUDES THE CRASHWORTHY SEATS/FLOOR.
Add 2 pilots and you get 14506 lbs (6580kg). Gross weight is 24250 lbs (11000kg). So disposable is 9744 lbs (4420 kg). Full fuel is about 5050 lbs (2290kg) leaving a full fuel payload of 4694 lbs.
That is of course for the crew change configuration. How it would pan out in the SAR configuration I don't know. I would imagine that the extra weight of FLIR and hoists would be partially offset by taking out the seats, but it would still be heavier. The real extra weight comes from all the cabin equipment - endless medical stuff, throw-out dinghy etc but that is impossible to work out as it would depend on what the operator wishes to carry.
I know that the 92s delivered to Norsk ended up quite a bit heavier than expected. I don't know much about it but I understand that quite a bit of stuff that was expected to be standard turned out to be optional extras. Sea state 6 flotation is one that springs to mind and I think there was something about crashworthy floor which is surprising considering Nick's previous rants on the subject.
Perhaps someone from Norsk or CHC HS can enlighten us with actual figures?
Anyway I understand that, whilst we originally thought that the 92 would have the edge on payload, in fact the 225 crept ahead in the end. But of course both aircraft can take 19 pax, bags and full fuel so its a bit academic.
If you compare the RFMs (the one for the 225 I can confirm as being surprisingly accurate!) the 225 has marginally better specific fuel consumption at the faster cruise speeds, but again there is little in it. Both aircraft do a lot better at high altitude - not much use for SAR!
The story about engine variants for the 92 has changed so often that I have lost track as to what engines might be available in the future, but I know that the OEI OGE hover performance with the current engines is disappointing (though of course a lot better than the S61!). At low temperatures there is not a huge amount in it, but by +30 deg C the 225 is about 1200lbs - 1500lbs ahead (92 limits OEI on TOT from about 0 deg upwards, whereas the 225 doesn't)
But in fact both the aircraft are adequate in all the parameters I have mentioned so far. If one is 5% better or worse than the other, does it really matter for SAR?
Surely the other aspects are more important? The 92 has a clear advantage for the rear crew in terms of cabin height (about the only time its of any use, as in crew change config the pax are hopefully sitting down). But the door arrangement for SAR looks Micky Mouse. And not sure how much the sponsons will get in the way with stretchers etc?
I have tried the auto-hover on the 225. It is great with or without doppler (no more calm sea problems!). When I flew the 92 its autopilot did not seem to have autohover, and its upper modes seemed very poor compared to the 225 - but that was a couple of years ago and it might have improved since then.
Like everything, they will be as good as their weakest element, and until experience is gained in the SAR role, who knows what that will be?
Regarding the contract, as far as I am aware Bristow did not bid the 225. It was only a 5 year fill-in contract until the harmonisation thing, and I guess that didn't seem to justify the switch to new aircraft. Whether that was their mistake, or whether they would have been stymied anyway by CHCs loss-making get-a-foot-in-the-door bid, I don't know.
Anyway, I don't believe Bristow is against the S92 - as soon as an oil company wants them I am sure they be delighted to provide them. In the mean time I think the 225 has the edge in terms of performance (speed, payload etc) and doesn't seem to have the vibration-induced self-destruct feature nor so many design flaws that the 92 has. And up front the 225 has a massive advantage in terms of the grin factor for the pilots.
Bristow seems to agree as they have now ordered 6 firm. CHC Scotia will/have ordered another 2 and as someone said, no-one on this side of the N Sea has ordered a 92 yet - though I am sure they will eventually.
SAS
I don't think there will be a huge difference in terms of hours between converting to the 225 or the 92 from the 332L. Both the new aircraft have major new features such as EFIS, but in many ways the 92 is more conventional. The 225 has fundamental new ideas to grasp such as, when the engine fails you don't touch the collective. And if its in during the takeoff phase after TDP you don't touch the cyclic either - just press the go-around button.
But we were certainly delighted when JAR proposed that the 225 be a variant of the 332L - it saves a lot of hassle on the paperwork front!
However the 92 has a major advantage - its got a simulator, whereas the 225 sim will not be available until 2007! (0/10 to eurocopter on that one)
I don't think the spares have much overlap as the transmission, engines and avionics have virtually no common parts. Maybe the wheels are the same?
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 29th Dec 2005 at 20:52.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Back of Beyond
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicomparator,
Good post, pity some of the S92 operators don't come out in the open and tell us the real story, maybe the operator on the E coast of Canada could let us know why they are sitting on the ground, come on guys, let us all know what the real VNE is, what is the fuel burn, vibration level at VNE????
TC
Good post, pity some of the S92 operators don't come out in the open and tell us the real story, maybe the operator on the E coast of Canada could let us know why they are sitting on the ground, come on guys, let us all know what the real VNE is, what is the fuel burn, vibration level at VNE????
TC
S-92 at Cougar Helicopters in Canada
Check yer latest issue (Dec 05-Jan 06) of Vertical Magazine. They have a very good article about the 92 written by Rick Burt, the Cougar General Manager, who is in charge of the S-92 program at Cougar. He flys on the line about 200 hours per year and thus stays in tune with what is really going on in that regard.
www.verticalmag.com is their web site.
www.verticalmag.com is their web site.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick sez,
"I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that".
I re-read Nick's post and infer that he used the weight from a sales brochure produced before the first production aircraft hit the offshore market (dodgy) and then added a bit based on mech's post from the GOM. Hardly a definitive post, especially when the silence from actual European S92 operators is defeaning. Has Nick's information become time expired and since when has Nick remained silent for so long?
Thanks for an honest post Helicomparitor.
Come on S92 operators, in the interest of a qualitative comparison please post the real weight of a JAR OPS 3 spec S92.....................the longer you wait the more the doubts will grow!
RI
"I put the 450 lbs as a shot at that correction from brochure to service weight, based on some facts that S92mech posted a few months back. I believe the weight of a good offshore S-92 is about 16,750 lbs ready for pax and fuel. I will search for mech's post to correct that".
I re-read Nick's post and infer that he used the weight from a sales brochure produced before the first production aircraft hit the offshore market (dodgy) and then added a bit based on mech's post from the GOM. Hardly a definitive post, especially when the silence from actual European S92 operators is defeaning. Has Nick's information become time expired and since when has Nick remained silent for so long?
Thanks for an honest post Helicomparitor.
Come on S92 operators, in the interest of a qualitative comparison please post the real weight of a JAR OPS 3 spec S92.....................the longer you wait the more the doubts will grow!
RI
Sorry guys, can't resist pointing something out....
Nick said that his best guess at the weight of a 92 prepared for N sea service is 16750lbs, gross is 26150lbs so disposable is 9400 (I think Nick's figure includes 2 pilots). I already said, using exact and known figures, that the disposable on Bristow's N Sea 225s is 9744lbs (slightly more on the lighter one). So doesn't that mean the 225 has 344lbs more than the 92?
So much for the Rotorheads guru's statement that the 92 has a 1300lbs more payload than the 225. Hot air is light, but not that light! What else should we not believe?
How about his statement on range?
At 3000' ISA at fast cruise, max gross weight the 225 is doing about 143kts TAS and fuel burn is about 1420 lbs/hr. Looking at the 92 brochure graphs, at the same speed and conditions the 92 is using about 1530 lbs/hr (no temperature on the graphs - I am assuming ISA). If you slow to fuel burn of 1420 lbs/hr (good idea if you don't want too many airframe cracks) you are doing about 137 TAS.
So in the 92 you can either burn 100 lbs/hr more fuel or fly 6 kts slower. They both have the same max fuel within 50 lbs, so I am not sure how he can justify the statement that you get 130nm more range on the 92.
In fact the ranges of the two aircraft are quite similar, with the 225 just nudging ahead by that 100lbs/hr or 6 kts.
Of course it is quite normal for a parent to be irrationally defensive about his baby and blind to its faults, so we shouldn't hold it against him.
HC
Nick said that his best guess at the weight of a 92 prepared for N sea service is 16750lbs, gross is 26150lbs so disposable is 9400 (I think Nick's figure includes 2 pilots). I already said, using exact and known figures, that the disposable on Bristow's N Sea 225s is 9744lbs (slightly more on the lighter one). So doesn't that mean the 225 has 344lbs more than the 92?
So much for the Rotorheads guru's statement that the 92 has a 1300lbs more payload than the 225. Hot air is light, but not that light! What else should we not believe?
How about his statement on range?
At 3000' ISA at fast cruise, max gross weight the 225 is doing about 143kts TAS and fuel burn is about 1420 lbs/hr. Looking at the 92 brochure graphs, at the same speed and conditions the 92 is using about 1530 lbs/hr (no temperature on the graphs - I am assuming ISA). If you slow to fuel burn of 1420 lbs/hr (good idea if you don't want too many airframe cracks) you are doing about 137 TAS.
So in the 92 you can either burn 100 lbs/hr more fuel or fly 6 kts slower. They both have the same max fuel within 50 lbs, so I am not sure how he can justify the statement that you get 130nm more range on the 92.
In fact the ranges of the two aircraft are quite similar, with the 225 just nudging ahead by that 100lbs/hr or 6 kts.
Of course it is quite normal for a parent to be irrationally defensive about his baby and blind to its faults, so we shouldn't hold it against him.
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 30th Dec 2005 at 23:00.
The Cougar Helicopters article has a SAR paragraph where the author, GM Rick Burt, says the S-92 has received shining reviews for the BF Goodrich Electric Hoist, the ergonomics for handling hoist loads into the cabin and the abundance of room to bring the load into the cabin and deal with the casualty.
He mentions a gross weight increase to 26,500 pounds (Oct 2005), an 11,000 foot takeoff and landing certification (coming in 2006), Flight into known icing with de-icing capability (Oct 2005),
and improved performance for above spec engines (coming in 2006).
Burt confirms problems but states he still believes in the aircraft and in Sikorsky being committed to improving the product and its support.
He mentions a gross weight increase to 26,500 pounds (Oct 2005), an 11,000 foot takeoff and landing certification (coming in 2006), Flight into known icing with de-icing capability (Oct 2005),
and improved performance for above spec engines (coming in 2006).
Burt confirms problems but states he still believes in the aircraft and in Sikorsky being committed to improving the product and its support.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Blue nowhere
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd fly the 225 but I think I'll wait for the B model of the 92....
Aside from that when talking SAR the cabin door size and the height of the cabin are a huge advantage to the 92 and the flight deck is built for something more than a munchkin.
I think some of you are looking at load a little too much, surely the important thing for SAR is OEI performance, what is the max weight you can lift in a hover in the 92 and 225 without going swimming if you lose an engine?
Lunar.
Aside from that when talking SAR the cabin door size and the height of the cabin are a huge advantage to the 92 and the flight deck is built for something more than a munchkin.
I think some of you are looking at load a little too much, surely the important thing for SAR is OEI performance, what is the max weight you can lift in a hover in the 92 and 225 without going swimming if you lose an engine?
Lunar.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me understand this thread again - exactly how many EC-225's will enter UK SAR service in2007? Oh that's right, none!
You lost Helicomparitor, why not just admit it?
Also, why not now explain how the crashworthy changes in your pet pig were forced on you and your company by the competitive pressure of the safer S-92? I remember how you wrote that the window size was more important than the safety in a crash! It was lame then and its lame now.
The passengers of the Bristow 225's have Sikorsky to thank for the safer design, because the French having have been forced to redesign their helicopter, and add an untested and incertified crashworthy floor and seat system, as well as hundreds of pounds to the aircraft to gain back parity with the S-92. If it were not for competition, helicomparitor's passengers would be forced to have a less safe ride, and only the kind assurances from HC that everything will be all right.
At least, by redesigning your pet pig to close the gap, you admitted how poor it was, and now the game begins anew.
You lost Helicomparitor, why not just admit it?
Also, why not now explain how the crashworthy changes in your pet pig were forced on you and your company by the competitive pressure of the safer S-92? I remember how you wrote that the window size was more important than the safety in a crash! It was lame then and its lame now.
The passengers of the Bristow 225's have Sikorsky to thank for the safer design, because the French having have been forced to redesign their helicopter, and add an untested and incertified crashworthy floor and seat system, as well as hundreds of pounds to the aircraft to gain back parity with the S-92. If it were not for competition, helicomparitor's passengers would be forced to have a less safe ride, and only the kind assurances from HC that everything will be all right.
At least, by redesigning your pet pig to close the gap, you admitted how poor it was, and now the game begins anew.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Blue nowhere
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Sorry to stick my nose into your discussion but I think the 92 as a new build aircraft should be much better than its competitor.
When you consider that the Puma is such an old design that has just been stretched and modified for the past 30 years I would have expected Sikorsky to have built a machine that was streets ahead.
In the end of the day the fact that there is a credible competitor to the Eurocopter product is only good for the pilots.
Maybe Eurocopter will get off their arses and design a new machine instead of tweaking the old one. For now the fact that they got the 225 on the same type rating as the 332 is a huge advantage.
Lunar
Sorry to stick my nose into your discussion but I think the 92 as a new build aircraft should be much better than its competitor.
When you consider that the Puma is such an old design that has just been stretched and modified for the past 30 years I would have expected Sikorsky to have built a machine that was streets ahead.
In the end of the day the fact that there is a credible competitor to the Eurocopter product is only good for the pilots.
Maybe Eurocopter will get off their arses and design a new machine instead of tweaking the old one. For now the fact that they got the 225 on the same type rating as the 332 is a huge advantage.
Lunar
Now that brings up a good question....in my mind anyway.
The 225 is on the same type certificate as the 332 but HC says there are few parts that are identical.
Does that mean I check out in both if I fly just one of them for pilot license issues?
The 225 is on the same type certificate as the 332 but HC says there are few parts that are identical.
Does that mean I check out in both if I fly just one of them for pilot license issues?
Ah...but two different type ratings? Not one type rating with a differences course....odd for an aircraft that is the same "type".
Nick
Great post - completely ignoring mine of course! Anyway, I have to agree with you that Sk can take some credit for raising the safety bar and encouraging EC to do some extra work on their aircraft. I'm sure that will give you a warm feeling!
They did forget to copy some safety features of the 92 - the duplex transmission oil system where one failure takes out both systems because SK forgot the check valves that even the 76 has, the exploding hydraulic system, the self-jettisoning anti-vibration generators, the anti-DVT system (ie the automatic massage given to the pilots when they go above 120kts), the fuel system that flames out the engines on takeoff, something about self-destruct swash plates and probably a few others that are secret!
SAS / F43
The 225 will be on the same type rating group as the 332L and L2, once the beurocratic process is complete. In the mean time the UK CAA have agreed to anticipate that. Anyone with 332L or L2 on their licence can get a new page with 332L / L2 / 225. So its just a differences course to go from L or L2 to 225. The fact that all the spares are different doesn't really affect type rating groups - the piloting philosophy is the same and anyone who has flown the L2 especially, will not feel too confused. I did 5 hrs factory differences course from L2 to 225, after which I was reasonably happy with the beast. Once you get over the gadget factor its easier to fly than the L2 or L
HC
Great post - completely ignoring mine of course! Anyway, I have to agree with you that Sk can take some credit for raising the safety bar and encouraging EC to do some extra work on their aircraft. I'm sure that will give you a warm feeling!
They did forget to copy some safety features of the 92 - the duplex transmission oil system where one failure takes out both systems because SK forgot the check valves that even the 76 has, the exploding hydraulic system, the self-jettisoning anti-vibration generators, the anti-DVT system (ie the automatic massage given to the pilots when they go above 120kts), the fuel system that flames out the engines on takeoff, something about self-destruct swash plates and probably a few others that are secret!
SAS / F43
The 225 will be on the same type rating group as the 332L and L2, once the beurocratic process is complete. In the mean time the UK CAA have agreed to anticipate that. Anyone with 332L or L2 on their licence can get a new page with 332L / L2 / 225. So its just a differences course to go from L or L2 to 225. The fact that all the spares are different doesn't really affect type rating groups - the piloting philosophy is the same and anyone who has flown the L2 especially, will not feel too confused. I did 5 hrs factory differences course from L2 to 225, after which I was reasonably happy with the beast. Once you get over the gadget factor its easier to fly than the L2 or L
HC
Would that identical piloting philosophy apply to other similar situations?
One 206....all 206's/407's/204/205's....all basically the same method of operation...single engine, VFR, single pilot, single hydraulics (except 205A which has two)....same manufacturer?
212 and 412...same types for licencing as well?
Had one input from some folks near the beehive suggest the D model Huey was a different type than the H model Huey.
When they found out the pitot tube location and a bit more horsepower from the engine was the only difference they did mitigate that stance a bit however... but it was not without some resistance.
One 206....all 206's/407's/204/205's....all basically the same method of operation...single engine, VFR, single pilot, single hydraulics (except 205A which has two)....same manufacturer?
212 and 412...same types for licencing as well?
Had one input from some folks near the beehive suggest the D model Huey was a different type than the H model Huey.
When they found out the pitot tube location and a bit more horsepower from the engine was the only difference they did mitigate that stance a bit however... but it was not without some resistance.
Well for the 369....as in the 206....is that not a valid proposition?
In the case I mentioned....the 206, 204, 205, 212, 412, 222, 230, 430, 214, 214ST....they are all the same family and all have the same piloting philosophy do they not? You might make a distinction between wheels and skids I guess or even single and twin engine....but they all have collective throttles and very similar systems. They are as much derivatives of the 204 as the 225 is from the 332 it would appear.
Are not all helicopters the same "piloting philosophy" and only require differences training for the specific "model" of aircraft?
In the case I mentioned....the 206, 204, 205, 212, 412, 222, 230, 430, 214, 214ST....they are all the same family and all have the same piloting philosophy do they not? You might make a distinction between wheels and skids I guess or even single and twin engine....but they all have collective throttles and very similar systems. They are as much derivatives of the 204 as the 225 is from the 332 it would appear.
Are not all helicopters the same "piloting philosophy" and only require differences training for the specific "model" of aircraft?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Blue nowhere
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
True enough but if you extend that logic you lead to type ratings for weight catagories, which there are in some countries but the 332L/L2 and 225 have more in common than the 206 does to the 412.
The L2 is just a halfway house between the L and the 225.
Anyone with a (H) license can fly most helicopters but it is getting to know the differences in that type that will stop you making an idiot of your self, or worse. Would you be happy for someone to fly a 212 if they only had experience on the 206?
Lunar
True enough but if you extend that logic you lead to type ratings for weight catagories, which there are in some countries but the 332L/L2 and 225 have more in common than the 206 does to the 412.
The L2 is just a halfway house between the L and the 225.
Anyone with a (H) license can fly most helicopters but it is getting to know the differences in that type that will stop you making an idiot of your self, or worse. Would you be happy for someone to fly a 212 if they only had experience on the 206?
Lunar