Bell 525 Relentless
Let's put any blame where it is due. Yes, Boeing is at fault but they share the blame for the Max crashes with the FAA. Perhaps right down the middle would be putting it fairly. The FAA has always been a reactive response organization. It's time to move into the 21st century and become proactive with regard to technology that they obviously didn't know enough about. If we are going to allow big business to self certify, or at least certify the data used for approval, then we need a much more powerful watchdog to rein in companies that are more concerned about their shareholders than the public good. For Pete's sake, the FAA embeds personnel at Boeing and other major manufacturers. What the heck were they doing from 8 to 5? Could Boeing employees just walk in an talk to them without repercussions?
Given the history of the 525 and the complexity of fly by wire systems with their non-adaptive algorithms for responses to unusual flight parameters, the " this looks like it'll work , were running up againt our budget" line of reasoning just isn't good enough. For an industry that touts safety, it's still all about the money. Isn't this a lesson learned from before the space shuttle Challenger disaster but sadly illustrated by that event? A design weak spot, warnings from engineers, incomplete burn throughs of the o rings on previous flights, yet it still came to happen. I have to admit I'm a bit of a Luddite. I also believe it to be true that just because you can do something doesn't imply that you should. I'm not even sure what the real benefits of computer controlled FBW are. I'm sure someone can educate me as to why it is so valuable on the list of things that may make aircraft better in some way.
Given the history of the 525 and the complexity of fly by wire systems with their non-adaptive algorithms for responses to unusual flight parameters, the " this looks like it'll work , were running up againt our budget" line of reasoning just isn't good enough. For an industry that touts safety, it's still all about the money. Isn't this a lesson learned from before the space shuttle Challenger disaster but sadly illustrated by that event? A design weak spot, warnings from engineers, incomplete burn throughs of the o rings on previous flights, yet it still came to happen. I have to admit I'm a bit of a Luddite. I also believe it to be true that just because you can do something doesn't imply that you should. I'm not even sure what the real benefits of computer controlled FBW are. I'm sure someone can educate me as to why it is so valuable on the list of things that may make aircraft better in some way.
That certainly seems to be the implication according to articles like this
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...n-737-max.html
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...n-737-max.html
"When asked if the increased level of focus from the FAA has slowed down the aircraft's certification timeline, O'Neil said that it is difficult to say."
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Florida
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To keep things in perspective, the practice of in-house DARs and others has worked fine for many long decades. Boeing and most other manufacturers have been up front and honest, and the FAA keeps a close eye and responds accordingly. It has been a practical system for many years. I'm just guessing that Bell has a similar system in place.
In this case Boeing cheated and the FAA failed to catch it. IMO the solution is to prosecute the individuals who cheated, and hopefully it won't happen again.
A larger FAA is not necessarily the answer.
In this case Boeing cheated and the FAA failed to catch it. IMO the solution is to prosecute the individuals who cheated, and hopefully it won't happen again.
A larger FAA is not necessarily the answer.
To keep things in perspective, the practice of in-house DARs and others has worked fine for many long decades. Boeing and most other manufacturers have been up front and honest, and the FAA keeps a close eye and responds accordingly. It has been a practical system for many years. I'm just guessing that Bell has a similar system in place.
In this case Boeing cheated and the FAA failed to catch it. IMO the solution is to prosecute the individuals who cheated, and hopefully it won't happen again.
A larger FAA is not necessarily the answer.
In this case Boeing cheated and the FAA failed to catch it. IMO the solution is to prosecute the individuals who cheated, and hopefully it won't happen again.
A larger FAA is not necessarily the answer.
Mission
Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.Our Vision
We strive to reach the next level of safety and efficiency and to demonstrate global leadership in how we safely integrate new users and technologies into our aviation system. We are accountable to the American public and our aviation stakeholders.Our Values
- Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
- Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.
- Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.
- People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.
- Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries.
Surprisingly quiet from Bell at HeliExpo 2020 on certification of the 525. Does anyone know anything on when they expect to get this aircraft certified? FAA? EASA? And with de-ice?
They wouldnt offer up a date. I was told that they kept setting dates that kept slipping(for whatever reasons you want to use) and it was easier PR wise to not give a date. I was assured they are steaming full speed ahead towards certification, and I have no reason to not believe them.
Basic problem is the FAA lags behind the Industry in Fly By Wire Technology issues beginning with a lack of staff that are fully competent in the technology thus Industry. has to educate the FAA while moving towards certification.
Some at the FAA are reluctant to acknowledge that I am told thus making for some problems in the pace of progress.
I know one Manufacturer included that in their calculations and did not go forward with FBW in one of their new design aircraft.
Some at the FAA are reluctant to acknowledge that I am told thus making for some problems in the pace of progress.
I know one Manufacturer included that in their calculations and did not go forward with FBW in one of their new design aircraft.
Basic problem is the FAA lags behind the Industry in Fly By Wire Technology issues beginning with a lack of staff that are fully competent in the technology thus Industry. has to educate the FAA while moving towards certification.
Some at the FAA are reluctant to acknowledge that I am told thus making for some problems in the pace of progress.
I know one Manufacturer included that in their calculations and did not go forward with FBW in one of their new design aircraft.
Some at the FAA are reluctant to acknowledge that I am told thus making for some problems in the pace of progress.
I know one Manufacturer included that in their calculations and did not go forward with FBW in one of their new design aircraft.
FlightGlobal and other sources in last month indicated leasing company Milestone is about to walk away from a tentative 20 aircraft order for the 525 due to delays and downturn in oil.
N525TY Heli Expo
Here are my photos of N525TY at the show on static at the Bell booth and on departure on the Friday.
cheers
cheers
Nice pictures, but those seats in the back for sure has no recline? The "Pull After Emergency Landing to Fold Backrest" ribbon on the seat - does that indicate you would need to fold the backrest on the next row to get out from the seats in the back?
Cheers
Decent video by Bell, low corporate BS and plenty info. Not convinced it’s going to be particularly spacious for our rig-working compatriots though, I suspect the 92 will retain that title. Doubt the bean counters care much about pax comfort though.
Triple redundant flight control actuators and eliminating the high speed epicyclic module would appear to be impressive safety enhancements.
Triple redundant flight control actuators and eliminating the high speed epicyclic module would appear to be impressive safety enhancements.
Decent video by Bell, low corporate BS and plenty info. Not convinced it’s going to be particularly spacious for our rig-working compatriots though, I suspect the 92 will retain that title. Doubt the bean counters care much about pax comfort though.
Triple redundant flight control actuators and eliminating the high speed epicyclic module would appear to be impressive safety enhancements.
Triple redundant flight control actuators and eliminating the high speed epicyclic module would appear to be impressive safety enhancements.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 54
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots to like. However not sure about the pax arrangement. Getting in and out with the front door side pax seat occupied could be interesting. Also hard to see how a cabin/cockpit barrier might be incorporated as per all of the current north sea fleets.
Reported last year that launch customer would be Wintershall: https://helihub.com/2020/01/29/bell-...ea-operations/
Doesn't give any clues who the operator will be
Doesn't give any clues who the operator will be
