Unbelievable – Bell 429 Uses Rogerson Kratos - Don't Buy!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer is right, Dick is one of the really good guys, a genuine aviation great. Also, he posts in his own name, right out there for all of us. Take care when criticizing especially while hiding under a non de plume.
But back on the subject at hand, my only issue with Dick's impassioned point is that one might find the 429 in an entirely different kettle than the older, lesser models that R-K supported so poorly (as I recall, I supported Dick back a while ago on this, and Rogerson himself put us under withering fire here in the forum!)
Is there anyone from Bell who can shed light on this? How much is the spares cost for the 429 displays? and how much is repair/overhaul?
But back on the subject at hand, my only issue with Dick's impassioned point is that one might find the 429 in an entirely different kettle than the older, lesser models that R-K supported so poorly (as I recall, I supported Dick back a while ago on this, and Rogerson himself put us under withering fire here in the forum!)
Is there anyone from Bell who can shed light on this? How much is the spares cost for the 429 displays? and how much is repair/overhaul?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure of all the facts, but this is the story I heard when considering the purchase of a 429. Was told that Bell elected to take on the role of avionics system integrator, selecting subsystems from a wide range of manufacturers and tying these together with their own interfaces, software, etc, rather than electing to purchase an integrated avionics suite from Garmin, Honeywell, Rockwell/Collins, etc (such as with the 407 GX, 505, 525). If true, this may be partly because no major suite was certified for this class of helicopters at the time. In any event, this choice would put Bell in the role of having to make all this stuff play together, and owners dependent on Bell for future feature development and support for a very long time - whether this is a good thing or not depends on one's point of view. (One downside of this approach is that Bell's efforts will apply to a very small number of airframes compared to, say, the G1000 or G3000, which may limit Bell's enthusiasm/investment for further development.) When I was looking at the 429, the avionics was a work in progress, with many features yet to be developed and delivered. This was a factor in my decision not to purchase a 429.
I will not be surprised to see Bell transition, at some point, to in integrated suite from one of the majors for the 429.
I will not be surprised to see Bell transition, at some point, to in integrated suite from one of the majors for the 429.
Last edited by B407; 15th Jul 2015 at 14:41.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the gutter..........
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I am amazed that the regulatory authorities would approve a monopoly-fitment , where alternatives are available. Sensible legislation would make a choice mandatory.
Go to an aftermarket modification shop and they will design and certify whatever you want, and you will be able to get a lot of the investment back by selling the RK gear to someone else who needs spares.
No mod is cheap, fast or easy. But at least it gives you an affordable option for the managing the costs of managing your machine. Plus, if you made the right partnership agreement, you might be able to reclaim the investment through subsequent customer modifications.
I would suggest going and talking directly to Garmin and seek their advice.
TC:
TC, I think it is well established that Dick can afford the RK displays, but that that is not the point of the discussion.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
"dick, when you are prime minister of aussie land you can ban Rogerson Kratos.
Until then buy something you can afford old boy. "
Until then buy something you can afford old boy. "
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Old Thomas has never been worried about embarrassing himself !!! Don't forget he is not an owner and has never had to pay for any parts and that's why he is so ignorant about these things . If he had won the lottery and bought a machine of his own he may understand!! Your ability to pay or not is completely irrelevant. I could afford to run a turbomeca .... But choose not to due to their crazy prices and attitude to service .
I'm right with you Dick !!!!
I'm right with you Dick !!!!
Thread Starter
What do others believe would be an acceptable price? RK will say they don't have the Garmin efficiencies of scale
Personally I would be prepared to pay $15 k. That is about ten times the Garmin price.
I'm not prepared to pay 30 times the cost. Surely that is reasonable.
Personally I would be prepared to pay $15 k. That is about ten times the Garmin price.
I'm not prepared to pay 30 times the cost. Surely that is reasonable.
I think Dick is definitely doing the right thing, this is a man who is putting his money where his mouth is and taking a stand, Dick I applaud you.
Perhaps if the pressure comes from Bell as people were beginning to refuse to buy their product due to the RK fit they would be in a position to exert enough influence to create change. From this thread and the other regarding the problems that DS has experienced and the ridiculous costs charged for what could amount to simple/cheap fixes it is obvious that RK could care less about their customer experience. It's a pity that the Garmin equipment couldn't be retrofitted to the 109 in question as the layouts looked great, that coupled with the increased reliability and sensible repair pricing structure would have provided an ideal solution. To have reached such an impasse that you would consider selling an aircraft in order to replace it's avionics suite must demonstrate to anyone just what an exasperating situation this must have grown into.
I hope you find a solution, be great if that solution isn't too far in the future. Stick it to RK, they deserve it.
ET
Perhaps if the pressure comes from Bell as people were beginning to refuse to buy their product due to the RK fit they would be in a position to exert enough influence to create change. From this thread and the other regarding the problems that DS has experienced and the ridiculous costs charged for what could amount to simple/cheap fixes it is obvious that RK could care less about their customer experience. It's a pity that the Garmin equipment couldn't be retrofitted to the 109 in question as the layouts looked great, that coupled with the increased reliability and sensible repair pricing structure would have provided an ideal solution. To have reached such an impasse that you would consider selling an aircraft in order to replace it's avionics suite must demonstrate to anyone just what an exasperating situation this must have grown into.
I hope you find a solution, be great if that solution isn't too far in the future. Stick it to RK, they deserve it.
ET
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Dick, I'm totally with you on this, judging from your humble roots you obviously know the true value of money, especially as you have been in the electronics repair business!
Having flown this type exclusively for some years I soon become aware of the horrendous expense of the A109 display units. The replacement prices are unreasonable and eye-watering. We've had a number of them go wrong and all I can say is, I'm glad I don't have to pay the bill but sympathise with those that do.
As I understand it, the displays are a type that is exclusively modified for use in the 109 series and there is only one company authorised to supply and repair them, as has already been stated.
Having flown this type exclusively for some years I soon become aware of the horrendous expense of the A109 display units. The replacement prices are unreasonable and eye-watering. We've had a number of them go wrong and all I can say is, I'm glad I don't have to pay the bill but sympathise with those that do.
As I understand it, the displays are a type that is exclusively modified for use in the 109 series and there is only one company authorised to supply and repair them, as has already been stated.
Dick, since it's on here it is of course only a rumour. 
When you write about a major campaign, out in the wider world, I wonder how easy it would be to run into trouble with this. I have always been advised that in cases like these one should restrict oneself to illustrating the point purely with one's own experience and not advising others on what they should do. Asking questions is alright of course and the questions can be quite pointed. Keeps you out of the courts.
Certainly in this jurisdiction, careful factual recall and carefully worded questions can go pretty close to the bone and still remain legally untouchable.
Based on the questions that I have asked crooked lawyers in the past I can be pretty confident in this.
When you write about a major campaign, out in the wider world, I wonder how easy it would be to run into trouble with this. I have always been advised that in cases like these one should restrict oneself to illustrating the point purely with one's own experience and not advising others on what they should do. Asking questions is alright of course and the questions can be quite pointed. Keeps you out of the courts. Certainly in this jurisdiction, careful factual recall and carefully worded questions can go pretty close to the bone and still remain legally untouchable.
Based on the questions that I have asked crooked lawyers in the past I can be pretty confident in this.
Thread Starter
Perhaps to clear the air a bit RK could explain why their charges are 30 times that of Garmin.
Even though I paid $3500 for them to find out what was wrong with the unit they still refused to tell me what they found out. Also even though they had my display they refused to do the quote unless I sent them $3500 up front in cash.
It would appear they know they can exploit their position as the only service providers and that's what they are going to do.
Any legal action by them would get the whole issue out in the open - that would be great for our industry I believe.
Even though I paid $3500 for them to find out what was wrong with the unit they still refused to tell me what they found out. Also even though they had my display they refused to do the quote unless I sent them $3500 up front in cash.
It would appear they know they can exploit their position as the only service providers and that's what they are going to do.
Any legal action by them would get the whole issue out in the open - that would be great for our industry I believe.
What is the replacement / new cost of these RK units roughly?
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Did you fly MJI ? Very nice machine.
Will Bell fit the Garmin suite (I note some Garmin in MJI...mixed with RK) ? If so, that would seem to be the way forward. All the Garmin products I use work very well.
Arrrj
PS _ Thomas...I am pretty sure Dick can afford whatever he likes...in the order of 50 x 429 !
Did you fly MJI ? Very nice machine.
Will Bell fit the Garmin suite (I note some Garmin in MJI...mixed with RK) ? If so, that would seem to be the way forward. All the Garmin products I use work very well.
Arrrj
PS _ Thomas...I am pretty sure Dick can afford whatever he likes...in the order of 50 x 429 !
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Goathland
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morning chaps...
Thinking slightly out of the box here, but I assume in the certification process RK would have had to specify and demonstrate a Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) in order for the displays to get certification. It would seem that these displays are not lasting anyway near that time...?
Maybe an approach would be to point this out to the appropriate certification body and let them investigate and publish why?
Cheers
Kev.
Thinking slightly out of the box here, but I assume in the certification process RK would have had to specify and demonstrate a Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) in order for the displays to get certification. It would seem that these displays are not lasting anyway near that time...?
Maybe an approach would be to point this out to the appropriate certification body and let them investigate and publish why?
Cheers
Kev.
A further question in a similar vein to that above.
What has been the cost per hour of the RK units in the aircraft. If the frequent failure rate and eye watering repair cost are anything to go by I would image the hourly cost to be significant.
What has been the cost per hour of the RK units in the aircraft. If the frequent failure rate and eye watering repair cost are anything to go by I would image the hourly cost to be significant.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick is a man of principle and I admire and fully support his stance.
The problem is that corporations practice "captive customer" principles on a regular basis.
I worked in a different field to aviation - in earthmoving and mining - but the systems were exactly the same as Dick is experiencing.
As a manufacturer, fit a component to a machine that an owner of their product cannot buy or get repaired anywhere else - and if you're the customer, roll up with a large jar of Vaseline when it fails, and be prepared to get bent over.
Caterpillar were and probably still are masters at this technique. So much so, that many Caterpillar bearings were "proprietary lines".
That means you can get the number off the Cat bearing, present it to your regular bearing supplier - and once the parts person reads it, they shake their head, stating they are unable to supply, because the bearing is specifically not made to any SAE or regular bearing standard or size - it's built to Cat specifications, and to Cat dimensions.
Caterpillar will even produce a standard dimension bearing and then manufacture in .002" extra race-to-roller clearance, as compared to standard bearings - just to ensure the "captive customer" process continues.
Caterpillar take captive customer processes even further by arranging with a bearing manufacturer to provide them with the tooling/machines to manufacture Cat bearings.
This (Caterpillar-owned) tooling/machinery is then installed in the bearing manufacturers factory and operated by the bearing manufacturer.
Those machines or tooling are then not allowed to be used to produce Cat bearings for any aftermarket supplier - with the threat of loss of contract and punitive damages used by Cat, if the bearing manufacturer does so.
RK have obviously honed "captive customer" processes to an even sharper level than Cat.
One of the problems of course, is trying to determine just how much of the company/corporations regular overheads are being sheeted home to repairs/replacement parts, particularly when the repairs are small or infrequent.
The actual parts or repair cost can often be very low - but the company/corporation then tacks on a huge company/corporation overhead cost, as part of the repair/replacement cost of the smallish item - resulting in astronomical charges.
It's not unreasonable to expect that a portion of the company/corporations overheads are tacked on to every job or spare part it supplies - but when the repair or part is obviously a very low cost, and there's additional built-in charges that bear no resemblance to any level of fairness - then it's only right that loud protestations are made.
I spent a very large part of my working life trying to beat Caterpillar at their "captive customer" rorts - and aftermarket suppliers are crucial to the equation to provide robust competition and a level playing field.
It appears RK think they have no competition and can charge what they like. That definitely needs to change. They are practising a blatant "captive customer" rort, with obviously no ability or desire to justify their charges.
The problem is that corporations practice "captive customer" principles on a regular basis.
I worked in a different field to aviation - in earthmoving and mining - but the systems were exactly the same as Dick is experiencing.
As a manufacturer, fit a component to a machine that an owner of their product cannot buy or get repaired anywhere else - and if you're the customer, roll up with a large jar of Vaseline when it fails, and be prepared to get bent over.
Caterpillar were and probably still are masters at this technique. So much so, that many Caterpillar bearings were "proprietary lines".
That means you can get the number off the Cat bearing, present it to your regular bearing supplier - and once the parts person reads it, they shake their head, stating they are unable to supply, because the bearing is specifically not made to any SAE or regular bearing standard or size - it's built to Cat specifications, and to Cat dimensions.
Caterpillar will even produce a standard dimension bearing and then manufacture in .002" extra race-to-roller clearance, as compared to standard bearings - just to ensure the "captive customer" process continues.
Caterpillar take captive customer processes even further by arranging with a bearing manufacturer to provide them with the tooling/machines to manufacture Cat bearings.
This (Caterpillar-owned) tooling/machinery is then installed in the bearing manufacturers factory and operated by the bearing manufacturer.
Those machines or tooling are then not allowed to be used to produce Cat bearings for any aftermarket supplier - with the threat of loss of contract and punitive damages used by Cat, if the bearing manufacturer does so.
RK have obviously honed "captive customer" processes to an even sharper level than Cat.
One of the problems of course, is trying to determine just how much of the company/corporations regular overheads are being sheeted home to repairs/replacement parts, particularly when the repairs are small or infrequent.
The actual parts or repair cost can often be very low - but the company/corporation then tacks on a huge company/corporation overhead cost, as part of the repair/replacement cost of the smallish item - resulting in astronomical charges.
It's not unreasonable to expect that a portion of the company/corporations overheads are tacked on to every job or spare part it supplies - but when the repair or part is obviously a very low cost, and there's additional built-in charges that bear no resemblance to any level of fairness - then it's only right that loud protestations are made.
I spent a very large part of my working life trying to beat Caterpillar at their "captive customer" rorts - and aftermarket suppliers are crucial to the equation to provide robust competition and a level playing field.
It appears RK think they have no competition and can charge what they like. That definitely needs to change. They are practising a blatant "captive customer" rort, with obviously no ability or desire to justify their charges.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: around and about
Age: 71
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ET, that's a good point. BUT ......... KM's observations are, perhaps, not entirely valid though morally laudable. Here's a short, but true anecdote that illustrates my point.
20 years ago I was privileged to sit on a panel of Senior Technical Management for Bell. I made the point that it was rare for the aircraft, per se, to have a warranty problem, but the vendor items created all hell and mayhem with the customer, who, not unreasonably held us, the seller, responsible for fixing the problem. (This was when I was Ch Eng at Alan Mann)
The executive director of customer support was a great chap called Bruce Camp, and he picked up on the point that was simply if I complained such a comment it would be 'less-than-significant'. BUT.... if Bell complained about the total lack of meeting a reasonable MTBF then something would be done about it. Thus Terry Jeffcoat's responsibility for warranty was expanded to include monitoring of any vendor item's reliability. Result!
Thus the responsibility for such 'vendor items', particularly to include RK, lies with the TCH, not the certifying agency. And the TCH has tremendous clout (contracts and money talks). I've been away from the politics with OEMs for some time but I think the principle is valid. FWIW in another life I had exactly the same experience with Agusta, more pressure and Anglo-Italian relations at an all-time low for a while. However the end result was worth the pain
Just FWIW - VFR
20 years ago I was privileged to sit on a panel of Senior Technical Management for Bell. I made the point that it was rare for the aircraft, per se, to have a warranty problem, but the vendor items created all hell and mayhem with the customer, who, not unreasonably held us, the seller, responsible for fixing the problem. (This was when I was Ch Eng at Alan Mann)
The executive director of customer support was a great chap called Bruce Camp, and he picked up on the point that was simply if I complained such a comment it would be 'less-than-significant'. BUT.... if Bell complained about the total lack of meeting a reasonable MTBF then something would be done about it. Thus Terry Jeffcoat's responsibility for warranty was expanded to include monitoring of any vendor item's reliability. Result!
Thus the responsibility for such 'vendor items', particularly to include RK, lies with the TCH, not the certifying agency. And the TCH has tremendous clout (contracts and money talks). I've been away from the politics with OEMs for some time but I think the principle is valid. FWIW in another life I had exactly the same experience with Agusta, more pressure and Anglo-Italian relations at an all-time low for a while. However the end result was worth the pain
Just FWIW - VFR