My very personal insight, I never argue or ask why when a mechanic tells me we have to fly, reason is simple, I LOVE TO FLY, especially in a 407 and with nothing in particular to do!

PS: I don't ever recall having to go fly after they replaced anything related to the generator in a 407, but I have started to like your mechanic.

Flight
 

Don't get me wrong, I am only trying to further understand the systems by asking why we needed the flight.

The mech is good about explaining what he has done on the aircraft. He has always had the manual out while doing a procedure, shows us what tools he used and that they are back in the tool box.

And he always goes on the ops flight check without being asked.

I like your mech too!!
 

Any mech that goes along on a test or function flight, even uninvited is welcome in my book to do so.

Proves his work has been done thoroughly checked and cross checked and should things then go wrong, he's in for the ride...

Either way you win! The guys that will voluntarily go are few and far between!! Don't seem to like to risk their own necks after their "workmanship"...:p

Recuperator,

I am curious as to the type of operation you work for.
During my entire career so far, I have yet to work with
a mechanic/technician /engineer who would not be willing
to fly in a machine he or she had worked on. With very few
exceptions, they have all taken great pride in their abilities
and "workmanship" which was evident by the shape the
aircraft were kept in.



Rigidhead

It is a two way street. The better the pilot, the more willing is the engineer to go flying. ;)

I cant think of any operational reason for flying after a seal change, but if you have the time, why not? After all why waste a cycle just to do a ground run.

Maybe your mechanic has replaced the seal before, and it looked good with a ground run, but after the next flight, it leaked again…

The gearbox pressures in the Rolls Royce engine are greater during flight that on the ground. The air/oil separator gear is N1 driven, and the gearbox pressures are higher at flight N1 speeds.

Or, like the others have said, the mechanic may like to fly.

What’s wrong with that?

Happy Christmas. May all your mechanic’s have this work ethic.

[Spotter mode]At last week's Quad-A/AUSA conference, the RAH-70 designation was confirmed for the 407ARH. No word yet on a name. 'Slapaho' has been doing the rounds amongst the KW crews, but I'm not entirely convinced that this'll gain the approval of the Army's PR team... :E [/Spotter mode]

I/C

I also read an article that said the MD500 was in the running for this role?

HAL assembles B407 "in day and a half"
 

36 hours ?!! No wonder so many companies are outsourcing to India. :ooh:

(I smell a marketing pitch. D'you think this 'assembly' process involved much more than installing the pine-scented air freshener in the cabin...? :E )

From Newkerala.com
HAL creates history by assembling American Bell 407 chopper

New Delhi: Having built "French" under technology transfer and the indegenious Advance Light helicopter "Dhruv", state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has for the first time successfully assembled an American Bell 407 helicopter.

"The HAL assembled helicopter has been delivered to Karnatka's VSL mining company and the task was completed within a span of a day and half", according to Max Wiley, Bell's Executive Director for Asia.

The assembling of the helicopter assumes significance as Textron company Bell 407 helicopter is bidding for the Indian Army's contract for 197 helicopters to expand its aviation wing.

Bell, along with Eurocopter, has been shortlisted for the contract and the American company's 407 helicopter has successfully completed technical evaluation including winter trials in high altitude areas of Ladakh and summer tests in the Pokhran range in the Thar desert.

Army Aviation, which at present equipped with the ageing French Aleutte I and Aleutte II helicopters is proposing to Purchase 60 helicopters outright and assemble the rest 137 in the country at HAL.

"Both Bell and HAL were equally excited that this assembly could be done at HAL since it exposed the company to the complete process of assembly and delivery of the Bell 407 helicopters" Wixley said.

I/C

I would think in this case "assembly" involved taking the helicopter of the shipping skid , assembling landing gear , perhaps MGB and TGB , main and tail rotors and rigging the flight controls . I think assembling any helicopter in 36 hrs ( Robbies included ) would be a tough feat even for Toyota.( or the Indian equivalent ). I am trying to imagine a conversation between a texan pilot and outsourced indian Bell Product support . 'why is there a turban on your helicopter ?"

Todays news HAL assembles B407 in day and a half

Tomorrows news Pilot disassembles B407 in Minute and a half!

:E

A more cynical reading would mean that they assembled the aircraft, then delivered it - which probably meant stuffing it into the back of a transporter. The subsequent restoration at the receiving end, of the rotor blades, tail fin etc and test flying was what took the one-and-a-half-days, sahib.

(Why does the rotor head wobble from side to side when I talk on the radio??):8

407
 

I see you are in India. I am looking at a couple of offers but am somewhat concerned about conditions there. Can you advise who, where and what to avoid . Also, which operators are the best / worst.
PM me and I maybe able to help you with a manual.....but doesn't your company have one in the A/C ??

Why don't you make yourself a checklist then, if you have a manual?
Do it nicely on a page A5 and have it laminated.

Buddy,
the check list in section 2 ,"Normal Procedures" ,of the flight manual, which is made and provided by the manufacturer was created by that same manufacturer and it is logical.
Just take out those little remarks here and there.


No more spoon feeding:=

Oxygen to use in a Bell 407
 

I am looking or a certified portable oxygen system for a Bell 407 to use in the high mountains. Anyone got any ideas, suggestion or recommendations? Thank in advance!

If it's portable, I don't think it needs to be 'approved'.

Best outlet for portable systems is Mountain High - www.mhoxygen.com

jez

Bell 407 Accident History - what does it mean?
 

All,

I am in the process of getting qualified on the B407 and thought it might be instructive to review the accident history of this acft. What I found was not what I expected, and I am wondering if others can help me interpret/understand what I found. The surprising thing is that it seems that 46% of all accidents in the NTSB database are attributed to mechanical failure of some sort, and of these, 29% of all accidents are due to engine failure of some kind. This seems substantially higher than other helicopters I am familiar with. For example, the Enstrom 480 has experienced only one accident due to a mechanical failure over the same time frame, and even adjusted for fleet size, this is a substantially lower rate. (The single 480 accident attributed to mechanical failure was probably an outlier as it resulted from the failure of recently installed elastomeric MR dampers which later proved to be defective in design; none of the 480 accidents are attributed to engine failure.) The Robinson R22 and R44 are said to have around 5%-7% of accidents attributable to mechanical failure, although I havent been able to confirm this with hard data.

So, what is going on here? Is this an anomaly due to bad or insufficient data, a lack of understanding on my part, or is there something else at work?

(Detailed 407 data below)

BELL 407 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS*: <18 Apr 2009>

1 PILOT ERROR: 27 48%
`
2 ENGINE FAILURE: 16 29%

2a TURBINE WHEELS: 5 9%

2b FADEC: 3 5%

2c OTHER: 8 14%

3 HANGER BEARINGS: 3 5%

4 TR LOSS OF CONTROL: 2 4%

5 OTHER MECHANICAL: 5 9%

6 OTHER NON-MECHANICAL: 3 5%

ALL MECHANICAL CAUSES: 26 46%

*Based on NTSB website as of 18 Apr 2009 – 56 reported accidents since 1996

38% of all accidents (21) involved fatalities

7% of all accidents (4) involved mechnical failure and fatalities

15% of accidents due to mechanical causes involved fatalities (4)

these figures are not so much different from average of all helicopters.
Engines 15%.
Human factors 54%
All mechanical 32%.

I think that engine failure is line 2 , and 2a , 2b and 2c are subsets of line 2.


See

http://www.rotor.com/portals/12/Stat...01997-2006.xls

Interesting observation , I did detail analysis of 2006
While engine failure made up 21 of 164 accidents.
It was only primary cause in 1 of 26 fatal accidents that year.

compare that to wire strikes 9 of 164 accidents
but 5 of 26 fatal accidents.

A Bell 407 is a work horse whilst an Enstrom 480 is a rich boys toy and quite a rare ship.
Fire bombing and medivac work must put the 407 in a diffrent league.

Thanks for adding so much value to this thread! As it turns out, about as many 407's are owned by rich boys, and the 480 is increasingly being used in law enforcement and similar applications. Neither helicopter knows the financial status of the pilot/owner at the time of a malfunction.;)

It seems to me reading your user name, I am wondering if you are on a crusade for the Enstrom 480......:=

Maybe you should have looked at all mechanical failures in the helicopter industry, I am sure if you looked at that you might of taken up cycling instead (although, I am sure there are plenty of mechanical failures there too, ask the guy trying to break the land speed record:uhoh:).

When you are talking about engine failures I think you should look more at the engine itself, as far as manufacturer of the engine not aircraft.

The 407 is definitely a work horse. Usauly operated at high gross weights and in all types of environments, not just a toy or running around doing law enforcement, usually carrying two people, gear/equipment and fuel.... full gross weight??? (No offense to all you deputy dogs.)

I am not saying the 407 is a better machine :E but I find statistics can be made to say what ever the person making a case wants. There are so many variables.

My suggestion to you is get checked out on the bicycle, less fatilties..... or is there:} No one said flying helicopters was safe.:ok:

DT

I really don't think you can draw any conclusions from the information. There really isn't much there. Have you flown the 407 yet? You'll probably forget all
about trying to split hairs with statistics when you do.

I'm not on a crusade for anything except safe, professional grade flying. I have trained in the 407, R44, R22, and 480, and currently own a 480 as a time builder to get to "reasonable" insurance rates in a 407. My experience in all of these machines had been generally positive, with no malfunctions in any of them while I have been flying. Every helicopter is a bundle of compromises, including the 480, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. I am trying to get a better handle on the tradeoffs involved with the 407.

Agreed. And while the 407 engine is a 250 series, it is quite different from the C20. I am wondering if the the C47B has a siginificantly different pattern of failures?

Been flying airplanes for more than 40 years and am quite familiar with the data there. All airplanes are definitely not created equal when it comes to safety and reliability. I am relatively new to helicopters, but I suspect that the same is true for RW but to a different degree.

Yes - did the Bell Academy Initial Pilot/Ground course about a year ago, some additional flying in the meantime, and am back at Bell soon for recurrent. The 407 is a fantastic machine IMHO, with only a few relatively minor things to complain about - the biggest one being the cramped cockpit relative to an A-Star or a 119 (both of which have other more significant issues).

If 46% of accidents are due to mechanical malfunctions, this doesnt seem like splitting hairs if an accurate reflection of real world experience.

What ,in your opinion, are the 'significant issues' with the Astar? I would not venture an opinion about a 407 if I have no time in it and I see you do not have time in an Astar.
If you are going purely by folklore, then I can say that an Astar with Arriel engines has a sterling record as far as engine failures go.To me, the Astar is a superior machine in every way.But then I am biased towards European and Sikorsky products and underwhelmed with the current line up Bell has to offer. But I will not make that a blanket judgement until I fly the 407/212/412/205/206.
Alt3.

True, I have not acted as a pilot in the A-Star (but have been a pax on a number of occasions). My concerns are based on widely reported problems with support and parts availability and pricing in the U.S. For this info I am relying heavily on posts on Rotorheads, and on the Pro Pilot magazine annual surveys. Dont know if this is in the category of folklore or not. OTOH, there is much to like about the A-Star acft itself, especially the cabin layout. If this acft were as well supported in the U.S. as Bell products, it would be my first choice hands down. My only concern re safety is the possible issue with hydraulic failures (perhaps folklore), but as I understand it, a dual hydraulic system is now available.

Those mechanical failure figures are far higher than most accepted numbers. Most OEMs (Agusta, Bell, Eurocopter) quote Human Factors as being accountable for ~75% of causes, with inherent mechanical failures being attributable for less than 10% (if memory serves). We should see some definitive figures from the Joint Helicopter Safety Analysis Team (JHSAT) before too long.

The C47B has suffered from a couple of major design problems, including third stage turbine failures and FADEC failures (which led to a fleet stand-down and development of the reversionary governor after the tragic loss of a USFS 407 during the Challenger debris recovery effort in 2003).

I/C

Yes, this is pretty much the frame of reference I have had in mind for several years, and why I found the 407 data surprising. The numbers I cited are compiled by me on the basis of reading every NTSB accident report on the 407. Am I missing something?

I agree with you figures I show 16 of the reported accidents as engine related.
Only bright spot is they have reduced in recent years , 6 of the accidents were in 2003.

Perhaps the figures suggest something different: that pilots who fly the 407 have fewer human error-related accidents?:eek:

You might review, for example, the last three years of 407 accidents and incidents, and redo your analysis to determine what the current statistics say, now that the 407 is mature, as opposed to its introduction as a new product. I took a quick look of reports in the NTSB data base since 2005, and saw 22 reports. While there were engine failures, you didn't see the type of events experienced early in the 407's history.

One can also make the argument, that in a perfect world, the only accidents would be mechanical problems, with pilot training reducing the human error accidents to almost zero. Since you have trained at Bell, you know how great their 407 training is.

I don't think comparing the 480 to the 407 is an apples to apples comparison, when you look at the number of 407s in the fleet and the number of hours flown by the 407 each year. Wouldn't the 407 fleet fly 100 times the annual hours flown by the 480 fleet?

In the last ten days, I flew a 407 from CO to AK, and a L4 from AK to CO. Two and a half days up in the 407, and four days down in the L4. Along the way, I stopped in Penticton and did two days of mountain training in the 407 with Canadian Helicopters. Previously I have made that trip from the lower 48 to Alaska, and also trained with Canadian Helicopters in the Jet Ranger, L4, and 530F. The 407 runs circles around all those other ships both in the mountain environment as well as on a long cross country flight.

While there are always opportunities for pilots to screw things up, the 407 makes the flying part a lot easier between its great power, the responsiveness of the rotor system, the tail rotor authority, and the ability to do slopes. Several months ago in the 407, we needed to climb high to cross a high mountain pass in Colorado with a bunch of wind and turbulence, and easily climbed to 15,500 feet where we were still climbing 700 fpm. If you mated an L4 with a high altitude tail rotor with a 530F, took their best attributes, and added in a bunch of attributes neither ship has, you end up with a 407.

Good point. No doubt that the 407 mechanical malfunction rate seems to be improving over time.


I am very much in agreement on this point, and was not intending to suggest that they are comparable. The 480 is the turbine I have the most experience with, and has a superb safety record, so it made me wonder about the reasons why the two are so different. There are about 130 480's flying vs about 800-900 407's, so no doubt that the 407 flys many more hours per year on a fleet basis, and that needs to be taken into consideration.

I am planning to do the Penticton mountain flying course in the near future. Keep hearing rave reviews.:ok:

What Bell Helicopter is to emergency training, Canadian Helicopters in Penticton, BC is to mountain training.

Bell 407 statistics
 

Maybe I'm wrong or missing something but I think the statistic is wrong.
I assume the entire fleet of Bell 407 is flying far more hours a day then the entire fleet of 480 does in a month.

Thanks to all who responded to my post. As a result of my post being merged with a larger 407 thread which I was not previously aware of, I have carefuly reviewed 12 pages of posts on the 407 dating to 2001 and now have a much better understanding of the issues I was inquiring about.

And your conclusion was???:eek:

My conclusion: The 407 has a history of malfuntions at an unusually high rate compared to other light turbines. The rate of malfunctions has improved significantly over time, but there MAY be lingering engine/FADEC issues still to be resolved (as suggested by a recent U.S. accident not yet in the NTSB database).

Based on your 407 training at Bell, do you consider FADEC manual to be an emergency or abnormal?

I consider it an abnormal as I did not find it all that difficult to deal with. Far easier than, say, hydraulics out.

Reading between your lines however, the accident I made reference to in my previous post was not a simple FADEC failure with a reversion to manual (and perhaps not a FADEC failure at all) as the engine either rolled back to idle or quit according to some close to the situation. From what I understand, no amount of throttle manipulation would have restored power (and the pilot is said to be very experienced overall and in the 407).