Nowhere in that press release from Bell does it say other than the local rep is the customer........ and the only customer.

Wishful thinking, smoke and mirrors, by Bell or a stonking good story tomorrow?

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/9...7e968b74_b.jpg
Bell 429 M-YMCM lands at the ExCel Exhibition Centre at the Royal Victoria Dock in East London on 24th September 2013 (Photo: Westleigh Bushell)

My photos of 429 at Helitech last week
 

From last Tuesday and Wednesday :)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps603bfd21.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps2cf17949.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps7e4060b7.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psa406108d.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psab24e5e1.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps67298472.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pscac9b344.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps9880807c.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pse2e00088.jpg

Cheers

Another Addition
 

India has recently added another 429. Now a total of 5 of these beauties flying in the country.

Dec 429
 

Longbox, is the Decemeber 429 delivery in any way connected to the 109S you are advertising for sale ?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7339/1...fc1f851e_b.jpg
Bell 429 (wheeled langing gear variant) GlobalRanger C-GVZG as seen at the Dubai Airshow on 20th November 2013 (Photo: Lars Hentschel)

429wlg not yet certified and won't be available in US or EASA countries.

First part is true... Second part is wrong. It will most assuredly be available... It'll just be much more practical if (when) they get 500 lb IGW approval.

Certification FAA / EASA ??
 

Phlying Guy ,

Is'nt the FAA certification getting stuck on some very basic AUW stuff ...

Will it happen without affecting a lot of other manufacturers who are waiting to see how this ( increase in AUW ) certification happens ??

Prehar

NYPD selects the Bell 429
 

NYPD was looking at all muti engine fleet and they've got it now :)

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/...7-c8bfc17bf059

Those who go to pubs in New York can soon drink well knowing they won't get a Euro helicopter on their heads!

The Sultan

Sultan

Class act.....not

As long as the hospital is inside the Borough they can be airlifted safely, and provided they did not have too many any of those forbidden sugar drinks.

There's a niche for Bell, a 20 nm radius rescue helicopter.

I would like to think that he did not mean what he wrote and he meant the wider meaning of European!
But then I am old softie!

Heli Expo 2014 WLG and flightline
 

Here's my shots from HAI last week

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps4194b212.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps4bc8dca7.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps9d04c556.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps49c00edd.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps95f76fd0.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps10c5d5d0.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psa0a677ee.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps34471b88.jpg

Saw a pair of NYPD Aviation Unit aircrew present at the show and sign the dotted line to accept the 429 for next year :)

Cheers

Wow, that did not take long!
 

These two articles are taken from NORDIC ROTORS and are less than 10 days apart.

"Oh yeah, new EMS ride!"
April 24, 2014
"MediCopter's new Bell 429 enters service24 April, 2014[Visby] Scandinavian MediCopter, a subsidiary of Scandinavian AirAmbulance, has launched its Bell 429 in HEMS operations for Region Gotland in Visby. The aircraft, the first one of its type in Scandinavia, was placed in medical alert yesterday, and it has already done its first mission.

Gotland’s EMS helicopter is primarily engaged in inter-hospital transports between the island and various specialty hospitals on the mainland, but it is also used for local primary emergency responses and incubator transports. The helicopter, which flies roughly 500 missions a year, is crewed by one pilot, one anesthetic nurse, one HEMS crew member and, upon request, a doctor. The aircraft is stationed at the airport in Visby.

The contract for a new EMS helicopter was sealed in September 2012, when Gotland’s Municipality (Region Gotland) selected MediCopter as its medical air service provider for the next 5+2 years, starting from April 2014. MediCopter has been involved in the HEMS operations in Visby since 2007, when its predecessor Lufttransport Svenska purchased SOS Helikoptern Gotland.
The new helicopter (SE-JRC) replaces an EC145, a type that has been in service on the picturesque island since it replaced a BK117 in December 2005. The Bell 429 is the first Bell product to be used in the EMS market in Sweden since the Swedish Armed Forces seized its Bell 412 operations in Lycksele in December 2002."

"Well, this sucks!"
May 3, 2014
"The new EMS helicopter in Gotland has met criticism in the media due to its current weight limit in the European Union. The newspaper Gotlands Tidningar states that the helicopter’s limited maximum takeoff weight rules out the option to bring a doctor in addition to the standard crew when needed by a critically ill patient. The municipality of Gotland, “Region Gotland”, says that the hospital will use the local Search and Rescue helicopter in exceptional cases. The normal crew on board the brand new Bell 429 consists of one pilot, one flight nurse and one HEMS crew member.

The helicopter model is currently limited to a maximum takeoff weight of 3175 kg (7000 lb), which is its original weight limit. A total of 17 countries worldwide have currently approved a weight exemption for the 429, which boosts the MTOW by some ~230 kg, to 3402 kg (7500 lb). The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has not approved the increased gross weight, and neither has the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Some of the countries that have accepted Bell Helicopter’s request include Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, India, China, Mexico and Nigeria."

What the writer should understand is that the weight is not limited, but it is the CERTIFICATION max gross weight.

Hehehe, this would make a great Bell's marketing phrase for 429 Fat Ranger:

"Oh yeah, new EMS ride! ... Well, this sucks!"

it was for 427 at least...

:D

Back to the future for some..
 

The article below is taken from "Nordic Rotors" and follows the two previously posted by three days.

"Limited HEMS in Gotland7 May, 2014[Gotland] The new EMS helicopter that is being used on the island of Gotland has been partly halted due to its limited payload acceptance. Representatives have told Swedish Radio (SR) that the new Bell 429 has been reduced to covering only local EMS missions, and that the inter-hospital transports between the island and the mainland have to be solved by other air ambulance units. The operations will return to normal, on a temporary basis, once the previous EMS helicopter, an EC145, has returned to the island. The customer, Region Gotland, and the operator will now start to administer the questions surrounding the weight issues.
The modern Bell 429 is currently limited to a maximum certified takeoff weight of 3175 kg (7000 lb), which is its original weight limit. A total of 17 countries worldwide have approved a weight exemption for the 429, which boosts the MTOW by some ~230 kg, to 3402 kg (7500 lb). The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has not approved the increased gross weight, and neither has the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Some of the countries that have accepted Bell Helicopter’s request include Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, India, China, Mexico and Nigeria.
Bell 429 is a sophisticated eight-place twin-engine helicopter developed by Bell Helicopter Textron. The aircraft made its first flight in February 2007, and its production has reached a couple hundred airframes this far. Gotland’s EMS helicopter is the first Bell 429 in the Nordic countries."

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.

Brazil? Australia? Mexico? All which have more helicopters than Sweden.

The HEMS base of Nantes, France (SAMU 44) will replace its A109 by a Bell 429 early 2015 ;)

Just to give you some stats for that... here are the total number of helicopters flying in each of these countries:

Australia - ~2000
Brazil - 2000
Mexico - ~900
Sweden - ~260.

So I think those "third world aviation countries" probably know something about operating and certifying aircraft.

None of which have their own certification or design standards.

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.

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?

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.

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?

It's different because Fat Ranger is totally new design. Bell did it on purpose and played dumb.

SC,

I'm not the one with the problem it would seem.

Somebody tried to wag the dog.

Have you borrowed this guys goggles?

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMj...SzE-H/$_35.JPG

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.

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.

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.

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... :ok:

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.

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.

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.

But that's the catch... when you put all the necessary stuff to increase safety and thus become part 29 (and it's NOT just bird strike protection in the windshield :ugh: :rolleyes:), 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.

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?!

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?

Shawn - the move from 6000 to 7000 is very nearly 15 years ago, so "no" we shouldn't go back to 6000.