Thanks for the kind words T & B – I often thought of my job in Singapore - if they didn’t want to pay me - I’d do it for free. I had more fun out of 212s than anyone deserved. The best (most fun) contract we had was with the Royal Thai Navy and their purchase of 8 X 212s. A delegation of RTN officers came down to Singapore for three months while the aircraft were kitted out. A certain RTN Commander was the boss. He was smart; one course to the US Navy College, Corpus Christi, had seen him top of the class from 144 students, most of them US. At graduation they raised the Thai Flag at the same rate as the Stars and Stripes – which pleased him. On the one hand – bordering on genius; on the other - a world class, priceless nutter who turned out to be one of my favourite people of all time.

One example: after delivery he was accepting the last of the aircraft at U-Tapao Navy base, only he and I on board. The last check was an auto-rotation. We were 5-6,000 feet over the base and he killed both engines – cold. Some time later we slid to a very short stop on the airfield, out jumps the Commander and, through the still rotating blades, emptied his M16 skywards. As he was grinning at me all the while I don’t know to this day whether, on the one hand - his genius had worked out that he could do this without hitting a blade or, on the other – a world class, priceless nutter had just got lucky. Anyway, it seemed to indicate that the acceptance had been a success so who was I to complain. :hmm:

Here's one of the eight aircraft at U-Tapao, in VIP colours and clearly having just been blessed by a Buddhist priest. 'forget' with his favourite Commander.:ok:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...as/PREECHA.jpg

Enjoyed reading that, 'forget', and also enjoyed studying the picture. Am I right in thinking that a bunch of Thai matelots are hiding in the shade of a 212 with its floats deployed over to the right of the frame? Wonder what the story was there...

...with appropriate apologies to all those who're trying to use this thread to actually get some work done. Boy, could I have made good use of Shawn Coyle's charts and whizz-wheel in Brunei; I'm convinced that over 10% of the lifts made out of the ulu there were overweight. Er, obviously not with the Loan Service drivers on board - oh, perish the thought. :cool:

I do believe, that under closer observation, that 212 in the upper right side of the photo is on fixed floats so I don't think there is much of a "story" there.:ok:

Ah, right - thanks Albatros. Another gap (and there are many) in my education is filled!

I Ye know toooooo much!!!

Not something you see every day. ;)

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/154.jpg

Not common I agree but early seventies Bell 212/205's were often seen in the ME on fixed floats.
I think there are some photo's from the old Skyweaver site now on Photobucket particularly one of 'EE' outside the Bristow hangar in Dubai, also Gulf Helicopters used to operate a couple of 205's on Fixed floats out of Doha circa 1977, was bit of a bugger checking the T/R!!

S

Nice to get answers so soon - Bell 212 hover graphs not available
 

412 /212 Max loading nose avionics bay
 

does anyone know or can direct me to the manual that states the max allowable load limit for nose avionics bay ballast and or avionics weights
thanks in advance
dr

Yes, the maintenance manual does

forget (NC) check your PM's.
Cheers

torque/MAUW charts for Bell 212
 

Hi all
I cannot find any chart to find the hover tq with corrosponding MAUW figures. Bell 212 FMS for Cat A ops gives figures only upto 10000lbs as it's the limit AUW for cat A ops. Has anyone got the idea on how to find the tq value from 10000lbs to 11200lbs?:confused:

Bell issue an ASB after the fatal accident in Mexico last month.

http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/St...212-10-141.pdf

Another reason to get rid of these old aircraft.

So what on earth has that got to do with the age of the aircraft? I'd rather get rid of an annoying little twerp like you who seems to have hours to spend every day adding your trite and meaningless comments to so many threads....
SM/anything he writes = 0

I guess this is what you call a 'one track mind'
 

Quality issues are one of the most problematic issues in our industry today. Typically you will get a bad part that doesn’t fit you new design Bell 429, EC225 or S-92 and that is it, you order a new one and hope it fits.

What is more insidious is when a process is missed, whatever the FAR revision your aircraft was certified under, the helicopter is at risk. All OEMs work extremely hard to have robust QA processes to prevent this from happening, but in this case good people died and I find it appalling that someone would use this to push a totally unrelated agenda.

Sad, really sad :ugh: :yuk:

Getting rid of these old aircraft is not a realistic response - this sort of thing happens all the time to newer designs as well.
There is a curve of problems vs. time (commonly known as the bathtub) and I'd wager that the 212 is still well along the level part of that curve.

"Another reason to get rid of these old aircraft"

Old technology is proven technology. There's life in the old girl yet. :)

Phil

Several of the folks I talked with that were doing long line, stated that they preferred the 212 over the 412 for long line work. Mostly due to the rotor system having more inertia.

Shell Management - nobody at Aerogulf has forgotten that accident - read the thread about it in this forum properly to get more insight into it. That could have happened to almost any modern aircraft, and the fact that their aircraft were newer (or had 2 engines, for that matter) didn't help the boys from Cougar or from Bond.

Taking your points - the aircraft may be old, but each Aerogulf machine is stripped down and rebuilt every year. They are like well-loved classic cars! Low spec? All of those used at night are fully IFR equipped, with radalts, radar etc., plus 2 crew and associated equipment. Low performance? The loads were adjusted to cope.

In principle, there is no problem flying at night if the proper procedures are taken. In fact, I don't find it demanding at all. The air is just a different colour!

Are you really from Shell Management? If so, you will know that Shell will use a 212 when it suits them.

Phil
Registered Aviation Consultant

Paco said
Shell management may be deluded but I really can't believe Shell still fly the 212 (or perhaps you mean 2/1=2!).

I believe they used one in Canada a few years ago to take people off a ship somewhere cold. So my sources tell me, at least!

phil

I'm sure you are wrong their.

This is the reason the 212 was dropped.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/a...BladeGrip3.jpg

That sort of failure has happened to other helicopter types as well. Should they all be grounded?

Agree Shawn,

From the 'beach' marks on that fracture surface, that crack had been growing for some time and somebody was not looking :8

Regardless SM, I guess from your picture the aircraft landed OK. Would this qualify as a "redundant component" :D

shows how good they really are if it gets back while looking like that.:eek:

I don't give a rats what it looks like after i'v shut down, means i've walked away from it alive, and any bit can be replaced....

i bet it had a bit of a shake.

I think you'll see on closer inspection that the crack originates internally, and would not have been visible.

It happened about 100 ft on final to a grass field. By the time it landed, the upper tang was bending upwards and the aircraft was jumping around uncontrollably. The only thing keeping the outer portion of the tang attached was the friction from the washer.

The FAA finally managed an AD 3 years later that mandated a regular ultrasonic inspection on the bore of the grip:-
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Model 204B, 205A,

I believe the PH accident was the third time a failure had occured.

Its amazing how readily some people blame their own QA or maintenance inspectors without mastering the subject first.:mad:

If you are referring to my mention of QA - I was referring to the QA process of the hub manufacturer (that allowed this fault to be introduced.)

Didn't Al Major have a similar failure while setting poles in Oman with ADA?

"Old" helicopters
 

A third Emergency AD has just been released (FAA AD 2010-25-51) together with ASB212-10-142, related to the inboard fittings in the 212 MR hub.

The directives mention a previous accident with fatalities which is related to the fitting failures. Anyone have any information about that accident? Google comes up blank.

For those who think this is "age" related, the part has a retirement life and changed out at hub overhaul.

The OEM has to constantly use different vendors to make their new parts, as the original vendor may be too busy, gone broke or no longer handling this type of work.

This incident appears to be from a recently manufactured batch of fittings. The risk of a defect being introduced during manufacture could happen to any OEM, and on any model, and has nothing to do with how long that model has been around.

Doc

Shellmanagement

This report indicates that the Puma/Super Puma should be disallowed.

The SultanAir Accidents Investigation: 7/2010 G-PUMI

The Shell replacement plan, as of mid 2007, is here on slide 26 from this IHST presentation
http://www.ihst.org/Portals/54/Partn.../Sheffield.ppt

The 212 (and S-61) can carry on in service with Shell until 2011, while the 332 has 2 years more it seems.

Those time limits, if set in 2004/2005 seem unagressive if Shell really does believe that newer is safer and 'ALARP'.

Especially irresponsible if the 'Shell Management' postion really is that the rotor grip failure in 2000 in Nigeria was a catalyst for change.

The S-61 drops off the Shell list 49.5 years after the first flight. Not really in line with their own enthusiasm for new certification standards (it is the aged certification standards not the airframe age that Shell Management was inexpertly referencing).

I assume you are just 'stirring' by quoting that garbage? The decision to upgrade was made long before the blade grip failure, and the EC-155 order placed before it too. But I'm guessing you knew that !

Airworthiness Directive / Blade Grips
 

FAA-2010-0564

http://www.rotor.com/rotornews/Aug13/2013-13-06.pdf

212man - would you happen to have BHT-212-FMS-19??? Or know how I could get my hands on it? Looking for info on SCAS unserviceability in an IFR machine operating VFR on fire suppression... is SCAS MEL'able or is SCAS failure a grounding? AFCS is in MEL, but cannot find SCAS...... any help gratefully appreciated!

AFCS not required for VFR. It says so in the BHT-212IFR-FM-1.

If it is a non Bell installation, check the maintenance and operation certification paperwork for the system you have installed. If eligible, it will be included in the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Whether you can MEL it, will depend upon the regulatory approval of your MEL and the inclusion of the system installed - check very closely.