Bell 222UT Cat A Ops
 

Does anyone perhaps know of a B222UT publication pertaining to Cat A operations, and more specifically for Helideck and/or Short Field ops? The RFM has limited Cat A information and any other material would be highly appreciated.

FD

I have never flown the 222, but from talking to pilots who did i dont believe the aircraft is certified for CAT A......anyone?

Section 6 of the 222 RFM.
PM me for a copy and I'll see if I can dig it out.

Bell 222UT Cat A Ops
 

Back in the early-to-mid 1990's East Asia Airlines, operating both 222B's and 222UT's between Hong Kong and Macau were using Cat A (elevated platform) performance for all take-offs and landings. I don't recall the AFM authority but if you hit a brick-wall I'm sure someone at Bell may be able to help.

Throughout the 1990s rooftop helipads at Medical Center in US. All takeoffs were Cat A. Dive for the doctor's parking lot get to VTOSS and go about your business. This was the 222UT Air Methods)

Were they true CAT A (weights, temperature etc) or were they simply flying the CAT A profile but outside the parameters? Was it certified CAT A with the relevant supplements?

Knowing Air Meth at that time....I bet the answer is not one they would like being discussed in a Civil Suit following a crash.

Elevated helipads at both ends, and lots of drop-down available if needed. Plenty of drop-down at the Coloane hangar as well, which one unfortunate 222 got to experience, al-be-it on its own solo suicide mission.

I believe the "solo suicide mission" that gulliBell is referring to is the roll-over of a 222 while an engineer was performing a maintenance ground-run. Although the helicopter was destroyed and the bulk-fuel installation badly damaged, the engineer and mechanic were only slightly shaken. At that time, East Asia Airlines was one of the few "progressive" operators that permitted trained and certified senior engineers to perform maintenance ground-runs on their helicopters (up to 100% Nr, flat pitch only). This company approval meant that maintenance personnel didn't have to sit around waiting for a pilot to show-up for a ground-run and that pilots didn't have to wait around at the end of their shift until, for example, the engines cooled sufficiently for a compressor wash to be accomplished. Essentially it was a win-win situation for both parties. Apologies for thread drift.

So the end result of being 'progressive' was the destruction of an airframe and major damage to a bulk fuel installation?
Makes one appreciate 'by the book' operations.