Well ladies and gentlemen, I guess we finally have a consensus; those who have flown and worked with the 429 love it and those who have not even gotten close to it, think it's a piece of crap :yuk:

I talked to some EMS crews flying the 429 at Heli-Expo; it was funny to hear they dread the days when the 429 is down for planned maintenance and they have to revert back to the 135. Can't believe they used to work with something that slow :}

Next stop, Vancouver for the CHC Safety & Quality Summit :cool:

Encyclo:
See you there! Drop in to the presentation I'm doing with Peter Ireland for a view on the next steps beyond SMS!

Could we be enlightened what specifically is faster on the Bell and what is slower on the 135?

I am interested in the specifics.....please.

3000' ISA, skid gear, barrier filter

429 (7000lbs GW) - Vh = 149 ktas
135 (6500lbs GW) - Vh = 139 ktas

Regarding the weight increase to 7,500 pounds that the FAA is struggling with - this is the same agency that allowed a weight increase in one model of the King Air from 12,500 pounds to 14,400 pounds - a much larger percentage increase...

Shawn did the King Air weight increase change its certification requirements?
Here we are talking about an aircraft that has been certified to Pt.27 of the FAR and its manufacturer is asking to certify under the more stringent Pt.29 without recertification process.

It's not just a 500 lbs issue like Bell would like most of you to believe, like for example for the bell 407.

If you noticed the only authorities that authorized the weight increase belong to the third world of aviation.

Shawn,

I doubt that the FAA is struggling with anything. It is Bell that is trying to wag the dog.


The King Air you mention is/was certified under a SFAR.


I can see EC asking for the EC 145 to be in Part 27 soon as it is only 400 lbs heavier than an IGW 429, what the hell who cares.


Bell started with a clean sheet and screwed up. How difficult would it have been to comply with Part 29 in the beginning?


The farce is the equipment required for the IGW. WTF?


The line has always been in the sand.


SFAR 28 anyone?

"If you noticed the only authorities that authorized the weight increase belong to the third world of aviation."

Excuse me but Canadian authorities have certified the increase and Canada is certainly NOT part of the third world of aviation. A bit of a thread drift on my part as I know very little about the certification of the 429 but your statement is out of line.

It's where the manufacturer has the jobs, and yes.

"third world of aviation". Er New Zealand is in the third world of aviation.... Really? Are you one of these "it's only really done properly in Europe don't you know" people? .... ;)

Not sure about third world of aviation but isn't New Zealand a third world country in any case?

I thought this had been accepted years ago!

Grenville old chap. Some eyebrow raising posts recently.

Do you give lessons in how to win friends and influence people?

Adroight, thank you for your pastoral concern.

Re: the S76 comment I do not believe I owe 212man (or anyone else for that matter) any explanation. His assumption that my comment was/is insensitive is his personal opinion and to which he is thoroughly entitled.

No one could help but feel sympathy for anyone lost in an accident and my comment is no reflection on this. The accident was non-operational so there is no association, inferred or otherwise, in relation to my question about the S76 A's Cat A performance. As far as I know, the thread is not marked condolences and so I see my query as being neutral.

Re: the above, had I put various smiley faces wouldn't that be a bit too obvious?

Obviously not!

In future I'll be sure to put lot's of these :E ;) :) around my posts. Not.

RVDT (and others)
What does weight have to do with the safety of an aircraft (in terms of certification)? Number of passengers, certainly- as the larger the number of passengers, the greater the impact (no pun intended) of an accident.
But weight?? Not that I can see. The weight limit for Part 27 used to be 6,000 pounds- was there any other change that was safety related when it was increased to 7,000 pounds? Not that one would notice.
In fact, for Part 29 helicopters, with less than 10 passengers, the H-V curve is moved to the performance section for that very reason.
Believe me - Transport Canada (and others) looked very long and hard at the rationale to increase the weight on the 429. I used to work there in the flight test certification section, and can tell you that there were times when our people had much more stringent requirements than the FAA. (not that TC is perfect, but they are well respected in the aviation world).

Shawn,

So what stopped the 429 being a Part 29 aircraft and be done with it?

Bell 429 on wheels
 

I've only managed to get a rather grainy pic so far, but here is the Bell 429 with wheels...

http://helihub.com/wordpress/wp-cont...ls-grainy2.jpg

I guess that it would be too much to point you toward Post 333 and Post 334 both from 10 days ago with the hi-res Bell images?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--...wn_857x534.jpg

:p

Thanks, John, I'd missed those! :ok: (or do I mean :O ?) LOL

RVDT:
A similar question could be asked about the increased weight KingAir. The short answer is that Part 29 introduces a large number of things in the realms of failure effects analysis, system safety requirements and so on that are more relevant to aircraft carrying large numbers of passengers.
Check the difference between 27.1309 and 29.1309 to begin to see the differences. And that is just one of the very subtle, but very expensive deltas.

I completely agree with them! It's too simple to certify your helicopter under less stringent regulation and then ask for weight increse due to your h/c do not have enough payload to perform any mission!