Dear Editor,
I am surprised about several of Mr King’s comments (‘There are several reasons an aircraft turbine engine could be damaged on start-up,’ SN July 31), where he says the Bell 206 was only used in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. The Bell 206 continues to be the choice of helicopter today for law enforcement, militaries and other agencies around the world. It’s still in production (despite Bell’s decision to stop in the next two years, because of the advent of the R60 which is expected to erode their profit margins and market share). The Bell 206 is used to this day in Iraq (as the OH58 military version) and the waiting list for a new Bell 206 helicopter is almost 2 years and counting, with several militaries and law enforcement agencies on the waiting list. Just last week, Hawker Pacific and many others placed orders for Bell 206 helicopters. The manufacturers of security accessories for helicopters (searchlights, infra-red systems and other equipment) have used the Bell 206 platforms for years because of the success the law enforcement agencies in the USA and around the world have had with them.
The Bell 206 helicopter is a great helicopter that fits the multipurpose role of developing countries like Guyana because they can be used for training, reconnaissance, patrol, law enforcement, surveillance and numerous other missions. Mr King indicated that the Government of Guyana should have purchased a Bell 427 or Bell 412 instead of the Bell 206. I noticed that he forgot to mention in his letter that a Bell 206 in new condition costs over US$1.6M. A Bell 427 in new condition costs over US$5M and the waiting period is almost 2-3 years, while a Bell 412 in new condition is almost US$9M with a waiting period of almost 2-4 years. It is hardly fair for a government in the developing world to spend US$5M or US$9M dollars for a helicopter and then have to wait several years for its delivery. The government has a need now for a helicopter not in 2-3 years’ time. The used prices for Bell 427 and Bell 412 helicopters are in excess of US$4M and US$7M, respectively.
Mr King also forgot to mention in his letter that the operating cost for the Bell 206 is around US$135 per hour while the Bell 412 is US$1,200 per hour, and much higher for the existing Bell 412 in Guyana which is always unserviceable and closer to US$3,000 per hour. This can be estimated, if you calculate the monies the government has spent over the last 28 years on the Bell 412 and that it has only flown 4,000 hours (142 hours average per year) in 28 years.
It is my understanding that each of the Bell 206 helicopters acquired by the Government of Guyana has flown in excess of 200 hours already since their arrival. This converts to US$27,000 total operating costs instead of the Bell 412 helicopter which would have cost the government of Guyana over US$240,000 if they had decided to fly it instead. Would the government be expected to train new pilots in these new helicopters? Does Mr King know how much it costs to insure these new high-end helicopters? I am yet to see the government, including the US army, using Bell 412 and Bell 427 in patrol, reconnaissance, surveillance and training missions. I know about hundreds of Bell 206 helicopters around the world in this mission profile with 2-7 hours daily flights.
The research done has indicated that the Bell 206 that was supposedly the lemon has been the backbone of the GDF, flying several missions daily for 2-6 hours without any down time or breakages. It has proven itself as a workhorse in Guyana. I am certain this helicopter has flown almost 300 hours already without any problems.
Mr King stated in his letter that there were several reasons why a turbine engine could be damaged in start-up. A turbine engine component can fail at any time, however, it must be noted that the responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft, from pre-flight, through start-up, flight and post-flight is always the responsibility of the pilot in command. This means that during start-up any deviation from the normal starting references should result in an immediate abort of the start-up to avoid turbine or other serious engine damage. All operators and owners of any turbine engine aircraft or helicopter would send crew members for retraining immediately after any such incident and deem them 100% accountable for any engine damage. This is a fact the pilot’s union would not dispute.
The public should not be confused by saying that the pilot is not the one with responsibility for aborting an engine start in order to avoid engine damage if the manufacturer’s parameters are being exceeded. It’s the reason we have temperature and pressure gauges in the cockpit for constant reference during the start-up of any turbine engine. The pilot is always solely responsible for what happens in any helicopter or aircraft. Ask the engine manufacturer and airframe manufacturer.
I am sure that the FAA authorities signing off any aircraft or helicopter would have been competent to issue a Certificate of Airworthiness to confirm the serviceability as a general category aircraft and not a restrictive category.
Yours faithfully,
Jonathan Chung
