Thai Army hasn't grounded Bell 212 helicopters

[Kasset Tak]

Even US army uses their helicopters more than 20 years even though they say that they should be replaced after 20 years. In 2007 the regular lifespan for an attack/recon heli was 27 years and 33 years for a utility heli (according to US Congress Budget Office). So stop blaming the Thai army for doing something that the armed forces in our home countries do too!!

[55Jay]

Even US army uses their helicopters more than 20 years even though they say that they should be replaced after 20 years. In 2007 the regular lifespan for an attack/recon heli was 27 years and 33 years for a utility heli (according to US Congress Budget Office). So stop blaming the Thai army for doing something that the armed forces in our home countries do too!!

Are you here to testify that the Thai Army carries out the same maintenance standards and quality as in our home country?

The potential serviceable life span of equipment is not the question here. There are still WW2 vintage aircraft flying, because they've been overhauled a number of times with great care and skill.

That's fixed wing. Maintaining aging upside down egg beaters is quite another thing. They don't really "fly" to being with. They are a hot mess of potential failures waiting to happen.

Edited November 19, 2014 by 55Jay

[Kasset Tak]

Even US army uses their helicopters more than 20 years even though they say that they should be replaced after 20 years. In 2007 the regular lifespan for an attack/recon heli was 27 years and 33 years for a utility heli (according to US Congress Budget Office). So stop blaming the Thai army for doing something that the armed forces in our home countries do too!!

Are you here to testify that the Thai Army carries out the same maintenance standards and quality as in our home country?

The potential serviceable life span of equipment is not the question here. There are still WW2 vintage aircraft flying, because they've been overhauled a number of times with great care and skill.

That's fixed wing. Maintaining aging upside down egg beaters is quite another thing. They don't really "fly" to being with. They are a hot mess of potential failures waiting to happen.

I don't say anything about the maintenance as I don't know. All I know and started is that most armed forces haw alot if old stuff that they repair and upgrade to try to get longer and longer service time. I even know that the army in my home country upgraded about 50,000 40 year old assault rifles with new barrels, optics and some other parts and by doing that give the rifles about 20-40 more years of service time...

Anyway, I know that when the royal family here in Thailand travel by helicopter it's usually the navy who are flying, not the army... Atleast according to my friend in the airforce!

Edited November 19, 2014 by Kasset Tak

[HeijoshinCool]

Thai army hasn't grounded bell 212 helicopters ….

Yes they have.

[55Jay]

Even US army uses their helicopters more than 20 years even though they say that they should be replaced after 20 years. In 2007 the regular lifespan for an attack/recon heli was 27 years and 33 years for a utility heli (according to US Congress Budget Office). So stop blaming the Thai army for doing something that the armed forces in our home countries do too!!

Are you here to testify that the Thai Army carries out the same maintenance standards and quality as in our home country?

The potential serviceable life span of equipment is not the question here. There are still WW2 vintage aircraft flying, because they've been overhauled a number of times with great care and skill.

That's fixed wing. Maintaining aging upside down egg beaters is quite another thing. They don't really "fly" to being with. They are a hot mess of potential failures waiting to happen.

I don't say anything about the maintenance as I don't know. All I know and started is that most armed forces haw alot if old stuff that they repair and upgrade to try to get longer and longer service time. I even know that the army in my home country upgraded about 50,000 40 year old assault rifles with new barrels, optics and some other parts and by doing that give the rifles about 20-40 more years of service time...

Anyway, I know that when the royal family here in Thailand travel by helicopter it's usually the navy who are flying, not the army... Atleast according to my friend in the airforce!

Ok, I agree that you did not say anything about maintenance. But that is likely why your home country is able to extend the operational life span of older aircraft - due to high standard of maintenance and oversight of the program.

[Ulic]

Airline/flying accidents are rarely caused by one issue/mistake but a convergence if two or more issues/mistakes.

If the Thai military serviced the helicopter properly there is no reason why a helicopter built in 1995 is still not

perfectly serviceable. The real question is will there be a full and proper investigation to find out the cause of the

accident so everyone can learn and keep the same things from happening again. Investigations can be expensive,

and time consuming. In a country where life is cheap and face huge, in would be easier to sweep the accident

under the rug and move on.

[planemad]

To try to answer an earlier question regarding the fatigue life of an aircraft (as opposed to the finite calendar life suggested in the OP). Military aircraft are fitted with fatigue meters or accelerometers which counts how many times certain "G" thresholds are reached on any flight. It is therefore possible to calculate the percentage of life consumed each sortie. Of course this is only a small number per trip, but over the years accumulates until a predetermined figure is reached.

Helicopters, whilst not subjected to cabin pressurisations, still experience "G"in the same manner as fixed wing aircraft, i.e. flying in turbulent conditions, aerobatic manoeuvrings and possibly the biggest fatigue eater is using the aircraft to lift heavy loads which can put huge stress on the rotor head, gearbox and surrounding structure and this "over torque" will significantly reduce the fatigue life.

I would also like to point out that military aircraft, unlike civilian aircraft, are not a source of revenue. Airliners on the ground are not earning their keep and unscrupulous airline operators might consider extending the life of critical components (against the advice of the manufacturer) either to save money or to quickly return the aircraft to paying service. Military operators are not under quite the same pressure so routine maintenance is carried out as a matter of course. No technician would knowingly sign an aircraft as serviceable knowing it to be otherwise. Technicians realise that military aircraft often fly very close to their safety envelopes and the pilot must have total faith in their workmanship. If anyone has actual knowledge that Thailand is any different, I would like hear about it, firsthand experiences would be good, I might be able to use examples in my own technician training program.

[Jay Sata]

Nothing wrong with the age of a well maintained aircraft or helicopter. There are still DC3's flying every day in Canada and they are

around 70 years old.

One problem Thailand has is that the pilots often come from hiso family's and are in the job because of connections not skill.

Instructors are also inclined to turn a blind eye to poor skills if the pilot is well connected.

[Fullstop]

Thai Army hasn't grounded Bell 212 helicopters

Thailand hasn't banned hanging off the back off Baht Buses

Thailand doesn't give a rat's about earth wires

Thai police too lazy to enforce life saving traffic rules

............."Exceeded the number of allowed quotes"

Edited November 19, 2014 by Fullstop

[JAG]

Nothing wrong with the age of a well maintained aircraft or helicopter. There are still DC3's flying every day in Canada and they are

around 70 years old.

One problem Thailand has is that the pilots often come from hiso family's and are in the job because of connections not skill.

Instructors are also inclined to turn a blind eye to poor skills if the pilot is well connected.

DC3s: They patch them up with gaffer tape

and paper clips and strings

and on they fly, they never die

methusala with wings!

[fredge45]

Clearly many Thai Visa members are privy to military aircraft maintenance procedures and are fully aware of all that is actually carried out as opposed to what is required `by the book`. Actually, the usual load of armchair experts who know little or nothing regarding the subject.

As has been pointed out by some of the more enlightened members, aircraft life span is not measured in years, but in the fatigue life that they have consumed. As an example, a passenger aircraft flying between Bangkok and Chaing Mai will have a far higher cycle rate than one flying regularly to say Sri Lanka, ergo, the shorter haul aircraft, without an upgrade refit, will be withdrawn from service long before the long haul aircraft.

With over 40 years of aircraft maintenance on both fast jets and cargo/passenger aircraft, I feel I am qualified to comment.

I guess what you're telling us is that it is the increased stress of multiple take offs and landings and compressions and de-compressions. I understand that but would it also apply to a chopper?. Honest enquiry.

The flight ceiling for helicopters is generally low enough that no pressurization of the cabin in necessary. Hence, compressions and de-compressions are not a factor.

Operational hours and cycles are the critical factors for component replacement.

Edited November 20, 2014 by fredge45

[bangon04]

"It should be replaced after 20 years of service, but Thai people maintained aircraft well, so they could be used for as long as 30 years, he said."

Thainess.

seems that THAI airways agrees with him too....

remind us again, Mr General, how many RTAF F-16s are still flying?

[bangon04]

Nothing wrong with the age of a well maintained aircraft or helicopter. There are still DC3's flying every day in Canada and they are

around 70 years old.

One problem Thailand has is that the pilots often come from hiso family's and are in the job because of connections not skill.

Instructors are also inclined to turn a blind eye to poor skills if the pilot is well connected.

I believe there is a THAI airways Captain who is 5 years old....

[billd766]

No wonder why the Thai air force still flying those decrepit flying death traps, with the shoddy

maintenance that the locals are notoriously known for, they should have up graded their fleet

long time ago, but what can you do when the government squander all this cash on propping

" poor rice farmers " and there is nothing left for better use such as buying better and safer

aircrafts..

How strange that Thailand is flying these (in your words) "flying death traps".

They are one of 23 countries including the USA,UK, Greece, italy etc. See this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_UH-1N_Twin_Huey

Are you a certified aeronautical engineer qualified on helicopters and the Bell 212?

Do you think that you should tell all the other 22 military operaters that they are flying death traps around the sky?

Why don't you do a little research before posting on a subject that you know little or nothing about and then trying to link it to the government?

The first part of your post is on topic and the second part has absolutely nothing to do with the first part.

I suppose if the government spent the money on buying new helicopters you would be bleating about the poor farmers getting nothing.

[billd766]

Clearly many Thai Visa members are privy to military aircraft maintenance procedures and are fully aware of all that is actually carried out as opposed to what is required `by the book`. Actually, the usual load of armchair experts who know little or nothing regarding the subject.

As has been pointed out by some of the more enlightened members, aircraft life span is not measured in years, but in the fatigue life that they have consumed. As an example, a passenger aircraft flying between Bangkok and Chaing Mai will have a far higher cycle rate than one flying regularly to say Sri Lanka, ergo, the shorter haul aircraft, without an upgrade refit, will be withdrawn from service long before the long haul aircraft.

With over 40 years of aircraft maintenance on both fast jets and cargo/passenger aircraft, I feel I am qualified to comment.

I guess what you're telling us is that it is the increased stress of multiple take offs and landings and compressions and de-compressions. I understand that but would it also apply to a chopper?. Honest enquiry.

Yes it does. Not so much the compressions and decompressions but certainly the fatigue life normally measured in airfarme hours rather than years of time.

I spent 25 years in the RAF and about 5 on helicopters during that time on maintenance.

[Gonsalviz]

"It should be replaced after 20 years of service, but Thai people maintained aircraft well, so they could be used for as long as 30 years, he said."

Thainess.

Since you are an aviation expert it probably won't do any good to tell you that there are many programs to keep aircraft in service or that the Thais are quite good at aircraft maintenance.

Aviation maintenance is my career and along the way I have had many opportunities to work with Thai mechanics.

Anyway the most likely cause of aircraft is the operator but since he is an officer, he will be the last suspect.

[Gonsalviz]

Clearly many Thai Visa members are privy to military aircraft maintenance procedures and are fully aware of all that is actually carried out as opposed to what is required `by the book`. Actually, the usual load of armchair experts who know little or nothing regarding the subject.

As has been pointed out by some of the more enlightened members, aircraft life span is not measured in years, but in the fatigue life that they have consumed. As an example, a passenger aircraft flying between Bangkok and Chaing Mai will have a far higher cycle rate than one flying regularly to say Sri Lanka, ergo, the shorter haul aircraft, without an upgrade refit, will be withdrawn from service long before the long haul aircraft.

With over 40 years of aircraft maintenance on both fast jets and cargo/passenger aircraft, I feel I am qualified to comment.

You got me beat by around 2 years.

[billd766]

Clearly many Thai Visa members are privy to military aircraft maintenance procedures and are fully aware of all that is actually carried out as opposed to what is required `by the book`. Actually, the usual load of armchair experts who know little or nothing regarding the subject.

As has been pointed out by some of the more enlightened members, aircraft life span is not measured in years, but in the fatigue life that they have consumed. As an example, a passenger aircraft flying between Bangkok and Chaing Mai will have a far higher cycle rate than one flying regularly to say Sri Lanka, ergo, the shorter haul aircraft, without an upgrade refit, will be withdrawn from service long before the long haul aircraft.

With over 40 years of aircraft maintenance on both fast jets and cargo/passenger aircraft, I feel I am qualified to comment.

You got me beat by around 2 years.

So there are actually some people on Thai Visa that DO know what they are talking about other than the barstool and computer warriors.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The crash raised concerns that the age of the chopper, built during the Cold War and imported to Thailand in 1995, may have been a significant factor behind the incident. According to data provided by Thai army, the first batch of Bell-212 helicopters was purchased in 1976, and the last in 2004.

However, a spokesperson of Third Region Army said the age of the choppers is not a concern because Bell-212s can be used for up to 30 years.

That's interesting....

So, the helicopter in question came to Thailand almost 20 years ago, but perhaps wasn't new when it arrived.

I don't see any mention of when exactly the crash helicopter was FIRST put into air service anywhere...

But the suggestion above is the Thai Army may have 212s dating back to 1976, which would be 38 years old now, if still in service.

[gemini81]

"It should be replaced after 20 years of service, but Thai people maintained aircraft well, so they could be used for as long as 30 years, he said."

Thainess.

Same concept with those splendid Hino buses in Bangkok here.

[55Jay]

What a strange article. I'm curious about the reason for the general's "reassurance" about not ground this type of helo.

Is there some group demanding this aircraft not be grounded, hence the reassurance it won't be?

Or does this general have a known habit of blurting unsolicited reassurances in the absence of a controversy? Well, besides a smoking hole in the ground and dead people.

Or is there a group demanding this type be grounded, even temporarily? In that case though, a reassurance isn't really the appropriate type of response. Maybe it's preemptive? Maybe it's a lost in translation thing. Just struck me as odd was all.

Now, if the Army were to order a full type grounding, would that prompt a Bell company rep to fly out here to ensure their brand wasn't being sullied for no reason or at their expense to cover up some other reason(s).

The Army is doing the investigation on their own and AFAICR, for a purely military crash, same in my country. The report will take some time, as they do, and the report may pass without much coverage months from now.

Now if the Thais indicate a Bell issue caused or contributed significantly to the events leading to the crash, they can count on a Bell rep being on the next plane to Swampy. That could turn out one of two ways but I'm willing to bet 10 Baht right now that it won't be a Bell issue. The report will pass quietly and in doing so, there is no danger of any uncomfortable lights being cast on the Army's helo training and maintenance programs.

Besides, the General has already given the public the program benchmarks in a very succinct way, and one that fills all our chests with national pride. The reputations of the living and deceased are intact, family members are taken care of in a very generous manner and in the absence of a known trend in Thai helo crashes of this type, there is no reason to speculate.

See in the new thread, a Bell Rep is here.

[Gonsalviz]

The crash raised concerns that the age of the chopper, built during the Cold War and imported to Thailand in 1995, may have been a significant factor behind the incident. According to data provided by Thai army, the first batch of Bell-212 helicopters was purchased in 1976, and the last in 2004.

However, a spokesperson of Third Region Army said the age of the choppers is not a concern because Bell-212s can be used for up to 30 years.

That's interesting....

So, the helicopter in question came to Thailand almost 20 years ago, but perhaps wasn't new when it arrived.

I don't see any mention of when exactly the crash helicopter was FIRST put into air service anywhere...

But the suggestion above is the Thai Army may have 212s dating back to 1976, which would be 38 years old now, if still in service.

It matters little how many years an aircraft has been in service. Helicopters have mandatory retirement and overhaul times for components. Can't think of any that are limited to years in service but if there are, they are listed in a maintenance schedule that has requirements for what type of inspection will be due.