Proposed Airworthiness Directive – Goodrich hoist
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: in the north country fair
Age: 49
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proposed Airworthiness Directive – Goodrich hoist
Is anybody else getting a headache over this Proposed Airworthiness Directive regarding the Goodrich 44301 hoist..?
EASA PAD 13-155 1.pdf
Further background reading;
2607-S-85-Rev-0-EN.pdf
It appears to me that the result would be that incorrect use of equipment by a few will in effect cause mayor restrictions and consequences for the vast majority of hoist operators.
Such limitation would cause the cost per hoist cycle to sky rocket to a level that would ruin the economical basis for many operations.
I hope that everybody else affected are also busy writing objections to the proposal.
Any thoughts…?
RD
EASA PAD 13-155 1.pdf
Further background reading;
2607-S-85-Rev-0-EN.pdf
It appears to me that the result would be that incorrect use of equipment by a few will in effect cause mayor restrictions and consequences for the vast majority of hoist operators.
Such limitation would cause the cost per hoist cycle to sky rocket to a level that would ruin the economical basis for many operations.
I hope that everybody else affected are also busy writing objections to the proposal.
Any thoughts…?
RD
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: OMAD
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is anybody else getting a headache over this Proposed Airworthiness Directive regarding the Goodrich 44301 hoist..?"
Yes I have (P/N 42325) !
Mine is that the test required by para 1 is not describe.
Is it the 400 Kg static load test or a cable conditioning (200 Kg in hover)?
Hope to see clarification in the final version (Due date tomorrow...).
We use to perform a cable conditioning as part of the 1 month/100 cycles (anybody else ?).Our customers isn’t very sparing!
Until now, 4 of our hoist pass the static test, and none failed the conditioning.
I don’t t think it's related to wrong usage but technical deficiencies (overload clutch), and thus perfectly relevant to issue an A.D.
F.A.A is on a similar line.
Yes I have (P/N 42325) !
Mine is that the test required by para 1 is not describe.
Is it the 400 Kg static load test or a cable conditioning (200 Kg in hover)?
Hope to see clarification in the final version (Due date tomorrow...).
We use to perform a cable conditioning as part of the 1 month/100 cycles (anybody else ?).Our customers isn’t very sparing!
Until now, 4 of our hoist pass the static test, and none failed the conditioning.
I don’t t think it's related to wrong usage but technical deficiencies (overload clutch), and thus perfectly relevant to issue an A.D.
F.A.A is on a similar line.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: in the north country fair
Age: 49
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that you will find answers to your questions in Goodrich ASB No. 44301-10-15, revision No. 2.
But how can you rule the overload clutch to be technical deficienciant...?
Of the many hoist that have been overhauled at Goodrich it is the first time they have seen an overload clutch showing signs of actual wear.
Based on the findings it was concluded that the probable cause have been operations outside of the approved flight envelope and/or failure to perform maintenance activities correctly (Goodrich SIL-2013-01).
The proposed hoist overhaul interval of 200 hoist lifts would have devastating consequences. Such requirement would mean that we shall send our hoist of to overhaul once a week (!)
The cost per hoist cycle to would sky rocket to a ridiculous level.
But how can you rule the overload clutch to be technical deficienciant...?
Of the many hoist that have been overhauled at Goodrich it is the first time they have seen an overload clutch showing signs of actual wear.
Based on the findings it was concluded that the probable cause have been operations outside of the approved flight envelope and/or failure to perform maintenance activities correctly (Goodrich SIL-2013-01).
The proposed hoist overhaul interval of 200 hoist lifts would have devastating consequences. Such requirement would mean that we shall send our hoist of to overhaul once a week (!)
The cost per hoist cycle to would sky rocket to a ridiculous level.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Canada
Age: 62
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it strange that there are not more comments on this issue. The repetitive overruning clutch check and 200 cycle overhaul is going to cripple any operators that depend on a hoist for their bread and butter.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: in the north country fair
Age: 49
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vie sans frontieres;
Can I assume that you don’t have any experience with the mentioned hoist system…?
It would be unfair to think that anybody involved in hoist operations would focus on cost before safety.
In your post you seem to imply that simply because the proposal concerns AIRWORTHINESS it is wrongful to have objections to it. But if it was as simple as that, there would be no need for EASA to send out a Proposal AD, wouldn’t you think..?
Imagine a Proposal AD for your helicopter type setting the TBO for the tail rotor blades to 20 flight hours, based on two isolated incidents where the probable cause was operations outside of the approved flight envelope and/or failure to perform maintenance activities correctly.
Would you object..?
And to answer your question; yes, all our crew members - including pilots - do get hoisted on a regular basis.
If you have experience with the hoist I would rather that we debate whether stricter tests and inspection scenarios will actually help increase safety. Especially when considering that in at least one of the mentioned incidents the wear on the overload clutch was probably cause by incorrect maintenance...
Fly safe,
RD
Can I assume that you don’t have any experience with the mentioned hoist system…?
It would be unfair to think that anybody involved in hoist operations would focus on cost before safety.
In your post you seem to imply that simply because the proposal concerns AIRWORTHINESS it is wrongful to have objections to it. But if it was as simple as that, there would be no need for EASA to send out a Proposal AD, wouldn’t you think..?
Imagine a Proposal AD for your helicopter type setting the TBO for the tail rotor blades to 20 flight hours, based on two isolated incidents where the probable cause was operations outside of the approved flight envelope and/or failure to perform maintenance activities correctly.
Would you object..?
And to answer your question; yes, all our crew members - including pilots - do get hoisted on a regular basis.
If you have experience with the hoist I would rather that we debate whether stricter tests and inspection scenarios will actually help increase safety. Especially when considering that in at least one of the mentioned incidents the wear on the overload clutch was probably cause by incorrect maintenance...
Fly safe,
RD
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South Africa
Age: 41
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hallo all,
We have a Goodrich hoist P/N 76370-130 for an Airbus AS350 helicopter. The hoist is brand new and never was fitted but exceeded the calendar time. Can any body help me we are looking for an overhaul facility or a company that can recertify the hoist for us.
We are a South African based company.
If anybody can assist, thank you!
We have a Goodrich hoist P/N 76370-130 for an Airbus AS350 helicopter. The hoist is brand new and never was fitted but exceeded the calendar time. Can any body help me we are looking for an overhaul facility or a company that can recertify the hoist for us.
We are a South African based company.
If anybody can assist, thank you!
