PPRuNe Forums


Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th Nov 2017, 15:34   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 2
Bell 206

Looking to buy a 206 involved in a " substantial accident " in 1984.....properly fixed then. Mistake? Walk away? Appreciate any views.....
Aifreeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 17:48   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,469
need a few more details really ( is it RNBW )
Hughes500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 17:53   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 580
Depends, how properly fixed it is and how many hrs flown since then.
Know one aircraft, where „more or less“ only the typeplate survived - and was rebuild around that, cause some advantages in registration made it worth and cheaper than buying new (with big stock of spareparts available in the company anyway and the mechanics would be busy, when normal maintance were done...)
You should have a close look what was damaged and what was replaced.
Best take somebody from the Future maintanance facility with you to check the bird and the papers before placing a bid
Flying Bull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Nov 2017, 21:10   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 138
If it's gone 33 years since the accident, it doesn't seem like much of a problem.
helonorth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Nov 2017, 19:43   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 110
Be careful especially if moving to a new easa maintenance organisation.
History and component record checks are now very very detailed even to the point of draconian.
claudia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 00:05   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Age: 50
Posts: 577
Keep clear of Agusta Bell machines.
JTobias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 00:49   #7 (permalink)
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Victoria, Australia.
Posts: 3,742
Quote:
Keep clear of Agusta Bell machines.

Please tell us why?
parabellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 01:04   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 45
Posts: 286
I think in EASA land all parts that go on an AB have to come with Agusta paperwork, a Bell part isn't good enough... It hasn't hit us down here yet.

So your Agusta agent goes to Bell buys the part, writes up an Agusta 8130, or Form 1 or whatever its called, adds 50% to the price and sells it to you...
SuperF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 03:34   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Beyond the black stump!
Posts: 1,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperF View Post
I think in EASA land all parts that go on an AB have to come with Agusta paperwork, a Bell part isn't good enough... It hasn't hit us down here yet.

So your Agusta agent goes to Bell buys the part, writes up an Agusta 8130, or Form 1 or whatever its called, adds 50% to the price and sells it to you...
The basis of Issuance of the New Zealand Type Acceptance, https://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Typ...SpA_AB206B.pdf ,is based entirely on the EASA TCDS for the AB 206 https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...06_Issue03.pdf.

The UK CAA has helpfully provided some specific guidance on the AB 206 and eligibility of parts to be installed on this EASA Type Certificated product, https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...dioncollapse-2.

The applicable reference from the former AW is, https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/...-004%20(2).pdf.

I think you will find that any AB 206 registered in NZ that is operating with any Bell part installed, is no longer in compliance with its Type Certification.

The advice of JTobias is very sound.

As far as repaired aircraft go. Check carefully who originally repaired it, including the detail of repair information on the records, and then review the history of airframe repairs since that time. A properly repaired airframe is probably in better shape than the original that was mass produced in a production factory. As helonorth has pointed out, after 33 years, its probably proven itself to be good, and its probably had at least one new belly and roof since then. If you have specific questions about repairs, post them here, there's a lot of real expertise on this site.
Cyclic Hotline is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 08:24   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Zug, Switzerland
Age: 57
Posts: 403
Drop a pm to formerlongbox, he knows every 206 in the UK.
Jarvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 11:01   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 336
He also knows how to break many laws so I'd steer well clear.....
Hedski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 13:21   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 741
hedski
Quote:
He also knows how to break many laws so I'd steer well clear.....
What's wrong with "knowing" how to break many laws? Especially the silly ones!
chopjock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 13:26   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 428
Hedski.

Who knows how to break laws?

JJ
jellycopter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 19:56   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Good Question
Posts: 45
Hope this helps clarify the situation:

This is the UK CAAs latest official statement from their website, I see no wriggle room on the subject, could be expensive for some owners.................. I have been informed that one UK maintenance company is carrying out very detailed checks on every Bell or Agusta Bell helicopter being brought in for maintenance.

Before you invest in any Bell or Agusta Bell 206 in the UK, I would make sure you have a full (insured) survey carried out.

https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...6-helicopters/

The text reads:

Eligibility of parts for Agusta Bell and Bell 206 helicopters

The product manufacturers, supported by EASA, have on several occasions attempted to make clear that only parts that are manufactured under control of the Type Certificate Holder (TCH) or Supplementary Type Certificate Holders (STC) control are eligible for installation on their respective helicopters. Where a part does not meet these criteria, then it should be replaced with a part conforming with the TCH or STC holders requirements.

This policy is supported by Information Letters issued by the Type Certificate holders for both aircraft types, clarifying their individual positions concerning the eligibility requirements for replacement parts.

Agusta Westland Information Letter (15 November 2006)
Bell Helicopters Information Letter No. GEN-99-65 (15 January 1999, revised 2 June 2006)
Parts manufactured by or for Bell under their production approvals are not normally eligible for installation on Agusta/Bell manufactured helicopters. Parts produced by or for Agusta are not eligible for installation on a Bell manufactured helicopter.

Original Bell Helicopters parts may only be installed on the Agusta Bell 206 when the part is supplied and authorised by Agusta, now Leonardo S.p.A. Authorisation may be provided by Leonardo S.p.A through their EASA design organisation approval.
PEASACAKE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 20:28   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 796
This is interesting. Setting aside paperwork and compliance issues for a moment, is there any practical reason why a Bell part on an AB machine is less worthy than the matching AB part, or vice versa?
krypton_john is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 20:31   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 45
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclic Hotline View Post
The basis of Issuance of the New Zealand Type Acceptance, https://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Typ...SpA_AB206B.pdf ,is based entirely on the EASA TCDS for the AB 206 https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...06_Issue03.pdf.

The UK CAA has helpfully provided some specific guidance on the AB 206 and eligibility of parts to be installed on this EASA Type Certificated product, https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...dioncollapse-2.

The applicable reference from the former AW is, https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/...-004%20(2).pdf.

I think you will find that any AB 206 registered in NZ that is operating with any Bell part installed, is no longer in compliance with its Type Certification.

The advice of JTobias is very sound.
I just read all the attachments, quite interesting. I don't operate an AB, but know where there are a few, and the TCDS and other bits of info throw up a few questions. The letter from Agusta only states FAA, EASA and MOT i think, so therefore NZ aircraft have to comply with NZ CAA, as the letter states, so what happens in the UK does not affect us.

The biggest curve ball to throw at the whole compliance thing, is that the CR&O to be used for the AB206 series is the BHT206CR&O, as stated in the AB206 TCDS. Nowhere in the BHT manuals does it say to use AB parts. It states that you shall use Bell parts, so you must overhaul, for example, the TR hub and blade assembly iaw BHT manuals with brand new Bell parts as required, but then cannot stick the Assembly onto your helicopter because you didn't buy the parts from Agusta. If you buy the parts from Agusta, then you cannot use them to O/H iaw the BHT manual, as Bell say to use BELL parts, NOT Agusta parts.....

Thats why the NZCAA have taken the common sense approach, and don't penalise people for using Bell parts on an AB.
SuperF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 20:37   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 45
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by krypton_john View Post
This is interesting. Setting aside paperwork and compliance issues for a moment, is there any practical reason why a Bell part on an AB machine is less worthy than the matching AB part, or vice versa?
No John, it is mainly a commercial thing. It is the same with the Fuji Bell 204's that were built. Fuji took the best of the 204's and made what they wanted, but the TCDS states that they shall not be operated outside of Japan! thats it, Bell simply didn't want Fuji or Agusta building helicopters and then selling them back into the USA competing with them. Somewhere you will find that the Agusta TC states cannot be operated within the USA.

There are also 300's and 500's built under licence still operating.

The one thing that you need to look out for, is the dash number of the relevant assemblies that are being used. sometimes the Agusta got stuck with an old assembly number if the manuals weren't getting updated as fast as the bell manuals.
SuperF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 21:46   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Beyond the black stump!
Posts: 1,136
Reverting to my earlier response on this topic, all the pertinent documentation and data is included in the various publications.

Specifically: The basis of approval for operation in New Zealand is contained within this document. https://www.caa.govt.nz/aircraft/Typ...SpA_AB206B.pdf

The basis for acceptance and issuance of this document is the EASA TCDS EASA.R.140.
https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/fi...06_Issue03.pdf

Within the NZ Type Acceptance Report (linked above) the following conditions are specified:

4. NZCAR §21.43 Data Requirements

(2) Airworthiness design requirements:

(v) Airworthiness Limitations:
AB206A/B-Series-MPM Maintenance Planning Manual (See SL AB206-04-001)

(6) Operating Data for Aircraft and Engine:

(i) Maintenance Manual:
AB206A/B-Series-MM Maintenance Manual

(ii) Current service Information:
AB206 Information Letters
AB206 Bollettino Tecnico

(iii) Illustrated Parts Catalogue:
AB206A/B-Series-IPC Illustrated Parts Catalogue

Note: See Information Letter AB206-06-004 Interchangeability of Agusta Bell
and Bell Helicopter Parts. This states that “Original Bell Helicopter
components are therefore applicable to Agusta-Bell products when supplied
or authorised by Agusta only.”


(7) Agreement from manufacturer to supply updates of data in (5), and (6):
CAA 2171 from Mr F Brusatori, Technical Publications Manager, dated 17.03.97
Access to publications is now provided at www.myfleet.agustawestland.com


This Note contained within the Type Approval Report requires compliance with the requirements specificed in Information Letter AB206-06-004 https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/...-004%20(2).pdf

Thus the requirements of this letter are specifically incorporated into the Airworthiness requirements and limitations of any AB206 on the NZ register. There is provision within the IL to allow for differing policy based upon the authority having jurisdiction over the helicopter, but this would have to be specifically approved and issued, and in the case of NZ certification does not exist, because the Type Approval Report specifically requires compliance with this requirement.

In response to Krypton John, the answer should be no, there is no difference if the configuration may be identical - this is what went on for years The issues lie entirely in the certification basis and approvals for the parts. Bell have also issued specific guidance on this matter. https://www.caa.co.uk/uploadedFiles/...0GEN-99-65.pdf
Cyclic Hotline is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 22:01   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,723
A few years ago I was involved with a company that rebuilt 206s after accidents. They rebuilt about a dozen or so. The work was fully supported by Bell, slow, deliberate and top-notch and all were tailored to the buyer's wants and finished with a bespoke paint job. The biggest 'issue' during construction was bogus parts that were reported as required.
Periodically, they were inspected by the CAA who had no problems with the work done or anything else for that matter. I can't remember any findings (so probably ought to look in my files) The Chief Engineer was also the test pilot - and he was very particular about things within the company too.
So, in my humble opinion, there should be no problem in buying a structurally repaired 206 but you should still get it checked out by an independent qualified, experienced and competent person.
Rigga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th Nov 2017, 22:09   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 45
Posts: 286
thats good info cyclic hotline, obviously you have done more investigation on it than i have.

problem i see, is how do you overhaul parts when required to do it iaw the Bell manuals?? as a clever auditor will tell you that once the bell part goes to Agusta it is no longer a bell part... and round and round in circles you go!

believe me i have been there when trying to comply with 2 different things that contradict themselves...
SuperF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 14:29.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1