Catalogue 2, thank you. Your comments are both insightful and thought provoking.
I agree that there should have been severe repercussions for the pilot (far more severe than was actually the case).
I further support the fact that the manufacturer needs to take a stance on the issue to protect their reputation and also as a precaution against the product liability issue which, as we all know, is big business in the States.
Also, there is a better than average chance that had Bell simply ignored the incident (as it has more or less been sanctioned by both the CAA and the show director) we would most certainly have a fair proportion of the 407 jockeys out there trying to better CE's performance, turning the 407 into a ground burrowing device.
Having said this, it brings one back to the burning question. Is Bell acting in a fair and reasonable manner considering the fact that firstly, in the video of the manoeuvre (which a number of us have watched over and over again) there is no indication of any undue stress being placed on the machine.
Secondly, neither the gauges nor the computer download of the data from the HMU indicated any exceedences.
Thirdly, that the same manoeuvres are regularly performed at Bells Canadian plant, where, sure, they are executed by test pilots and perhaps the machines are zeroed before being put on the open market.
However, fourthly and perhaps most importantly, it is common knowledge, to all who have trained at Fort Worth, that the instructors there are quitely getting up to similar antics albeit, without official sanction. Is it not strange then that these training machines find their way into the open market without any major rework or zero timing?
Is Bell overeacting on this incident? Have they decided to use it to send a clear and unambiguous signal to the industry as a whole? More importantly, are they beaing fair to the present owners, the insurance industry and all their current and potential clients by their actions?
You be the judge...
Detailed below is Bell's official response covering their requirement for returning the ship to service. The cost estimate so far is in excess of R4.7 million excluding the shipping, import and export costs, repair and inspection costs of the components (blades, etc) that have to be returned to Bell. A conservative estimate is that the final bill is going to be in the order of R6 million.
Gunship, for your info, the machine is currently with Alpine Aviation at Grand Central.
LETTER FROM BELL HELICOPTER
SPECIAL INSPECTION PROCEDURES
ATTACHMENT A to Letter August 30, 2004
The following actions will be required in order to evaluate the continued airworthiness of Model 407 Serial Number 53078
A. Permanent removal from service is required for the following components:
a. All metal components of the main rotor hub assembly including
the elastomeric components and blade bolts
b. Main rotor mast assembly
c. Boosted main rotor fixed and rotating controls, including the
swashplate assembly and support.
d. Main rotor control hydraulic actuators, and the support casting.
e. Flight control bolts in the boosted control system.
f. Drive system components to include tail rotor drive shafts,
bearings, hangers, flex couplings and splined adapters.
g. Input (Ka-Flex) drive shaft
h. Transmission top case
i. Transmission-mounted flight control bellcranks and support
brackets.
j. Tail rotor mast
k. Tail boom and attach hardware
l. Pylon support structure including the pylon side beams, corner
mounts, longitudinal pitch restraints, stop fittings and
associated attachment hardware.
B. Components requiring complete inspection and overhaul at
Bell Helicopter:
a. Main and tail rotor blades
b. Main rotor yoke assembly
c. Tail rotor yoke assembly
C. Components to be overhauled by a facility suitable to Bell (Bell
Tennessee/CSR):
a. Transmission assembly
b. Freewheel assembly
c. Tail rotor gearbox
D. Airframe inspection by qualified personnel suitable to Bell:
a. Fuselage structure for evidence of cracks or distortion
b. Instrument panel console for evidence of distortion
c. Battery and ballast weight supports
d. Cabin roof beam assembly
e. Roll-over bulkheads
Page 2:
f. Vertical control tunnel
g. Engine deck for cracks, distortion evidence
h. Tail boom attachment fittings and longerons
i. Horizontal stabilizer
j. Vertical and auxiliary fins
In support of the above return to service action, the aircraft interior shall be removed and other systems and controls as necessary to permit close and rigid visual inspection of the entire fuselage structure as recommended above. Prior to release
for return to service, items not listed above shall be inspected in accordance with the basic aircraft 300 hour / annual inspection.
Any material abnormalities or discrepancies identified during the conditional inspection are to be reported to Product Support Engineering - Light Helicopters, for evaluation.
Items listed above that are to be permanently removed from service are deemed unsuitable for use, and shall be destroyed, permanently marked or otherwise disfigured so as to prevent inadvertent installation on an operational helicopter.
Upon completion of the actions above, a written statement should be provided to PSE Light by responsible person(s). Upon review and agreement, Bell Helicopter will issue a Special Conditional Acceptance (SCA) statement to cover the continued
airworthiness of the helicopter. This SCA will be provided to the appropriate Regulatory authority with the recommendation to return the ship to flightworthy service.
Reference: Attachment A, JD2004-039