PANews
31st Oct 2003, 18:22
I retain reservations about whether emergency services officers should be getting involved in commercially un-certified airframes but I can readily understand that the $100 [hundred buck] DoD surplus Hughes and Bell's will be a draw that offers a cheap flight option but at least they were certified to military standards....
Bearing in mind the recent instance where an officer successfully sued MD for damages when he flew into a building in Florida ..... I fail to see that it is right and proper for officers to be getting into an uncertified airframe [in this day and age]
The use of DoD surplus airframes is a choice made by intelligent people, in the same way as you decide between anything new and second hand .... but surely 'buyer beware' must still apply?
I bet MDHI [who never even made the airframe] were exceeding annoyed to be brought to book over its manufacture and life beyond that it might have expected as a DoD airframe. The maintenance organisation maybe at fault, but the same again as far as McDonnell-Douglas [now owned by Boeing?] is concerned. When manufacturers sold Huey's, Kiowa's and Loach's in the 1960s they did not forsee Public Use operations would extend their lives enormously. They fully expected them all to be written-off, on the dump or in museums by 2000 [if not earlier].
In no other field of the emergency services in the Western World is it acceptable to take on charge 'pre-used' equipment of this calibre. Instances of battered and worn road vehicles with 100,000 miles on the clock being introduced to service for the first time are very rare but similar disquiet does not seem to affect emergency services aviation. They may be fully remanufactured [at great cost] prior to service but the fact remains, some have very shady pasts.
They were 'bought in' knowing all this but now it seems that the buyers are complaining that they are not in factory fresh condition.....
Any thoughts?
Bearing in mind the recent instance where an officer successfully sued MD for damages when he flew into a building in Florida ..... I fail to see that it is right and proper for officers to be getting into an uncertified airframe [in this day and age]
The use of DoD surplus airframes is a choice made by intelligent people, in the same way as you decide between anything new and second hand .... but surely 'buyer beware' must still apply?
I bet MDHI [who never even made the airframe] were exceeding annoyed to be brought to book over its manufacture and life beyond that it might have expected as a DoD airframe. The maintenance organisation maybe at fault, but the same again as far as McDonnell-Douglas [now owned by Boeing?] is concerned. When manufacturers sold Huey's, Kiowa's and Loach's in the 1960s they did not forsee Public Use operations would extend their lives enormously. They fully expected them all to be written-off, on the dump or in museums by 2000 [if not earlier].
In no other field of the emergency services in the Western World is it acceptable to take on charge 'pre-used' equipment of this calibre. Instances of battered and worn road vehicles with 100,000 miles on the clock being introduced to service for the first time are very rare but similar disquiet does not seem to affect emergency services aviation. They may be fully remanufactured [at great cost] prior to service but the fact remains, some have very shady pasts.
They were 'bought in' knowing all this but now it seems that the buyers are complaining that they are not in factory fresh condition.....
Any thoughts?