PDA

View Full Version : Public use


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?

B Sousa
31st Oct 2003, 22:08
I dont know your involvement with these aircraft or what you base your statements on. I was involved with obtaining Helicopters and Parts for my agency.
I can tell you that the airframes we received were flown to us by the U.S. Army, were in great shape and average Airframe time was 2-3000 total hours. Today I fly Tour Aircraft with average airframe time of around 10,000 hours.
Albeit the OH-58 is not a B206 or a Huey is not a B205, at least in the eyes of Bell. However they use virtually all the same parts. (except for the Huey tailrotor and assembly). Many of the new surplus parts I obtained were right out of the package from Bell and for either the B206, or B205. If you see one of these Aircraft, look at the data plate, it might surprise you.
Bell would not allow a new Huey or Kiowa part on a B205/B206 but WOULD sell you a new B205/B206 part for YOUR Huey or Kiowa.
I always say I believe Bell lost Millions of dollars in Aircraft sales because of their stubborn attitude towards those who finally had the ability to get into the Airborne side of law Enforcement due to the surplus program. Eurocopters is kicking their butts bigtime.
Im sure MD Helicopters were not happy on the Litigation, but this is the US of A , We have more Lawyers than People. Blood in the Water attracts Sharks.
If you check on the accidents that occured when Law Enforcement first obtained these aircraft, Im sure you will find that the majority had little or nothing to do with their age or condition. More to do with Pilot Qualifications, Hazards of the Missions and Maintaining things properly.
As to the other "Emergency Services" as you mention, most are from larger agencies with extremely Deep Pockets. They can afford new toys. The Surplus program was the best thing that ever happened to some smaller agencies that could not afford the initial jumpsart that was needed. Many are doing quite well today. Go to www.alea.org and check it out.
No matter what is said, the Taxpayers got their money back twice, as the alternative was to scrap all this stuff. I also think that if the taxpayer was aware of the amount that was destroyed, they would call for prosecution.
Lets beat this around some more, its always been a Burr in My Saddle.