Ex Military Machines - Should They Be Banned

[Pac Rotors]

As in my other post there was yet another ex military machine crash in New Zealand, killing three people this time. This is on top of the following which have also occured recently:

Helipros - Bell 204
Lakeland Helicopters - Bell 205
Private Operator - Wessex
Wanganui Aero Work - Bell 205

I would like to know everyones opinion on using these ex military machines for things that they were not specificially designed for. I wouldnt be surprised if the NZ CAA ground them all after this last accident today until they can be sure that they wont keep falling out of the sky.

What is your thoughts on this subject.

[mriya225]

I'm curious as to why it is that you place so much significance on their being former military hardware.
These aircraft are required to meet the same standards of airworthiness as any formerly civilian operated machine--in order to become commercially rated.

[Pac Rotors]

I was under the impression that military machines were under different specs to civillian ones. I understand in a number of countries they operate under experimental catergory because they cannot get full commercial approvals.

If I am wrong on this please let me know.

[mriya225]

Okay, after logging off and lying in bed trying to fall asleep (nearly 0400 here in my neck of the woods) I have a nagging feeling I'm wrong about the airworthiness ratings of military aircraft.
I want to say something about a provisional license but I'm not having any luck digging it up in my FAR's.
The guys will come along soon and help clear this one up one way or the other.

This is what I get for trying to use my mind when I really should've just hauled my carcass to bed hours ago ;)

[widgeon]

I would think the other key issue on military machines is the actual usage. We hear of commercial operators putting 2 to 3,000 hrs a year on an aircraft . I am sure some of the ex military aircraft are retired with only that number of hours in total. Any figure what the average annual flying hrs on a Huey or OH58 are in the miltary and in civilian use?.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Pac, were all these machines ex-military? If they are they will be UH-1H models, as opposed to B205's. The Helipro machine was a UH-1F, a strange T-58 powered hybrid built for the US Air-force with no practical application in the real world.

An ex-military aircraft is NOT required to meet the same standard of airworthiness as a Standard Category machine if it is certified in Restricted Category. An ex-military aircraft conformed to a Standard Category Type Certificate IS required to meet the same standards of airworthiness as any other aircraft produced to that TC.

As a result, Restricted Category aircraft have a number of restrictions placed upon them, principally, no pax, no ops in congested areas, etc. They are also limited to specific applications for commercial operation.

The US military UH-1's are certified to a variety of T.C's, often held by the Owner or Operator. These are very basic certification instruments, utilizing all the military data and publications. The T.C will list the A.D's that are applicable, and later issues of A.D's to the commercial equipment, may have direct applicability by Part Number to Restricted Equipment.

It is possible to modify an ex-military aircraft to Standard Category, this being one of the most important sources of equipment that fuelled the growth of the early airline/cargo business. Garlick had a T.C for the conversion of UH-1's to Standard Category.

In comparing accident rates across a sector, it is very important to ensure that the comparisons remain the same. For example, are the accidents the effect of powerplant, drivetrain and rotor failures, crew or maintnenance errors, etc.

It essentially comes down to the standards of operation and maintenance of the aircraft. If you are using whatever parts you can lay your hands on, operating on a minimal budget, flying your own machine, you may fall in line for some bad occurrences.

There are also a large number of Restricted Category machines that are essentially the same as their commercial counterparts. By the time all the military hardware is taken off, they are much more viable running commercial parts.

I don't think that the source of the equipment is the cause of all the problems. After all, these machines all left the military in state of good maintenance and with good records; after all there are any number of junk commercial ships out there flying. Safety is Safety, and every link plays an essential part.

It is difficult to determine as a generalisation where the faults may lie. Every Operator and type has specific exposure, and the combined effects of operations, maintenance and aircraft application, all have a role to play.

Sincere condolences to the families of all involved.

[before landing check list]

Having looked up the certification diiferences to no avail, I did have several things to share...
I flew both civilian and military helos in both civilian and military enviroments. I have found that military helos have a componant that is deffinatly a "timed" item and replaced often since cost is(was?) not a issue, just because they are not a money making operation. The cililian equalavent is normally replaced on "condition". Saves money and in my opinion it is perfectly safe
when monitored within strict guidlines and well established criteria. And there are the
"military" helos that are not. Such as the BH205, not really a H-1 since the 205 has another hydraulic system and the fatter(Cobra,Bh212) tail rotor on the oposite side. And the BH212 which has a different dash number on the PT6 and a gross weight increase from the UH1-N's 10700 lbs to 11200. That is really all I now except for any given year a civil helo will fly much more then the military counterpart.
j

BTW, I think Cyclic Hotlines comments are spot on.



------------------
Here's to cheating, stealing, fighting, and drinking.
If you cheat, may you cheat death.
If you steal, may you steal a woman's heart.
If you fight, may you fight for a brother.
And if you drink, may you drink with me.

[This message has been edited by before landing check list (edited 04 June 2001).]

[ditchy]

Pac Rotors

I'm seeing suggestions in the CHCH press that this machine hit wires. Other reports that the blades [+ transmission?] came off in level flight. Its hard to comment yet, but I do know that military machines do have different maintenance schedules, but obviously not to the point that blades can come off.
What was this aircraft doing? If it was logging I might hazard a guess or two.
Need more info.

[mriya225]

Where's Zuckerman when you need him?!

Sit tight Pac, once The Cat sees this, he'll set it straight for us.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Although I do not wish to speculate upon very early reports of this accident, the entire medium Bell series has had a number of AD's, applicable to both the commercial and military models relating to the loss of the entire Main Rotor system following failures of the Main Rotor mast.

There have been recent mast failures on the Bell 205, 212, UH-1B and UH-1H. The A.D's released last year, essentially grounded the fleet, following the discovery of a manufacturing error and a lack of replacement parts. The failures resuted in the loss of the entire rotor system.

Last year a very fortunate individual survived a mast failure whilst longlining in a 212 with a 200' line.

[Pac Rotors]

From what I was told (unofficialy) was that it came apart in flight. The machine was in straight and level from from what I understand. I spoke to Simons wife last night and he was travelling from home down south to do a job so was transiting.

No heavy lifting involved at all on this particular flight. If I hear anything else will advise.

[Arm out the window]

Pac Rotors,

Re your comment about ex-mil machines being used for things they weren't designed for; I don't think it's all that applicable for something like the UH-1H.

It was built as a utility helo, capable of carrying people and cargo, external loads and winching, and it has done these things admirably for over 30 years.

I think as long as they are maintained properly there's no reason to brand them as somehow suspect.

This raises another point though; when any aircraft gets that old it follows that there is more chance that old and tired parts will start playing up, so the level of maintenance surveillance and pro-activeness must be upped to find problems before they bite.

[Cyclic Hotline]

The FAA and manufacturers have been actively dealing with the issue of low cycle fatigue failure in the last few years.

The reason this became such an issue, was the number of premature catastrophic failures experienced by helicopters utilised in operations that exceeded the specific certification spectrum utilised for the calculation of life-limits for critical components. Some of the items that have failed include Main, Intermediate and Tail Gearboxes; Main Rotor Blades; Tail Driveshafts and Bearings; Main Rotor shafts; Engines, and tail-booms.

The expansion of repetitive heavy lift operations led to an increasing number of failures, as components and parts reached their ultimate cycle life at a much more lower number of flight hours than the initial certification criteria envisioned.

This led to the devlopment of correction factors to compensate for high cycles in certain types of operation. This is being reflected in life limit reductions or compensation in certain applications.

Although there is not currently an FAR dealing with the specifics of this issue, a common correction in use by a number of manufacturers is based upon 3 variable utilisations;
6 or less lifts per hour.
6 - 20 lifts per hour.
Greater than 20 lifts per hour.

These then take the form of a RIN (Retirement Index Number) which will appropriately adjust the life limit (in hours) to the consumption of fatigue cycles for the particular item. This has been applied to a variety of engines, blades, rotor sytems, drivetrain components, structural parts, etc.

Whilst the manufacturer is responsible for these engineering activities, their focus is aimed squarely at their commercial products. One of the challenges facing the holders of Restricted Category TC's, is the holder bears the responsibility for continued airworthiness for their product. Obviously the expense and complexity of this undertaking is beyond the resources of the majority of these Operators or TC holders.

Whilst I do not believe that there is anything intrinsically wrong with these helicopters, there is certainly a proven challenge in maintaining the Airworthiness of these products for the applications they find themselves involved with, in commercial operation.

I am not suggesting that any of these issues are a concern with the accident reported in this thread, simply noting some relevant information pertaining to this sector of operation.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Military hardware, is made to much greater strength spec's than most civvy types, but that still cannot escape the age hardening or embrittlement of grain structure in the basic componant construction, add to that ageing, the constant heavy load cycle and you will get what has happened, the problem is the hook that lifts the load is attached to the frame of the A/c which is lifted by the Rotors which are connected to the G/box, they all come under maximum stress, the least item to fail would probably be the actuall Hook. the only way to stop fatigue failure is to have a far greater replacement of componants service schedule, which would be then cost prohibitive for most ops.
Sad about the flyers who lost their lives though,
My Condolances

[imabell]

the emphasis being placed on accidents involving ex mil helicopters is perhaps out of context. any helicopter or piece of equipment is only as good as the person flying, and the maintenance being performed. any person who claims these 'restricted' cat (one was not in fact in restricted cat) a/c are not airworthy should be directing their questions to the operator or maintenance facility, or to the pilot in command!! The criteria for maintenance and operations is certainly very stringent, with many TBO's, retirement lives actually being lower than civvy versions. To say these a/c are being used for operations they were not designed for is a very broad statement, they are after all designated UH meaning Utility helicopter! Perhaps they are being pushed to limits they were not intended to, but is that the machines fault or the driver /operator?.

The same question could be asked of some of the smaller training h/c's being used in Ag ops, sling loading and mustering, I seem to recall a rep from Hughes commenting that the 500 series was never intented for the 'rigors' of deer capture, but??. Perhaps, as with some of the logging industry in usa.

the lower aquisition cost enables some operators of these machines to get into what they would otherwise not get invloved in? and that means more jobs.

These helicopters when maintained and operated correctly have a proven record of reliable operations in very hostile environments. US goverment agencies have been using these machines for many years doing community service work, fire control etc, with no apparent problems. I think to ask such a broad question as was put forward, is taking a simplistic approach to what may be a bigger problem with in the helicopter operations area.



[This message has been edited by imabell (edited 11 June 2001).]

[alouette]

Doesn´t some fire department in California use military surplus Hueys? I never heard of an incident within their operations. The question that raises my concern is how does the operator maintain those aircrafts? As we all know, older aircrafts require intensive or more maintenance. But even though old or new generation A/Cs have to be thoroughly looked at when performing utility work. Just because he Huey is a workhorse and robust doesn´t automatically say that maintenace work is less intensive. Regrettably people died in the recent accident....tragic.....but it happened. I sure hope it is a lesson for others to look at the records and make sure everything is done properly. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

[B Sousa]

The main agency in California with surplus aircraft is the California Department of Forestry. Let me tell you and the rest of the uninformed now, that they are very fine machines. They were taken as surplus from the California National Guard and completely rebuilt.
Further that all the machines both OH58(B206) and UH-1(B205) aircraft that I have seen surplused to other agencies, left the military in very good condition. In fact the ones that I was involved with were flown to my agency from the East Coast to the West Coast without problems. All had between 2-3000 total airframe hours on them. Most equivalent aircraft I fly in the civilian world have close to or over 10,000 hours.
Another thing I strongly disagree with is statements that the Military abuse there equipment. I spent some time with the Military and never did that become an issue. If there was a problem it was appropriately corrected. I do however see abuse of civilian aircraft and it goes unchecked due to the costs involved.
As to the surplus program, I also certainly believe that between the Manufacturers, Defense Logistics Agency, and elected Governement officials that many millions of dollars of equipment that could be utillized was intentionally destroyed.

[H-43]

A few words in defense of ex-millitary aircraft. We have operated the Kaman H-43 Huskie aircraft in the logging industry for the last 16 years logging approx. 25,000 accident/incident free hours. What it comes down to from my experience is operator maintenance. It really doesn't matter what you fly civilian or ex-millitary hardware it will all break if it isn't taken care of.

As a side note the Huskie also has the best (that I am aware of) saftey record of any helicopter out there.

[widgeon]

For interest I pulled accident stats for 206 range and oh58 range from NTSB site.
between 1996 and now .

model 206 oh58
accidents 184 23
fatal 33 5
fleet size 2565 501

[Cyclic Hotline]

From today's Rotorhub.
Copter's Use Questioned
Source: The Nelson Mail (via CNN Fn.)
Publication date: 2001-03-07
Arrival time: 2001-06-25

By Tracy Neal
The type of helicopter involved in a fatal logging accident near Motueka is banned from use for hire or reward in New Zealand, Civil Aviation Authority rules say.

Two investigations into the February 12 accident are exploring the basis on which the 36-year-old Westland Wessex helicopter was used, and whether a commercial arrangement was in place on the day it crashed.

The owner and operator of the helicopter, Metro Air Ltd, says the aircraft was not being used commercially but as a "tool of the trade, like a chainsaw''.

Police and the CAA are trying to find out if rules were broken and are analysing the type of licence it was flying under.

According to a CAA guide called "How to Charter an Aircraft'', the Westland Wessex comes under the "special experimental category''. Aircraft with these certificates "cannot be chartered at all'', the guide says. "They are for private use only.''

The CAA General Operating and Flight Rules Document says "no person shall operate an aircraft that has a special category airworthiness certificate for the carriage of persons or goods for hire or reward''.

The former British defence force helicopter crashed while lifting logs at Little Pokororo Valley, killing 39-year-old pilot Peter McColl.

Nelson Mail investigations show:

* Two companies were involved in the use of the helicopter by forestry company Rayonier New Zealand. They are Metro Air Ltd and Metro Logging Ltd.

* According to a search of company records, the same two men are behind both companies.

* They believe their set-up complied with the flying regulations, but investigations are focusing on this issue.

The accident happened after Mr McColl had tried to lift a pine log and put it back down. When he tried to collect another log the helicopter, which had been refuelled only minutes before, plunged to the ground and exploded in flames. Detective Sergeant Derek Milne of Motueka police said Mr McColl had dropped off two people just before the helicopter crashed.

Metro Air Ltd and Metro Logging Ltd are owned by the same people. In a search of company office records on Friday the directors of Metro Logging Ltd were shown as Bruce O'Malley and Timothy Whittle. Mr Whittle was also listed as the sole shareholder.

Metro Air Ltd's sole director was shown as Mr Whittle and he and Mr O'Malley as the sole shareholders.

Mr O'Malley said his company had not broken any rules. He said there had been correspondence with the CAA for the last 12 months about the suitability of the helicopter, and it was found to be "totally eligible''.

Mr O'Malley said there had been some discussion over the certification of the helicopter for hire or reward.

He said there was nothing untoward about the operation and the accident had nothing to do with certification.

"We were able to lift logs with the helicopter. We did not breach rule 91.105 (to do with operating limitations). The aircraft was being operated correctly,'' Mr O'Malley said.

He suggested the CAA guide on aircraft charter was flawed, and that it was not "entirely, factually correct''.

"It wasn't Metro Air doing the work, it was Metro Logging. I can't elaborate further because that issue is subject to some intense debate between CAA and us. It has been going on for 12 months and could be the subject of legal action.

"I am able to lift logs and carry people -- but I don't. I am able to do this legally, just not for hire or reward. That's the only thing that's questionable,'' Mr O'Malley said.

He said Rayonier paid Metro Logging, which is a different company to Metro Air.

"Metro Logging was using the helicopter as a tool of the trade, just the same as we'd use a chainsaw,'' Mr O'Malley said.

CAA spokesman Martyn Gosling said use of the Wessex in the logging operation was a feature of the authority's investigation into the accident.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Sorry to read about this today.
. Reg. No.: 556D M/M: H43B Desc: 1959 KAMAN HH-43B/F HUSKIE
Activity: Business Phase: Maneuver GA-A/C: General Aviation
Descr: 1959 KAMAN HH-43B HELICOPTER (LOGGING ACTIVITY) HAD PICKED UP LOAD, HEARD A LOUD BANG, LOST POWER, AND HELICOPTER CAME DOWN, 1 MINOR, MULLEN PASS, ID

WX: MLP METAR 261553 AUTO VRB06KT 10SM RA 9VC035 07/06 A3002
Damage: Substantial
C2. Injury Data: # Crew: 1 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 1 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
D. Location. City: MULLEN PASS State: ID Country: US
E. Event Date: 6/26/01 Time: 1545
F. Invest Coverage. IIC: BIRD Reg/DO: NM13 DO City: SPOKANE
DO State: WA Others: NTSB MCCREARY
Dest: UNKN Last Radio Cont: UNKN Flt Plan: UNK
Last Clearance: UNKN WX Briefing: U
Other:

AAI IIC:

[B Sousa]

As to the Kamans Pilot. Raise a glass in tribute. As to the aircraft and any suggestion that it may be due to the Aircraft being formerly military I think it can be said it was manufactured in 1959. Thats a long dam time for anything to be flying, even me. I guess its where the slogan comes from S*** Happens.

[H-43]

Well here it is the truth in the statement pride goeth before a fall. 556D was our aircraft and sadly is now the insurance companies aircraft. I guess you can't be in this business forever without accidents. And we really can't fault the aircraft for the engine :) The good news is that the pilot is fine and ready to go logging again as soon as we get another ship together. And as it sits on the hill now it looks rebuildable. The sad news is I get to go help pull the broken bird off the hill. I'll take some pictures tomorrow and maybe show them here sometime.

Cheers