S-70A Black Hawk question (for Nick?)

[Flight Safety]

I've been reading the certification documents for the civil S-70A Black Hawk and I have a question. The certification for this helo reads as follows, from the latest document "H5NE" Rev. 8 dated 3/22/2001:

TYPE CERTIFICATION BASIS:
FAR 21.25(a)(2), effective January 6, 1975, for the purpose of:
(1) Agriculture, FAR 21.25(b)(1)
(2) External Cargo, FAR 21.25(b)(7)
(3) Firefighting, FAR 21.25(b)(7)

FAR 29, Amendments 29-1 through 29-24 for non-U.S. Army approved modifications.

I know that FAR 21 is for restricted catagory aircraft, but I'm confused on the FAR 29 portion of the certification. Is the aircraft still a restricted catagory aircraft, or does it now have full FAR 29 certification so that it can be used for other applications besides the 3 restricted catagories originally approved?

I have a number of other questions regarding the S-70A but will wait for the answer to this question. Thanks in advance.

[Nick Lappos]

Flight safety,
The H-60 civilian models are all approved under Restricted catagory, which allows their use under the military approval for the same jobs it is used for in the military. It does not allow use for hire or passenger transport. The aircraft is FAA approved for restricted use, in other words, by mirroring its military approval.

For equipment that is not on the military approval list, the FAA checks that out against the applicable paragraphs of part 29, and it is then cleared that way. This does not infer that the whole aircraft is then a Part 29 bird.

[Flight Safety]

Thanks Nick.

I assume that since humanitarian relief and SAR are part of the approved military uses for the H-60s, then these uses would also be approved for civil H-60s, as well as the related training activities. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions about the new UH-60M program. Will the UH-60M have a HUMS as part of the new digital avionics? I've read somewhere that the US Army wanted a HUMS in its next-gen Black Hawks. Is there any possibility of the engines being FADEC equipped, either by retrofitting the current T700-701Cs, or a new GE mod to the engines?

[Nick Lappos]

Flight Safety asked:
I assume that since humanitarian relief and SAR are part of the approved military uses for the H-60s, then these uses would also be approved for civil H-60s, as well as the related training activities. Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Nick sez:
If the use is not part of a contract, no sweat. But generally, civil operators demand that a clause be inserted in all governmental contracts to allow only normally certified aircraft - because it is hard to compete with an ex-military aircraft when you have to pay more to keep up a fully certified bird.


FS asked:
I'd like to ask a couple of questions about the new UH-60M program. Will the UH-60M have a HUMS as part of the new digital avionics?

Nick sez:
The Army is working on a HUMS with Goodrich and Sikorsky, so I think this will be tracked into the M. I am not sure, however.

FS asked:
Is there any possibility of the engines being FADEC equipped, either by retrofitting the current T700-701Cs, or a new GE mod to the engines?

Nick sez:
GE has a great FADEC in the latest versions, we're flying it on the -8 engines on the S-92. I don't know of any plans to retrofit this onto any T700's now in the field. Frankly, the latest T700's are pretty good as is, I think. Great response and reliability.

[Flight Safety]

Thanks Nick. You may not know how much some of us who use this forum, really appreciate your responses to our posts, but I for one greatly appreciate your efforts here. Thanks again for all your help.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Couple of points to raise regarding Restricted Category operations. The limitations for Restricted Category helicopters are primarily contained within the two following regulations;

§ 91.313 Restricted category civil aircraft: Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft --

(1) For other than the special purpose for which it is certificated; or

(2) In an operation other than one necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with that special purpose.

(b) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of this section, operating a restricted category civil aircraft to provide flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated is considered to be an operation for that special purpose.

(c) No person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. For the purposes of this paragraph, a special purpose operation involving the carriage of persons or material necessary to accomplish that operation, such as crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and banner towing (including the carrying of required persons or material to the location of that operation), and operation for the purpose of providing flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation, are not considered to be the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire.

(d) No person may be carried on a restricted category civil aircraft unless that person --

(1) Is a flight crewmember;

(2) Is a flight crewmember trainee;

(3) Performs an essential function in connection with a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated; or

(4) Is necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with that special purpose.

(e) Except when operating in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certificate of waiver or special operating limitations issued by the Administrator, no person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft within the United States --

(1) Over a densely populated area;

(2) In a congested airway; or

(3) Near a busy airport where passenger transport operations are conducted.

(f) This section does not apply to nonpassenger-carrying civil rotorcraft external-load operations conducted under part 133 of this chapter.

(g) No person may operate a small restricted-category civil airplane manufactured after July 18, 1978, unless an approved shoulder harness is installed for each front seat. The shoulder harness must be designed to protect each occupant from serious head injury when the occupant experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in § 23.561(b)(2) of this chapter. The shoulder harness installation at each flight crewmember station must permit the crewmember, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operation. For purposes of this paragraph --

(1) The date of manufacture of an airplane is the date the inspection acceptance records reflect that the airplane is complete and meets the FAA-approved type design data; and

(2) A front seat is a seat located at a flight crewmember station or any seat located alongside such a seat.


and also;

§ 21.25 Issue of type certificate: Restricted category aircraft.

(a) An applicant is entitled to a type certificate for an aircraft in the restricted category for special purpose operations if he shows compliance with the applicable noise requirements of Part 36 of this chapter, and if he shows that no feature or characteristic of the aircraft makes it unsafe when it is operated under the limitations prescribed for its intended use, and that the aircraft --

(1) Meets the airworthiness requirements of an aircraft category except those requirements that the Administrator finds inappropriate for the special purpose for which the aircraft is to be used; or

(2) Is of a type that has been manufactured in accordance with the requirements of and accepted for use by, an Armed Force of the United States and has been later modified for a special purpose.

(b) For the purposes of this section, "special purpose operations" includes --

(1) Agricultural (spraying, dusting, and seeding, and livestock and predatory animal control);

(2) Forest and wildlife conservation;

(3) Aerial surveying (photography, mapping, and oil and mineral exploration);

(4) Patrolling (pipelines, power lines, and canals);

(5) Weather control (cloud seeding);

(6) Aerial advertising (skywriting, banner towing, airborne signs and public address systems); and

(7) Any other operation specified by the Administrator.

----------------------------

Para (7) above, states specifically that the administrator may approve any other type of operation at their discretion.

As far as setting out to perform SAR or humanitarion operations, the only true (viable) means of doing this would be by operating as a "Public Use" aircraft. This is an entirely separate operating entity and is the domain of government owned, operated or contracted equipment.

Any modifications incorporated on a Restricted Category machine, require the same certification process as any other; Field approval or STC.

If you were operating Restricted Category and went to save someone's life, no-one is going to question your actions. If you set up in business to do the same, many might!

Hopefully of some help?

[Flight Safety]

Thanks CH. I read both of these regulations the other day. I understood (as you have) paragraph (b)(7) in part 21.25 to mean other restricted uses can be certified. It's noteworthy that 2 of the current uses are paragraph (b)(7) uses. I also understood that paragraph 4(e) in part 91.313 allows for a possible waiver to train near an airport (if there's a question about the definition of what a "busy" airport means).

I am curious however about your statement regarding "Public Use" aircraft. I generally agree with your statement, however there's a third option I believe in using this aircraft for humanitarian relief and SAR operations, and that's in a non-profit organization.

[ 05 August 2001: Message edited by: Flight Safety ]

[Nick Lappos]

CH is exactly correct. The key is the "public use" operator, which means a governmental agency that owns or operates the machine. If the state of Kansas owns a machine with 4 blades, they can pull two of them, take off and go with perfect legality. This is why the Army does not follow FAR except when flying in regular airspace, and even then they obey FAR as a courtesy (note that AR95-1 does not have the same minimums as FAR 91!

As a practical matter, no state has the engineering staff to wisely find alternates to FAR, so they almost always use FAA certification as their rule, too, but thay don't have to. Often, states will buy surplus military aircraft, fly them as is, and not ever register them. Technically, I believe the National Guard operates this way, keeping the registry that matches the military.

I worked with State of Illinois on their S-76 program, and they installed good equipment without getting FAA approval, in furtherance of their EMS mission, under this rule. Duane Moore, a brilliant innovator in this field wisely chose the equipment, sought wise council as to how to assure its safety and just flew with it, FAR or not!

[Cyclic Hotline]

The current view of Restricted Category equipment by the FAA is that they perform an important function, but do enjoy the same level of airworthiness as a Standard Category machine. This limitation and the specifics of the personnel allowed to fly aboard a machine, make any realistic attempt to fly the general public in this category of aircraft very unlikely.

It might be extremely difficult to create a not-for-profit Corporation, that could meet the Governmental control eligibility for Public Aircraft status. Definition of Public Aircraft; http://199.79.179.73/tabula/final/billpa.htm

Probably the only way that this could occur, would be by contracting to a government agency (say, FEMA), but without that connection you would probably not be eligible.

Anyway, the FAA have anticipated that people out there might have these questions, so created this handy little test! :p
http://www.aea200.ea.faa.gov/ea07/publicaircraft.asp

There has been some quite considerable discussion about creating a rule particularly related to Public Aircraft, tentatively identified as FAR 92. The lack of regulatory oversight in this operational sphere, exposed some peculiar anomolies in aircraft and crew certification and operation (or the lack thereof), including of course, the FAA - who were not subject to the rules they enforced upon others! (The FAA now complies with all pertinent FAR's!)

I hope this is helpful.
:)

[Flight Safety]

Boy, this conversation has become very interesting.

So what you're saying is, that some connection to a "Public Use" definition for this aircraft's intended purpose must be made in order to use the aircraft for humanitarian relief and SAR operations, or these operations may not be permitted? I don't envision any form of compensation or hire or any other traditional commercial use of the aircraft, only non-profit uses. That means no charge of any kind for use of the aircraft or its services.

If it weren't possible for the aircraft to meet the test for a "Public Use" aircraft, then what are my options? Can the aircraft only be used for the 3 very restricted activities (catagories) that were originally defined in its part 21 certification, i.e agriculture, external loads, and firefighting? How difficult would it be to get an expanded certification in the Restricted Catagory? Surely Sikorsky would have to be involved in expanding the aircraft's certification, even in the Restriction Catagory.

This might be a dumb question, but how hard would it be to get the S-70A certified as a full part 29 bird? Can individual aircraft be built (or modified) to full part 29 standards, or does the entire S-70A program have to become a part 29 program? Something tells me this might be difficult or expensive.

Finally, do either of you (Nick or CH) know of any civil S-70 operators who have received approval to operate the S-70 outside of the 3 catagories listed above, while those aircraft simultaniously did not meet the "Public Use" test?

My thanks to both Nick and CH for your explanations and help on this issue.

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: Flight Safety ]

[Nick Lappos]

Flight Safety asked:
If it weren't possible for the aircraft to meet the test for a "Public Use" aircraft, then what are my options? Can the aircraft only be used for the 3 very restricted activities (catagories) that were originally defined in its part 21 certification, i.e agriculture, external loads, and firefighting? How difficult would it be to get an expanded certification in the Restricted Catagory? Surely Sikorsky would have to be involved in expanding the aircraft's certification, even in the Restriction Catagory.

This might be a dumb question, but how hard would it be to get the S-70A certified as a full part 29 bird? Can individual aircraft be built (or modified) to full part 29 standards, or does the entire S-70A program have to become a part 29 program? Something tells me this might be difficult or expensive.


Nick sez:
The S-70 is a purely military aircraft, and is allowed to fly in civil missions only thru the restricted catagory. The cost to certify would involve some redesign, and the civil market is deemed to be small enough for that airframe to make it unlikely that the investment would be recouped. There is no partial certification, it is all or nothing! That is one of the motivations behind the S-92.

FS asked:
Finally, do either of you (Nick or CH) know of any civil S-70 operators who have received approval to operate the S-70 outside of the 3 catagories listed above, while those aircraft simultaniously did not meet the "Public Use" test?

Nick sez:
The restricted use could involve any mission that is reasonably able to be performed by the military, so lots are covered, but they can't involve moving people that are not part of the mission; e.g. smoke jumpers are OK, passengers are not. Placing poles into position is OK, dropping loads is ok, etc. etc. The door is wide opened for utility missions, just not people moving.

[Flight Safety]

Nick sez:
The restricted use could involve any mission that is reasonably able to be performed by the military, so lots are covered, but they can't involve moving people that are not part of the mission; e.g. smoke jumpers are OK, passengers are not. Placing poles into position is OK, dropping loads is ok, etc. etc. The door is wide opened for utility missions, just not people moving.

FS askes:
If someone is rescued from a housetop in a flood, or a group of stranded people are evacuated from trees or a small island area of land cutoff from support by a flood, or injured are evactuated off of a mountain, or injured are transported from an earthquake zone, etc., would this be acceptable restricted catagory use? The military performs similar functions all the time with the H-60. Would this form of "people moving" be considered part of the "mission"?

[Nick Lappos]

FS asks:
If someone is rescued from a housetop in a flood, or a group of stranded people are evacuated from trees or a small island area of land cutoff from support by a flood, or injured are evactuated off of a mountain, or injured are transported from an earthquake zone, etc., would this be acceptable restricted catagory use? The military performs similar functions all the time with the H-60. Would this form of "people moving" be considered part of the "mission"?

Nick Sez:
I believe if a commercial operator asked for a PT 135 ticket to drop fire retardant, he would get it. If he wanted to lift 3rd party (not accociated with his company) people, like traffic victims, he would not be allowed to. The occupants of the aircraft have to be crew, necessary for the mission. This would not hold if the operator were a public use operator. Then, they could make up the rules, I think, although if it got out of hand, the FAA might lodge a complaint and make their opinions felt.

I am not an expert here, and would defer to someone who knows the ins and outs from first hand experience. I do know that there is little sympathy in the commercial community for folks who use restricted aircraft, because the cost to operate is lower, and the competition is necessarily upset by this economic misbalance. Caused quite a stir a few years ago with Russian machines.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Flight Safety,
We are about to dive into a deep grey area within the regulations.

Basically any use outside those listed in the FAR's above, would have to be approved specifically by the Administrator. Restricted Category operations have been heavily focused upon by the FAA in recent times and I personally would not hold out too much hope in attempting to gain approval for these types of operation.

There are particular applications for Restricted Category aircraft, and I'm not sure the FAA would be keen to stand in court at some time in the future to defend it's approval of Restricted Category certification beyond that contained within the original parameters of the rule.

I must state, that my original reply was based upon the concept of a formal Not For Profit Corporate status. I think it would almost be essential in the modern business climate to form this entity, both for personal indemnity and protection, but also for any others involved in the project. Anyone being rescued would be keen to sue you in the event the mission failed for some reason (!!), and your Insurer would probably be understanably keen for this identity as well. The Insurers might play an even greater role in this Operation, as they might not be happy with the liability of any carriage of passengers in Restricted equipment.

The cost of certifying the S70 would be prohibitively expensive and beyond the realm of reality - as Nick says, the S92 programme is proof of that.

There is one Restricted Category S70 operating in commercial operation currently. It is used for firefighting, and some other utility work. I am not aware of any other Restricted Category machines anywhere doing work than that previously listed (not to say someone isn't doing it though).

Any Restricted Category machine can really be used for any task when contracted by the Government, in light of it's "Public Aircraft" status whilst contracting. However the Forest Service (probably the largest contractor of this type of equipment, both rotary and fixed wing) will not allow anybody, at any time, on any mission, to fly in a Restricted Category machine. I'm not suggesting in the event of a life or death emergency that someone would not use their initiative to that end - but specifically the contract states that only Normal or Transport Category aircraft may be used for these operations (pax, rappel, etc). I can't really comment on Smoke-jumpers as I've never seen them around helicopters.

The Statement comparing Restricted to military ops may prove a little broad in my experience. The interpretation of "essential to mission being performed" might be the best argument of the lot. :)

FAA Restricted Category equipment is used in many parts of the world for a variety of applications. The FAA interpretation of anything related to Restricted Category is very interesting, as it seems to depend upon the office, region and even the individual you are talking too.

At various times I have been told that;

Mechanics cannot travel with the machine, as they are not essential to the operation?;

A POI who advised me it was not possible to give type-rides in a Restricted machine;
( § 61.45 Practical tests: Required aircraft and equipment.
(2) At the discretion of the examiner who administers the practical test, the applicant may furnish --
(i) An aircraft that has a current airworthiness certificate other than standard, limited, or primary, but that otherwise meets the requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this section ;);

a variety of interpretations of densely populated areas, congested airways and busy airports (another potential area of concern for you - say earthquakes in LA);

That a Christmas tree hauling crew that were inside a UH-1 that crashed after the longline hook took out the tail rotor, were "creww essential to the operation" - never mind the Part 133 violation of combined pax and external loads!


Restricted Category allows the utilization of some really useful equipment, but within some very specific and tightly regulated confines. In reading the FAR's for certifying and operating products, it can be seen that the applications and limitations are specific and limited. This is not to say that utilization beyond these parameters is not possible, just highly restrictive and subject to scrutiny and rejection at the highest level within the agency (most likely within Airworthiness at the Rotorcraft Directorate).

[Flight Safety]

My thanks to both of you for all of this information. CH, the formal not-for-profit corporation is a given, and I agree with your reasons.

I see I have much to review and consider. I'll have to wait until I have some time to take this up again, as this question has gotten very involved and is now a central issue. I need to review my reasons for choosing the S-70 in the first place, and I might have been a little too hasty to abandon the "Public Use" option.

CH, you characterized it correctly, a deep grey area in the regs, not what I wanted to hear.

[ShyTorque]

Nick,

Where do the three Blackhawks (my favourite aircraft) flown by the Hong Kong GFS fit into all this?

When I was out there they were flown under a "Permit to fly" which is a term we in the UK normally associate with old warbirds flown by private individuals. :eek:

ShyT

[Nick Lappos]

ShyTorque asked:
Where do the three Blackhawks (my favourite aircraft) flown by the Hong Kong GFS fit into all this?

When I was out there they were flown under a "Permit to fly" which is a term we in the UK normally associate with old warbirds flown by private individuals.


Nick sez:
Sounds like the "permit to fly" is similar to the restricted catagory, but also the HK Government is a "public Use" operator, sort of a military entity, that can do about as they please. We are not at all at any risk in all this, because the 2500 or so H-60's worldwide are cetainly very capable and legitimate rotorcraft, they meet tough US and Foreign Military standards, they just don't meet the letter of the FAR.

I don't think an Abrams tank has ever been tested to the US 5 mph automobile bumper standards, either!

[ShyTorque]

Nick,

I think you're correct but HK CAD would only giving the aircraft a permit because they saw them as military aircraft for a civilian role. However, the trust that was put in them allowed the unit to fly visiting V.VIPs, including royalty.

ShyT

[Flight Safety]

ShyTorque, it's the same here in the US, as I believe there are 9 H-60s in service with the Marines for transporting US Government VIPs, including the President. I believe there are a few other H-60s (or S-70As) in service around the world transporting government VIPs.

[Flight Safety]

OK, I've been pouring over the Regs, and I see about 7 different ways to try and get permission to use an S-70 in civil (non-commercial, not-for-profit) SAR operations. Humanitarian relief itself generally should not be an issue, unless an operation involving bringing people on board during SAR operations is being contemplated.

Method 1) Full part 29 certification - Requires a huge expense and full cooperation from Sikorsky.

Method 2) Full part 29 certification as an STC - While technically possible, who could possibly do this outside of Sikorsky? I don't like this option, as I would want to have Sikorsky's full support.

Method 3) Mutliple certifications as per part 21.187 - This is very similar to Method 1, and has basically the same certifications requirements, but provides more flexiblity to the manufacturer (Sikorsky) in being able to offer a variety of airframe configurations.

Method 4) Request a new category in part 21.25(b)(7) - This could be done as covered in AC 21-17. This might work if a new category such as "Search and Rescue" were requested, and the phrase's meaning followed the use in the "Public Use Aircraft" definition.

Method 5) Operate with a series of waivers - This from part 91.903. These have time limits and seem to be designed for temporary situations only.

Method 6) Long-term relief from sections of part 91 under 14 CFR part 11.25 - Apparently longer-term relief from certain provisions of part 91 can be obtained under 14 CFR part 11.25, but that process is unclear to me at the moment.

Method 7) - Defining aircraft use as "Public Use" - This might work, I'll have to look into this further, but it appears to have certain restrictions that might not be very helpful.

There is also the issue of using a Restricted Category Aircraft in a foreign country. Some countries would allow it, some wouldn't. It seems that permission has to be obtained in each case where operations are to be performed in another nation. This would not be an issue with a part 29 machine.

I've reviewed my reasons for wanting the S-70, and I still don't know of a better helo for the tasks I have in mind. There are the issues of safety, reliability, good range (with long ranges possible using 230 gal. external tanks, which are allowed under the current certification). There's the ability to carry weather radar, FLIR, the new Honeywell Mark XXII EGPWS (which is supposed to be certified for the S-70), rescue hoist, etc.

There are 2 other features of the S-70 that I don't think I could get in any other helo. The first is the ability to transport it anywhere in a Hercules. I have a 12 year old photo of a civil Black Hawk being loaded into an old L100-20 (in Nepal), and I do not know of any other helo with the Black Hawk's capabilities that can transported in a Hercules. I also cannot think of a finer pair of complimentary aircraft to work Humanitarian relief than these 2 aircraft, and they can travel together anywhere.

Second, the Black Hawk has the ability to be serviced in primitive locations, and it was designed that way, with special features to assist with service in the field. I understand that it can be deployed away from its home base, and fly 200-400 hours before having to return to its home base for more thorough maintenance. I don't know of any other helo that can do this.

One other thing, the Helicopter Directorate branch of the FAA Certification office is located nearby in Fort Worth. I'm thinking about paying them a visit, to get their ideas about what they think might be possible.

[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: Flight Safety ]

[zalt]

Luckily the S-92A has no relation to the S-70A/C Black Hawk (!) which has just had an AD on the tail rotor gears
Federal Register | Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-70A and S-70C Helicopters (http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/11/17/2010-28458/airworthiness-directives-sikorsky-aircraft-corporation-sikorsky-model-s70a-and-s70c-helicopters)

[busdriver02]

Does anyone know what incident was being referred to in that AD?