Alouette Helicopters Declared Illegal Immigrants By The Faa

[Brian Abraham]

From Avweb today

ALOUETTE HELICOPTERS DECLARED ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BY THE FAA

When Joe Altizer's employer (Marpat Aviation of Logan, West Virginia) bought three French-built Alouette helicopters, they'd all been flying previously in the U.S. All three came certified in the standard category and with current airworthiness certificates. A couple of weeks ago, FAA inspectors, accompanied by state troopers, visited Altizer's hangar and grounded the helicopters, resulting in the layoff of two pilots and a very uncertain future for the company.

The FAA says the absence of a piece of paperwork called a Certificate of Airworthiness for Export, which should have been with the aircraft when they were originally certified in the U.S., means they aren't eligible for that certification, and inspectors are tracking down all the Alouettes in the U.S. to possibly ground them as well. What's frustrating Altizer and other Alouette operators is the FAA doesn't seem to have a solution for a bureaucratic error of their own making and it's the current aircraft owners who are paying the price. We've contacted the FAA and expect a response from them shortly.

[Lutefisk989]

The Export Certificate of Airworthiness is a very important piece of paper, as it verifies the "birth" of the aircraft in meeting the FAR's.

Keep in mind that the Alouette was widely used in the military (French or otherwise). Without the Export CofA, there's no way of knowing whether it was a civil rotorcraft (certified to the FAR's/JAR's), or a military rotorcraft (certified to a MILSPEC, and which may include external stores and other mission equipment which can significantly effect maintenance, life limits, etc). The problem is significant, which the article neglects to say.

The same issue exists with the US military.

So to say that this is a "bureaucratic error of the FAA's own making" is dubious, at best.

[rotorwrench]

Several of these helicopters were mistakenly issued import airworthiness certs by the FAA a few years ago. Aerospat forgot to exclude some of the serial numbers of machines built for military customers when they applied for the US type certificate. Some surplus dealers found this loophole and expolited it. Most of these machines were quickly sold to unsuspecting buyers (cheap), once the feds realized thier mistake they tried to revoke the airworthiness certs. :ouch: Getting them to admit that they screwed up is hard enough, getting them to fix it is almost impossible. Many of the people who bought these aircraft are unaware of the problem until it's too late. So it was a beuracratic mess, caused by the FAA. Eurocopter is aware of the problem and they want nothing to do with these aircraft, they will not even discuss giving you a conformity statement if you were unlucky enough to have bougth one of these aircraft. Long story short, research the aircraft history before you buy, spend the money to hire an IA who knows the aircraft type and,"if it appears too good to be true it probably is". So the FAA isn't after all of the Alouettes, just the ones that were imported under this "mistake", and this isn't a new issue, they have been trying to do this for 5 years that I am aware of..

[Aesir]

there's no way of knowing whether it was a civil rotorcraft (certified to the FAR's/JAR's), or a military rotorcraft

I was under the impression that all Eurocopter (Sud-Aviation, Aerospatiale etc.) were civil certified and then put into military OR civil use?

Also a export certificate is not required for registration of foreign registered aircraft in Europe by the authorities (in Europe). However a Export C of A is a good insurance for the buyer that all inspections have been complied with and the aircraft has clean title.

I guess the FAA has a different view on the matter. Would be interesting to hear comments from others that are experienced in import/export to the USA?

[nigelh]

AESIR I have imported ex mil jet rangers ( operated by civilian ) and we certainly needed export c of a to get them on register. I also think you will find that a lot of the rotables will have to be scrapped if operated by the military too.

[Cyclic Hotline]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
National Policy
Distribution: A-W(FS)-2; A-X(FS)-3; A-FFS-7 (LTD); AMA-200 (12 cys) Initiated By: AFS-350 (Electronically: A-W(FS)-2; A-X(FS)-2; A-FFS-7)

12/19/06 N 8300.124
Effective Date:
12/19/06
Cancellation Date:
12/19/07
SUBJ: Certification of Sud (Eurocopter) Alouette Helicopters

1. PURPOSE. This notice stops the improper issuance of standard airworthiness certification to Sud (Eurocopter) Alouette (all models) helicopters. These types of aircraft are not eligible for a Standard Airworthiness Certificate, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 8100-2, nor are they directly eligible for airworthiness certification in the Restricted category.


2. DISTRIBUTION. We will distribute this notice to the division level in the Flight Standards Service in Washington headquarters, including the Regulatory Standards Division at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center; to the branch level in the regional Flight Standards divisions; and to all Flight Standards District Offices. Inspectors can access this notice through the Flight Standards Information Management System (FSIMS) at http://fsims.avr.faa.gov. Operators may find this information on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8300/


3. BACKGROUND. Since May 2004, the type certificate data sheets (TCDS) for Sud (Eurocopter) Alouette (all models) helicopters have required a review of the aircraft’s historical records to determine if the aircraft was delivered to and operated by a military organization.


4. DISCUSSION. The TCDS have very specific requirements that must be met in order for an ex-military aircraft to be eligible for a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. These aircraft were originally built for use by various military organizations around the world and were not intended for civil certification. The aircraft may be accompanied by an "ATTESTATION" document that may appear to be equivalent to an Export Certificate of Airworthiness or used as a "certifying statement" in meeting the regulations or exporting requirements of a bilateral agreement. These documents must be reviewed to determined their true intent and usefulness in the certification process.


5. ACTION. Effective immediately, the Fort Worth Aircraft Evaluation Group (FTW-AEG), in coordination with the Aircraft Certification’s Rotorcraft Directorate must determine/confirm any Sud (Eurocopter) Alouette (all models) helicopter’s eligibility. A written statement must be obtained from the FTW-AEG confirming an aircraft’s eligibility before a Standard Airworthiness Certificate can be issued. The only exception is for the airworthiness certification of these types and model helicopters which are seeking a special airworthiness certificate in the experimental category.

a. The following information must be provided to the FTW-AEG in support of their review.


(1) Builder’s name.


(2) Model number.


(3) Serial number.


(4) Engine model designation.


(5) Copy of importing document(s) (e.g., Export Certificate of Airworthiness, Attestation, etc.).


(6) If available, a copy of any previously issued Standard Airworthiness Certificate issued by the "State-of-Design" and "State-of-Manufacture," which should be France.


b. All aviation safety inspectors (ASI) assigned oversight responsibility of Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) shall make them aware of this notice and require them to provide their managing office the information stated above for forwarding to the FTW-AEG for review. All ASIs will provide the information directly to the FTW-AEG. An airworthiness certificate must not be issued until the aircraft is determined to be eligible for a Standard Airworthiness Certificate.


6. DISPOSITION. We will permanently incorporate the information in this notice in FSIMS before this notice expires. Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Jackie Black, Manager AFS-350, General Aviation and Avionics Branch, at (202) 267–7404.

ORIGINAL SIGNED (by)
James J. Ballough
Director, Flight Standards Service
Page 2 Par 5

[Lutefisk989]

I was under the impression that all Eurocopter (Sud-Aviation, Aerospatiale etc.) were civil certified and then put into military OR civil use?

True, to an extent. For example, the EC225 (civilian) and EC725 (military) are essentially the same airframe...until you install the military/public use "gadgets". ;)
I suspect the dual-designation may be a fairly new means of tracking whether the aircraft was mil or civilian. I think previously, they had to be tracked by serial number...

[Brian Abraham]

Latest from Avweb
Alouettes Remain Grounded

An FAA spokesman says a paperwork snag that has grounded an unkown number of French-built Alouette helicopters in the U.S. doesn't seem to have any easy solution. "The short answer is they're ungroundable," Roland Herwig, a communications officer for the FAA's Southwest office, told AVweb on Friday. Herwig also said he's continuing to gather information on the unusual case, which has shut down at least one helicopter operation in West Virginia. As AVweb reported in a July 20 podcast, Marpat Aviation of Logan, W.Va., had three Alouettes grounded on July 6 after FAA inspectors, accompanied by two state troopers, failed to find a Certificate of Airworthiness for Export that would have been issued by French authorities when the aircraft were sent to the U.S. Joe Altizer, Marpat's chief pilot, said the helicopters were purchased in the U.S. and all came with current U.S.-issued certificates of airworthiness in the standard category, meaning that FAA staff approved them for import without the paper they're now demanding. Altizer says it's not fair that current operators of the aircraft, who might be the third or fourth U.S. owners of them, should have their investments essentially erased because of an administrative error at the FAA.

Altizer said he and other Alouette owners have offered alternative solutions to the paper snag. He said the regs allow for other methods of proving airworthiness, but the FAA doesn't seem interested in pursuing them. He said the operators have even offered to bring French officials to the U.S. to inspect the aircraft and issue attestations to their airworthiness, but the FAA seems stuck on having the original paperwork only. The French officials wouldn't be able to issue export papers because the aircraft have already left their country."They're asking us for impossible paperwork," he said. Altizer said the aircraft can't even be shipped back to France because they can't be exported without current airworthiness certificates. Altizer said that to this point he's been cooperating with the FAA to try and find a mutually acceptable solution, but the agency's intransigence and apparent unwillingness to reveal information about the situation is forcing him to change tactics. The former Marine Corps air traffic controller says he's contacted his congressman and is looking for a meeting with top FAA officials, up to and including Administrator Marion Blakey.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Just ask the owners of the Bell "204's" what happened when the FAA determined their aircraft were actually UH-1B's.

They were parked permanently!:eek:

[matthew cobham]

i have had the pleasure of working at marpat for the last year and have watched this situation develop over the past 6 months, it is the most stupid situation an operator can be in, marpat bought the aircraft with all the correct paper work, and have complied with the usual regs that any other operator would comply with, except one day out of the blue some big wig decides that these aircraft dont have the paper work needed to operate, which the operator can never get, so we get shut down, lose all our aircraft and the pilots are as good as out of work, and none of it is the operators fault, its all the faa,s fault, the operator gets no compensation, no sorry, just told that we are no significant impact to the industry!!! funny ole world isnt it!!!!! but it gets worse, we are lucky to only be owners of allouettes which have a fairly low acquisition cost, i feel really sorry for the lama and gazzelle owners who are going to watch the value of their aircraft plummet!! we have been told there are approx 76 aircraft in the states to lose their CoA !!! im sure this is the beginning of whats going to be a long battle with operators and the faa and it will be a very interesting outcome.

just my bit!!!

blue skies

matt

[lartsa]

feel really sorry for the lama and gazzelle owners who are going to watch the value of their aircraft plummet!! we have been told there are approx 76 aircraft in the states to lose their CoA !!! im sure this is the beginning of whats going to be a long battle with operators and the faa and it will be a very interesting outcome.


when did gazelle owners come into the battle

[matthew cobham]

its anything with the artouste engine from the military, the whole range of aircraft which is using them, as far as we were told. it is not restricted to just allouettes at all!!!

[matthew cobham]

i stand corrected on the engine for the gazzelle!!! however the statement as i was told is still true.

[lartsa]

mathew

so is the problem with the artouste military engine not the artouste cilivil engine that would go in a civil allouette 2 or 3
or is it the whole allouette range

the tds sheet for alouette 2/3 gives the civil engines not the military variants we have a similar problem in the uk where the caa will not execpt [for the gazelle ]the military variant engine the astazou 3n2 but the do except the astazou 3a and the xivh

[matthew cobham]

as far as i understand, its the ex military versions in the usa that are having the problems, if they came over here in the civilian category and apparently there are a couple here from what i understand they are ok. i have now been told that this does not apply to just helicopters and that the faa is doing the same thing with ex military fixed wing, this i cannot confirm though, i recommend for more accurate info than i can give you should talk to bossman on verticalreference, he is my old boss who is dealing with the whole thing and somwhat of an expert now on what is happening across the states. i have now left marpat aviation and to be honest not as up to date on the info as i was!!

blue skies

matt

ps where in uk are you? im a brit in the states!

[rick1128]

All this is quite interesting. I have been involved in the importation of several aircraft over the years. Most of them did not have an Export C of A. It is my understanding that all the Export C of A does is shows that the aircraft meets the airworthiness requirements of the country the aircraft is being exported from and that the aircraft is 'de-registered' in the exporting country. Even with an Export C of A, you will sill have to do a conformity inspection to put an aircraft on the importing country registration.

I know of two aircraft that can in without an Export C of A that went through an FAA NASIP (National Aviation Safety Inspection Program) inspection without any issues. These inspections are conducted by FAA people out of Oklahoma City, Washington and the regional offices. It is not a fun experience going through that.

And I know of two ex-RAF aircraft that came into the US that the FAA themselves signed off on.

At one time it was possible to convert ex-military aircraft to normal category. However that changed a few years ago. Right now they can only be converted to operated in Restricted Category. There has been discussion on the part of the FAA to rescind all the normal category airworthiness certificates issued to former military aircraft. I have not seen anything official on this though.

I did discuss the issue with a Designated Examiner today. The word he has from the FAA is that the helicopters involved are all ex-military and the Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) was 'pencil-whipping' the paperwork. And that this person's authority had been pulled. However it does seem strange that the FAA office involved is not willing to consider options.

[captyankee]

If the DAR is a "pencil whipper" (sounds like a "Loomis statement") then what category does the FAA inspector (that signed off 7 of these birds) fall into?? And if the DAR got a revocation then why is the FAA inspector still on the job. This "Witch Hunt" is so out of balance - pitiful!!!

[ericferret]

According to the latest EASA listing the Artouste and Astazou II versions do not have a type certificate!!!!

This does not affect the III versions in the Gazelle, Alouette 3 and Lama.

I am sure that I saw an article somewhere which said Turbomeca were withdrawing support from the II versions not sure which suffix.

[lartsa]

the 11a engine is on the faa tds i cant find a allouette 2 tds on the caa site

heres a link if it works


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/56cb8d6209ac814f862572880073be24/$FILE/7H1.pdf

[ericferret]

It was actually CAP 747 where I saw the no TC comment in the list of engines manufactured by Turbomeca.

I am surprised by this, could be a mistake, but maybe they have withdrawn the type cert (Turbomeca).

[wvrotor]

The French have certified that the Alouette was built to French N1 and FAA 7H1 type certificates regardless of end user. The difference is that some end users did not require an airworthiness cert. at manufacture. Therefore any Alouette could be shown to comply with the original type cert.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Obviously the answer is not quite so simplistic as you make it out to be?

I am having a hard time understanding if the issue lies with Eurocopter, the DGAC (or EASA), the FAA or designee, or the importer of the aircraft.

Of course, it could be a combination of all of them working together!:eek:

[SawThe Light]

Back in the Aerospatiale Helicopter days, civil and military versions of the "same" model were followed by different airworthiness authorities as they came down the assembly line. The civil aircraft received civil blessing in the form of a DGAC Certificate of Airworthiness and the military machines received a Certificate of Conformity from the military quality department (sadly I forget its acronym now) attesting that they complied with the customer specifications and were airworthy.
The engines delivered for the military machines followed the same certification scenario with no civil certification. It is possible however to have the engine re-certificated as a civil unit during overhaul. Obviously this just couldn't happen with the airframe.
Wouldn't it have been so much easier for all concerned if the military S/N machines had beed removed from the list of applicable S/N's on the Type Certificate Data Sheets.
STL

[BedakSrewet]

I recall that in the Sud Aviation / Aerospatiale days all Alouette II's and III's were delivered in Army green, the only colour available to the first civil operators like Heli-Union and Schreiner in the early / mid sixties.

The Alouette III and its Lama brother probably were the greatest and most reliable single turbine engine helicopters ever built, of which many are still in service today generating income.

Hindustan Aircaft L td ( HAL) in India still builts both the Alouette III under the name Chetak, and Lama under the name Cheetah.

Believe that HAL even has re-engined the Cheetah with a RTM333 engine thereby improving its high altitude performance even more.

[ericferret]

In the UK the ex army Westland built Bell47 G3B1 (Sioux) and the Alouette 2's seemed to move to the civil register without any major issues other than prooving that military mods complied or were removed. The Lycomings were overhauled by Alvis and I doubt they had CAA approval, yet the engines were accepted.

The ex military Gazelles seem to have hit a stumbling block because the engine variant was never civil certified.

I can't understand why the Feds have suddenly got their knickers in a twist over this.
The numbers of aircraft must be fairly low and must have been operating for a while already.

I suspect that someone, probably a competitor, has filed a report citing the use of ex military aircraft.

[matthew cobham]

i heard a rumour at the very beginning of all this trouble that bell might be the instigator, cant confirm that though!!

[wvrotor]

Through the last seven months I have been trying to determine both the exact problem and a reasonable, and hopefully simple, solution. The problem is a moving target since no one in the FAA is empowered to single handedly assume responsibility for their issue. The nearest so far to the 'problem' they have come is the aircraft failed to obtain an Export C of A prior to leaving country of origin.

Simple answer, go to the existing guidance, AC 21-23B for us pilot types and FAA Order 8130.2F for the inspector types. Both allow for "other certifying document" if no Export C of A exists.

If said aircraft was never meant for civil service then no civil Type Design and TCDS should exist. In this case they do so anyone with the time and money should be able to demonstrate conformity regardless of the 'birth',' thats for Mark Shilling in Ft. Worth, of the aircraft. Apparently someone demonstrated said conformity on an approx. 80 Alouette series helicopters over several years to the satisfaction of numerous FAA types.
The only error I can point to in the process is the certifying document used did not state that the aircraft was physically inspected IAW guidance.

My GOD!!! Lets ruin the folks who bought these dastardly machines before someone discovers our error!!!!

Trust me guys, after fighting with this to this point I am certain of a few things. 1. No one is that stupid 2. #1 must lead to the thought that something else is going on.
FAA has lost its collective mind and can no longer function with the in efficiency it has become renowned for and has taken as its mission statement 'We're not happy til you're not happy.

Some one in this mess is dirty and we will push and push until we get to the bottom of it. After all, un employed folks have lots of time......

[lartsa]

yes but most of the 80 helicopters you refer to are civil only helicopters
which engine has your allouetts got in

not argueing just asking

[No_7DAD]

This was in a recent issue of Rotor and Wing
Check this out:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/personalcorporate/personalac/9843.html

[jonnyloove]

Is there any pics off these grounded helicopters??

[wvrotor]

lartsa

I really don't know if this is so. Every time I ask the FAA questions concerning this they get defensive and try very hard to, 1. not answer the question and 2. make you feel as if you are the problem.

I wish I were given the task of digging into this and of course the access to the information. I cannot believe the mission of the FAA here is to ground all these aircraft when the empirical evidence suggests that they are safe and a type design exists to which conformity could be demonstrated.

Lest we forget the OH6A Cayuse, aka Hughes 500C, also was purchased by the US military sans AW cert. and was later able to demonstrate conformity, or not, depending on the level of changes to undo and the financial ability of the owner.

[SASless]

This quote is from the R & W article.....

Most military surplus helicopters are older models that have a high number of flight hours, and are therefore no longer suitable for military operations.


Tell that to Columbia, , Erickson, and other operators of "old, worn out ex-military aircraft".

Or compare some of Bristow's 212's in Nigeria that had pushing 40,000 hours on them....it ain't the hours but the quality of maintenance of the people operating the aircraft.

I suppose we should ground the old warbirds that are flying yet today...such as the Spits, Mustangs, and B-17's.:ugh:

[B Sousa]

Most military surplus helicopters are older models that have a high number of flight hours, and are therefore no longer suitable for military operations
Total bullsh1t. Look at the Hueys that have hit the streets, many have only a couple thousand hours if that. Whoever writes this stuff, and I have seen it many times, is getting hosed by the Manufacturuers or someone in Government who is getting a double salary.
Most of the Tour Aircraft AS 350s in Las Vegas average over 10,000 hours. Well above what the surplus have.

[No_7DAD]

There is a distinction that must clear.
The FAA does not prohibit the use of surplus military aircraft. It is allowed most commonly under two categories.
1. §21.27 allow suplus military aircraft based on THAT aircraft's prior military history. The records must be complete so that airworthiness can be determined. Aircraft have been sold by the DoD as scrap (SH-60 used for water impact sudies) and been presented to the FAA for a Restriced Category Type Certificate and an airworthiness certificate. Older surplused aircraft are normally high time and are not surplused as airworthy by the Government.
2. A foreign military aircraft may be entitled to an Experimental Airworthiness under §21.191 for Exhibition. Many warbirds are under this rule.
It is also worth noting that several military type/designs have manufacturer reports, FAA approved, that allow the conversation of an airworthy military aircraft to a civilian design.
Generally, the FAA does not allow " . . .for compensation and hire operations" on an aircraft that does not hold a Standard Airworthiness Certification. Exceptions being for Restricted Category Operation (logging, external forestry, etc.,) - not over populated areas, etc. Also note, for example, that Erickson is the Standard Category TC holder for the S-64, Restricted Category TC holder for the CH-54, is an operator FAR §§133/137 and a FAR §145 Repair Station.
As to what the FAA looks into. Please see FAR §13.5 Formal complaints. It is not the FAA's place to take sides. The FARs require the FAA to look into formal complaints - so the question becomes waiting for the formal compliant or being proactive before the incident.

[Brian Abraham]

Latest off Avweb

FAA Revokes Alouette C of A

A West Virginia company says it wants its "day in court" to fight a seemingly perplexing decision by the FAA to ground dozens of French-built helicopters, some of which have been operating in the U.S. for years. As AVweb reported last month, the agency sent owners of some Alouette helicopters telling them they must have a "certificate of airworthiness for export" to fly legally in the U.S., even though FAA inspectors had authorized the importation of some Alouettes and issued valid U.S. C of A documents without that document. The issue mainly affects aircraft built for use by the French and German military, which have gone on the surplus market. Marpat spokesman Joe Altizer told AVweb the latest wrinkle is that while the documentation the FAA says it requires exists in French archives, French authorities are claiming the FAA has asked them not to release those documents to the owners. FAA spokesman Roland Herwig says he's looking into the allegations that the FAA is trying to block access to the French documents. Altizer said the FAA's inability or unwillingness to resolve the issue at the administrative level led him to openly defy the agency 10 days ago and that brought an immediate response in the form of an emergency revocation of the aircraft's certificate of airworthiness.

Marpat's Alouette was grounded for the paperwork discrepency on July 6 and Altizer said he spent five weeks trying to get answers from the FAA about how to make it legal again. On Aug. 13 the company sent an email telling the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate that it planned to resume flying its Alouette. After five weeks of silence, the agency responded the following day with the emergency revocation. Marpat appealed the revocation and that means a hearing must be held. Altizer said there is no safety of flight issue, as the Alouettes have shown themselves to be reliable aircraft. He said he hopes the hearing will require the FAA to reveal why it's gone to such extreme measures to ground aircraft that don't appear to be a threat to anyone.

[fling-wing_1]

So wots he latest on this debacle? After learning about all their dirtbag tactics employed over the years I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Cobham wasn't right and Bell is behind all this. What once was an ok company has devolved into a firm now run by pusses and lawyers. Pity the nutbags at Bell and the FAA can't get it into their heads that allowing operators to use surplus but safe and cheap aircraft will allow more players into the game and possibly these guys may eventually become bigger players and can afford newer and more expensive ships. Ask yourself how did all the big boys start out? I doubt most started with new(er) birds. Bloody wankers!!! :*

[hihover]

The FAA are going through all Alouettes, one-by-one and grounding them for not having an Export C of A.

I am only aware of one aircraft that has survived the scrutiny and the owner received a letter saying that his aircraft was of no further interest to the inspection team. The funny thing is....this was an ex Brit Mil helicopter....sold into the civil market in UK.....CAA C of A........Export C of A......US C of A......easy!

The whole issue stinks....I can't figure out what the smell is, but it still stinks.

[elro]

Eurocopter should have bought back all the ex mil alouettes and rebuilt them for the civil market and we wouldnt have all this mess :*