C of A & parts

[John R81]

I have drifted in from Rotorheads to ask a question. I have this question after reading the AAIB report
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...FB%2010-12.pdf which is currently the topic of much discussion over 2 separate threads.


If a helicopter is fitted with an engine that is not certified for civilian use, is that something that would be picked-up when undergoing engineering work / issuing or re-issuing the C of A?

Does the aswer to my first question above also apply to other flight-critical components?

Thanks

John

[lomapaseo]

If a helicopter is fitted with an engine that is not certified for civilian use, is that something that would be picked-up when undergoing engineering work / issuing or re-issuing the C of A?


Does the aswer to my first question above also apply to other flight-critical components?



A very good question but I hope the answers cover carefully the suggested wording of;

should vs would.

In other words there are two parts of this issue

Are there clear regulatory words that cover this and where?

Are there standard practices that ensure this?

[Rigga]

Reviewing an aircraft for a new CofA should compare the TCDS to the aircraft and should spot the difference...in my opinion.

[ericferret]

The UK c of a application form requires that you state the type and serial number of the engine fitted.
It also asks that you state any deviation from the type certificate.

It reminds you that lying could cost you £5000.

[NutLoose]

Trouble you can get is with what isn't known, I heard of one many moons ago imported from US pre La La days and when the engine eventually went after several years for overhaul it had for airboat use only cast inside one of the crankcase halves. No one knew, even the engineer and nothing in the books to say it had ever been replaced.

[John R81]

Thanks for the replies. I quite appreciate that an unrecorded internal part cannot be noticed but it seems that the annual check should have flagged the fitting of an incorrect engine, if not the other non-timed time expiring parts.

It is interesting to question whether the insurance was invalidated if the aircraft should not have had a CofA, even if it had a piece of paper. I suspect the answer will be driven by whether the owner / pilot knew of the deviation.

John

[ericferret]

If the engine is not per the type certificate then the C of A was invalid.
How the insurance company deals with this is another matter.
Doubt that the owner/pilots knowledge has any bearing on it.

[Rigga]

Having read most of the report it becomes a concern, to me, that it could possibly have been the pilot or an accomplice of his who had sourced the erreant parts and installed or modified the aircraft. There was no aircraft or flying Logs and no paperwork or records made of any illegal work done. It seemed obvious that no regular maintenance was carried out at all. It is possible he had the utmost disregard and disinterest in any formal documentation at all! I wondered if he actually had a car drivers' licence?

[DC-6B]

John

Usually for a c of a, not only has the aircraft/component have to conform with the appropriate TCDS but also it has to be proven that parts/components have a civilian regulations conforming maintenance history.

In recent years, I have done both, installation of military surplus equipment on civil aircraft as well as convert military operated/registered aircraft into civil register under EASA guidance.

In both cases, not only conformity to civil TCDS/component records had to be proven but also that all parts/components and the aircraft itsself was maintained conforming to civil standards. Whatever could not be proven compliant had to be overhauled by an EASA approved shop in order to get civil paperwork.

I guess it also depends on how deep the agency or its folks dig into the paperwork when they inspect the aircraft to issue a new c of a.

Regards,
Daniel

[John R81]

Daniel

Thanks for the explanation, which makes sense. I have no experience of this end of aircraft ownership - my machines are all UK-registered, Civil construction, and used for passenger transport hence my approac is that "I touch nothing!" - always have the maintenance crew tighten / loosen / bend / unbend, etc.

I knew that maintenance was less stringent for some classes of small private fixed-wing (Light Aircraft Association rules) but had always understood Helicopter maintenance to be the province of skilled professionals here in the UK. Certainly it seemed to my untutored eye that both the pilot and the maintenance organisations had some questions to answer, based on that report. Being dead, the Pilot cannot now answer for his errors in operating the Gazel.

Regards

John

[ericferret]

The only alleviation is as you say for LAA aircraft. In fact from a maintenance point of few the rules got a little tougher with EASA. They are now looking at easing some of the burden on light aviation. An example being the B3 licence for aircraft engineers which will be to a lower standard than the B1 but will be restricted in use.

I think it is worth pointing out that what has happened in this case is not new.
Illegal maintenance by people taking shortcuts to save money has always happened and will continue to happen. There has been a conspiracy of silence over this issue and when people have attempted to break it the CAA have been of no help.

There are particular dangers associated with helicopters due to the large number of lifed items.