NZ CAA name an operator in CAN

[Planetary]

So has anyone seen this?

www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/Airworthiness_Directives/Continuing_Airworthiness_Notices/CAN-05-008.pdf

Before the TAIC report is complete, CAA have issued a Continuing Airworthiness Notice naming an operator/maintenance organisation.
The notice suggests that there are issues with life limited parts.
One wonders if the issue stems from the use of time-exd KHI parts in the MBB BK117 (higher SLL in the MBB).
Something must be rotten for the CAA to preempt the TAIC report.

[Kiwi500]

This is going to cause some pain.....and cost! ��

[SuperF]

Hmmm. Helipro. the gift to the industry that just keeps on giving...

[zac21]

Helipro:
If you think this is not quite right, try Helipro Fiji.
Peas in a pod?

[heli1]

Can someone explain what sll means in the earlier post,and which BK117 accident is being referred to.I assume this notice could affect BK117s since sold outside New Zealand too?

[[email protected]]

I would guess within the context of that document that SLL means Service Life Limit.

[Planetary]

This is the accident referred to:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=195171

It's a good summary with news links and some video.

[LPS500]

Hmm the plot thickens. Article here but text below https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/100219359/helicopter-crash-pilot-hit-with-warning-over-significant-maintenance-anomalies

Helicopter crash pilot hit with warning over 'significant' maintenance anomalies

A probe into helicopter crash pilot Rick Lucas' plunge into the sea north of Wellington has triggered an airworthiness notice, which has left helicopter engineers angry and puzzled, a former crash investigator says.

Lucas' former chief engineer Tom McCready, a former Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) investigator, said engineers in the industry were angry at the timing of the notice, which was issued three days before Christmas by the authority.

The notice alerts new owners and operators over "significant", potentially dangerous, maintenance anomalies related to aircraft previously operated by Lucas.

In May, Lucas escaped unharmed after his twin-engine BK117 helicopter crashed into the water at Pauatahanui Inlet near Porirua.

While researching the maintenance history of the BK117, Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) investigators found what appeared to be "significant anomalies" with the maintenance and engineering practices applied to the accident helicopter, a statement on the CAA's website says.

"Both TAIC and the CAA are concerned that if similar maintenance and engineering practices were carried out on other aircraft previously operated by Rick Lucas Helicopters Limited or other aircraft previously operated by Helipro Aviation Training Limited, and aircraft previously maintained by Helipro Aviation Support Limited, then those aircraft could be at risk. The current owners/operators of those aircraft could be unaware of that risk."

All three companies went into receivership in October 2014.

Lucas was flying for Heliforce, carrying power poles, when he crashed.

On Thursday, Lucas said he was "not privy" to the particulars of the notice but said the issue seemed to be between McCready - his former chief engineer - and the authority.

Lucas said he supported "one hundred per cent" the "skilled and highly qualified" engineers who had worked on his aircraft.

He was not aware of any safety issues and said the notice was "interesting" as it asked owners to do checks they should do annually anyway.

McCready, a former CAA investigator, said the fleet of about 32 helicopters under Lucas' companies had been the largest in the country and he questioned the timing of the issuing of the notice, which had ruined Christmas for a lot of engineers.

In previous discussions with TAIC over the crash helicopter, McCready said they had failed to provide him with log cards and tracking information, which led him to suspect the commission did not have all the information.

"To say I'm pissed off is an understatement."

All the engineers who had been working for Lucas had been "scooped up" by the industry within days of the companies going in to receivership, which was a testament to their expertise and skill.

Although vague, the notice was written in damning language and had left engineers in limbo as they awaited further communication from both authorities, McCready said.

It turned out Lucas was facing charges of careless flying related to earlier incidents in the region at the time of the inlet crash.

In September, Lucas pleaded not guilty to careless flying charges brought against him by the authority, which he will defend in May.
The CAA has been approached for comment.

[Thruster763]

Reading the CAN the applicability is all aircraft operated or maintained by a Helipro or Rick Lucas company. The first action is to determine if the aircraft was operated or maintained by them, so in theory it is applicable to all NZ aircraft, not just BK117's or helicopters generally. Practically it means an engineer with IA has to check the maintenance and ownership history of every NZ aircraft back to 1st Jan 2012 and make a compliance statement against the CAN. Even if it was limited to helicopters that's a lot of work, but as worded it includes fixed wing aircraft too. I've no idea if the companies did any fixed wing work.

[noooby]

Everyone in NZ knows if their aircraft has been owned by HeliPro/Rick. It's probably still bright red for one thing!
The market in NZ isn't that big. Everyone knows everyone else and they also know the machines.
I don't see the big deal. IA's already know if their aircraft has been owned by HeliPro. The one that MIGHT take some time is figuring out if it has been leased to them before. A quick check on the CAA website will confirm ownership history.
And I don't know why Tom is surprised. He knew the history of the company before he went there.

[Thruster763]

If they were that well known the CAA NZ would have listed them. It's not just ownership or leasing to the company(s) it includes any maintenence by them. You would need to know your aircraft very well to be sure that it had not been through their hands in the last 6 years or had a part supplied by them fitted. And the A.I. is making a certification. I'm a licenced engineer and would not do it without at least looking at the maintenence records. Anyone who relied on their "knowing" is little better than those who presumably carried out improper maintenence. A quick search showed thy had about 30 rotary and 12 fixed wing aircraft.

[CAR42ZE]

I agree with you thruster. CASA did the same thing over here in Australia a few years ago with some NDT mob in Darwin - how did they respond? By making a bloody AD! I also knew none of my helicopters had been up there, but because it was an AD, we needed to show specific oversight in our records for historical purposes.

Then you go down a rabbit hole of "what if some components were sent there???"

[noooby]

I don't believe HeliPro did outside Maintenance work, they only maintained their own machines. They certainly didn't when I was working around that part of the world. But that is a long time ago.

Hence my statement about it not being too difficult to track down the machines.

If they've done third party maintenance, then that is a whole new can of worms. And yes, close examination of the logbooks and logcards will be required.

Might be time to dust off my IA??

[Kiwi500]

They definitely did outside maint work.