Bean Counting and the Art of Aircraft Maintenance

[SASless]

It is a common complaint today. The accountants and fancy pants MBA's show up after a company is bought out, taken over, or for some reason has a management change. In order to make the P/L Statement look good after the takeover, or change in management, cost cutting measures are enacted and a mass sell off of spare parts, special tools, and maintenance related items goes on. Money for upkeep, overhauls, and husbandry disappears, along with the employee's pension scheme.

I have seen it firsthand. I watched aircraft find their way to the scrap heap because it was not economically viable to do a major overhaul on them due to corrosion. The fact that overhaul intervals had been extended repeatedly, despite the aging of the aircraft and the time period allowed to do the inspections had been shortened , and the amount of repairs that could be done had been cut as well, might well have had a direct influence on why the aircraft had been in such a state. It makes one feel very good to know you had made the final commercial flight in an aircraft as it was scrapped for being unrepairable.

Are we seeing a new crisis developing in the helicopter industry? For all of these years, the helicopter operators have been cutting one another's rates in order to take business from the competitor.None had the will to raise rates significantly until PHI did so in the Gulf of Mexico in response to the arrival of the pilot's union and the major pay raise that brought about.

The net result of low rates has been a reluctance to buy new aircraft, or to modernize the fleets and now in the face of the new style of management ,regarding the underfunding of spares and engineering capabilities by some of the operators,this problem is bound to get worse. Are we going to see a greater incidence of accidents of aging aircraft due to mechanical reasons?

Are the operators cutting too close to the bone as a result of the new style of management?

What can pilots and engineers do to maintain the necessary safe standards required to keep aircraft flying reliably and safely? Are the authorities turning a blind eye to this situation.....do they even care about events in the helicopter industry?

How "old" can a helicopter be before it is too old to be used in commercial passenger service? How airframe hours are too many? Is the airframe an "on condition" subsystem of the aircraft? How do we determine the length of intervals for major inspections? Should the government be involved in overseeing the quality of major inspections of ageing helicopters? Should an international company's safety record in their home country be required to include all accidents worldwide or should they only have to report to each country the aircraft are licensed in? Should the government be involved in the setting of spares stocking levels?

Any firsthand observations of these kinds of things going on out there.....any horror stories that might point out the veracity of the complaints heard in any bar when pilots and engineers gather?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: SASless

I don’t know where you are located or which authority runs the show so what I will say here is based upon the USA. In the first paragraph you hit the nail on the head. Businesses of any type are run to maximize profits without excessive expenditures to maintain the business in a viable state. Just look at the major business in the United States that were run to maximize profits for the shareholders and the top management with no regard for the people working for the company. Whether it is an aircraft operation or energy conglomerate the situation is the same.

In your second paragraph I can only say it is sad that this condition is allowed to exist. Firstly the certification authority is supposed to make periodic visits to operators to determine that the maintenance is performed in according with manufacturing instructions and that there are no deviations taking place in the performance of that maintenance. You as a pilot have your ass on the line every time you get into one of those aircraft and although it is a touchy subject you should notify the authorities about the situation. From a mechanics perspective if he / she certifies an aircraft as airworthy and something happens he / she can lose his / her license and is subjected to a stiff fine and possible jail time. So in order to protect himself / herself he / she should report the situation to the authorities.

Regarding the third paragraph it is sad but this is a nature of business. Even though the operator charges less the shortfall is absorbed in personnel costs and maintenance. Personnel can be let go and the remaining personnel just work harder.

In the fourth paragraph you outline the demise of the industry due to the new management philosophies. You then ask if the results of this management philosophy can result in increased accidents. The asnswer is most likely.

In paragraph five you ask if management is cutting too close to the bone. They are not only cutting too close they are cutting into the bone.

Regarding paragraph six the FAA and possibly other certification authorities constantly plead poor mouth in not having sufficient personnel to make periodic inspections. With the advent of several major commercial accidents the FAA budget was increased to hire more inspectors. This was pure window dressing as it only applied to the commercial operators and not general aviation and especially the rotary wing industry. Regarding the certification authorities turning a blind eye to the problems in the industry I can’t say. But since the FAA has a tombstone mentality the only time their eyes open is when there is an accident and then most of the digging and analysis is performed by the NTSB which has no authority to mandate changes to eliminate technical problems. Small case in point is that the NTSB wanted to pull the certificates of airworthiness from Robinson and the FAA fought them tooth and nail. Another individual that may be turning a blind eye is you local techrep. If he is not reporting these unsatisfactory situations to his home office then he is not doing his job.

The manufacturer based on design calculations and major testing determines the age of a helicopter and how long it can stay in service. The same is true for the dynamic elements and the powertrain to include the engine(s). The manufacturer specifies overhaul times and what repairs are allowable to return a part to service. The manufacturer of some operators can extend these intervals providing certain things are done. The government normally does not get involved with life extension programs unless it is a passenger jet. You have highlighted a major problem relative to crosstalk between certification authorities. It is like the flag of convenience on ships. If ships are registered outside of the United States even though an American company owns them they do not have to meet USCG regulations unless they operate out of the United States. When an American built helicopter crashes in a foreign country and that helicopter is registered in that or a third country the FAA does not get involved even on commercial aircraft. The only involvement is when the foreign country invites the FAA and the NTSB to participate in the accident investigation. As I had indicated previously the manufacturer sets the spares level when the helicopter is purchased. This spares level is not the same for all operators of that aircraft. There is a complex formula that is used and it considers operational environment, capabilities of the maintenance organization, skill levels of the pilots as well as many other things. On commercial aircraft they use a similar formula to not only establish the level of spares but it is also used to determine the warranty package. Also on commercial aircraft the operator has the option to sell the spares back to the manufacturer after one year if the spares allocation was excessive.


With all of that said I am going to give you some advice. You may personally think of me as being an assbite with this theory being shared by many on this forum but this advice is based on my own experience. Do the following:

1) Send you post to the Certification authority. See what their response is.
2) Send you post to the company that insures the operator. See what their response is.
3) Send your post to the manufacturers of the aircraft at your facility. See what their response is.
4) If the certification authority drags their feet send a second letter along with the post and tell them that if they do not take action and an accident happens then the responsibility is theirs. Also tell them that you will send the post to several aviation writers at major newspapers and aviation magazines.
5) Send copies of all correspondence to the NTSB or your accident investigation branch because in the USA the NTSB hates the FAA. It may be the same in your country.

Why am I giving this advice? It is because I uncovered two major catastrophic design deficiencies in a large commercial aircraft while doing my job. Management at the company and several other companies elected not to follow my advice because it would cost them money. After I left the company I felt I had done everything possible to effect a change in the design. When I found that this commercial airliner was being certified in the USA I sent a letter to the FAA outlining the problem. Four months later I received a letter from the FAA telling me that they had contacted the DGCA in France and they indicated that the problems were corrected. I contacted a friend at the factory and he told me the problems had not been corrected. I sent a second letter to the FAA telling them that if any thing happened relative to these two problems the responsibility would be theirs. They finally took action and the Vice President and the chief program manager were fired. Guess what. The problems were never corrected. Now if an accident happens I can sell my services for $500.00 per hour pointing out the failures of the manufacturers and the certification authorities.

:eek:

[Flare Dammit!]

SASless wrote:
...Are we seeing a new crisis developing in the helicopter industry? For all of these years, the helicopter operators have been cutting one another's rates in order to take business from the competitor.None had the will to raise rates significantly until PHI did so in the Gulf of Mexico in response to the arrival of the pilot's union and the major pay raise that brought about.

Just to be fair, at PHI the union and the big rate increase were separate issues.

On that side of the pond, Era lead the way, instituting an across-the-board 30% rate increase. PHI and Air Log soon followed in timing which might look to the uninformed eye as bloody collusion. PHI's rate increase was in effect before the union contract was fully negotiated. I heard that pay and benefits were among the very last bits to be finalized.

Lu makes some interesting suggestions, starting with his letter-writing campaign. But you can send all the letters you want, and it's very likely that they'll simply be ignored. Oh, and you can tell somebody "if an aircraft crashes, the responsibility will be yours!" all you want, but that does not make it so. It is very hard to pin the blame for anything on any one specific person nowadays. And individuals really don't care if their agency takes the heat.

Operators will say, "Our aircraft are safe! They are overhauled and maintained to the current government standards. All of our life-limited parts are within their life limitations." Can even an insurance company argue with that?

Corrosion is something else. Aircraft cannot be kept flying forever, although there are 206's around with over 20,000 hours...on the data plate.

There will be more and more aircraft that are simply not economical to repair, and the hulls will be "scrapped." While that may mean something in the airplane world, it doesn't mean quite the same thing to us. The romantic notion of flying a helicopter to the boneyard to be scrapped is simply erroneous. In the hangar after its last flight, before the airframe is hauled off on a flatbed lorry, all useable bits will certainly be removed from the airframe. Ever seen a helicopter with all the components removed? Not much to it.

But when do you retire the old girl? When the trans finally pulls free of the deck fittings and the aircraft self-scraps? Economics will eventually dictate it. As new problems crop up, new inspection methods will be devised to accommodate them (witness the draconian Bell 47 blade grip inspections). That is how it's always been. But overall, manpower is cheap. ...Cheaper than new airframes, evidently.

[SASless]

Flare Dammit.....how about the 200 hour blade grip inspections on the Bell 212....now that is progress. Remember the wonderful LTS-101 hot end inspections....if you got one to last that long....after all 25 hours is a lot of flying.

Flying the thing to the scrap yard isn't romantic....it is down right sobering! Makes one wonder what the difference was between the last landing and the decision to scrap the old girl.

The average fleet age on the 212's was from 28,000-31,000 hours......most of that flying offshore.....and some of them are still flying. The overhaul period had been extended from 1200 hours to over 3000 hours.....that is the reason the corrosion was so bad.....it had too long to act before being caught. A poor accounting decison over-riding good engineering.

Say what you want, the pay rise is what drove the rate increase...at least that is the excuse that was given. The amazing thing is not one customer blinked or complained. Then within a few months, senior mangagement of one of the companies is on record as saying the rate increases now allows them to upgrade the fleet as well as paying the higher wages. Now as I read that statement in the trade mags....what it tells me is they should have raised rates a long time ago.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Flare Dammit

Lu makes some interesting suggestions, starting with his letter-writing campaign. But you can send all the letters you want, and it's very likely that they'll simply be ignored. Oh, and you can tell somebody "if an aircraft crashes, the responsibility will be yours!" all you want, but that does not make it so. It is very hard to pin the blame for anything on any one specific person nowadays. And individuals really don't care if their agency takes the heat.

I totally agree. That is why I added the comment about seeing what they say. In my case I used some very strong language to include that the DGCA did not do a complete job in the certification and the airframe manufacturer did not perform a specific test. With this incomplete certification process and the lack of adequate testing the FAA rubber-stamped the DGCA certification with out doing any detailed analysis of the design. The strongest words were my telling the FAA I was absolving myself of any responsibility in the event of a crash and a subsequent lawsuit. In said lawsuit these causal problems would come up and the improper certification process would also come to light and the finger would point not only to the DGCA but the FAA as well. As I indicated the FAA ultimately took action but the design was never changed and if aircraft are coming off the production line and the design is not changed then the airframe manufacturer is still no performing the test. Oh yes, I also sent copies of the letters to the NTSB. They were very appreciative but they told me they could do nothing, that is, until an aircraft crashed due to the design deficiencies.

:D

[Flare Dammit!]

Lu Z wrote:
The strongest words were my telling the FAA I was absolving myself of any responsibility in the event of a crash and a subsequent lawsuit. In said lawsuit these causal problems would come up and the improper certification process would also come to light and the finger would point not only to the DGCA but the FAA as well.

Yeah...uhh...maybe. Again, you can say anything you want about something not being your responsibility or heap it on someone else. It doesn't matter. I suppose that you imagine it'll go something like this?

FAA: "Your honor, we believe that Mr. Zuckerman with one 'n' is solely responsible for this accident due to his negligence in releasing an aircraft for flight with a known deficiency."

Defense Attorney: "Your honor! Mr. Zuckerman wrote the FAA a letter absolving himself of any responsibility in this situation!"

Judge (looking surprised): "Oh really?? Let me see that. Hmm...CASE DISMISSED!"

Yeah, right. Good luck, mate.

But it is good to get people on record when it comes to known deficiencies. At least there will be others to stand with when the fingers start pointing.

SASless wrote:
how about the 200 hour blade grip inspections on the Bell 212....now that is progress. Remember the wonderful LTS-101 hot end inspections....if you got one to last that long....after all 25 hours is a lot of flying.

I remember Bell 206 TT straps with a 300 hour retirement life, too. As with the 212 grip inspections, we will see more of these things in the future. But does this make a case for better inspection procedures, lower retirement life or the advent of newer helicopter designs that are cost-effective enough replace the old? Maybe all three?

The average fleet age on the 212's was from 28,000-31,000 hours......most of that flying offshore.....and some of them are still flying. The overhaul period had been extended from 1200 hours to over 3000 hours.....that is the reason the corrosion was so bad.....it had too long to act before being caught. A poor accounting decison over-riding good engineering.

Yeah, but again, helicopters don't get scrapped with all the expensive kibbles and bits still attached. They are cannibalised for every useable part. Me, I'd rather not see 28,000-hour airframes doddering around the skies, with good corrosion prevention or not!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Flare Dammit!

You are a very difficult to convince. In the USA when a crash occurs the lawyers representing the survivors and next of kin will have their investigators determine if there was any foul play on the part of the manufacturer, the operator, the pilot(s) and if required the FAA. In respect to the manufacturer they will not only subpoena the design records they will also look at the Reliability, Maintainability and System Safety analysis. If the failure that caused the crash was not considered in the respective analyses the respective engineers can be held liable. Since I did all three analyses on the particular aircraft and I revealed the deficiencies to my superiors and they did nothing about it they can be held liable. When I released the information to the FAA and if they did nothing about it then they can be held liable. They did take action resulting in the two firings but for whatever reason they never mandated that any modification be performed. That is why I made the comment about making a lot of money as a technical witness at any trial that might come along.

Here is an example of how deep the lawyers go when they are investigating a crash. Several years ago a Boeing helicopter was lost over the North Sea due to a transmission lock up and a break in the phasing of the two rotors. A design mod was made in the transmissions to increase the reliability of the nuts that hold the planetary gears in place. The design was inadequately tested per the military spec that qualified the transmission and when the helicopter went into service the underside of the nuts began to salt water corrode finally breaking under stress. They brought the transmission chief engineer into the trial as well as several designers and they were sued along with Boeing.

Please do not make comments about lawyers.

Regarding the low life times of elements in the dynamic systems of I assume Bell helicopters it all stems from inadequate design, poor manufacturing processes and poor quality control. I have raised this on several other threads.


:D

[SASless]

Flare,

If the aircraft are maintained within manufactuers spec's and within compliance of all existing regulations and are determined therefore to be airworthy.....what does it matter how many hours the airframe has on it. The dynamic components are all changed by schedule or upon condition so the total hours should mean nothing assuming all the bases have been touched by the operator.

What is your opposition to the "old" girls flogging around the sky?

What is your opinion on overhaul intervals for ageing aircraft? Should the inspection interval be lengthened since the aircraft is a known quantity over the many years it has been operating or should they remain the same or even be shortened due to the build up of stress cracks, corrosion, and general wear and tear from use? Do you consider it a wise use of assets to write off an airframe as a result of neglect when the same airframe could have remained airworthy with a reasonable application of assets over the life of the aircraft?

If you assume the aircraft is approaching 20-22 years of age...and thus has been paid for and depreciated several times including the write off of overhaul costs . Thereby making it a very cheap aircraft to operate based upon it's real cost as compared to the purchase of a new aircraft to replace it, is it not cheaper to properly maintain the old airframe? If you assume you replace the old 212 worth 1.5-1.75 Million USD with a new 412 costing 5.75-6 Million USD.....and of course all those moving components are excess to need upon the purchase of the 412 unless you are willing to sit on them until you need them for the 412, then in real dollars it is easy to see the fallacy of neglecting the aircraft during the overhaul. If you assume the lease cost per month of a and old 212 is about 25,000 USD and a new 412 goes for about 75,000 USD, then you once again can see the extra costs the operator will have to go to when the 212 has to be scrapped.

For my purposes, I would much rather ride around in a brand spanking new 412 with all the IFR goodies than an old rough riding beat up , cobbled up ol' 212....but then I am not having to pay the bills like the boss is! And.....that is probably why we fly the old rat traps at that outfit. It is just a shame they couldn't have been converted to VFR sling load machines or fire fighting machines where cosmetics do not count quite as much as in the offshore market.

[Flare Dammit!]

Lu, thanks for your reply. Actually, I agree with you completely on this issue.

SASless, I only wish the world was as black and white as you see it. The truth is, it's complicated and you know it. There obviously could be scenarios in which the things you say make perfect sense. And in those cases, you're absolutely right. If an old aircraft does the job acceptably, then there's no reason to get rid of it, other than the need to have the latest gizmos. However...

Aircraft lease costs are usually deductible. But let's not even get into the tax issues of operating aircraft.

Many pilots are under the (false) assumption that old aircraft have been "paid for many times" and therefore generate nothing but "profit" above their DOC's. In truth, such aircraft are often collateralized for loans, incurring continuing debt service, even if it's not in the way we conventionally think about individual aircraft or auto loans.

When an old aircraft type is phased out for a new one, if the old one can be sold it generates revenue. No matter how the airframe is disposed of, any surplus spares are sold, further offsetting the cost of the new acquisition. If the old type is scrapped, there are even more components to part-out. Does it always come out equally? Of course not, but sometimes there are other financial "incentives" to buying new ones.

How long can airframes fly? I agree with you, that with proper inspections and maintenance, an aircraft should be able to fly indefinitely. But that's a pretty big "if," and unless the manufacturers put a life limit on the airframe itself, then what constitutes an "overhaul?" Would you comfortably buy/fly a 30,000 hour airframe even if it came from a reputable operator? What would it be worth, even with zero-time components?

Helicopters are not aeroplanes. As you yanks are unfortunately seeing with your firefighting aircraft, fatigue takes its toll. (So does madness, but this isn't the Rocky Horror Picture Show, and I'm not Tim Curry.)

Also, airframes get heavier with age due to the patches and reinforcements that come with years of use and abuse. Older airframes will simply require more and more attention to detect the inevitable cracks. Older airframes suffer from more down-time than newer ones. And although it's not directly quantifiable, public, customer and pilot confidence erodes when the airframe passes a certain arbitrary age. The spectre of a catastrophic failure is something none of us likes to think about.

Ultimately and obviously, each operator has to decide which particular aircraft is suitable. Sadly, it's not up to you pilots to dictate anything. However "fiscally irresponsible" things may seem, rest assured that the owners are putting pounds in their pockets. (They just don't want to put them in yours.)