NZ aviation company owner charged over crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Story from Stuff.co.nz report, also reported in the New Zealand Herald
An aviation company owner has been charged with having main rotor blades past their use-by date on a helicopter that crashed.
The Robinson R22 went down in the Taupo area in March 1998, plunging 100m into dense bush.
Two men on a hunting expedition walked away virtually unscathed.
Peter Maloney, 48, of Dairy Flat, north of Auckland, the owner of Aviation Classics Ltd, has appeared in North Shore District Court on a charge of endangering transport.
Maloney is also accused of fraudulent use of a maintenance log book.
A hearing has been set down for next month.
The police maintain that the rotor blades had exceeded their finite life of 2000 hours by 111.5 hours when the crash happened.
It is alleged that the maintenance log was altered to allow an extra 600 hours flying time before the rotor blades and spindles were serviced and/or replaced.
Aviation company owner charged over 1998 helicopter crash
An aviation company owner has been charged with having main rotor blades past their use-by date on a helicopter that crashed.
The Robinson R22 went down in the Taupo area in March 1998, plunging 100m into dense bush.
Two men on a hunting expedition walked away virtually unscathed.
Peter Maloney, 48, of Dairy Flat, north of Auckland, the owner of Aviation Classics Ltd, has appeared in North Shore District Court on a charge of endangering transport.
Maloney is also accused of fraudulent use of a maintenance log book.
A hearing has been set down for next month.
The police maintain that the rotor blades had exceeded their finite life of 2000 hours by 111.5 hours when the crash happened.
It is alleged that the maintenance log was altered to allow an extra 600 hours flying time before the rotor blades and spindles were serviced and/or replaced.
FL,
There is no way in the world that those blades failed due to an extra 111 hrs. 1111 maybe, and then some. It would be interesting to know what type of work the machine was doing and how many times the tacho needles looked like goal posts cause it's more likely to be what the blades have been subject to during their life rather than a few extra hrs unless it's done a lot more then they have pinned him for. But hey, 1 hr or a thousand hrs, he's in deep %#*$ and he deserves it.
There is no way in the world that those blades failed due to an extra 111 hrs. 1111 maybe, and then some. It would be interesting to know what type of work the machine was doing and how many times the tacho needles looked like goal posts cause it's more likely to be what the blades have been subject to during their life rather than a few extra hrs unless it's done a lot more then they have pinned him for. But hey, 1 hr or a thousand hrs, he's in deep %#*$ and he deserves it.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could be a previous owner had done the same, making it way over.
Could be 111 hours was all that could be proven.
Regardless of what caused the failure, he was caught breaking the law.
Shame he wasn't driving when they failed.
Are the folks that got nailed for selling bogus/time-ex parts over there out of jail yet?
Could be 111 hours was all that could be proven.
Regardless of what caused the failure, he was caught breaking the law.
Shame he wasn't driving when they failed.
Are the folks that got nailed for selling bogus/time-ex parts over there out of jail yet?
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silberfuchs writes:"An example of these id'yits needs to be made lest the next charge be manslaughter or negligent homicide."
If all that is posted here is true it seems like more than one"id'yt" out there. Owners who do this and Pilots who want to build time hoping things wont fall apart. This is not an isolated incident. It happens all over the place.
If all that is posted here is true it seems like more than one"id'yt" out there. Owners who do this and Pilots who want to build time hoping things wont fall apart. This is not an isolated incident. It happens all over the place.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you pick one from column A you gotta take one from column B
The Robinson rotorhead is unique in that it can teeter like a Bell and it can cone (flap) like a Sikorsky. In the Bell design the rotorhead is underslung in order to minimize if not totally eliminate leading and lagging. However when the blades cone (flap) independently of the teeter hinge you can in some cases cause the blades to lead and lag. There is no provision in the design of the rotorhead to permit the leading and lagging so the energy imparted by the leading and lagging is restrained by the cone hinges. The energy is reacted by the rotorhead and the mast,which twists positive and negative. The energy is eventually reacted by the transmission and the aircraft structure.
The blades will flex inplane where this flexing is continuous and over a long time this will result in metal fatigue.
The next time your rotorhead is torn down for maintenance check the cone hinges for wear. This will be the first indicator that excessive flexing of the blades is taking place.
But then again what do I know as I am the village troll.
The blades will flex inplane where this flexing is continuous and over a long time this will result in metal fatigue.
The next time your rotorhead is torn down for maintenance check the cone hinges for wear. This will be the first indicator that excessive flexing of the blades is taking place.
But then again what do I know as I am the village troll.
I do not mean to comment on this particular caseon as the facts are not presented in the thread, nor is the defendants case summarised,. However, from a general point of view I am fascinated that the charges are "endangering transport" and "fraudulent use of a maintenance log book". What if the two occupants were killed - would the charges be any different?
When looking at Murder charges, they have a provision for an "attempted murder" charge for a an act that did not actually result in a death, but that was either intended to, or could be reasonably foreseen to be likely to result in death. But is there any serious charge resulting from an act that would have, or is reasonably foreseeable to have, resulted in manslaughter?
So, following that logic, wouldn't it be considered extremely improbable for helicopter occupants to survive a main rotor blade separation? Is it reasonably foreseeable that the blade will eventually fail after exceeding hours? Is there a reason not bring a more serious charge?
My sentiment that it is reasonably foreseeable may be in doubt when you get postings like bellfest:
I reckon that manufacturers continue to reduce component life because of this type of sentiment in an attempt to stop as many as possible of the operators who try to outguess the life tolerances set by the manufacturer. I have heard about "engineering tolerances" my whole career, and there are many passionate advocates on both sides of the acceptability of over flying times/tolerances.
Personally, I think once you start intentionally using them, you have forfieted your "get out of jail free card" and there are few excuses when it ends in tears. But intentionally overflying component tolerances effects all those who fly the machine after you - and there is no way of knowing when the damaging effects will come home to roost. But they will come home eventually.
When looking at Murder charges, they have a provision for an "attempted murder" charge for a an act that did not actually result in a death, but that was either intended to, or could be reasonably foreseen to be likely to result in death. But is there any serious charge resulting from an act that would have, or is reasonably foreseeable to have, resulted in manslaughter?
So, following that logic, wouldn't it be considered extremely improbable for helicopter occupants to survive a main rotor blade separation? Is it reasonably foreseeable that the blade will eventually fail after exceeding hours? Is there a reason not bring a more serious charge?
My sentiment that it is reasonably foreseeable may be in doubt when you get postings like bellfest:
There is no way in the world that those blades failed due to an extra 111 hrs. 1111 maybe, and then some.
Personally, I think once you start intentionally using them, you have forfieted your "get out of jail free card" and there are few excuses when it ends in tears. But intentionally overflying component tolerances effects all those who fly the machine after you - and there is no way of knowing when the damaging effects will come home to roost. But they will come home eventually.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more serious charge, if someone dies, is manslaughter.
See these links
Engineer cleared of manslaughter
and
Engineer jailed for endangering aircraft
Heliport
See these links
Engineer cleared of manslaughter
and
Engineer jailed for endangering aircraft
Heliport
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a really bad thing when we cant trust each other to log properly, both hours and overspeeds/overtorques. Our profession demands honesty in all these things, as a moral and ethical duty. We trust the person who flew before us to log accurately, and honestly fess up to mistakes where an inspection is needed.
If you know a pilot or mech who does otherwise, it is your duty to turn him in, the way you would if he put poison in a baby bottle, or took the screws out of a kiddie ride.
If you know a pilot or mech who does otherwise, it is your duty to turn him in, the way you would if he put poison in a baby bottle, or took the screws out of a kiddie ride.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
It is much worse than just the immediate risk - the whole ICAO/western world scheme of Continuing Airworthiness control relies on the aircraft records being a true record of every event in the aircraft's life from cradle to grave. The only safe way of buying some of these machines is to buy it new, because the level of reporting abuse must raise serious doubt about the history of any second-hand machine.
Our pilot who is aiding and abetting the falsification of the aircraft history may well be aiding and abetting the death or injury of persons in the future who remain unaware of the aircraft history due to multiple ownership changes. He/she is also risking their own well-being because they have no idea of how long the under-reporting has gone on!!
Let us not dress it up as anything other than criminal conspiracy to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
Stay Alive,
It is much worse than just the immediate risk - the whole ICAO/western world scheme of Continuing Airworthiness control relies on the aircraft records being a true record of every event in the aircraft's life from cradle to grave. The only safe way of buying some of these machines is to buy it new, because the level of reporting abuse must raise serious doubt about the history of any second-hand machine.
Our pilot who is aiding and abetting the falsification of the aircraft history may well be aiding and abetting the death or injury of persons in the future who remain unaware of the aircraft history due to multiple ownership changes. He/she is also risking their own well-being because they have no idea of how long the under-reporting has gone on!!
Let us not dress it up as anything other than criminal conspiracy to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
Stay Alive,
Helmet Fire,
Being involved in the mustering industry for a long time I have seen many aircraft overfly hrs. Though I don't agree with it the fact is that people have been doing it for years and unless something changes in a hurry it will continue to happen. R22 blades now have 2200 hrs to retire instead of 2000 like they used to have. If someone did 2111.5 hrs before the extension was granted and the blade failed it would have been due to overflying by 111.5 hrs. It's not right, but it happens and all operators should log exact times but they don't. I'm not suggesting that it's ok if your gonna overfly by a couple of hundred hours because that's just not cricket. However, I will stand by my opinion that the 111.5 hrs extra on those blades contributed about as much to the failure as religion contributes to world peace. Overspeeds and operational abuse is more likely don't you think?. Not reporting an overspeed or similar is just as bad if not worse than fudging hrs yeah?. That's my opinion anyway, I'd rather jump in an R22 that's done 2300 hrs with a good driver then one that's done 1500 hrs and been flogged to death. In real life, I wouldn't get in either.
Being involved in the mustering industry for a long time I have seen many aircraft overfly hrs. Though I don't agree with it the fact is that people have been doing it for years and unless something changes in a hurry it will continue to happen. R22 blades now have 2200 hrs to retire instead of 2000 like they used to have. If someone did 2111.5 hrs before the extension was granted and the blade failed it would have been due to overflying by 111.5 hrs. It's not right, but it happens and all operators should log exact times but they don't. I'm not suggesting that it's ok if your gonna overfly by a couple of hundred hours because that's just not cricket. However, I will stand by my opinion that the 111.5 hrs extra on those blades contributed about as much to the failure as religion contributes to world peace. Overspeeds and operational abuse is more likely don't you think?. Not reporting an overspeed or similar is just as bad if not worse than fudging hrs yeah?. That's my opinion anyway, I'd rather jump in an R22 that's done 2300 hrs with a good driver then one that's done 1500 hrs and been flogged to death. In real life, I wouldn't get in either.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But is there any serious charge resulting from an act that would have, or is reasonably foreseeable to have, resulted in manslaughter?
thanks rotornut. Your charge requires an actual death to be supported (I think), but what I was after was a charge that could be brought for an act that didn't actually result in a death, but is highly likely too (such as attempted murder). In other words, a charge that was something like "criminal negligance that was likely to have resulted in loss of life" or "intentional act or omission that caused a situation where loss of life was likely and reasonably foreseeable"?
Again - I do not direct these comments at this particular case as I dont have the facts! This is a general comment relating to the intentional overfly of component tolerances.
bellfest: I agree with your sentiment, but I think that there is two ways of looking at accident chains. You have selected the obvious one, and your logic is sound, but how about a different angle? What if the blade did fail due to overtime? Even considering the abuses you suggest, there would have been no crashed helicopter and no endangered lives if the blades had been grounded at correct times. And perhaps that abuse is factored into some manufacturers component time calculations such that they theorise that there will be X percentage of abuse of X nature, therefore compnent times should be limited to Y. Thus, the overflight becomes the trigger rather than the abuse per se, but I agree that it is unlikely (not improbable) that overflights of this nature would be sufficient to cause failure in isolation from abuse.
I think this point is a demonstration of what I said above, that if you start trying to guess how much over tolerance is acceptable, you have forfieted your "get out of jail free card" when (not if) it ends in tears.
Again - I do not direct these comments at this particular case as I dont have the facts! This is a general comment relating to the intentional overfly of component tolerances.
bellfest: I agree with your sentiment, but I think that there is two ways of looking at accident chains. You have selected the obvious one, and your logic is sound, but how about a different angle? What if the blade did fail due to overtime? Even considering the abuses you suggest, there would have been no crashed helicopter and no endangered lives if the blades had been grounded at correct times. And perhaps that abuse is factored into some manufacturers component time calculations such that they theorise that there will be X percentage of abuse of X nature, therefore compnent times should be limited to Y. Thus, the overflight becomes the trigger rather than the abuse per se, but I agree that it is unlikely (not improbable) that overflights of this nature would be sufficient to cause failure in isolation from abuse.
I think this point is a demonstration of what I said above, that if you start trying to guess how much over tolerance is acceptable, you have forfieted your "get out of jail free card" when (not if) it ends in tears.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helmet fire,
There are no such offences in the Criminal Code of Canada. According to the Code, criminal negligence must result in either death or bodily harm. And there can be no attempted criminal negligence as it would not logically or legally accord with the essence of the offence which only requires that the crown prove recklessness on the part of the accused. In other words, there is no such thing as attempted recklessness.
There are no such offences in the Criminal Code of Canada. According to the Code, criminal negligence must result in either death or bodily harm. And there can be no attempted criminal negligence as it would not logically or legally accord with the essence of the offence which only requires that the crown prove recklessness on the part of the accused. In other words, there is no such thing as attempted recklessness.
