I Am From the FAA And I Here To Help You!
Thread Starter
I Am From the FAA And I Here To Help You!
I could not make it all the way through this couple of video's....the urge to reach out through the screen and choke the life out of the FAA guy was too strong!
FAA Inspector Has No A&P - So why is he a FAA Inspector???
FAA Inspector Has No A&P - So why is he a FAA Inspector???
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sat in a court room and watched 2 FAA Safety Inspectors tesify, under oath, that you were not allowed to operate in the Hv curve. One was supposedly a long time utility pilot who had over 5000 hours of utility flying under his belt, and it was his opinion that you should not enter the Hv curve. The other was a recent military departee who had never flown commercial at all, but testified that you were not allowed be enter the Hv curve. They did not differenciate between power settings or loads, take-off, landing or slow-flight, just a blanket statement that it was not allowed. The truely sad part is that the Federal Judge ruled in their favor. I guess these inspectors don't require maximum performance take-off on evaluations.
The bottom line is the FAA is not your friend, is not always competant and is never to be trusted with your livelyhood.
The bottom line is the FAA is not your friend, is not always competant and is never to be trusted with your livelyhood.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In most single engine helicopters I have flown, you are in the "depicted" Hv curve any time you perform a maximum performance take-off.
Most long-line operations keep you in the Hv curve.
Many times you will see yourself in the "depicted" Hv curve during steep approaches.
When you look at how and where the "depicted" Hv curve is developed, it only is applicable and max gross weight, take-off power applied and within the curve. With that, you can see that a take-off at 100% power and max gross weight may place you within the "depicted" Hv curve at 40 knots while performing slow flight at the same gross weight, altitude and airspeed could well put you at a low power setting and in a condition favorable to a successful autorotation. Add a 20 knot headwind and it is no big deal.
When you tear it down further- and what the inspectors could not understand, is that the Hv digram applies to specific conditions. Outside of those conditions the digram may or may not apply. You may even find yourself operating outside the depicted diagram at a density altitude that does not afford capability to do a successful autorotative landing, even to a smooth hard surface.
You may find yourself well within the "depicted" curve but at a lower density altitude than chart was developed at and have much improved autorotative capabilities.
The Hv diagram is normally located in the "performance" chapter of the flight manual, and not the "limitations" chapter. If there is an operational need to operate in the depicted curve, nothing regulatory prohibits it. If you have an engine failure within that area, do not expect the aircraft to fare well. From the engine failures we have seen in the industry over the past several years, it seems there is no need for an Hv curve as most helicopters, and unfortunatly many occupants do not fare to well even in an engine failure from normal cruise.
Most long-line operations keep you in the Hv curve.
Many times you will see yourself in the "depicted" Hv curve during steep approaches.
When you look at how and where the "depicted" Hv curve is developed, it only is applicable and max gross weight, take-off power applied and within the curve. With that, you can see that a take-off at 100% power and max gross weight may place you within the "depicted" Hv curve at 40 knots while performing slow flight at the same gross weight, altitude and airspeed could well put you at a low power setting and in a condition favorable to a successful autorotation. Add a 20 knot headwind and it is no big deal.
When you tear it down further- and what the inspectors could not understand, is that the Hv digram applies to specific conditions. Outside of those conditions the digram may or may not apply. You may even find yourself operating outside the depicted diagram at a density altitude that does not afford capability to do a successful autorotative landing, even to a smooth hard surface.
You may find yourself well within the "depicted" curve but at a lower density altitude than chart was developed at and have much improved autorotative capabilities.
The Hv diagram is normally located in the "performance" chapter of the flight manual, and not the "limitations" chapter. If there is an operational need to operate in the depicted curve, nothing regulatory prohibits it. If you have an engine failure within that area, do not expect the aircraft to fare well. From the engine failures we have seen in the industry over the past several years, it seems there is no need for an Hv curve as most helicopters, and unfortunatly many occupants do not fare to well even in an engine failure from normal cruise.
Last edited by mfriskel; 4th Oct 2011 at 03:53.
HeliTester
You are joking right? You do realize that almost all external load operations are conducted inside the "shaded" area on the H/V curve?
Please explain exactly when (in your opinion) it is OK to enter the H-V avoid area.
Yeah that avionics inspector looks pretty silly in the video. I doubt one could find a better witness for the operator at any price. In my dealings with FAA inspectors, I've rarely encountered such a nimrod, but they are out there. I was once ramp checked by the inspector who was once pretty well known as the dope who grounded a light twin for "bent props". He had previously been assigned to an airline and had no idea that "Q-tip" props existed! I felt sorry for him because he was actually a decent fellow. But he sure screwed the pooch on that one.
As to the operator in question, this outfit has been known to me for years as an operator to steer well clear of. Their safety record speaks for itself and word around the 135 business has never been complimentary of this operator. Training, crew duty and maintenance issues have been areas where credible individuals have accused them of cutting corners and that's being kind. The instances cited by the FSF in the above link are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of incidents which have occurred.
It's no small wonder the FAA went after them, but it's inexplicable that they sent the bench warmers to do the job. The old NASEP inspection teams would have documented the evidence needed to close the book on these guys for good. Even the regular FSDO guys I've dealt with over the last 20 years would do far better. Inexplicable.
SASless, I see you're in Destin so I hope I'm not treading on any toes, but these guys are bad news and give 135 an even worse name than it deserves. (if that's possible!) They represent the on demand business at least as poorly as this inspector represents the FAA. I wouldn't work there if it was the last job in aviation.
One more thing regarding avionics inspectors: They are not required to hold an A&P certificate because their primary duties are supposed to be the inspection of avionics equipment and documentation for regulatory compliance. It's normal to see them working with OPS and Mx inspectors on base inspections, but this guy should never have been tasked with any responsibility for airworthiness inspection. The manager in charge and the overseeing regional legal council have some explaining to do.
As to the operator in question, this outfit has been known to me for years as an operator to steer well clear of. Their safety record speaks for itself and word around the 135 business has never been complimentary of this operator. Training, crew duty and maintenance issues have been areas where credible individuals have accused them of cutting corners and that's being kind. The instances cited by the FSF in the above link are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of incidents which have occurred.
It's no small wonder the FAA went after them, but it's inexplicable that they sent the bench warmers to do the job. The old NASEP inspection teams would have documented the evidence needed to close the book on these guys for good. Even the regular FSDO guys I've dealt with over the last 20 years would do far better. Inexplicable.
SASless, I see you're in Destin so I hope I'm not treading on any toes, but these guys are bad news and give 135 an even worse name than it deserves. (if that's possible!) They represent the on demand business at least as poorly as this inspector represents the FAA. I wouldn't work there if it was the last job in aviation.
One more thing regarding avionics inspectors: They are not required to hold an A&P certificate because their primary duties are supposed to be the inspection of avionics equipment and documentation for regulatory compliance. It's normal to see them working with OPS and Mx inspectors on base inspections, but this guy should never have been tasked with any responsibility for airworthiness inspection. The manager in charge and the overseeing regional legal council have some explaining to do.
Last edited by westhawk; 4th Oct 2011 at 06:56. Reason: A wee bit of typo fixing and some more stuff to say
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westhawk...
Smart, well balanced post, and many of us know what you're saying to be true.
However, as the Fed's like to say; Rules is rules (paraphrasing) but there's that sticky little number called burden of proof.
No argument that the outfit concerned merit a severe slap in the chops, but this Inspector (POI) is beyond the pale. Did he actually know what a deposition is? and that he would be required to support his demand for emergency revocation with something, anything, that even vaguely resembled proof of non-compliance.
The entire thing is embarrasing to watch and the guy seems oblivious to the fact that it looks like a 'witch hunt'...The judge is unlikely to bring the operators reputation into consideration, and that's a good thing in this case that reputations are not considered, as their legal reputation could only be considered flawless after 30 years with no violations, But the fact wasn't challenged by the fed. Although he was a hurting unit by that point and was looking for the nearest door...
It couldn't be that hard for a smart POI to 'get the goods' on theses guys, but apparently the FAA is fresh out of smart or even partially competent POI's...
Blue skies...170'
Smart, well balanced post, and many of us know what you're saying to be true.
However, as the Fed's like to say; Rules is rules (paraphrasing) but there's that sticky little number called burden of proof.
No argument that the outfit concerned merit a severe slap in the chops, but this Inspector (POI) is beyond the pale. Did he actually know what a deposition is? and that he would be required to support his demand for emergency revocation with something, anything, that even vaguely resembled proof of non-compliance.
The entire thing is embarrasing to watch and the guy seems oblivious to the fact that it looks like a 'witch hunt'...The judge is unlikely to bring the operators reputation into consideration, and that's a good thing in this case that reputations are not considered, as their legal reputation could only be considered flawless after 30 years with no violations, But the fact wasn't challenged by the fed. Although he was a hurting unit by that point and was looking for the nearest door...
It couldn't be that hard for a smart POI to 'get the goods' on theses guys, but apparently the FAA is fresh out of smart or even partially competent POI's...
Blue skies...170'
Last edited by 170'; 4th Oct 2011 at 08:20.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: around and about
Age: 71
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
FAA approach
A close and long-time friend of mine is a DAR. He phrases the new approach from FAA thus
"We're not happy, 'till you're not happy"
Some truth in this? - VFR
"We're not happy, 'till you're not happy"
Some truth in this? - VFR
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I can't be the only one looking forward to HeliTesters attempts to dig his way out of that hole !
mfriskel, cracking explanation, I especially liked the highlighting of where to find the H/V graph.
mfriskel, cracking explanation, I especially liked the highlighting of where to find the H/V graph.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check me if you have access to a current flight manual- is the 212, 412, 204 and 205 HV in limitations or performance chapter? They used to be in limitations, so in their case there is a good argument.
Still that would be a take-off limitation not an operations limitation. Wiggle room for operators.
Still that would be a take-off limitation not an operations limitation. Wiggle room for operators.
Hey - didn't that guy in the video used to advise the Bush administration on foreign policy?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by crab
Hey - didn't that guy in the video used to advise the Bush administration on foreign policy?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
mfriskel,
Woa, hold on there cowboy !
I was on your side
Woa, hold on there cowboy !
I was on your side
Thread Starter
The issue is the competence of the FAA Inspector, his preparation of the case against the Operator....and not the Operator.
If the Operator warranted being shut down...make your case...and take action.
Assumptions don't cut it.....facts do.
Either the aircraft had overflown a 100 hour inspection or it had not. If it had flown more than a hundred hours and the Logbook did not show accurate entries...then that is a violation. Operating on the idea of what a guy said and not documenting the evidence is culpable negligence and in the case of an FAA Inspector....criminal conduct.
If the Operator had a long history of being an "outlaw"....why had the FAA not shut them down long before now...and why would it be hard to make a case?
A NASIP Team could make mince meat out of an outlaw outfit!
If the Operator warranted being shut down...make your case...and take action.
Assumptions don't cut it.....facts do.
Either the aircraft had overflown a 100 hour inspection or it had not. If it had flown more than a hundred hours and the Logbook did not show accurate entries...then that is a violation. Operating on the idea of what a guy said and not documenting the evidence is culpable negligence and in the case of an FAA Inspector....criminal conduct.
If the Operator had a long history of being an "outlaw"....why had the FAA not shut them down long before now...and why would it be hard to make a case?
A NASIP Team could make mince meat out of an outlaw outfit!
I wonder if (unknowingly) the FAA have contaminated the industry with statements like this, re the Dead man's curve.
Any yankee drivers out there genuinely believe the HV curve is a no go zone?
Be honest.........................
Any yankee drivers out there genuinely believe the HV curve is a no go zone?
Be honest.........................
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mfriskel,
Woa, hold on there cowboy !
I was on your side
I was just trying to be accurate and admit that some manuals may have the Hv as a limitation, but only a limitation for certain operations ie take-off
Most manuals that I reference do not have Hv as a limitation.
Woa, hold on there cowboy !
I was on your side
I was just trying to be accurate and admit that some manuals may have the Hv as a limitation, but only a limitation for certain operations ie take-off
Most manuals that I reference do not have Hv as a limitation.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regrettably my earlier comment helped steer this discussion off-topic, but I think one more off-topic post is necessary to address the already posted the H-V comments.
mfriskel,
Thank’s for your thoughtful response. Your bottom line is basically the answer I was looking for. From a regulatory standpoint if the H-V diagram is located in the RFM Limitations Section it is not legal to enter the avoid area, but that’s not the case if it is located in the Performance Section where it is provided for information. I note that for Transport Category helicopters with more than 9 passenger seats the H-V diagram must be placed in the Limitations Section, but if those helicopters are configured with 9 or less passenger seats the H-V diagram may be placed in the Performance Section. I don’t know the reason for the FAA Inspectors’ testimony that you referred to, but if it was within the context of a large Transport Category helicopter accident resulting from engine failure within the H-V avoid area they might have been correct.
Gordy,
I recognize that an external load operation is a different animal, and FAR 133.47 states that the H-V diagram need not be placed in the RFM Limitations Section.
HillerBee and 170’,
If the H-V curve is located in the RFM Limitations Section it is most certainly a limitation, and it is not OK to operate in the H-V avoid area.
Whether or not the H-V curve is located in the Limitations Section or the Performance Section of the RFM it is an entity to be respected. Engine failures occurring within the H-V avoid area typically result in bent metal or worse. Based on my experience and that of my colleagues, helicopter manufacturers damage more aircraft during H-V envelope development testing than structural flight testing.
mfriskel,
Thank’s for your thoughtful response. Your bottom line is basically the answer I was looking for. From a regulatory standpoint if the H-V diagram is located in the RFM Limitations Section it is not legal to enter the avoid area, but that’s not the case if it is located in the Performance Section where it is provided for information. I note that for Transport Category helicopters with more than 9 passenger seats the H-V diagram must be placed in the Limitations Section, but if those helicopters are configured with 9 or less passenger seats the H-V diagram may be placed in the Performance Section. I don’t know the reason for the FAA Inspectors’ testimony that you referred to, but if it was within the context of a large Transport Category helicopter accident resulting from engine failure within the H-V avoid area they might have been correct.
Gordy,
I recognize that an external load operation is a different animal, and FAR 133.47 states that the H-V diagram need not be placed in the RFM Limitations Section.
HillerBee and 170’,
If the H-V curve is located in the RFM Limitations Section it is most certainly a limitation, and it is not OK to operate in the H-V avoid area.
Whether or not the H-V curve is located in the Limitations Section or the Performance Section of the RFM it is an entity to be respected. Engine failures occurring within the H-V avoid area typically result in bent metal or worse. Based on my experience and that of my colleagues, helicopter manufacturers damage more aircraft during H-V envelope development testing than structural flight testing.