FAA manager would have problem flying most of country's helicopters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: QLD Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA manager would have problem flying most of country's helicopters
http://www.9news.com/mb/news/investigations/fueling-the-fire/faa-manager-would-have-problem-flying-most-of-countrys-helicopters/310674923
So the regulator all but admits they haven't done much since 1980 about mandating crash resistant fuel systems; the only solution being offered by the manager of the FAA's Flight Standards Service is to not fly in helicopters.
Awesome.
So the regulator all but admits they haven't done much since 1980 about mandating crash resistant fuel systems; the only solution being offered by the manager of the FAA's Flight Standards Service is to not fly in helicopters.
Awesome.
A few years back I started a similar thread.....thank you for being it back up and posting the Video that you did.
Pretty damning information but then what else does one expect from the FAA and the helicopter industry.
Your link again.....
FAA manager would have problem flying most of country's helicopters | 9news.com
Pretty damning information but then what else does one expect from the FAA and the helicopter industry.
Your link again.....
FAA manager would have problem flying most of country's helicopters | 9news.com
FAA and Tech Growth?
SAS, it's not only fuel systems. How about control systems? Starting with the Comanche in 1994 then the NH-90, the Canadian S-92 and the new USMC CH-53K, as well as the Bell 525, and the several tilt rotor designs, the introduction of fly by wire control systems is here, yet Part 29 and the attendant Advisory Circular AC 29-2C, (which is supposed to tell applicants how to test for compliance to the basic Part 29 requirements), have absolutely zero information regarding the new systems. Anyone know if the UK (CAA) or the French (DGAC) have published design and test standards for helicopter FBW yet?
Not just gas tanks
There are many many things that were approved by type design in the years since there were FAA approvals needed that have been changed. Part 29 has had many changes made that require demonstrated improvements in crash worthiness but that never affects previously type certificated designs, only new ones. Even if they never build another helicopter with something less than what people are suggesting, it is not possible to require retrofits unless an airworthiness directive is issued. Service bulletins do not carry regulatory weight in the US unless backed by an AD or if your OPS specs require that you comply with "mandatory" OEM service bulletins. Regardless of regulatory changes there will be less than ideal fuel systems for many years to come.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: QLD Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years back I started a similar thread.....thank you for being it back up and posting the Video that you did.
Pretty damning information but then what else does one expect from the FAA and the helicopter industry.
Your link again.....
FAA manager would have problem flying most of country's helicopters | 9news.com
Pretty damning information but then what else does one expect from the FAA and the helicopter industry.
Your link again.....
FAA manager would have problem flying most of country's helicopters | 9news.com
Either:
1) there is a problem with the standard that fuel systems are certified to and they should fix the standard, or
2) there is no problem with the certification standard
Either way the regulator complaining about the industry is not the appropriate response I would have thought.
If the regulator is admitting they have done nothing about system certification standards that they have concerns about, where does that put them if the family of someone who died in a post-crash fire wants to sue them?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Oregon, US
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin,
There is no problem with the standard.
There is a problem with the way the standard is applied.
This inspector wants to change the laws to change the way the standard is applied but does not have the political firepower to do so.
He is leveraging the weight of the public to build support for his position so that he can change the laws as needed to require retrofitting.
There is no problem with the standard.
There is a problem with the way the standard is applied.
This inspector wants to change the laws to change the way the standard is applied but does not have the political firepower to do so.
He is leveraging the weight of the public to build support for his position so that he can change the laws as needed to require retrofitting.
The difficulty is probably that while the primary types so far identified [H125 and R44] might be easily retrofitted there will be some that it will be near impossible to undertake this work either as a production line modification or particularly a retrofit.
I would expect howls of horror from Airbus and Robinson if only their airframes were cited and equally similar protests from the manufacturers of other types not so easily modified.
And how far do you go back? If you require reasonable retrofits on the 2016 H125 do you also require it on a still active 1976 AS355E?
I would expect howls of horror from Airbus and Robinson if only their airframes were cited and equally similar protests from the manufacturers of other types not so easily modified.
And how far do you go back? If you require reasonable retrofits on the 2016 H125 do you also require it on a still active 1976 AS355E?
