|
Wessex loggers grounded
CAA explains why firm's choppers remain grounded
07 April 2005 A Taranaki helicopter logging company has spent $7 million on 11 helicopters that it may not be able to use. Civil Aviation Authority Director John Jones today briefed a parliamentary select committee on Heli-Logging Ltd's application for an exemption so it can use ex-military Westland Wessex helicopters from the United Kingdom in its Stratford based operation. Mr Jones told the committee the model was not supported by the equivalent authority in the UK it withdrew certification in the 1990s after serious accidents which meant it did not qualify for normal New Zealand certification and an exemption would be required for the business to use it. The CAA had concerns about using helicopters for a purpose they were not designed for. "The military aircraft are designed for quite specific and different roles from civil and the design and maintenance of them is also different," Mr Jones told the committee. "World-wide (there's) a very high accident rate for ex-military helicopters in civil operations and unfortunately in my view those accidents have resulted in a disproportionate number of fatalities." In the United States in one 18 month period there were six logging accidents using ex-military helicopters half those accidents were fatal taking nine lives. In the UK a civilian model of the Wessex was involved in 27 accidents between 1976 and 1993. And in New Zealand in 2001 Motueka pilot Peter McColl, 39, was killed when the adapted 1964 Westland Wessex helicopter he was using to recover logs near Motueka crashed. Metro Logging Ltd, the Christchurch-based firm which owned the helicopter, was charged with running the operation in breach of the Civil Aviation Act and was fined $6000 on guilty pleas to 12 charges. Other ex-military aircraft had been involved in several fatal accidents in New Zealand. Mr Jones said another concern was that flight trials Heli-Logging did on the aircraft showed a 90 per cent reduction in the life of some components. Parts that would normally last 4000 hours only worked properly for 400 when the aircraft was used to carry logs. After the briefing Mr Jones said the case was "unusual". "Not many people would try use a special experimental category aircraft on commercial operations. It's not allowed under our laws at the moment," he said. Mr Jones said most logging operators bought a normal certificated aircraft and do logging "and that's perfectly okay." However Heli-Logging Ltd Managing Director Mark Ford did not see any reason against using the helicopters for logging. "It's a very successful aircraft." He said dealing with the CAA was like fighting a brick wall and there was "most definitely" personal animosity against him. Other operators had told him CAA staff has said there was no chance the helicopters would be approved. "I feel gutted," he said. Mr Ford asked the High Court in December for an injunction to force Mr Jones to make a decision about his application but it was dismissed. If the CAA refuse an exemption Mr Ford has vowed to keep fighting. "We'll get there. We wouldn't have started it if we weren't confident." At the moment Mr Ford has eight of the 40-year-old Wessex aircraft that cannot be used for anything but passenger work. Three are yet to be delivered from the UK. They were previously used by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. Mr Ford felt the process had taken far too long he first applied for the exemption in January 2003 but Mr Jones said considerable time and energy had gone into the case. "We're doing everything we can. It takes a lot of time up to analyse this sort of stuff and we've got to be sure from a safety point of view that at the end of the day it's safe." |
Can't help but feel that the NZ CAA has got it right!
|
Agree with shortshaft
It can't be that big of a surprise that they wouldn't be approved if he had talked to the CAA before buying the helicopters. It's not the best way to first buy helicopters, then seek approval. Doing it the other way around is obviously less risky. Seems to me that Mr Ford gambled on getting a couple of very cheap helicopters and lost. Maybe lacked a little bit on the research-side?
It's the same thing with the BO105 that are beeing sold by the german army, they can't get on the civil register, so it doesn't matter how cheap they are because without a registration they're suddenly very expensive. Knowing this keeps me from trying to get one. /2beers |
Dont wanna sound harsh but might have somrthing to do with the ex Mil Scouts everybody rushed out and bought and crashed after the 5 Hr conversion
|
wessex grounding
Just read an article on Westland helicopters about the wessex.
Seems they were built for bristow in the 60's for use in the north sea and had a civvy licence. How does that put things in perspective?? does the licence run out? |
Bristow lost at least two - blade delamination ISTR.
|
Ah, can we merge this with the other two threads on this subject, lots of repeating going on, and it is starting to get disjointed :-)
noooby |
Court of Appeal allows fraud case against Civil Aviation Authority to go ahead
Grounded ex-military helicopters are the subject of a multi-million dollar claim against a government department accused of fraud. Mark Wayne Ford of the now-liquidated Heli-Logging Ltd, said if his suit was successful he would be seeking $90 million compensation from the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. He alleges the CAA wrongfully refused to give him the go ahead to use his helicopters for logging. The amount sought would cover the loss of earnings, the cost of 10 helicopters and spare parts and legal bills, he said. READ MORE: The choppers, the finance firms and the missing millions In May the Court of Appeal released a decision which will allow the 12-year battle to be heard in court again after it was struck out in the High Court in 2015. The CAA said it had received the decision and was considering its position but had no further comment. Its decision reveals Ford alleges the director of the CAA acted fraudulently and in bad faith when deciding against granting exemptions for the use of former military aircraft, Wessex Mk2 helicopters, in its Taranaki heli-logging operations in 2005. He claims the CAA led Heli-logging to believe the exemptions would be granted, but when he applied for them the CAA had changed its mind and refused to give him the exemptions. He claims the CAA fraudulently withheld disclosure of a report prepared by experienced and respected helicopter pilot Bernie Lewis in 1999 that stated the choppers were well proven and had operated successfully around the world. Further to that he alleges the CAA acted fraudulently and without honest belief when declining the exemptions on safety grounds because it was aware of Lewis' report saying they were safe. In 2005 Lewis, on behalf of the CAA, wrote another report about the helicopters which said they were not safe. Ford claims Lewis said the information in that report was based on when he last flew the helicopters around 40 years earlier, but Lewis had flown a Wessex in 1999 when he wrote the earlier report. There is also dispute between the parties about handwritten changes made to the original copy of the letter The CAA maintains Heli-Logging's claims are merely challenges to the director's opinion dressed up as allegations of fraud and have no credible basis. It said each of the claims were statute barred and all material facts were either known by the company in 2005 or 2006, were reasonably discoverable, or did not support any allegation of fraudulent concealment. In its May decision the Court of Appeal noted the case presented was now quite different than that heard by the High Court and reinstated the proceeding. "We record that we have have not decided that there is merit in the claims as articulated in this court, which involve an allegation that the director acted in bad faith in reaching his 2005 decision. "It is important to record that the director has not had an adequate opportunity to respond to an assertion which, if true, has serious implications for a senior public official." It would be up to the high court to make the orders necessary to get the proceeding back on track, including orders requiring re-pleading of the claim and re-addressing the issue of costs in that court if costs were sought, the ruling said. Ford said he hoped the trial, which he estimated could last three weeks, would be held in the next 12 to 18 months. https://resources.stuff.co.nz/conten...6895116394.jpg |
Mark, take care of your health....seriously.
|
this will add fuel to the fire...
Civil Aviation Authority inspector not as qualified as claimed | Stuff.co.nz |
I think Mark needs to spend less money on helicopters and invest in some shoe laces.
|
Providing they were properly maintained and operated within the 13,600lb MAUM and the 3,200ft/lb Max Tq limit the Brit-Mil used, they should have been fine for logging work but what spares availability was like I don't know.
As the Uruguayans discovered, you need someone who knows the fuel computers well and the setup procedures for them intimately or you will end up with endless computer freezes (no manual throttle option). However, getting advice from an imposter (the CAA advisor) who doesn't know one end of a Wessex from the other, probably didn't help much. |
Agree with you Crab ; we had an on-site R-R engine rep.at SAR Wing Finn. when I was MTP
there to teach the greasers ,and update the computers on the Wx.and S-K...and he also did the Vipers/Astzoos/Lycs on the other aircraft. With the logging,there were ` rumours` that it was being done on one engine,which would lead to coupling g`box and s-e limits problems. |
That's possibly where the rumours of single engined Pumas came from.
|
Crab, compliance with the gross weight and torque limits may not guarantee safety.
And why not? It is probable that UK military qual procedures are very similar to US, and in the respect I shall address, that probably is true for the FAA vs CAA processes. In that qualification process, a flight loads survey is done which, with the approval of the pertinent authority, represents the usage spectrum of the machine in service. The flight loads thus collected are matched against the ground test lab test loads and the component replacement times are established. But the logging usage spectrum is far different than the military or civil usage spectrum, and so there are problems. There are also some subtle, some not so subtle differences in flying techniques. The so-called " Wenatchee Snatch " maneuver employed by some S-61's is not fiction, and was certainly never envisioned by the USN SH-3 nor the LAA or NY Airways 61 operators is one example. Some sites required logging S-64's to make every max weight approach at a steep/slow condition, ensuring very high N/rev vibration ( and no, not VRS ) and associated loads. They experienced some sheet metal fatigue problems never encountered by the Army. Just a couple of examples. |
Good point John, the fatigue spectrum and component life would have been predicated on specific flight profiles with only a certain percentage conducted at MAUM and at Vmax.
The aircraft had quite a hard life in NI but probably not as hard as constant logging ops would have been. I don't remember seeing one for the Wessex but other aircraft had a Statement of Intended Operational Usage - or some similar title. |
As they found out with the BV234 on the North Sea. 1,000,000 hrs. experience with the Chinook but they hadn't flown at max cruise speed at nearly max weight for six or seven hours a day.
|
Sycamore, we had our own expert on the Wessex who sorted the computers out, one R Huddlestone - bless him, no need for RR interference on the Wessex at SAR Finningley.
|
I think General Aviation in New Zealand would be stunned at the lack of Civil Qualifications held by CAA staff, vast number have not actually worked in GA......anywhere
|
As they found out with the BV234 on the North Sea. 1,000,000 hrs. experience with the Chinook but they hadn't flown at max cruise speed at nearly max weight for six or seven hours a day. What you are trying say I think is the stresses and wear issues were different than experienced by the US Army during its operation of the aircraft. You also omitted any mention of how the very exact same aircraft have been worked hard by Columbia Helicopters doing Helicopter Logging which is far harder on the aircraft than any other work it has done. I am sure Columbia had a very different experience than did British Operators of the Chinook. We know the RAF certainly found some difficulty due to a go it alone attitude until some corporate knowledge was accrued. The Helicopter-Loggers that used Bell UH-1's for Logging learned some very costly lessons about design weaknesses in those aircraft over the years....as Logging was not what the old Huey was really destined to do all day long at the weights the Loggers carried on a regular basis. The Wessex will be the same....just as its cousin the S-58T was when it was put into Civilian Long Line Service. The Wessex did not last long in Civilian service either....and after some fatal crashes in Nigeria....Bristow retired them. |
I don't know anything about the BV 234 0r Chinook. Never flown them, never been in one. All I was doing was repeating was what the Boeing reps and engineers were saying in Aberdeen.
|
As a long time helicopter logger and also involved with the Wessex before Bristow grounded them, the Wessex is probably the worst helicopter type I could imagine to log with. I have operated and been around most types involved in these operations and the learning curve for each model is immense as you figure out the weaknesses in airframe, drivetrain, engines, rotor systems, electrical and every other system on the machine. Much of this isn't necessarily safety issues if proper and adequate maintenance for the type of operation is developed and adhered to, but never ending maintenance, parts and downtime will rapidly render the operation uneconomical. As there is no history of logging with the Wessex, you will be developing it as you go - a very demanding situation.
I have watched a number of S58T's (and piston ships) logging, all with zero long term success - they were just perpetually broken down and suffered major structural issues. The easiest way to figure out the real world experience in this instance is to let them go and log with it and see how it works out, but I personally believe the outcome is entirely predictable. Oh, and one last consideration from the history of this genus - just read this accident report, which was pretty much the END of helicopter logging activities with the S58T, after the Main Rotor Mast failed in the hover and the Head flew off. This is one of two pilots I personally know who suffered main rotor mast failures with head separations, that walked away and live to tell the tale. https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...Final&IType=LA |
The Wessex mk2 I have were put through a very intense testing program by GKN Aerospace here in New Zealand with the approval from NZCAA. We lifted some 3000 tonnes of logs and GKN requilified the Wessex mk 2 for HEAVY REPETITIVE lifting. A completely new maintenance program was approved by NZCAA for logging. The Wessex is safe for logging.
https://youtu.be/MxXKIc3NMyU Or go to YouTube and type in Westland wessex mk2 |
Yes, the HC2 was a good workhorse - I suspect people keep thinking they are the same beast as the S-58T, which they are not.
|
The Wessex is safe for logging Much of this isn't necessarily safety issues if proper and adequate maintenance for the type of operation is developed and adhered to, but never ending maintenance, parts and downtime will rapidly render the operation uneconomical. As there is no history of logging with the Wessex, you will be developing it as you go - a very demanding situation. |
TOTD - yes, but as you know the HC2 flew many thousands of hours in the RAF (and Mk5 in RN) with no major issues. One TR drive failure back in early 90s due to the disconnect coupling coming apart during a simulated ASE emergency but certainly nothing like the MR mast failing.
Plenty of pilots found ingenious ways of breaking them but they were inherently sound. Spares were the only issue towards the end of its life so I don't know how Fordy.mat has got around that. |
Where are they now..?
Maybe a bit of a silly question but going to ask anyway. Where are those helicopter now still in New Zealand.? Also in the corporate video they seamed to have very extensive stores in fact probably a treasure trove of Wessex goodies where did they go.?
|
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 9819403)
Yes, the HC2 was a good workhorse - I suspect people keep thinking they are the same beast as the S-58T, which they are not.
We flew right alongside the Wessex doing the same work and they just fine! Bristow sold Brown and Root a Bill of Goods on the Teeside to Ekofisk Contract as the Onshore Diversion fuel requirement gave us the choice of fuel or passengers. That was not the aircrafts fault....but young Lawrence's bit of doing as I recall. I dearly loved the piston engine version.....the H-34.......and the big brother the Moe-J-Vee! |
I was working at Redhill when the ex German H34s flew in, to be converted to S58Ts. There were a few misty eyes at the sound of the exhaust note of those double banked radials.
|
Originally Posted by Dave B
(Post 9820713)
I was working at Redhill when the ex German H34s flew in, to be converted to S58Ts. There were a few misty eyes at the sound of the exhaust note of those double banked radials.
|
Engines
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 9820509)
Nothing wrong with the T-Bird!
We flew right alongside the Wessex doing the same work and they just fine! I dearly loved the piston engine version.....the H-34.......and the big brother the Moe-J-Vee! Yeah, 1820 cu, 2800 RPM and 56 inches of MP, 62 with 115/145 gas. The sound was magnificent. |
The -6 was quite a bit stronger....I stepped back to the -3 in Spain and surprised myself the first time I rolled the Throttle off simulating an Engine Failure to a young fellow doing his Conversion Course.
I never did like the Aux Tank set up.....where at some point you got to wondering what that Orange Light on top of the Glare Shield was doing shining at you. More than once I got distracted and pumped my Onshore Diversion fuel over the side. The plus side was the aircraft was noticeably lighter and went a bit faster. I once passed a Puma that was headed to the Ekofisk.....when asked how I managed to do that.....I just reminded them i was flying a 58-GT. |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 9821017)
I once passed a Puma that was headed to the Ekofisk.....when asked how I managed to do that.....I just reminded them i was flying a 58-GT. |
I think the issue is the fact that possibly the aircraft in question has no Type Certificate in the appropriate category?
It is not a "Restricted Category" machine but operates in the "Special or Experimental Category". Special or Experimental category does not allow the type of work that is proposed or been carried out. Part 91.105 The occurrence that brought things to light - AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT OCCURRENCE NUMBER 01/451 WESTLAND WESSEX HC MK 5C ZK-HVK 15KM SOUTH-WEST OF MOTUEKA 12 FEBRUARY 2001 Lets roll back to 2003 - Here is a summary of action the CAA will take in order to raise the safety levels of ex-military helicopters: General All restricted and special category aircraft must have an approved maintenance programme. Any variation to a maintenance programme must be approved. Design changes must use approved data. All special category helicopters will have limitations imposed on external load and agricultural operations until the level of safety is assessed as adequate for the intended purpose. CAA will work with operators to ensure that maintenance and continued airworthiness requirements for currently registered and certificated aircraft are raised to an acceptable level within two years. Existing Types in New Zealand Additional imports of existing types must have adequate maintenance and continued airworthiness aspects addressed for an airworthiness certificate to be issued. Future Imports Imports of new types must meet the type acceptance certification. Type certificates must address maintenance and continued airworthiness. Future Directions Review restricted and special category airworthiness certificate categories in Part 21 to with a view to including specific purposes. Consider with industry the certification of commercial external lifting operations under Part 133. Develop, with industry, guidance and advisory material for heli-logging operations. Operating a special experimental category aircraft for the carriage of goods for hire or reward (6 charges) Operating an aircraft without the appropriate and necessary aviation document namely a standard or restricted category certificate of airworthiness (6 charges) Civil Aviation Act 1990 46(1)(a) Civil Aviation Rule 91.105(a) Nelson District Court 10 July 2002 The defendant company was the operator of a Wessex helicopter used in heli-logging operations without the required documentation. The court heard that the defendant company, which had since changed its name, had secured a contract in May 2000 to fell and extract logs by helicopter at the rate of $40 a tonne.The helicopters special experimental certificate meant it could not be operated for the carriage of goods for hire or reward. TheWessex continued flying almost daily until February 2001 when it crashed while on logging operations, killing the pilot. Documents were produced showing the company had received payment of $51,032.84 for work carried out between 2 November 2000 and 7 February 2001. The defendant company pleaded guilty to 12 charges six laid under section 46 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 for operating a helicopter knowing that it was required to have a standard airworthiness certificate or restricted category airworthiness certificate. The helicopter instead had a special experimental air- worthiness certificate. Another six charges were laid under Part 91. They related to operating an aircraft with a special air- worthiness certificate for the carriage of goods for hire or reward. The company was convicted and fined $1000 on each of the six charges and ordered to pay court costs of $130 on each,bringing the total fines and costs to $6780. In addition the CAA investigation costs of $2000 and solicitors fees of $1500 were sought and granted,giving a total financial penalty of $10,280.The company was also convicted on the rule 91.105(a) charges, but as these charges were for the same activity as the other more serious charges, no penalty was either sought by the CAA or imposed by the court. |
Now that its been bought up by RVDT, They rumours around the industry at the time of the accident were that they were operating single engine as the Number two engine needed to be repaired and they couldn't afford it. The rumours came from pilots that left the operator as they were worried that they had to fly a twin on logging with OEI!!
They were running around the country lifting logs at $40/tn stating that they could lift 100 tn/hr, which with simple maths gives $4000/hr revenue. We still have guys in the industry doing the same things with the same capacity machines.... Unfortunately a 4,000lb hook load machine in NZ can only move about 40tn/hr with the logging jobs that are available, and the speed that the machine can turn, if you want to have a flyable machine after a year. 40 tn / hr at $40 / tn is only $1600/hr and you go broke! There is no one in NZ that has survived logging because there is no money in it. But good luck Fordy. lord knows you will need it. firstly going up against CAA, remember they have unlimited time and funds to fight against you, secondly, if you get to start again, its really hard to make money heli logging! |
Now "What Iffing " here.....but as the Wessex had two of the same engines as did its single engine version (correct me if I am wrong).....why not remove one and all the kit associated with it and operate as a single engined aircraft?
We logged with surpluses Army UH-1 Huey's in the USA.....so single engines work for the task. |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 9821429)
Now "What Iffing " here.....but as the Wessex had two of the same engines as did its single engine version (correct me if I am wrong).....why not remove one and all the kit associated with it and operate as a single engined aircraft?
Different engine types and drive train: Wessex HAS1/III/31 were single Gazelle powered while the HC2/HCC4/HU5/Mk 60 were twin Gnomes driving through a combining gearbox. Quite different kettles of canaries. |
Could one remove a Gnome and still fly the machine....and get a lighter empty weight....which would grant more payload.
Not talking about legality....just being able to physically do it. We do have single engined Bell 212's flying such as Eagle's STC'd mod. |
I vaguely remember a limit on SE flying time to protect the coupling gearbox from sustained asymmetric loads.
The accident RVDT linked to really doesn't explain or suggest why - even if he had a SE failure in the hover - he then shoved the nose down 70 degrees to follow the terrain just to get ETL.....it smacks of something else but with little evidence remaining post-crash fire we will likely never know. |
Crab is right about SE TQ limits,and asymmetric loading.Also if you removed one,you compromise the g/box integrity(mounting),and the Cof G would go aft.Youd also have to start in `Main drive`,so you would not have any secondary hydraulics;this could be a lot of fun,unless the blades are all on the damper back stops...ground resonance is not unknown in the WX...ie unless the `Injuns ` are a`coming over the hill,runnn....
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:21. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.