Bell 206 Grounded
 

Has anybody heard of a Bell 206 being grounded by the CAA, due to having Agusta parts fitted in the past few weeks.

Bit concerned, if one Regional CAA is grounding Bell helicopters for having Agusta Parts fitted, how long before they start grounding the Agusta for having Bell parts fitted, only takes one to start the ball rolling.

I am guessing that the problem on the above aircraft is the Life Limit being different for Agusta Parts v Bell Parts.

Any info, would be appreciated

I hear there will be a lot of AB,s grounded over the next few weeks/months due to bell parts . If anyone has bell parts and wants to do an exchange with AB parts then contact airandground who are open to any deal . There will also be AB parts fitted to Bells and maybe all these peope should come on here and do swaps?? I am still looking for a sensibly priced AB to buy or as a project .....

Sounds like some direct action might be needed!!
How about everyone flies to them to the CAA at Gatwick (or wherever) and dumps them on their lawn!! :ok:

It might need a judicial review or something, but that would be costly I guess.

Sounds nice and pretty, unfortunately, can't be done if the item has already been fitted though.

i.e. If fitted to Bell, item must be recertified by Agusta before fitment to an AB and vice versa.

Nige, do you work for AirandGround, as you are always pushing their name ?!?

I have some spares with them but believe it or not i am really more keen in making sure that all the poor people ( poor as in luck ..not cash ....but may be that too soon !) who own these machines have access to parts at a good price ( say 50%) and donthave to wait with aog and pay full price to Agusta who are happy to profit but do not want to help . It is their intention to have all AB 206,s grounded for ever ( allegedly ) so where does that leave the owners ?? They should be trading at 50% of a bell but for some reason have not reached that yet. It would be a shame if they were all left to rot on the ground :{

Cheers for that nige.

The Bell 206 that was grounded, was apparently on an ARC Renewal, and the maintenance company consulted the CAA and the CAA's standing was the Agusta Parts need to come off !!

Is the situation the same in other countries or is this a UK CAA specific situation?

SASless

No, this isn't a CAA specific requirement, in all authorities the requirement for the aircraft to be kept to the Manufacturers TCDS is the same, just some authorities tend to turn a blind eye:cool:, but ask any authority to put it in writing that it is ok to fit Bell to Agusta and vice versa and see what the response is.

Both Bell and Agusta have issued letters stating NOT to fit each others parts.

The reason these are being affected as much now, is the ARC (EASA Aircraft) procedure, where the maintenance company issueing the ARC is responsible for the Continued Airworthiness of the aircraft and if the incorrect parts are fitted, their heads be it :=

The CAA do a grand job in keeping our skies safe :D albeit abit infuriating sometimes :ugh:

Any difference in safety stats between the "Blind Eye" states and the UK for Jet Rangers with mixed parts and kosher parts?

Is this a "marketing issue" rather than a pure "safety" issue?

In time, when General Aviation and non-Airline commercial aviation disappears then I guess the skies will be perfectly safe....then you can claim the CAA as being very successful in that goal.

Sorry SASless,

I am GA, and we have a very good working relationship with our regional, never had the pleasure of Airline Commercial.

The concerns on the AB and B is liability, not safety, ask any engineer and you will most likely get the same response, after all most Agusta parts are originally Bell, its just they have gone through a paperwork exercise with Agusta Quality Dept.

Fortunately SAS, there will always be GA.:ok:

There is no good reason for the banning of mixing parts . Most jetbangers over the last 30 years have had mixed parts with no trouble and i would be more than happy to fly one :ok: Maybe there is a way of getting some sort of insurance for the wwide fleet and one maint co could ensure all the ad,s etc get passed on to the relevent a/c but of course that wont happen ...because its common sene isnt it :ugh:

Earlier in the thread someone commented on how the difference berween Reims built Cessna's and American built is handled.

The Cessna IPC for the C150 lists all serial numbers for both makes and that goes back to at least 1970.

As far as I am aware parts have not been available from Reims for years.

Rumour has it that Cessna are now design authority for the Reims aircraft except the C406.
If anybody can confirm this I would be pleased to have a reference.

This problem with the 206 is by and large artificial generated by bureacrats without much of a clue or interest in the realities of operating aircraft. The CAA just sits in the corner wringing it's hands. They have allowed this situation to develop over a number of years.

I remember in the early nineties a visit from the CAA we were asked about our policy in respect of AD's for AB 206's. Apparently a number of maintenance organisations were certifying to FAA AD's and ignoring the Italian ones. Given Agusta's lack of interest in supporting the 206 this wasn't really a surprise. Service information would be issued by Bell and months later Agusta would get round to issuing a copy under their banner.

The perfect answer would be for Bell to take over design responsibility for the AB206 but given the American legal liability problems and the fact that every 206 that gets decked is a sales opportunity don't hold you breath.

Alternatively EASA could take a pragmatic view and allow Bell parts to be used. Again don't hold your breath.

Bureaucracy! "Befehl ist Befehl!":ugh:

Just once....it would be nice to see the Pinheads use commonsense and work towards a solution to a problem rather than just trimming pencils.

My hat off to you Ericferret,

That is exactly what we have said and many other people in the industry have said.

Bell don't even need to take over design just get Agusta to Approve Bell as an authorised manu/supplier, they are anyway !!!!!

But I guess this is too easy a solution.

anyone out there got an AB project ? Would love to find one to rebuild (using my parts naturally !!) reckon i could operate it for not much more than a R44 . In fact i would like a couple at the right price :ok:


BSHJAY are you saying that if ibuy your bell blades off your AB then i cannot fit them to my Bell ? That is ridiculous and just makes people find a way to break/ get around the law . Then all you have to do is find an engineer who will falsify the records/provenance and bobs your uncle :ok: What if you fit the blades to a bell ( admittedly against the rules )......dont fly it ...after a week take the blades off and then fit to another bell? I know there will be some clever way around it ......how come so many AB,s are still flying when we know they will almost certainly have bell parts ??
What is happening with the isle of man option ??

If my memory serves me correctly Agusta main rotor blades come with Agusta data plates and are painted differently to Bell blades.

Bell blades were black and grey Agusta blades were black and green.

No engineer in his right mind is going anywhere near falsifying log cards for components.

I have seen falsified log cards, they were for Gazelle parts.

Falsifying bit was slightly tongue in cheek but the point really is that if you make a rule that is going to effect peoples livelyhoods ,and their pockets, you had better make sure their is logic and a genuine safety reason . Here there is no logic or safety reason .....we all agree that a mechanism can be put in place to make sure that aircraft with cross parts will be covered with respect to airworthiness notifications , ad,s etc etc we also know that the parts interfit safely , as they have done for 30 yrs without problem . What we have now is the greedy twats at Bell and Agusta who dont really want to dirty their hands looking after the plebs who fly their old kit ..which quite frankly they are embarrassed about now . They , you must remember have moved UP in the world and want to leave their seedy 206 days behind them . GA boys are a pain in the arse, not professional , poor and prob cause them more grief than any other customer . I remember when i had to negotiate with turbomeca on a replacement engine .....a part of THEIR engine fell off and bent THEIR turbine blades . It was a known design fault but it was MY fault and as a one man band i was not of any importance . I made such a nuisance of myself ( as only i can do :ok:) that eventually theydid a deal just to shut me up and get me away from their other customers . I swore NEVER to have a turbomeca engined helicopter again and have sold mine . ( £180,000 poorer just on the engine ......and that apparently was REALLY cheap !!!) They accepted no responsibility for their known design failure and the insurance which i had for FOD didnt pay a penny either !!!!! Sorry for the ramble but it explains why they will never want to help..the only way is creative thinking .............

I didn't really think you were serious Nigel.

I can understand your frustration with the system we are now working with. Nobody hates it more than the maintenance engineers.

I would like to know where the CAA are, they have a responsibilty for this situation and should be proactive in sorting it out.

We have talked with many CAA Surveyors, yes, when you talk to them, they agree it is a stupid situation, and in some cases, have agreed that the Bell parts stay on until it is feasable to replace them (ie when the overhaul/scrap life is due), but ask them to confirm this in writing, and you don't stand a cat in hells chance. According to CAA Surveyors, this is an EASA problem not theirs !

Sorry Nigel, but yes, my understanding of the regulations is, if the item has been fitted to an AB, AND has flown, then this item CANNOT be then fitted to a Bell !! without going through an Overhaul and being recertified. In no way should records be tampered with.

Eric, the Cessna and Reims was me, the Cessna 406 was the same as the Reims F406 but, same as the Bell and AB, different TCDS, as memory serves me there was only a couple of ATA chapters that had different part numbers, but never once was I questioned by the CAA on the parts fitted (were they Cessna or were they Reims?), I think they only asked me if I had a copy of the French TCDS.

Surely there MUST be some cheap ones out there grounded !! I will pay a reward for information ......