Lonewolf,

FYI, the accident aircraft was a SK 61N not an H-3.

I am fully aware of that, oleary.

I was following up on a point John D was making about the SH-3's, topping, and the engines the USN had equipped on that family of variants (USN's various H-3's) of the S-61.

Rest assured....one of the two guys is being offered a Plea Bargain in order to get his cooperation against the other. The Feds always look for a way to win a conviction and the best way is to get one or more of the Indicted to go for a Plea Bargain. They generally try for those that were not the Prime Actors and who can benefit from reduced sentencing without the Government giving up more serious charges against the Prime Actor(s). Granted, if there is information that points to a larger involvement and particularly if it goes across to someone within the Government....then perhaps they will be more likely to offer Plea Bargains with the intent to cast a larger net.

No Idea if that has been done here....but it is a standard practice within the DOJ and other agencies.

SAS,

Are you suggesting that someone within the Government might be complicit? Like the Aviation Authority that approved the bogus Flight Manual data?

HT

Helitester,

What "bogus" Flight Manual data?

oleary,

Brian Abraham wrote:
I assume that the falsified performance charts were included in the Flight Manual. Perhaps "bogus" Flight Manual data was a poor word choice, and I should have said "falsified" Flight Manual Data.

HT

Helitester,

Your assumption is incorrect.

HT.....I am not.

What I am suggesting is that in the event the Feds do have any information that "others" of any description are involved....they will pursue those investigative leads.

The most effective means of doing that....is gaining the cooperation of the "small fish" in order to catch "big fish". That is a standard tactic.


The other thing to be remembered here folks.....Gaining an Indictment by a Grand Jury does not mean the accused are guilty. The famous saying of "A Prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a Ham Sandwich!" holds true.

In the Grand Jury proceeding....only the Prosecutor calls witnesses and presents evidence so the Jury does not get to hear much in the way of information that shows an Accused to be innocent.

Before you pass judgement on the two accused by the Grand Jury.....wait for the legal proceedings to be completed.

It would be interesting if the Federal Prosecutor looked a bit further afield and see where that line of inquiry took him as I would suspect there are some other operators that might bear scrutiny when it comes to weighing of aircraft.

oleary,

You said I was incorrect in my assumption that the falsified performance charts were included in the Flight Manual. If they were not included in the Flight Manual then where did they reside, and how were they made available for mission planning?

HT

HT, a good start would be to read this entire thread, and then the NTSB report.

Asking us to do your research for you.....?

Thank you, P&A, for your common sense and obvious 61 knowledge.

Helitester, two points:

(1) The approved Sikorsky RFM and/or its supplements where not affected (or amended) by the alleged manipulation of weights.

(2) Basic Helicopter Flying 101. Regardless of what the damn charts say, if I am flying a Bell 47 and attempt a vertical take off (which this was) from a confined area without sufficient power I simply come back (usually involuntarily!) to a IGE hover - then I land and boot somebody out. I also use the same procedure in the 61 and all the other a/c I fly.

Mission planning is all well and good and I strongly encouraged it when I was a CP, but in the final analysis, any pilot who needs a damned piece of paper to tell him whether or not he has enough power to conduct a takeoff in any particular situation (considering downflow, obstacles, high temp, turbulence, etc) should not have a licence in the first place!:ugh:

Finally, I have over 3000 hours in this very aircraft and it saddens me no end to see her end her life with such acrimony.

Pilot and apprentice, and oleary....Your criticism of me for not doing my homework is valid. While I had been following this entire thread, I admit that I had not read the NTSB report. From Section 2.2 of the report it is clear where the falsified performance data came from, where they reside, and how they came to be used used in mission planning. As I previously mentioned to SAS, I was concerned that the falsified data might have somehow become FAA approved.

Helitester,

No worries, mate!

I clearly understand that your interest in this accident is in no way vindictive.

Has anyone commented on the fact that the helicopter was placed in the avoid area of the H-V curve? For this helicopter with this many people on board the H-V curve is a limitation, not a performance item?

Like he said, no worries.

It's all about learning to prevent it happening again

Shawn was this flight under Part 27 or 29? If the former - advisory only???

Performance Categories is not something the FAA, USFS, NTSB, or American Helicopter Industry care to get involved in....as evidenced by history and the absolute lack of discussion of the subject.

If we did....think about the impact that would have on the way we do business on a daily basis!

Those passengers sitting in Iron 44 that day were just Self Loading, Talking Ballast.

Remember there was a USFS Check Airman onboard the aircraft during the operation and he saw nothing wrong in the way those flights were being planned, conducted, or monitored. He was not typed rated in the 61 either.

Saya it all really:ugh: Thanks SAS

Thomascoupling:
I'm surprised at your question - the S-61 helicopter is certified under Part 29 - what other part of the FARs are used for operating rules (or the operating rules used other countries) is immaterial. Part 29 covers the airworthiness of the helicopter. And that's regardless of whether it's used by the government or the paying public.
The only minor differences might be whether it has passenger seats in it or not - if it has more than 9 passenger seats fitted, it has to be operated with the H-V curve as a limitation. Simple as that.
Then again, I'm not surprised by the lack of understanding of this aspect within the helicopter world.
A good comparison from the FW world would be - let's load our 747 with passengers, cargo and fuel and see whether we can get it airborne in that length of runway - who needs weight-altitude-temperature (WAT) charts? Engine failure partway down the runway? Why worry about that?
How long do you think the authorities would sit still for that way of thinking?

Shawn,

When fire-fighting you are not operating under Part 29. Think of 702 vs 703/4 in Canada.

And I'll leave the fact that you can sucessfully land/autorotate, m/e or s/e, from any point in the H-V curve, the fact that some helicopters have this chart in the "Limitations Section" but some have in the "Performance Section", and the requirement for a "smooth, level, hard surface", ... etc for another day.