I can tell you the servo that started this all will be tested at Eurocopter next week. I may not be priveleged to allow the outcome to be known. (That''s Transport Canada''s and ECL''s territory). But my thoughts, (which by the way are my opinion only), is that it''s an isolated incident. Nobody is even sure if the servo will replicate the problem on the test bench. We''ll wait and see.
AS350 AD
- Thread starter MagSeal
- Start date
Anyone got any thoughts on the AD sent out this week on the Hydraulics on the AStar? Looking out for uncommanded inputs while doing hydraulic tests and forbidding hydraulic off flight on training flights is the quick and dirty version. On my B1 I''ve noticed that when doing the test, one accumulator usually pushes the cyclic back and right, but it can be overpowered and once centred, the cyclic will stay centred. Hey, I''m breaking 200 hours on type and would welcome input from those with more experience.
Gannet, each individual aircraft will have a different reaction when the hydraulics are off. Some will pull, some won''t. Some have more feedback than others too. Also when you dump the hydraulics using the collective switch, they have thier own personality.
The bottom line is to do a full on check to make sure that things are as they should be. Run the accumulators dry using the test switch, make sure that all is normal (for hydraulics off). Then hit the switch again, recharge the accumulators, do a movement check, then use the dump switch on the collective and recheck the movement.
The reason that I say this is that I''ve found that some folks are dumping the hydraulics with the collective switch after they have run the accumulators dry before recharging them. The collective switch may not even be working and they wouldn''t know.
I''m on a job now that has me running a BA at times under a three phase power line in the mountains, so you can bet that my hydraulic checks are careful and often.
Hope that all made scense......
The bottom line is to do a full on check to make sure that things are as they should be. Run the accumulators dry using the test switch, make sure that all is normal (for hydraulics off). Then hit the switch again, recharge the accumulators, do a movement check, then use the dump switch on the collective and recheck the movement.
The reason that I say this is that I''ve found that some folks are dumping the hydraulics with the collective switch after they have run the accumulators dry before recharging them. The collective switch may not even be working and they wouldn''t know.
I''m on a job now that has me running a BA at times under a three phase power line in the mountains, so you can bet that my hydraulic checks are careful and often.
Hope that all made scense......
Gannet - if there is any uncommanded movement with hydraulics off, the AD is fairly explicit as to what you must do. I suggest you contact Continuing Airworthiness in Ottawa if you are experiencing this. The contact info is in the AD. The other thing you didn''t mention is the "land as soon as possible" clause has been added, and for good reason. Also, the intent is to have the full hydraulic check performed before EVERY FLIGHT, not just first start of the day. The AD will be amended to clarify this.
Mag - I do not usually comment on accidents in this forum for obvious reasons, but Emergency ADs are not issued on a whim. Unfortunately, that''s all I can say here.
Mag - I do not usually comment on accidents in this forum for obvious reasons, but Emergency ADs are not issued on a whim. Unfortunately, that''s all I can say here.
it did raise alot of eyebrows here. from what i hear they are bringing a guy from france over next week for this as well. so they aren''t taking this lightly either. but i still feel it''s an isolated case. but it is better to be safe than sorry
It is so nice to hear an expert from EC state that there is no problem with there product, when the actual manufacturer puts out an AD. Those GD manufacturers don''t know what the heck there talking about. For a certain persons information the last thing any manufacturer wants to admit is there might be a problem with there product. Maybe eventually we will find out what happened to the OMNR machine from EC and don''t tell me that they don''t know.
From an ex-opertors point of vue and with a far greater understanding of any helicopter I am operating I would take any point of vue that contracticted the actual operating procedures that my company experienced with great wonderment or plain what the fu-k.
From an ex-opertors point of vue and with a far greater understanding of any helicopter I am operating I would take any point of vue that contracticted the actual operating procedures that my company experienced with great wonderment or plain what the fu-k.
4961- I think you should start writing POHs. Very clear. Thanks.
CTD- I''m not having an uncommanded input, I just think one accumulator runs out a bit later than the rest. Good point about testing before each flight. It is not clear in the AD that this is the intent.
CTD- I''m not having an uncommanded input, I just think one accumulator runs out a bit later than the rest. Good point about testing before each flight. It is not clear in the AD that this is the intent.
Thanks for the compliment Blackmac, nobody has ever referred to me as an ''expert'' before. I always thought I was just a guy with my own opinion who is in a position that affords me information that isn''t available to everyone else.
You got a few facts wrong in your post, but since I''m not in a slanderous mood today, I won''t bring them to your attention. You''re a smart fella, I''m sure you''ll figure it out.
As for OMNR, nothing official is coming out from me, just my opinion as usual. And you wouldn''t like what I have to say. Have a good day Blackmac, and don''t sweat it too much. Life is much more fun when you don''t have a personal vendetta against someone who you have no clue who he is. I''d ask you out for a beer sometime, but you already have given me a sour taste. I don''t want to know who you are or what your real purpose in this forum is.
You got a few facts wrong in your post, but since I''m not in a slanderous mood today, I won''t bring them to your attention. You''re a smart fella, I''m sure you''ll figure it out.
As for OMNR, nothing official is coming out from me, just my opinion as usual. And you wouldn''t like what I have to say. Have a good day Blackmac, and don''t sweat it too much. Life is much more fun when you don''t have a personal vendetta against someone who you have no clue who he is. I''d ask you out for a beer sometime, but you already have given me a sour taste. I don''t want to know who you are or what your real purpose in this forum is.
Bruised Armpit
Advanced
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
I am NOT accusing anybody of this, but the thought that a Manufacturer might dodge around a potential safety problem sends chills up my spine. Do they have actuaries that figure out the gamble of acknowledging a problem vs. denying? Do they turn a blind eye to known weaknesses for fear of opening the door to lawsuits?
And another thing...The same rigourous testing designed to keep us safe also hold back progress. Why are we still flying around with 30 year old instuments on our panels that have been rebuild 15 times? It isn't like a digital dash for a JetBox should be stupidly expensive....but it is. There are tons of improvements that could be made, if it didn't cost a million in testing.
(Imagine if you could trick out your Heli like a Honda Civic
)
I wish people would stop suing each other over everything. Nothing is perfect...especially those 'A' models.
Just a Saturday rant.
And another thing...The same rigourous testing designed to keep us safe also hold back progress. Why are we still flying around with 30 year old instuments on our panels that have been rebuild 15 times? It isn't like a digital dash for a JetBox should be stupidly expensive....but it is. There are tons of improvements that could be made, if it didn't cost a million in testing.
(Imagine if you could trick out your Heli like a Honda Civic
I wish people would stop suing each other over everything. Nothing is perfect...especially those 'A' models.
Just a Saturday rant.
Bruised, it''s not the cost of the fancy dash instruments thats the problem, it''s the cost involved in getting approval. It''s not just jumping thru one or two hoops either, it''s far too many.
Someone who has more regulation experience would know more and might add their view.
And just to set the record straight, does anyone know how many different manufacturers there are in the complete assembly of an aircraft? You can''t hold an airframe manufacturer 100% liable over a small part that was supplied by another manufacturer, and so on.
Someone who has more regulation experience would know more and might add their view.
And just to set the record straight, does anyone know how many different manufacturers there are in the complete assembly of an aircraft? You can''t hold an airframe manufacturer 100% liable over a small part that was supplied by another manufacturer, and so on.
Bruised Armpit: (is that name from applying under arm deodorant to rigoursly)
If you havn''t already done so, find a Risk Management Tree and you will understand the philosphy as applied to certain situations.
MagSeal: Someday maybe I''ll agree with what you say, hopefully.
Liability for any thing on the aircraft is the manufacturers responsibility. Sub-contracting is the responsibility of the manufacturer, he designed the specs and is responsible for the work of the sub-contractor. Any liability action is taken to the original manufacturer and if it should be a sub-contractor problem that is settled between the maufacturer and the sub-contractor. I hope that is clear as mud.
If you want to use a Risk Management scenario ask Bell why they have never changed or redesigned the T/R assy on the 204B, and made it mandatory to remove the AD.
If you havn''t already done so, find a Risk Management Tree and you will understand the philosphy as applied to certain situations.
MagSeal: Someday maybe I''ll agree with what you say, hopefully.
Liability for any thing on the aircraft is the manufacturers responsibility. Sub-contracting is the responsibility of the manufacturer, he designed the specs and is responsible for the work of the sub-contractor. Any liability action is taken to the original manufacturer and if it should be a sub-contractor problem that is settled between the maufacturer and the sub-contractor. I hope that is clear as mud.
If you want to use a Risk Management scenario ask Bell why they have never changed or redesigned the T/R assy on the 204B, and made it mandatory to remove the AD.
Blackmac is correct in saying the holder of the type certificate is responsible for adressing any AD against it. For example, when the 407 was originally introduced, there were a number of FADEC problems. The source was eventually tracked to bad crimping in a wiring harness from a vendor, but Bell was responsible. In that case, you had a harness supplied by a third party, for a Chandler Evans control unit, installed on a Rolls Royce engine, in a Bell helicopter.
I do realise that guys. Yes the manufacturer will be the first they go to, and should the judgment be against them in a court of law, they in turn will turn around and go after the subcontractor in a separate suit if necessary. It''s like the ''crap runs down hill scenario''.
What I was trying to show was obviously not clear enough and may never be.
As with Bell and the Fadec, Bell obviously had to deal with it, as would Eurocopter (or Ford, GM or Dodge for that matter) when there is a problem with their product.
How would a court rule in a liability claim? I could see a partial liability for the manufacturer, for the reasons you stated with the type cert. But the subcontractors also have to do their manufacture and repair/overhaul IAW regulations as well, and should they have not followed something correctly and it can be proven, that would release the manufacturer of the aircraft from most of that liability. Correct me if I''m wrong, which I''m sure someone will....
What I was trying to show was obviously not clear enough and may never be.
As with Bell and the Fadec, Bell obviously had to deal with it, as would Eurocopter (or Ford, GM or Dodge for that matter) when there is a problem with their product.
How would a court rule in a liability claim? I could see a partial liability for the manufacturer, for the reasons you stated with the type cert. But the subcontractors also have to do their manufacture and repair/overhaul IAW regulations as well, and should they have not followed something correctly and it can be proven, that would release the manufacturer of the aircraft from most of that liability. Correct me if I''m wrong, which I''m sure someone will....
Bruised Armpit
Advanced
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
MagSeal....I know it isn''t the cost of the fancy dash, and I agree that there are too many hoops to jump through for many modifications. That is my beef. But, having said that, I do understand the other side of the story. TC lets something that only changes the ergonomics of a cockpit through as a minor mod. (like a new dash) and the lawyers get involved after and accident. A product of a litigious society I guess.
Blackmac, I do understand the application of a risk management tree...do you think that some manufacturers are avoiding addressing some problems for fear of opening the proverbial ''can of worms''?
ps. Bruised Armpit refers to my occupation as collective yanker, in case you didn''t get it.
Blackmac, I do understand the application of a risk management tree...do you think that some manufacturers are avoiding addressing some problems for fear of opening the proverbial ''can of worms''?
ps. Bruised Armpit refers to my occupation as collective yanker, in case you didn''t get it.
Bruised - it''s not only litigation that dictates what stays or goes in a cockpit, or elsewhere - believe it or not, the safety of the occupants and persons on the ground has a say in it as well.
BTW, if you want a new dash for your JetBox, it''s easily achieved with current, approved technology. Get yourself some Howell digital gauges, one of those cheezy Sandals EHSI units, and a Garmin 530 installed and you''ll turn your Honda Civic green with envy. Better hold the line on clear position lights, though.
BTW, if you want a new dash for your JetBox, it''s easily achieved with current, approved technology. Get yourself some Howell digital gauges, one of those cheezy Sandals EHSI units, and a Garmin 530 installed and you''ll turn your Honda Civic green with envy. Better hold the line on clear position lights, though.
