whirlygig

Sorry I missed your reply HBD, You didn't exacly cut and paste my quote did you, it chages the meaning the way you wrote it, I do believe it was unintentional. Everything I quoted was entirely accurate, that is what's so wonderful about a direct quote. Your 571.02 reference is not suitable. The Manufacturer HAS made very specific recommendations in this context, right down to trade names, i.e: Mastinox, so that standard does not apply. In addition to that, the Manufacturer HAS told you in plain english (remarkable, considering the context) to go ahead and make substitutions for any product specified. CARS does not factor in becuase if you make a substitution, you are directly following the Aircraft Manufacturers approved maintenance procedures. I have to agree with you about your other point, I would not want our guys making substitutions on their own, and there probably should be a MPM policy in place for that. Could not agree more. But that was not what the discussion was about, I very speicifcally pointed out that in no circumstance do you need approval from Airbus Helicopters. I do not associate the quality of one's answer, such as yours, based on their past/ present titles. Everyone knows something, regardless of their position, and everyone has something to contribute. Having said that..... - Current DOM - Current QAM - Currently in the TC Airworthiness Branch pool of qualified inspectors

Not quite accurate. Refer to AMM 0100 C "EQUIVALENT MATERIALS" for this quote: "NOTE Equivalent materials of other manufacturers may be used as alternate selections to those listed here. The equivalence of those materials is to be confirmed by the operators." You do not require Airbus approval to substitute a consumable material, the ownus is on you however to ensure it will perform the same function.

Yes, it happens to be our system, and also "by the book". This is the simplest system you can have approved, as it is directly based on the manufacturers programs. This method means you do not have your own "company inspection check sheets" to have to approve. It isn't a lot of work and in my opinion does not leave the door wide open for you to miss revisions to the maintenance tasks or a specific item within the maintenance schedule. (like how items are moving around all the time currently, task references change every revision too.). It also means you will likely revise your MSA less frequently as it is more "vague" than approving a step by step check sheet for each inspection. It does not prevent us from performing these inspections at an accelerated rate either, like you mentioned. Just my opinion, and for us it works great, but like you said, it may not for others. Just trying to add our perspective.

Note quite. If you follow it to a "T": Table 1 will include: - 150// 12M - 600 - 24M - 1200// 48M - 144M - One line saying Engine(s) as per the engine maintenance manual (do not describe the schedule, unless you just can't get enough of revising documents, as it is not required). *The other inspections you mention are out of phase and should not be specified in your inspection table. Table 3 will include: (don't describe the tasks, just the reference) - "Airframe" ; out of phase tasks as per 05.25.00 - "Airframe/ Engine": Component overhaul as stated in the current Eurocopter AS350 Maintenance Manual Section 05.10.00 & Turbomeca SL 1910/99/AR1D/49 . - "Airframe/ Engine": Airworthiness limitations as as stated in the current Eurocopter AS350 Maintenance Manual Section 04 & Turbomeca SL 1910/99/AR1D/49. - "Airframe/ Engine": Temporary checks and operations after component replacements as stated in the current Eurocopter AS350 Maintenance Manual Section 05.26.00 & Turbomeca Arriel 1 Maintenance Manual 05.50 Hope this helps.

There B3 service ceiling is 22,000 ft but there must be more to the story because Eurocopter (France) had a big press release about the last B3 record rescue at 25,000 ft. Maybe Eurocopter has issued special exemptions to operators like them.

I would find it hard to believe that anyone has ever tried to bring a 214 into a hover over 20,000 ft.

A little over dramatic but I agree with the overall point of your post. The "Get over it" is a little much. This is aviation history, not just some random accomplishment. Someone's life was saved and in the course of it a new world record was set. Sounds all right to me.

The B3e starts outperforming 212's at 6,000 ft or lower depending on density altitude. Lots of work up there! Judging by your screen name however, I doubt you care.

I Believe he is referring to this: http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2013/05/22/simone-moro-in-highest-ever-everest-helicopter-of-stricken-climber AS350 B3 claims world record for highest altitude longline rescue. Rescue was performed at 26,000ft. previously record was 23,000ft (Also performed by a .... wait for it..... B3)

I do what I can....

Glad you were able to fix it!

FYI.... The Droop compensator is NOT the power turbine governor, it is a series of cams and arms within the governor linkage that compensates for droop. The system adjusts the ratio of governor arm movement per movement of the collective control.

If I am not mistaken they said he did NOT send or receive a text in the 11 minutes leading up to the accident. The warning panel was on dim, I would speculate he switched it to dim as to not have the others on board get alarmed. I am surprised you guys aren't talking about the bigger point the NTSB is trying to make of this accident, improper entry into autorotation buy first lowering the collective instead of pulling the cyclic aft. I believe they are calling for a change in the way pilots are trained to perform auto's. They said that they went into a simulator and recreated the flight and if they lowered the collective before pulling back on the cyclic, a safe landing was not possible from that altitude, even though the aircraft was at cruise (500ft AGL?). But hey, I'm "just an engineer".

I think just spreading the word that it did happen (as opposed to the details) is a good thing. It could happen to any of us. We should all be aware when these things happen because it will make you slow down and think about what you are doing (absolutely not insinuating the people involved weren't) , instead of thinking "no big deal, last time I heard of a machine falling of jacks was in the 80's". It is when people jump on these things and criticize ("I would never of done that" or "why didn't they do this") we lose the great benefit of learning about what happened and maybe make changes to prevent the same from happening to us. Isn't the famous quote "to err, is human" ?

Not entirely true. If the FCU control isn't fully "open" it will restrict high power operation regardless of how much fuel the governor calls for. The fuel nozzle filter requires you to take apart the nozzle itself, most people send them away for that. My question about the particle sep was about erosion, depending on where in China you are operating, you can eat up your compressor and turbine nozzles pretty fast. But if your N1 is low it likely doesn't have to do with it. Most aircraft sent to china to work have a barrier filter installed. I am sure we would all like to hear what ends up being the solution. Good luck.