Alouette Helicopters Declared Illegal Immigrants By The Faa
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Illegal immegrant
The French have certified that the Alouette was built to French N1 and FAA 7H1 type certificates regardless of end user. The difference is that some end users did not require an airworthiness cert. at manufacture. Therefore any Alouette could be shown to comply with the original type cert.
Obviously the answer is not quite so simplistic as you make it out to be?
I am having a hard time understanding if the issue lies with Eurocopter, the DGAC (or EASA), the FAA or designee, or the importer of the aircraft.
Of course, it could be a combination of all of them working together!
I am having a hard time understanding if the issue lies with Eurocopter, the DGAC (or EASA), the FAA or designee, or the importer of the aircraft.
Of course, it could be a combination of all of them working together!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the Aerospatiale Helicopter days, civil and military versions of the "same" model were followed by different airworthiness authorities as they came down the assembly line. The civil aircraft received civil blessing in the form of a DGAC Certificate of Airworthiness and the military machines received a Certificate of Conformity from the military quality department (sadly I forget its acronym now) attesting that they complied with the customer specifications and were airworthy.
The engines delivered for the military machines followed the same certification scenario with no civil certification. It is possible however to have the engine re-certificated as a civil unit during overhaul. Obviously this just couldn't happen with the airframe.
Wouldn't it have been so much easier for all concerned if the military S/N machines had beed removed from the list of applicable S/N's on the Type Certificate Data Sheets.
STL
The engines delivered for the military machines followed the same certification scenario with no civil certification. It is possible however to have the engine re-certificated as a civil unit during overhaul. Obviously this just couldn't happen with the airframe.
Wouldn't it have been so much easier for all concerned if the military S/N machines had beed removed from the list of applicable S/N's on the Type Certificate Data Sheets.
STL
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: across the equator
Age: 80
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall that in the Sud Aviation / Aerospatiale days all Alouette II's and III's were delivered in Army green, the only colour available to the first civil operators like Heli-Union and Schreiner in the early / mid sixties.
The Alouette III and its Lama brother probably were the greatest and most reliable single turbine engine helicopters ever built, of which many are still in service today generating income.
Hindustan Aircaft L td ( HAL) in India still builts both the Alouette III under the name Chetak, and Lama under the name Cheetah.
Believe that HAL even has re-engined the Cheetah with a RTM333 engine thereby improving its high altitude performance even more.
The Alouette III and its Lama brother probably were the greatest and most reliable single turbine engine helicopters ever built, of which many are still in service today generating income.
Hindustan Aircaft L td ( HAL) in India still builts both the Alouette III under the name Chetak, and Lama under the name Cheetah.
Believe that HAL even has re-engined the Cheetah with a RTM333 engine thereby improving its high altitude performance even more.
In the UK the ex army Westland built Bell47 G3B1 (Sioux) and the Alouette 2's seemed to move to the civil register without any major issues other than prooving that military mods complied or were removed. The Lycomings were overhauled by Alvis and I doubt they had CAA approval, yet the engines were accepted.
The ex military Gazelles seem to have hit a stumbling block because the engine variant was never civil certified.
I can't understand why the Feds have suddenly got their knickers in a twist over this.
The numbers of aircraft must be fairly low and must have been operating for a while already.
I suspect that someone, probably a competitor, has filed a report citing the use of ex military aircraft.
The ex military Gazelles seem to have hit a stumbling block because the engine variant was never civil certified.
I can't understand why the Feds have suddenly got their knickers in a twist over this.
The numbers of aircraft must be fairly low and must have been operating for a while already.
I suspect that someone, probably a competitor, has filed a report citing the use of ex military aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alouettes
Through the last seven months I have been trying to determine both the exact problem and a reasonable, and hopefully simple, solution. The problem is a moving target since no one in the FAA is empowered to single handedly assume responsibility for their issue. The nearest so far to the 'problem' they have come is the aircraft failed to obtain an Export C of A prior to leaving country of origin.
Simple answer, go to the existing guidance, AC 21-23B for us pilot types and FAA Order 8130.2F for the inspector types. Both allow for "other certifying document" if no Export C of A exists.
If said aircraft was never meant for civil service then no civil Type Design and TCDS should exist. In this case they do so anyone with the time and money should be able to demonstrate conformity regardless of the 'birth',' thats for Mark Shilling in Ft. Worth, of the aircraft. Apparently someone demonstrated said conformity on an approx. 80 Alouette series helicopters over several years to the satisfaction of numerous FAA types.
The only error I can point to in the process is the certifying document used did not state that the aircraft was physically inspected IAW guidance.
My GOD!!! Lets ruin the folks who bought these dastardly machines before someone discovers our error!!!!
Trust me guys, after fighting with this to this point I am certain of a few things. 1. No one is that stupid 2. #1 must lead to the thought that something else is going on.
FAA has lost its collective mind and can no longer function with the in efficiency it has become renowned for and has taken as its mission statement 'We're not happy til you're not happy.
Some one in this mess is dirty and we will push and push until we get to the bottom of it. After all, un employed folks have lots of time......
Simple answer, go to the existing guidance, AC 21-23B for us pilot types and FAA Order 8130.2F for the inspector types. Both allow for "other certifying document" if no Export C of A exists.
If said aircraft was never meant for civil service then no civil Type Design and TCDS should exist. In this case they do so anyone with the time and money should be able to demonstrate conformity regardless of the 'birth',' thats for Mark Shilling in Ft. Worth, of the aircraft. Apparently someone demonstrated said conformity on an approx. 80 Alouette series helicopters over several years to the satisfaction of numerous FAA types.
The only error I can point to in the process is the certifying document used did not state that the aircraft was physically inspected IAW guidance.
My GOD!!! Lets ruin the folks who bought these dastardly machines before someone discovers our error!!!!
Trust me guys, after fighting with this to this point I am certain of a few things. 1. No one is that stupid 2. #1 must lead to the thought that something else is going on.
FAA has lost its collective mind and can no longer function with the in efficiency it has become renowned for and has taken as its mission statement 'We're not happy til you're not happy.
Some one in this mess is dirty and we will push and push until we get to the bottom of it. After all, un employed folks have lots of time......
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surplus military and civil certification
This was in a recent issue of Rotor and Wing
Check this out:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/pers...alac/9843.html
Check this out:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/pers...alac/9843.html
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alouettes
lartsa
I really don't know if this is so. Every time I ask the FAA questions concerning this they get defensive and try very hard to, 1. not answer the question and 2. make you feel as if you are the problem.
I wish I were given the task of digging into this and of course the access to the information. I cannot believe the mission of the FAA here is to ground all these aircraft when the empirical evidence suggests that they are safe and a type design exists to which conformity could be demonstrated.
Lest we forget the OH6A Cayuse, aka Hughes 500C, also was purchased by the US military sans AW cert. and was later able to demonstrate conformity, or not, depending on the level of changes to undo and the financial ability of the owner.
I really don't know if this is so. Every time I ask the FAA questions concerning this they get defensive and try very hard to, 1. not answer the question and 2. make you feel as if you are the problem.
I wish I were given the task of digging into this and of course the access to the information. I cannot believe the mission of the FAA here is to ground all these aircraft when the empirical evidence suggests that they are safe and a type design exists to which conformity could be demonstrated.
Lest we forget the OH6A Cayuse, aka Hughes 500C, also was purchased by the US military sans AW cert. and was later able to demonstrate conformity, or not, depending on the level of changes to undo and the financial ability of the owner.
This quote is from the R & W article.....
Tell that to Columbia, , Erickson, and other operators of "old, worn out ex-military aircraft".
Or compare some of Bristow's 212's in Nigeria that had pushing 40,000 hours on them....it ain't the hours but the quality of maintenance of the people operating the aircraft.
I suppose we should ground the old warbirds that are flying yet today...such as the Spits, Mustangs, and B-17's.
Most military surplus helicopters are older models that have a high number of flight hours, and are therefore no longer suitable for military operations.
Tell that to Columbia, , Erickson, and other operators of "old, worn out ex-military aircraft".
Or compare some of Bristow's 212's in Nigeria that had pushing 40,000 hours on them....it ain't the hours but the quality of maintenance of the people operating the aircraft.
I suppose we should ground the old warbirds that are flying yet today...such as the Spits, Mustangs, and B-17's.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most military surplus helicopters are older models that have a high number of flight hours, and are therefore no longer suitable for military operations
Most of the Tour Aircraft AS 350s in Las Vegas average over 10,000 hours. Well above what the surplus have.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surplus military and civil certification
There is a distinction that must clear.
The FAA does not prohibit the use of surplus military aircraft. It is allowed most commonly under two categories.
1. §21.27 allow suplus military aircraft based on THAT aircraft's prior military history. The records must be complete so that airworthiness can be determined. Aircraft have been sold by the DoD as scrap (SH-60 used for water impact sudies) and been presented to the FAA for a Restriced Category Type Certificate and an airworthiness certificate. Older surplused aircraft are normally high time and are not surplused as airworthy by the Government.
2. A foreign military aircraft may be entitled to an Experimental Airworthiness under §21.191 for Exhibition. Many warbirds are under this rule.
It is also worth noting that several military type/designs have manufacturer reports, FAA approved, that allow the conversation of an airworthy military aircraft to a civilian design.
Generally, the FAA does not allow " . . .for compensation and hire operations" on an aircraft that does not hold a Standard Airworthiness Certification. Exceptions being for Restricted Category Operation (logging, external forestry, etc.,) - not over populated areas, etc. Also note, for example, that Erickson is the Standard Category TC holder for the S-64, Restricted Category TC holder for the CH-54, is an operator FAR §§133/137 and a FAR §145 Repair Station.
As to what the FAA looks into. Please see FAR §13.5 Formal complaints. It is not the FAA's place to take sides. The FARs require the FAA to look into formal complaints - so the question becomes waiting for the formal compliant or being proactive before the incident.
The FAA does not prohibit the use of surplus military aircraft. It is allowed most commonly under two categories.
1. §21.27 allow suplus military aircraft based on THAT aircraft's prior military history. The records must be complete so that airworthiness can be determined. Aircraft have been sold by the DoD as scrap (SH-60 used for water impact sudies) and been presented to the FAA for a Restriced Category Type Certificate and an airworthiness certificate. Older surplused aircraft are normally high time and are not surplused as airworthy by the Government.
2. A foreign military aircraft may be entitled to an Experimental Airworthiness under §21.191 for Exhibition. Many warbirds are under this rule.
It is also worth noting that several military type/designs have manufacturer reports, FAA approved, that allow the conversation of an airworthy military aircraft to a civilian design.
Generally, the FAA does not allow " . . .for compensation and hire operations" on an aircraft that does not hold a Standard Airworthiness Certification. Exceptions being for Restricted Category Operation (logging, external forestry, etc.,) - not over populated areas, etc. Also note, for example, that Erickson is the Standard Category TC holder for the S-64, Restricted Category TC holder for the CH-54, is an operator FAR §§133/137 and a FAR §145 Repair Station.
As to what the FAA looks into. Please see FAR §13.5 Formal complaints. It is not the FAA's place to take sides. The FARs require the FAA to look into formal complaints - so the question becomes waiting for the formal compliant or being proactive before the incident.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest off Avweb
FAA Revokes Alouette C of A
A West Virginia company says it wants its "day in court" to fight a seemingly perplexing decision by the FAA to ground dozens of French-built helicopters, some of which have been operating in the U.S. for years. As AVweb reported last month, the agency sent owners of some Alouette helicopters telling them they must have a "certificate of airworthiness for export" to fly legally in the U.S., even though FAA inspectors had authorized the importation of some Alouettes and issued valid U.S. C of A documents without that document. The issue mainly affects aircraft built for use by the French and German military, which have gone on the surplus market. Marpat spokesman Joe Altizer told AVweb the latest wrinkle is that while the documentation the FAA says it requires exists in French archives, French authorities are claiming the FAA has asked them not to release those documents to the owners. FAA spokesman Roland Herwig says he's looking into the allegations that the FAA is trying to block access to the French documents. Altizer said the FAA's inability or unwillingness to resolve the issue at the administrative level led him to openly defy the agency 10 days ago and that brought an immediate response in the form of an emergency revocation of the aircraft's certificate of airworthiness.
Marpat's Alouette was grounded for the paperwork discrepency on July 6 and Altizer said he spent five weeks trying to get answers from the FAA about how to make it legal again. On Aug. 13 the company sent an email telling the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate that it planned to resume flying its Alouette. After five weeks of silence, the agency responded the following day with the emergency revocation. Marpat appealed the revocation and that means a hearing must be held. Altizer said there is no safety of flight issue, as the Alouettes have shown themselves to be reliable aircraft. He said he hopes the hearing will require the FAA to reveal why it's gone to such extreme measures to ground aircraft that don't appear to be a threat to anyone.
FAA Revokes Alouette C of A
A West Virginia company says it wants its "day in court" to fight a seemingly perplexing decision by the FAA to ground dozens of French-built helicopters, some of which have been operating in the U.S. for years. As AVweb reported last month, the agency sent owners of some Alouette helicopters telling them they must have a "certificate of airworthiness for export" to fly legally in the U.S., even though FAA inspectors had authorized the importation of some Alouettes and issued valid U.S. C of A documents without that document. The issue mainly affects aircraft built for use by the French and German military, which have gone on the surplus market. Marpat spokesman Joe Altizer told AVweb the latest wrinkle is that while the documentation the FAA says it requires exists in French archives, French authorities are claiming the FAA has asked them not to release those documents to the owners. FAA spokesman Roland Herwig says he's looking into the allegations that the FAA is trying to block access to the French documents. Altizer said the FAA's inability or unwillingness to resolve the issue at the administrative level led him to openly defy the agency 10 days ago and that brought an immediate response in the form of an emergency revocation of the aircraft's certificate of airworthiness.
Marpat's Alouette was grounded for the paperwork discrepency on July 6 and Altizer said he spent five weeks trying to get answers from the FAA about how to make it legal again. On Aug. 13 the company sent an email telling the FAA's Rotorcraft Directorate that it planned to resume flying its Alouette. After five weeks of silence, the agency responded the following day with the emergency revocation. Marpat appealed the revocation and that means a hearing must be held. Altizer said there is no safety of flight issue, as the Alouettes have shown themselves to be reliable aircraft. He said he hopes the hearing will require the FAA to reveal why it's gone to such extreme measures to ground aircraft that don't appear to be a threat to anyone.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: East of the sun, west of the moon, straight on till morning
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So wots he latest on this debacle? After learning about all their dirtbag tactics employed over the years I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Cobham wasn't right and Bell is behind all this. What once was an ok company has devolved into a firm now run by pusses and lawyers. Pity the nutbags at Bell and the FAA can't get it into their heads that allowing operators to use surplus but safe and cheap aircraft will allow more players into the game and possibly these guys may eventually become bigger players and can afford newer and more expensive ships. Ask yourself how did all the big boys start out? I doubt most started with new(er) birds. Bloody wankers!!! 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Change
The FAA are going through all Alouettes, one-by-one and grounding them for not having an Export C of A.
I am only aware of one aircraft that has survived the scrutiny and the owner received a letter saying that his aircraft was of no further interest to the inspection team. The funny thing is....this was an ex Brit Mil helicopter....sold into the civil market in UK.....CAA C of A........Export C of A......US C of A......easy!
The whole issue stinks....I can't figure out what the smell is, but it still stinks.
I am only aware of one aircraft that has survived the scrutiny and the owner received a letter saying that his aircraft was of no further interest to the inspection team. The funny thing is....this was an ex Brit Mil helicopter....sold into the civil market in UK.....CAA C of A........Export C of A......US C of A......easy!
The whole issue stinks....I can't figure out what the smell is, but it still stinks.
