www.brantly.info

bryancobb wrote:It appears that the Service Bulletin was written by an American Educated person whose Technical Writing skills are superb.
My guess is, a person at Superior, in Texas.

I will further speculate that the fallout from the New Zealand owner was what elevated this to a high level of importance at the FAA.

bryancobb wrote:This is PURE SPECULATION, but I would THINK Brantly would not write an SB without pressure from the FAA.

I KNOW this to be the case on the inspection SB that came out a few years ago, on the short T/R driveshaft, and all the
string alignment stuff on the long driveshaft. First, shaft failure was identified as a contributing factor in accident(s).
Second, FAA issues an Airworthiness Alert. Third, Brantly issues SB 105A. Fourth, Brantly issues SB 106 and SI 10.
Fifth, the FAA issues AD 2006-08-07.

It's pretty clear, to me anyway, that FAA pressure resulted in SB105A, SB106, and SI10.

I also know that the fellow from Down Under made enough noise that Brantly paid for Jason to travel to New Zealand to
help quiet him down. It is my understanding that he got a new set of 404's for a fraction of their selling price?
I'll bet the FAA got involved after this. I'm pretty sure he reported it through the NZ aviation authorities.

Hello Mr Hardman:

As you may imagine, the service bulletin 111 is not well received within the Brantly community. With one fell swoop, you may have dramatically diminished the value of the Brantly Helicopters still in service and reduced the numbers of them flying. One has to wonder if that was not the ultimate intent of the bulletin.

Since you are effectively grounding the helicopters that do not pass the testing procedures that you have issued, is Brantly prepared to provide the replacement blades when they will be needed? And by prepared, the intent is meant to be one of physical inventory availability. Since the factory has effectively disappeared, and having been told that all available major parts were shipped to China to be used in the production of machines over there, I have to wonder where all of these blades that are going to be required will be coming from.

Is Brantly also intending to provide these blades at a cost that is reasonably affordable by the Brantly community existing in the United States?

Dear Mr. Strock,

Thank you for your comments. As an aircraft owner, I understand that the issue of a Service Bulletin is not something to be rejoiced. I have followed the comments and speculation of many Brantly owners on the blog site and can sympathize. Those who speculate that the FAA had a strong influence on the process are very close to the truth. Those who think this is some sort of Chinese conspiracy against U.S. Brantly owners, need to have their heads checked.

This Service Bulletin has been in the works for many years. You may have noticed that the eddy current inspection procedure was written in 2007. The folks at Brantly have known that this was coming and like so many things I have found recently, they just ignored it. Have you noticed that the former Brantly employees have been strangely quite on this subject?

It was not long after I arrived on the scene in December that I received my first call from the FAA’s Rotorcraft Certification office. Marc Belhumeur wanted to know where I was on the issue of the long overdue bulletin. I did my research, read the test lab reports, reviewed the inspection procedure, and determined what level of completeness had been obtained at that point. I spoke with our DER and had additional meetings with Mr. Belhumeur. After I was satisfied that this was the correct and necessary course of action to insure continued safe operation, I submitted the Service Bulletin to the FAA for final approval and then issued the bulletin to the owners.

You will note that all of the talk is about skin cracking adjacent to the inboard rib rivets. This cracking is a secondary failure mode. Loads, running contrary to the rest of the world, seek the path of greatest resistance. The skin cracks are not a function of fatigue. The cracks form when the bonded interface between the skin and core fails and the load transfers to a secondary path (the fasteners). By the time you see the visible damage (cracks), the invisible internal bonds in your rotor blade have already structurally failed. Undetectable damage is the bane of any bonded structure. That makes the critical part of the inspection, the tap test.

The damage to these blades is often caused by allowing the rotor rpm to drop too low while holding up on the collective. This happens in training, when the student forgets to drop the collective after a simulated auto-rotation. The rotor disk cones, the blades hit the upper hinge stop, and the blades then bend in a cantilever beam fashion. Problem is the pilot likely sees no visible damage after the incident and assumes he has “gotten away” with the mistake. The internal damage later manifest as cracks in the skin.

I must concede that the timing of the bulletin could hardly be worse. The Vernon facility before it was closed had been reduced to a "parts only" production certificate and was under increased scrutiny by the FAA for several findings. The decision was made to establish a new facility in the Dallas area. The Vernon facility was closed.

If you are not aware, FAA Production Certificates are tied to physical addresses and are non-transferable. Step one in establishing a new facility was the voluntary surrender of the Vernon facility Production Certificate. I am in the process of an application for a new Production Certificate, have written a new Quality Manual to meet current reg's, and have begun the search for a new Brantly home. For now I am operating out of the offices of our sister company Superior Air Parts in Coppell, Texas.

You should not expect a strong Brantly presence in the U.S. in the near future. I am starting literally from scratch. Any dealings with the FAA take time. I also have the added challenge of spending half my time (or more) in China. We are committed to building a new facility in the U.S., but it is not going to happen as fast as I would like.

Where does this leave Brantly owners? Until Brantly can obtain a new Production Certificate, there is no OEM for Brantly parts. For the here and now, Brantly’s fall under the FAA regulations that pertain to all “orphan” aircraft. Your options for parts are to obtain serviceable used parts in the field or fabricate new parts under the regulations (see FAR 21.303 (b)2).

Some have suggested contacting AOPA in regards to this matter. As a member of AOPA, EAA, AAA, SSA, AHS, and HAI, I would encourage anyone with such an inclination to do so. You might also consider contacting the FAA’s Rotorcraft Certification office. Marc Belhumeur’s number is 817.222.5177.

Reducing the market value of the Brantly fleet is directly counter to my business plan. It will be more difficult to sell new Brantly’s if the market value of the used fleet is depressed. My goal is to actually raise the value of the current fleet in preparation of introducing new aircraft for sale. That is why the ONLY reason for issuing this bulletin was the continued safe operation of the fleet.

Best Regards,
Kyle Hardman