www.brantly.info

Hi Bryan....I know that you "get it". I can tell by your posts. I just wanted to steer the discussions towards a positive attitude of attempting to obtain results. Hopefully those who read my comments will understand that. re: the mods to existing blades......seems like we could get hold of a "bad" blade, caused to be rated as unusable by the sb111, and dissect it, step by photographed step, and with certifiable documentation by an authoratative person with roots in the aviation engineering community. I am of the opinion that would provide a definable "position" that could be taken by Brantly owners regarding the validity of the issuance of the sb111. We might find that the sb indeed has value for us all if we open up a couple of rejected blades and they are all truly compromised. In fact, perhaps the question should be asked of the FAA, and even Mr Hardman, how many "bad" blades were discovered during the compilation of facts that caused the service bulletin. So many questions......so little time.
(and I wonder how many of our readers know what a spoke shave really is? ha! The old Bell 47 blades were made out of wood, weren't they? your idea might actually have some merit! ) although.... "tongue in cheek" quickly comes to mind.
There is a tape advertised for use with Robinson blades that helps to prevent delamination.....something like that might very well add strength to the blade if applied long the leading edge. How much?....who knows that answer? the problem with all of this is that one has to literally be an aeronautical engineer to analyze/examine/determine/report, etc. upon anything like that. or have the time and money to experiment. Anyway, think I'll step back and draft some reading for the FAA and Mr. Hardman. take care.

Following letter is posted by request from Gary Goldsberry

Kyle Hardman, President
Brantly International, Inc.

Re: Service Bulletin #111

I have to strongly disagree with Service Bulletin #111. I have been a Brantly owner for 35 years. I have sold 26 Brantly s in the past 35 years. I have 6 Brantly B2B’s and one 305 Brantly all in flying condition and airworthy. I purchased a large inventory of Brantly parts, when I found out the company as moving to China in 2009. I’m also a Flight Instructor CFI in helicopters.

I’m not sure where you or whoever wrote the Service Letter are getting your information. I don’t know of any blade delaminations in the 101 or 202 blades. There have been several in the factory 404 blades. Cracks in the 101 or 202 rotor blades are caused by bad inboard bearings, bad dampners or the old aluminum style dampner brackets. Not the blades.

We maintain 6 – 7 other Brantly B2Bs in the Midwest and there haven’t been any problems with blade delamination. I have in my possession Brantly B2B N9023Z SN 2021 that had 2 separate times when the blades delaminated, first on 8-20-2002. Brantly had furnished 3 used 404 blades, total time on aircraft and blades was 200.0. On 12-30-2003 the 404 blades were replaced by 404 blades with 324.6 hours total time aircraft, again furnished by Brantly Helicopter, Inc. I have all the serial numbers and log book entries. This was before I bought the ship. I feel that you or whoever put out this service bulletin is either very misinformed or are trying to sell the Brantly fleet all new rotor blades.

This is the same approach that Brantly took on the tail rotor drive shaft. The only ones that were defective were the ones from Brantly 1991 era and forward that were made wrong, but the AD made everyone comply. That wasn’t fair, nor is this service letter # 111.

I would greatly appreciate a reply, before this becomes an AD. Brantlys are a great helicopter and have a very good safety record. My customers and I don’t want to comply with a service letter or AD that does not apply to the 101 or202 blades. If you want to put out a service letter or AD on 404 blades, you have my blessing. They are the problem.

If you need any more information, feel free to contact me.

Gary Goldsberry
Mooresville, Indiana
317-996-2487 or cell 317-691-9987
gsgold@ccrtc.com

Thanks for posting Gary's letter. I was hoping he would weigh in on the matter. If we have any hope of getting this onerous and ridiculously timed and issued sb put to bed or at the least not having it rubber stamped into an A/D by the FAA (which basicly knows zilch about Brantly helicopters) he would be a key player. I still can hardly contain my disdain for this recent action by a company who tells it's owners that they should view their aircraft in an "orphaned" (no parent company) state for now and the foreseeable future and then issues a bs mandatory service bulletin that they say invalidates the previous service manual guidance on blade maintenance. The helicopter (and it's blades) withstood a herculean amount of torture testing during the Brantly Hynes factory flight school training days and the guidelines for blade inspection was well tested. Scrapping good blades due to spikes on a eddy current meter or even visible cracks in pre sb issue non critical areas in simply financially devastating to the present fleet of Brantly owners.