www.brantly.info

The FAA has opened a NPRM for turning the SB 111 into an AD. Comments are being accepted until Dec 17, 2012

https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... elicopters

I suggest as many of you who can to make your comments to the FAA. I will be. This could possibly shut down our flight training operation, due to how the proposed AD is worded.

I'm going to be writing & phoning also . I do suggest that anyone who is going to respond ( I hope every owner & enthusiast) sit down & write your comment out ,look at it , think about it and then submit it. We only get one chance at it , make it good & make it factual. Bill

Fellas,

This is a topic which needs a well thought out response. I will send Ron a PM to discuss. Before anyone responds to the NPRM, P L E A S E contact him.

Bryan

BRYAN I usually don't say much abought what any one post but I Believe you may of caused some of these problems with the blade issues because of all the old post....and posting photos of cracked blades and so on and saying how to repair blades and so on ....so I suggest you ...stay out of it... and you do not even owen a BRANTLY NO MORE.......sorry but thats it what I came up with.....

I would like to respond to this request for input from the FAA but am nowhere near as savvy as most on this forum when it come to the maintenance of these aircraft. I enjoy flying and I chose to buy a Brantly. I pay for service from one of several qualified A&P certified mechanics. I do not feel comfortable sending an individual response opposing this given my lack of mechanical training. As an owner of course it concerns me and would prefer it not be implemented if the consensus among the most knowledgeable Brantly experts agree it is not necessary.

As such I am wondering if it would be a good idea for the most knowledgeable forum members to collaborate on a response using the most compelling arguments and then all Brantly owners who agree with the contents could sign it before sending it in.

That is one suggestion. I am not suggesting it is the best one. Please share any other ideas.

Several of us are working on composing comments and supporting documentation to submit to the FAA about this. I've had some other owners also suggest to me about having some document prepared that all who wanted to sign as supporters could do so. We have very little time to get this all done. Right now mid December may seem like a ways off, but it will go quickly.

9121U,

Your point is well taken. Your accusation is fair, and It does not anger me at all. I assure you, anything I posted, including pictures, was solely for the purpose of HELPING the Brantly owner community. I have never been very good at politics. I am as unpretentious as a person can possibly be. I am as honest as a day is long, and have nothing to hide. That's how I roll. My forum I.D. is my ACTUAL name.

You are right. I am not a Brantly owner any longer. I am however, STILL a Brantly enthusiast. If the consensus is that I am a problem here, and have caused or help cause this problem, then I ask that Ron remove me from the forum. I do not have the discipline to avoid it on my own. I am really sorry you feel as you do.

The fact is, the fella in NZ is the one who got the FED's involved. I doubt very seriously that the FED's base their decision to get involved on posts on this forum.

I certainly would welcome some suggested verbiage in commenting on this A/D as well as I cannot say what I really feel about it as it would do no good. We need to try to stick with the facts and make a good case that this is very unfair A/D, causes economic hardship to the Brantly owners and operators, and does not enhance safety in any measurable way over the maintenance manual guidelines that have served well for decades.

Tom,
I think this A/D proposal, at least in the onerous form it's proposed, lays with the BS SB put out by the shell of a company that Brantly became under the Chinese. I too am sorry if this offends anyone but that's the way I see it. They had plenty of time and expert input from some of the best Brantly minds in the world and still didn't withdraw or reword the SB knowing full well they don't have a production certificate to make a single part of a Brantly-little on a main rotor blade.

Ed I like the way you put. This is no one individual's fault and pointing a finger isn't going to do any good except turn people off from using this site .I believe this site was designed to inform and keep up with what others are doing with there birds. It is now time to ban together and see if we can get this SB taken care of before it bites us in the butt. As Ron stated Some of us have been working on a rewrite of this issue for several months and feel as though the SB needs a few changes but it doesn't need to become an AD. I will send a letter to each registered owner bringing there attention to this AD proposal but will have to depend on this site and you guys to pass the word to non owners. Bill

HEY guys all i am saying that is the ad that's coming out is not going solve any thing.because the way i see it is the blades that have cracked the owners have had problems getting there balance right in the past.. all you have to do is read there old post.like trying to shim new dampeners there is no need to do that. IT would be like putting blocks under your car and removing the shocks they are your dampeners so when you do so it creates another problem witch is i believe the blades.. and also running out of phase puts a lot of stress on the blades trying to parallel up with the inner blades.this is why brantly issued a service letters on how to rig blades and dampeners.. correctly.. this is very important when you got something that weighs and turns that fast swinging around all said and done.. I BELIVE THAT IS WHY SOME BLADES HAVE CRACKED in order to stop a AD you have to prove THE REAL CAUSES if not it is going to happen.....

If the A.D. is stopped, it will be because the FAA is shown that cracked SKIN is not an UNSAFE condition.

I don't doubt that the proposed AD will be issued. The best I'm hoping for is that its wording will not be so restrictive to ground or declare unairworthy the large majority of existing blades.

I hope that as many Brantly owners as can are working on this. If you are a member of AOPA, contact them for assistance in either helping with meaningful comments or in representing you/us directly. Or do some research and put together factual comments to submit. Don't sit around waiting for 3 or 4 of us that I know of to do all the work.

It's your right. Get out and vote.
Oh, wrong speech!

Ron,

I'll send you my comments for Mr. Bellhemeur and if you give me the OK, I'll sent them.

Thanks

Not much use for secrecy here. Any comment on the NPRM will be public after all. So I'm gonna post what my first draft is. Also I remind you that you can send more than one comment. Others in your family or friends might want to comment as well. I quoted some from this very board. If anyone minds let me know and I'll remove it before I send it.

"I am an A&P/IA and owner of a Brantly B2B.

During the 70's Brantly Hynes operated a very active factory flight school. They flew over 500 hours per month at its peak! A one day record was 28 hours! Single machines amassed as much as 12 to 14 hours per day! Now if they held up to that I think it's a pretty good testament to their design and reliability. The maintenance manual covered inspections of the blades and detailed proper maintenance of rotor head and related components. Their were no significant problems noted ref cracking rotor blades. Unfortunately as time progressed the machines have been improperly maintained. The blades are fine when installed and maintained per the original Brantly maintenance manual.

One individual from New Zealand started this crusade and ultimately Brantly sent an employee(Chris Grerrard) to examine the machine. Chris reported that the rotor head had been reassembled incorrectly previously, out of phase sloppy rivets in pylons, etc etc. So obviously the blades would stress and crack given the improper maintenance.

Another experienced Brantly owners comments on the New Zealand ship the A/D references "FOR BLADES to crack like that something was definitely rigged wrong, sprag clutch sticking, or bad start up. With a sticking centrifugal clutch the dampners where working hard to debond them(clutch plates). You can see the gray mud from the cages meaning they were working hard. I've been around brantlys and seen a lot - this craft(New Zealand ship) was not right-also there should not be that much grease coming out of the pylon seals"

The A/D is based on a SB from a Chinese company that has no production certificate-they can't make a single legal part little on a rotor blade! Few used blades would meet the onerous wording in the SB/AD-effectively grounding the entire fleet of Brantlys. This is completely unacceptable. The A/D should be withdrawn and the original maintenance manual blade inspection(which SB111 tries to illegally supercede) followed."