Illegal UH-1 to 204 conversion nets federal indictment
Headbanger
About Time !
Jimbo Jim
Chester Rasberry owned the CH-54A N64KL which crashed in June 1998 after a
main blade failure killing the 3 onboard.
His company also crashed a Bell 214B and a Bell 204B within two days of
each
other a few years ago. Both were logging and lifting logs at over gross
weight.
Question: How do you make a 204B out of a UH-1B model ? I know the 204
tailboom is longer and the fueslage itself longer than the UH-1B.
>
>
> Four accused of altering military copters
>
> SEATTLE - Four men have been indicted by a federal grand jury, accused
> of altering military helicopters to disguise them as civilian aircraft,
> U.S. Attorney Kate Pflaumer said yesterday.
>
> A nine-count indictment alleges that the four - James Anderson, a 39-
> year-old commercial airline pilot from Bellevue; Kim Powell, a 47-year-
> old Bellingham aircraft-parts broker; James Culliton, a 54-year-old
> Sacramento, Calif., lawyer; and Chester Rasberry, a 53-year-old Apple
> Valley, Calif., owner of a commercial helicopter company - conspired to
> defraud the federal government by altering military surplus Bell UH-1
> helicopters to make them look like civilian Bell 204B model
> helicopters.
>
> The U.S. Attorney's Office claims the helicopters were awarded Federal
> Aviation Administration standard airworthiness certificates, allowing
> the aircraft to be used in lucrative firefighting contracts with
> federal and state governments.
>
> Since the FAA does not permit military UH-1 helicopters to carry
> civilian passengers, government agencies pay top dollar for certified
> civilian helicopters.
>
> The defendants are accused of obtaining records for crashed or
> destroyed civilian helicopters, then linking the records to the surplus
> military helicopters they illegally altered, claiming they had repaired
> the aircraft.
>
> They are charged with conspiracy, fraud and making false statements.
>
> Information is from Seattle Times staff and news services.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
mr_rot...@my-deja.com
bin/texis/web/vortex/display?slug=dige29m&date=20000929
Just in case you missed the small print in the Seattle Times last week.
john martin
military
to civilian version entail? (I vaguely recall someone already answering
this not long back, but I've forgotten and can't find it in the postings.
Sorry about the repeat)
What is the rationale for requiring a conversion? Is the military version
not that safe? If so, how do the military justify flying unsafe aircraft
but if they really are safe, why does the FAA require a conversion?
John
scott gardner
john martin <jo...@internetnorth.com.au> wrote in message
news:39DD7E63...@internetnorth.com.au...
> Just a quick question to someone who knows.... What does a conversion from
> military
> to civilian version entail? (I vaguely recall someone already answering
> this not long back, but I've forgotten and can't find it in the postings.
> Sorry about the repeat)
>
> What is the rationale for requiring a conversion? Is the military version
> not that safe? If so, how do the military justify flying unsafe aircraft
> but if they really are safe, why does the FAA require a conversion?
>
I don't know 'zactly, my FARs are at work and I'm at home. But it it is
something like this:
There are FARs that allow the conversion to Standard Airworthiness of an
aircraft that has been used by the US military (only the US) if it can be
shown to conform with the type design of the commercial equivalent aircraft.
In reality, it is not economically feasible.
Where do you get the data to which you are showing conformity? Ask Bell for
a set of blue prints?
Garlick Helo has hyped for years they are getting a standard airworthiness
on the OH-58 and the UH-1. When the FAA told them to replace all engine
components that did not go thru the FAA approved QC of the manufacturerer,
the cost was prohibitive. The engine as well as the airframe must be in
conformance, and the Army has used lots of non-Lycoming (Allied Signal,
Honeywell, whatever it is this week) parts in their T53 Huey engines.
The FAA does not intend to let anyone convert Hueys or OH58s to standard
airworthiness. You won't find it in writing, but you won't find any
conversions either.
Lots of rebuilders use ex-military parts on civilian rebuilds. How can you
tell? The part has the same part number and a yellow tag, why can't you use
it? And if you can use a door or a floor panel, can you just hang a new
cabin under the data plate?
Every couple of years or so, someone gets indicted for trying to pass off a
Huey as a rebuilt 204/205. If you want real trouble, export the aircraft
and you will be charged with illegally exporting a munition, 'cause the Huey
is on the munitions list.
Scott- "Look for new rivets on the data plate" - Gardner
Jim
this doesnt give alot of extra serial numbers to forge.Also with this low
number it should be easy to track Airframes.
Ive taken pictures of three 204Bs in the last 7 years and
two of those crashed from what i could find on the NTSB site.
I remember asking the owner of one of the crashed
204Bs (before it crashed) N109?? When i asked him if he liked his UH-1B he
sternly told me it was a 204B with civil certification and worth 4 times
what a UH-1B would sell for.( About $1,000,000 as opposed to the UH-1Bs
$250,000 worth). He said the 204B had "better "parts and
UH-1Bs scared him because of the many places people could get parts from.
(like E-bay!!)
If you look at the NTSB site it shows 49 UH-1B crashes
with most being parts and engine failure. Tail rotor gearboxes seemed to
also be a problem.
From what ive read there are big physical differences between the 204B and
the UH-1B that a trained eye should catch immedietly. Such as the 204Bs 2
foot longer tail boom and longer main blades. Both i would assume have
different part numbers being dead givaways.
Would i be wrong saying it would take a blind sucker to buy a UH-1B
thinking it was a 204B ?
Jim
and they say there were about 100 modifications to be done to turn the S-64
into a Civil Skycrane. Like pop-out crew windows , fire supression system ,
Engine failure debris shields above and between the engines and other stuff i
cannot remember. Once rebuilt the S-64s are operated and maintained to FAA
standards where CH-54As are "anything goes".
If you look at these overhauled Erickson they are mint
and maintained in mint condition.The Erickson people are totally on-top of the
Helicopters and this shows by the S-64s reliability and minimum downtime.
john martin wrote:
> Just a quick question to someone who knows.... What does a conversion from
> military
> to civilian version entail? (I vaguely recall someone already answering
> this not long back, but I've forgotten and can't find it in the postings.
> Sorry about the repeat)
>
> What is the rationale for requiring a conversion? Is the military version
> not that safe? If so, how do the military justify flying unsafe aircraft
> but if they really are safe, why does the FAA require a conversion?
>
> John
Jim
>
> There are FARs that allow the conversion to Standard Airworthiness of an
> aircraft that has been used by the US military (only the US) if it can be
> shown to conform with the type design of the commercial equivalent aircraft.
> In reality, it is not economically feasible.
I guess Erickson is the only company converting Military Helicopters to Civil
certified ships.
Sikorsky never built a S-64F Skycrane but did get a type certificate for the
Aircraft.
When Erickson bought the rights to the S-64E and F models they converted Army
CH-54Bs to S-64Fs using the original Sikorsky type certificate specifications
and now fly 7 fully civil certified S-64Fs.
Also heard Erickson is looking into converting the S-64 to 4 2500hp engines with
the intention of lowering the incredible fuel burn of the current (and out of
production) turbojets !! Might sound hard to believe but thats what they told
me.
Paul Baechler
> >
> >
> > There are FARs that allow the conversion to Standard Airworthiness of an
> > aircraft that has been used by the US military (only the US) if it can be
> > shown to conform with the type design of the commercial equivalent aircraft.
> > In reality, it is not economically feasible.
>
> I guess Erickson is the only company converting Military Helicopters to Civil
> certified ships.
There are significant differences between making a CH-54 conform to an
S-64 type certificate and making a UH-1 conform to a 204/205 type
certificate. One problem is that Bell had a habit of using aluminum on the
civil line where magnesium was used on the military line.
> Sikorsky never built a S-64F Skycrane but did get a type certificate for the
> Aircraft.
The CH-54B was an S-64F. Perhaps you meant to say that Sikorsky never
built a civil S-64F.
--
Paul Baechler
pbae...@bellsouth.net
Rotorhead
pilot and former FAA employee. He was with the GADO in Sacramento in
the 70's.
Mini500
like most car thief's do on cars, they go buy a wrecked car and take the VIN
plates off and put them on a car they Stole.
Micbloo
Gerard
Rotorhead
The FAA has all kinds of goofy acronyms. GADO is General Aviation
District Office. Not sure if it's even used anymore. Then there's
FSDO...Flight Standards District Office. They're the local arm of the
FAA...where you can take your written tests.....do FAA paperwork...etc.
It's also the home of inspectors and other FAA types who handle local
pilot and aircraft issues. (Please note, no editorial comment ;o)
Dann
Micbloo wrote:
>
> > GADO??
>
> Gerard
Paul Baechler
> Hello Gerard,
>
> The FAA has all kinds of goofy acronyms. GADO is General Aviation
> District Office. Not sure if it's even used anymore. Then there's
> FSDO...Flight Standards District Office.
The FSDO is a merger of GADO and ACDO (Air Carrier District Office); I
think GADOs and ACDOs have been merged and consolidated out of existenece.
--
Paul Baechler
pbae...@bellsouth.net
Micbloo
> The FAA has all kinds of goofy acronyms. GADO is General Aviation
>District Office.
THanks.
Feds LOVE acronyms dont they?
Gerard
Matthew
"Micbloo" <mic...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001008221714...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
No, they actually love TLA's (Three Letter Acronynms).
Matthew.