Industry Urges FAA To Shelve Proposed IBF Guidance

Operators, helicopter manufacturers, aftermarket providers and even an attorney involved in litigation over helicopter engine inlet barrier filters (IBF) stressed the importance of the devices to safety and operational efficiency and urged the FAA to shelve a proposed policy that they believe could discourage their use.

The FAA released the proposed policy statement in January, saying, “The increased usage of…IBF installations on rotorcraft requires guidance to ensure safe and standardized installations.” The policy focuses on two aspects for IBF installation approval: determining how much power is available with an IBF installed; and evaluating the bypass system.

The comment period extended through April 15, but the FAA decided to host the public hearing after dozens of commenters expressed concern. Nearly 20 speakers attended a public meeting the FAA held last month in Fort Worth to gather input on the proposal. Attendees at the meeting said that while FAA officials did not provide commentary on the guidance, they did indicate they would carefully consider the input over the next three months.

Objections to the Policy

“It was a pretty consistent message the FAA got,” said Tom Scalf, senior v-p of engine products for IBF aftermarket producer Donaldson. “Everyone who spoke took exception to the policy, at least certain aspects of it.” He noted that concerns centered chiefly around the elevated costs of certification, technical feasibility of proposed certification requirements in light of carefully guarded proprietary information, and the potential for performance penalties that would render IBFs impractical.

Scalf also noted that his company, uncertain over the approval process, has already reallocated resources from development of new IBFs and would re-evaluate its business should the policy go forward as is.

“If the policy statement stands as it is currently written, both of the aftermarket manufacturers will be closing their IBF divisions,” said Lorie Symon, executive director of Aerometals, another presenter at the meeting. “We simply will not be able to create a product that is market viable. Cost doesn’t even come into it…It’s just not possible to spend enough money to create one that would be market viable to where customers would want to buy it because of the operational limitations.”

Symon, speaking to AIN, underscored the importance of the availability of the IBFs to the marketplace, saying that many of her larger customers are engaged in activities such as air ambulance, firefighting and border patrol. “These are entities that regardless of what their operational costs are, they must perform their services. They don’t have the option of saying, ‘We have a filter on so we can’t fly above 10,000 feet.’ If they have a rescue to do or a fire to fight they just won’t put the filter on and they’ll beat the engine up because they have to perform their services,” she said.

These operators are managing budgets while operating in harsh conditions, she added, noting that without the filters, debris entering engines shortens the TBO cycles of an engine. “Then they can’t afford to perform the service,” Symon said, adding, “IBF solves two problems: Number one, they inherently make the aircraft safer—they’ve proved it over the past 20 years—and number 2, they decrease the operating costs.”

Paul Ross, sales support manager for commercial helicopter IBFs for Donaldson, agreed in his presentation to the FAA. He cited one operator that extended engine life by 40 percent by using IBFs. He noted that 40 law enforcement agencies use helicopters equipped with IBFs, saving millions on maintenance and providing “a real and lasting impact on the lives of many in the U.S.” In all, 7,000 IBFs have been in service with a safe operating history of 20 years, the aftermarket providers stressed.

While the makers suggest that the devices have been accident free, attorney Ladd Sanger has been involved in litigation of a crash that he believes was at least partly attributable to ice hidden behind an IBF. The NTSB did not cite the IBF in its probable cause, but Sanger is pushing for a change in the design of the affected Aerometals IBF model.

Despite his professional quest, however, Sanger told AIN that he does not believe IBFs are unsafe. He said his concerns center on the engineering of some IBFs, but noted that he does not believe the proposed policy changes would address those concerns. The FAA instead should have more oversight of the engineering process, he suggested, and producers should conduct further potential failure analysis. Sanger also believes that if the approval requires access to engine data, then that data should be furnished rather than withheld as proprietary. Symon, who could not comment on the lawsuit, did say that she agrees with Sanger about access to engine data.

Symon is encouraged by the “really good support” received both in the public comments and at the public hearing for the continued use of IBFs. While the issue has come to light publicly this year, she believes the FAA has essentially enforced the draft policy for several years. Aerometals has had three research and development projects in the works, two of which have been under way for four years now, but has not been able to obtain FAA approval for any of them. “[The FAA] has been attempting to hold us to this draft policy for quite a while,” she said.

She also believes that there is middle ground for addressing the FAA’s concerns, but with the draft policy out there, the industry has been unable to make progress with those ideas. “We have spent a lot of time, effort and money to come up with doable alternatives. We believe we have presented several and to date have not gotten a lot of feedback,” she said.

As for the policy, Symon would like to see the FAA go back to the drawing board and bring in industry to help devise a workable plan. But like Donaldson’s Scalf, she agreed that at the meeting, “Everyone that spoke came from pretty much same angle: ‘These things are safe. Why are we changing the rules?’ I hope it was an eye opener for the FAA.”