Viewing page 30 of 507
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
22 HELICOPTER AIR SERVICE PROGRAM I mean, the problems that are existing are existing because we have not put into effect or implemented the product improvement that we intended to. Q. Would one of these be the one that you mentioned at page four of your prepared statement, the one where you contacted Chicago Helicopter? A. Yes. Q. And, since the preparation of this testimony, have you received a report from Chicago Helicopter? A. We have in complete detail. Q. Did that report supply you with the information that you desired? A. Yes, sir, it did. Q. Did it provide you with information which would be helpful to you in accomplishing this improvement? A. Yes, it did. Mr. OLIVER. Mr. Examiner, so the record may show, the communication in which we made the report that I have just asked about is contained in CHA Exhibit 309.03, which is a letter under date of March 5, 1963. By Mr. OLIVER: Q. Mr. Bannick, would you be able to give us an indication of how many more years the military will continue to use the S-58? A. Well, I do not know that there are any definite numbers available at this point, and if I would quote a figure, it would only have to be a guess. But, it is in my estimation that this particular helicopter will be around, in use, for quite a number of years. Because we have nothing to replace it at this point, in its class, with the reliability and maintainability that the S-58 has demonstrated, and we will not have anything available in the way of a replacement helicopter for a number of years, that is, a replacement for this particular model. Q. Now, when you increase the TBO times on your military helicopters, do you rely, in the case of the S-58, on recommendations from the manufacturer, namely, Sikorsky Aircraft? A. Yes, sir, and of course, we add it to our own experiences. But, we do rely on the manufacturer for such recommendations. Q. Referring to page three of your statement, at the bottom of the page, where you refer to information supplied by commercial operators of the Bell Model 47 having made it possible to double the overhaul time and unground helicopters in Korea, has it come to your attention that in a previous proceeding involving Chicago Helicopter that Colonel Bunker of the Army gave the credit to Chicago Helicopter for the service experienced which made this possible? A. Yes, sir. In fact, this is the thing that led me to look into the particular area. Because, I was not with the Army at that particular time. Q. Mr. Bannick, have you had an opportunity to examine an estimate made by Mr. Nesbitt in Exhibit 310.02- A. Yes, I have. Q. -(continuing) where he estimated a savings of some $77 million to the military because of the experience of scheduled operators with the S-58? A. Yes. Q. And, have you had occasion to examine his prepared testimony in CHA Exhibit F, where he gives two alternative approaches to the problem, in one of which he comes up with an estimated savings of $78 million, and in the other with a savings of $80-some million? Q. Would you say that the methods which have been employed by Mr. Nesbitt in making these estimates are reasonable? A. Yes. I do. Q. Do you believe that the factors and the elements which he has employed to his estimates are reasonable? A. To the best of my knowledge, I would say yes. Q. And, based on that, I assume it would also be your testimony that the results which he comes up with, the estimates which he comes up with, you would also believe to be reasonable? A. Yes, I would. Mr. OLIVER. That is all, thank you. Examiner DONAHUE. Anything further? Thank you very much, Mr. Bannick. You are excused. (Witness excused.) Examiner DONAHUE. Is there any objection to the receipt of the typewritten statement of Mr. Hubert A. Schon and Mr. Elmer J. Bannick as their direct testimony in this proceeding?
