BORDER PATROL

Procurement of MD

600N Helicopters

Should Be Reassessed

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable Duncan Hunter

House of Representatives

September 2000

GAO/GGD-00-201

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

B-284951

September 29, 2000

The Honorable Duncan Hunter

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Hunter:

The U.S. Border Patrol, part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS), is procuring a new type of helicopter—the MD 600N—as part of a

replacement program for its aging helicopter fleet. The MD 600N was

intended to be suitable for a variety of Border Patrol air operations

missions and scenarios. However, many Border Patrol pilots operating the

first MD 600Ns expressed concerns about the safety and suitability of the

aircraft for key mission applications. On the basis of these concerns, you

asked us to review the MD 600N’s procurement, application, and suitability

for Border Patrol use.

Specifically, we agreed to provide information and analysis on (1)

procurement of the MD 600N, including procurement specifications and

selection factors and (2) whether experience has shown the MD 600N

helicopter to be effective in safely supporting the Border Patrol’s primary

air operations mission. We also agreed to provide information on the

Border Patrol ’s air operations missions and resources.

The INS procurement in which the MD 600N helicopter was selected for

the Border Patrol was intended to provide an aircraft capable of meeting a

variety of air operations requirements, such as low and slow surveillance

and transport of agents and mission equipment. To obtain such a

multipurpose aircraft, the contract solicitation listed three minimum

performance criteria the aircraft needed to have. The aircraft was required

to operate at a speed of up to 130 knots, operate at high altitude with crew

and equipment outlined by the statement of work, and be capable of

operating at least 2 hours under normal conditions. The aircraft was also

required to have seating for two pilots and two passengers. Only two

aircraft were determined to be within the competitive range under these

specifications.

Some weaknesses were noted with both of the aircraft, although overall

both were considered acceptable. The flight evaluation team for the

procurement reported that flying the MD 600N was a heavy workload—

controls were stiff, yet needed constant adjustments to fly. The team also

Results in Brief
B-284951

Page 2 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

reported that the cockpit was cramped, particularly during night flight with

additional equipment. The contract was awarded to McDonnell Douglas

Helicopter Systems (which later became MD Helicopters, Inc.)1

 based on

best value to the government. The Border Patrol has purchased 11 of these

helicopters for about $1.3 million each. The contract contains options to

purchase up to 34 additional helicopters over a 4-year period. A funding

request for new Border Patrol helicopters is included in the fiscal year

2002 Department of Justice budget request.

Most Border Patrol pilots who have had experience flying the MD 600N

and most sector chiefs expressed strong reservations about the suitability

of the helicopter for supporting key air operations missions. In particular,

the pilots reported that the MD 600N is inferior to the smaller aircraft

being replaced for low-level, low-speed surveillance—which is a large

portion of the overall mission profile. The pilots were concerned about the

safety of the MD 600N, citing difficulty in performing emergency

procedures and with other documented problems, such as malfunctioning

of the engine control system and defective control cables. The pilots also

said that the MD 600N is generally difficult to operate and fatiguing to fly.

Two of the three local law enforcement agencies with MD 600Ns that we

spoke with shared many of these concerns.

The amount of time the MD 600N helicopters were unavailable because of

maintenance-related reasons also was a concern to pilots, mechanics, and

most Border Patrol sector chiefs. Border Patrol Air Operations records

show the aircraft was unavailable about 50 percent of the time between

December 1998 and March 2000. Reasons for the downtime included

delays in obtaining an engine repair contract, slow manufacturer approval

for modifications, and parts availability.

Responding to our inquiry regarding these concerns, the current

manufacturer of the MD 600N, MD Helicopters Incorporated (MDH), stated

that all known problems with parts or components have been or will be

corrected. Company officials believed that the concerns the Border Patrol

pilots have had regarding the MD 600N are typical of those encountered

with a new product. MDH has proposed modifications to the helicopter to

make it easier and less fatiguing to fly. A major handling improvement

being considered—the addition of a stabilization system—may greatly

improve handling concerns. However, this and other proposed changes do

not address all of the concerns surrounding the limited availability, safety,

 

1

 Since the contract was signed, McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems has been sold twice. It was

first bought by the Boeing Company in 1997 and later by MD Helicopters, Inc., in 1999.
B-284951

Page 3 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

or suitability for certain missions. Regarding the availability of the

helicopter, an MDH official said that there is no reason that the Border

Patrol aircraft should have so much downtime.

The Chief of the Air Operations support office also believed that the

problems encountered with the MD 600N can be addressed and that pilots

will become accustomed to flying it. However, based on the problems they

have encountered, and after almost 2 years of experience with the

helicopter, most pilots, mechanics, and sector chiefs do not support

acquiring more MD 600Ns for the Border Patrol fleet. Moreover, most

sector chiefs have also questioned the appropriateness of acquiring a

multipurpose aircraft to meet the individual needs in each sector.

We are recommending that before any more MD 600Ns are purchased,

Border Patrol officials and MDH address the safety, handling, and

availability issues raised by pilots and mechanics. We are also

recommending that the Border Patrol reassess its decision to purchase one

type of multipurpose helicopter to meet a variety of air operations

requirements. In its comments, INS concurred with these

recommendations and provided additional information, which we

evaluated and incorporated, as appropriate.

The Border Patrol is the mobile, uniformed, enforcement arm of the INS.

Its mission is to detect and prevent the smuggling and illegal entry of

undocumented aliens into the United States and to apprehend persons

found in the United States in violation of immigration laws. Border Patrol

agents perform their duties by land, sea, and air near and along about 8,000

miles of U.S. boundaries. The Border Patrol is divided into 21 sectors, 9 of

which are along the southwest border. Sectors are further subdivided into

stations. Each sector is headed by a chief patrol agent, herein referred to

as the sector chief. The sector chief controls both ground and air resources

in their particular sector.

Background
B-284951

Page 4 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Source: U.S. Border Patrol.

From fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 2000, funding for the Border Patrol has

increased from $362 million to over $1 billion (in constant dollars). At the

end of fiscal year 1999, there were 8,225 Border Patrol agents on duty and

deployed, as compared with 7,856 at the end of fiscal year 1998.

Border Patrol air operations support the overall agency mission using

aerial equipment to detect and monitor illegal alien traffic while assisting

enforcement activities. One primary air operations mission consists of

border monitoring activities to detect evidence of, or illegal entry of aliens,

alien smugglers, contraband, and violators of other laws. According to

Border Patrol officials and documents, their mission requires aircraft that

can fly for extended periods at low altitudes and speeds. In some Border

Patrol sectors, low altitude and slow speed flying can account for as much

as 90 percent of flight time.

Aircraft also provide (1) rapid response to remote intrusion detection

sensors, (2) assistance for humanitarian missions in remote locations, and

(3) the capability to observe and coordinate law enforcement activities

over large geographic areas. Using technology, including forward looking

Figure 1: Border Patrol Sector

Headquarters Along the Southwest

Border
B-284951

Page 5 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

infrared (FLIR) and night lighting systems, aircraft also provide detection

and safety capabilities that are not otherwise available. The primary

aircraft used by the Border Patrol to meet the mission requirements for

border control efforts, low altitude detection of cross border violators and

close ground/agent support has been rotary wing aircraft—helicopters.

Support for air operations, such as the provision of equipment, training

and supplies is provided by the Air Operations Center in El Paso Texas.

The Air Operations Chief directs air operations. The Border Patrol aircraft

fleet currently consists of 57 helicopters and 27 airplanes in 19 locations

around the country—primarily in the nine sectors on the southwest

border, as shown in table I. Over half of the helicopters are 35 year-old

military surplus OH-6A craft, which are the light weight category aircraft.

The Deputy Air Operations Chief described a need for helicopters in the

light, mid-range and utility categories. The bulk of the Border Patrol’s

work is in the light category.

Sector Aircraft make Model Number of aircraft Classification Number of pilots

San Diego, CA Hughes OH-6A 3 Helicopter 18

McDonnell Douglas MD 500 E 4 Helicopter

McDonnell Douglas MD 600N 3 Helicopter

Bell UH-1H 1 Helicopter

El Centro, CA Cessna C-182 1 Airplane 5

Piper PA18 3 Airplane

Hughes OH-6A 3 Helicopter

McDonnell Douglas MD 500C 1 Helicopter

Yuma, AZ Cessna C-182 1 Airplane 6

Hughes OH-6A 4 Helicopter

Tucson, AZ Cessna C-182 1 Airplane 7

Piper PA18 1 Airplane

Hughes OH-6A 4 Helicopter

El Paso, TX Cessna C-182 1 Airplane 8

Hughes OH-6A 5 Helicopter

McDonnell Douglas MD 600 N 1 Helicopter

El Paso Air Operations

Training Center Cessna C-210 2 Airplane 7

Hughes OH-6A 3 Helicopter

McDonnell Douglas MD 600N 1 Helicopter

Bell UH-1H 1 Helicopter

Marfa, TX Cessna C-206 1 Airplane 6

Piper PA18 1 Airplane

Hughes OH-6A 3 Helicopter

Del Rio, TX Cessna C-206 1 Airplane 11

Piper PA18 3 Airplane

Eurocopter (A-Star) AS350BA 4 Helicopter

Hughes OH-6A 1 Helicopter

Table 1: Border Patrol Aircraft Fleet and Locations Along the Southwest Border
B-284951

Page 6 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Sector Aircraft make Model Number of aircraft Classification Number of pilots

Laredo, TX Bell UH-1H 1 Helicopter

Cessna C-182 1 Airplane 6

Piper PA18 1 Airplane

Hughes OH-6A 1 Helicopter

McAllen, TX McDonnell Douglas MD 600N 3 Helicopter

Cessna C-206 1 Airplane 11

Cessna C-182 1 Airplane

Piper PA18 1 Airplane

Hughes OH-6A 3 Helicopter

McDonnell Douglas MD 600N 3 Helicopter

Note: Data is current as of June 2, 2000.

Source: U.S. Border Patrol.

Helicopters operate using an engine to power the main rotor blades, with

the blades working much like the wings on an airplane produces lift. The

force of the main rotor turning in one direction has the effect of turning

the fuselage (i.e., body) of the helicopter in the opposite direction. To

cancel the “torque” or spin created by the main rotor, conventional

helicopters have a tail rotor that opposes the main rotor torque tendency.

The MD 600N differs from the conventional model by using an antitorque

system that that does not use a tail rotor called a NOTAR system.

NOTAR antitorque

system

C250-C47 808 shp

turbine engine with FADEC

Foot pedals

Collective

Cyclic stick

Vertical stabilizers

Thruster

Main rotor

A

Source: GAO analysis of MDH Information.

Helicopter Primer

Figure 2: MD 600N Flight Controls
B-284951

Page 7 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Pilots simultaneously use three different controls to operate a helicopter in

a coordinated fashion or “in trim.”

• The cyclic control allows the pilot to change the angle or tilt of the rotor

blades to control the forward, backward, and sideways direction of the

helicopter.

• The collective is the primary control for the up and down action of the

helicopter. The collective varies the lift produced by the main rotor by

changing the pitch of the blades at one time or collectively.

• The foot pedals in both NOTAR and conventional helicopters control the

antitorque action, and control left and right turns when hovering. The

pedals control the pitch of the fan, vertical stabilizers, and thruster of the

NOTAR system. The right pedal decreases the antitorque action, while the

left pedal increases it.

Movement with one control often requires a corresponding move in other

controls to coordinate flight. For example, when the collective is moved so

there is less lift, the torque is reduced and the right pedal must be adjusted

to maintain flight. To operate properly, a helicopter must also have its

weight balanced around a center of gravity and be within weight limits.

Our objectives were to provide information and analysis on (1)

procurement of the MD 600N, including procurement specifications and

selection factors; and (2) whether experience has shown the MD 600N

helicopter to be effective in safely supporting the Border Patrol’s primary

air operations mission. We also were to provide information on the Border

Patrol’s air operations missions and resources.

Information on the mission of Border Patrol air operations was obtained

from INS officials and other documents as well as from interviews with

key Border Patrol and Air Operations officials.

To analyze the procurement of the MD 600N, we reviewed procurement

files at the INS Contracting and Procurement Branch in Dallas, Texas. The

documents reviewed included the source selection plan, the technical

evaluation, business evaluation, the contract, and contract modifications.

We also reviewed acceptance the documents for each the MD 600Ns

received by the Border Patrol. We spoke with the head of the technical

evaluation team as well as pilots and mechanics who tested the MD 600N

and other competing helicopters.

To obtain information on experience with the Border Patrol’s MD 600Ns,

we interviewed pilots and mechanics in the four sectors with MD 600Ns

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology
B-284951

Page 8 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

(San Diego, CA; McAllen, TX; Laredo, TX; and El Paso’s substation in

Deming, NM). We interviewed 25 of the 29 pilots then certified to fly the

MD 600N and 3 of the 4 training pilots. We met with the 12 mechanics that

were available in the 4 sectors. Pilot and mechanic interviews were

conducted in both group settings and individually.

For Border Patrol management’s views on the issues surrounding the MD

600N, we interviewed Air Operations senior managers and the chief or

assistant patrol agent (sector chief) in each of the Border Patrol sectors

where the MD 600Ns are operated. We also reviewed correspondence on

the MD 600N between Border Patrol pilots, sector chiefs, and Air

Operations. We examined training materials for the MD 600N used by

Border Patrol instructors.

We interviewed MDH officials and reviewed MDH technical

documentation for the MD 600N, such as the flight training manual and

descriptive brochures. We examined MD 600N warranty service requests

and manufacturer’s service notices.

To more fully understand the performance of the MD 600N, we held

discussions with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aircraft

certification officials in Los Angeles, and a National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) official. We also reviewed NTSB Aviation Accident

Database records on the MD 600N and other helicopters for comparison

purposes. We also talked to all three other U.S. law enforcement agencies

operating the MD 600N: the Los Angeles, Orange County and San

Bernardino Sheriffs offices, about their experience using the MD 600N

helicopter.

We conducted our review between March 2000, and August 2000, in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The MD 600N helicopter contract is intended to provide a multipurpose

aircraft capable of meeting Border Patrol requirements for a variety of

missions and scenarios, such as low and slow surveillance and transport of

agents and mission equipment. The flight evaluation of the MD 600N,

which was conducted during the competition for the contract, noted

several flight-related weaknesses, including stiff controls that may

contribute to fatigue during typical low-level Border Patrol operations and

a cramped cockpit that could impede night operations. Notwithstanding

those weaknesses, the contract was awarded to McDonnell Douglas

MD 600N Procurement

Is Intended to Meet

Wide Range of

Requirements
B-284951

Page 9 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Helicopter Systems (which later became MD Helicopters, Inc.)2 because its

proposal to supply the helicopters represents the best overall value. The

Border Patrol has purchased 11 MD 600N helicopters for about $1.3 million

each and, under the contract, could buy up to 34 more.

According to Air Operations officials, air operations requirements were

established based on information provided by Border Patrol sectors. These

requirements varied by sector and included needs such as low and slow

flight operations, long-range and improved night operations capabilities.

Initially, the intent was to replace the lightweight OH-6A helicopters, but

this approach was dropped in favor of a multimission aircraft that could

meet a range of needs, a Deputy Chief said. The INS solicitation asked for

an aircraft to cover as many contingencies as possible. Missions include

long periods of surveillance at one location; surveillance over long

distances at minimum airspeeds; mountain operations; night surveillance,

using vision enhancement equipment; and transportation of agents and/or

mission equipment to remote sites. Air operations are conducted from sea

level up to 5,500 feet and in temperatures ranging from below freezing up

to 120 degrees.

On January 16, 1997, the INS issued the solicitation to procure a

multipurpose helicopter capable of operating in a wide range of Border

Patrol scenarios. The solicitation was for the acquisition of up to 45 light

observation helicopters and associated spare parts, technical support, and

parts exchange and overhaul support. The solicitation was issued under

the commercial items and negotiated procurement procedures of the

Federal Acquisition Regulation. The INS conducted the competitive

acquisition under formal source selection procedures, including evaluation

of technical proposals (a component of which was a flight evaluation of

the helicopters themselves), past performance, and price.

Under the solicitation, technical merit and past performance were more

important than price, although slightly superior technical capability and/or

past performance would not justify a significantly higher price. The INS

would make this assessment though a trade-off analysis that compared the

benefits of superior technical capability and/or past performance with a

higher price. Price could become the determining factor if proposals were

judged equal and close to equal for technical merit and past performance.

 2

 Since the contract was signed, the civilian helicopter line of McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems

has been sold twice. It was first bought by the Boeing Company in 1997 and later by MD Helicopters,

Inc., in 1999.

Procurement for a

Multipurpose Aircraft
B-284951

Page 10 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Proposed helicopters had to be the manufacturer’s latest model and had to

be certified by the FAA by the time of delivery.

The solicitation’s statement of work contained three minimum

performance criteria. These were for (1) a sustained high speed of 130

knots to reduce response time; (2) the capability to operate at high altitude

at maximum gross weight3

 (a minimum of 6,000 feet); and (3) the capability

of not less than 2 hours continuous flight time (with auxiliary fuel, 4 hours)

at normal patrol operating speeds (40 to 60 knots) and weight. Desired

(but not required) performance included having helicopter noise levels

that did not exceed 84 decibels.

In addition to required aircraft performance, the solicitation specified

certain weight and balance requirements. Requirements included

• the maximum ability to load the aircraft’s cabin without having to move

any aircraft components or use any movable ballast to keep within

certified flight limitations; and

• a minimum capability of holding two pilots and one crewmember, carrying

the maximum amount of fuel, and containing specialized equipment, such

as a forward-looking infrared unit.

The solicitation also specified that the interior cabin configuration was

required to have seating for two pilots up front (with dual controls) and a

minimum of two passenger seats in the rear. Desirable interior cabin

features, included padded seats and lumbar support for the pilots, and

maximum soundproofing to reduce pilot and passenger fatigue and stress.

Eight proposals offering different helicopter models were received from

three companies in response to the January 1997 solicitation for new

Border Patrol helicopters. One company, American Eurocopter, dropped

out of the competition in March 1997. As part of the solicitation, the

Border Patrol conducted a precontract award flight evaluation of six

helicopters proposed by two firms. Four helicopters were found to be

technically unacceptable (e.g.; for insufficient space to carry mission

equipment) and were eliminated from further consideration. The two

remaining helicopter models were the McDonnell Douglas Helicopter

Systems MD 600N and the Bell Textron 407. The McDonnell Douglas

Helicopter Systems and the Bell Textron proposals, while both initially

 

3

 Maximum gross weight includes accessories listed in the statement of work, maximum fuel and

approximately 500 pounds of crew and equipment.

Evaluations Reduced

Choice to Two Helicopter

Proposals
B-284951

Page 11 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

received a marginal technical evaluation rating, were considered as having

a reasonable chance of being awarded the contract.4

The precontract award flight evaluation resulted in a tie between the MD

600N and the Bell 407—both were rated in the “better” category during

flight tests.5

 The MD 600N was noted as being strong and as having good

speed. Its unusual anti-torque system was assessed as a definite plus from

a safety standpoint. The Bell 407 was noted for its superb handling

characteristics and ample power for all Border Patrol mission

requirements. The Bell 407 ample crew and equipment space, outstanding

visibility and responsive controls were also rated as strengths.

Evaluators noted weaknesses, however, in both helicopters. The flight

evaluation of the MD 600N identified weaknesses that included (1) the

aircraft being hard to handle due to its size and weight; (2) the interior

space being cramped; (3) the internal noise levels being high; and (4) the

aircraft having stiff controls. Specifically, flight-test evaluators noted that

during typical low-level Border Patrol operations, the MD 600N was hard

to control due to its size and weight and that the control forces required to

be used by the pilot for maneuvering the helicopter were extreme.

Evaluators also noted that these problems could lead to pilot fatigue and

stress that would be detrimental to crew safety. Pilots conducting the

flight test noted that this condition “is unacceptable for Border Patrol

operations at low level” and that a hydraulic system would help

considerably. Further, the evaluators noted that the pilot and passenger

cabins were small and tight and that the cramped cockpit impeded the

pilot’s freedom of movement during regular missions and, even more so,

during night operations when either the forward-looking infrared

equipment or night vision goggles were used.

Although not listed as a weakness, in their description of the MD 600N

flight evaluation, evaluators stated that the manufacturer did not provide

 

4

 The general technical responses of both proposals were rated as marginal due to technical

deficiencies and other noncompliance items that were not related to the flight evaluation. Specifically,

the deficiencies were in the areas of the maintenance plan, training plan, and helicopter component

parts. Upon review of the proposals and the solicitation language, source selection officials identified

several areas where it could relax or otherwise change its requirements and still meet its mission and

operational needs. The selection officials determined that it could amend the solicitation so as to make

both “marginal” proposals acceptable and amended the solicitation accordingly. Both McDonnell

Douglas and Bell had outstanding past performance.

5

 A “better” determination means that the competitor (1) meets all of the solicitation’s minimum

requirements and exceeds many of the requirements for a particular factor, subfactor, or overall or (2)

exceeds a small number of the minimum requirements but does so to a significant degree or in a

valuable way.
B-284951

Page 12 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

them with enough data to determine whether the aircraft could meet its

endurance requirements. The flight evaluation of the Bell 407 identified as

a weakness, among other things, that it did not meet the desired low noise

levels the Border Patrol was seeking.

Following this initial evaluation and discussions with the government,

McDonnell Douglas and Bell Textron both submitted best and final offers.

Reviews of both offers by the technical evaluation committee continued to

list the same flight-evaluation weaknesses noted earlier and did not note

any corrective actions by either offeror. The technical evaluation

committee noted, however, that best and final offers for the McDonnell

Douglas and the Bell Textron proposals would meet or exceed

requirements for Border Patrol air operations.

In selecting the MD 600N, the source selection evaluation board stated that

while the two competitors essentially tied during the technical, flight test,

and past performance evaluations, the MD 600N came in at a lower

evaluated price than the Bell 407. Further, a best value trade-off analysis

concluded that neither aircraft demonstrated technical superiority of such

value as to warrant consideration of paying a premium price. Based on a

July 30, 1997, evaluation board recommendation, the INS awarded the

helicopter contract to McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems for the MD

600N because its proposal represented the best value to the government.

The Border Patrol purchased 11 MD 600N helicopters for about $1.3

million each—and could order up to 34 more helicopters, at agreed to

higher prices—in the remaining 3 option years (2000 to 2002). An INS

official told us that the INS has asked the Department of Justice, as part of

it’s fiscal year 2002 budget request, to include $13.5 million for nine

replacement helicopters at $1.5 million each for the Border Patrol. The

request does not specify the type of helicopter but notes that it will be a

single-engine aircraft with a low-noise signature capable of performing the

Border Patrol’s air operations surveillance mission. The Air Operations

Chief told us that he would like to replace the 30 OH-6A light observation

helicopters in the fleet with the multipurpose MD 600N.

Border Patrol Air Operations officials told us that they believe the MD

600N meets the multimission capabilities specified in the contract.

According to the officials, the MD 600N can (1) fly low and slow for patrol

missions; (2) fly high and fast for transporting passengers; and (3) serve as

a platform for mounting high-tech equipment, such as vision-enhanced

cameras or FLIRs. However, most of the Border Patrol pilots with MD

600N experience that we interviewed had concerns about the multimission

Border Patrol Could

Purchase Up to 34 More MD

600N Helicopters

Concerns About the

Suitability of the MD

600N Helicopter for

Performing Multiple

Missions
B-284951

Page 13 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

capabilities of the helicopter, particularly its ability to fly low and slow.

Sector chiefs are also reconsidering the multimission approach for future

helicopters.

Air Operations officials stated that there is variation in the missions of the

sectors. Currently the sectors operate a variety of aircraft, as was noted in

table 1. The Air Operations Deputy Chief stated that a standardized fleet

was desirable because it simplified the process for providing parts,

maintenance, training and for other reasons.

Most of the pilots we interviewed agreed that a significant amount of their

sectors’ work involved flying at low speeds and altitudes performing patrol

missions and that the MD 600N was not conducive to that type of flying. To

effectively accomplish their mission, the pilots in one sector explained that

they must fly low and slow to detect and apprehend illegal aliens hiding in

canyons, bushes, and trees. These maneuvers cannot be performed as

effectively and safely in the MD 600N, according to these pilots, because

the MD 600N should be flown higher and faster than other aircraft to avoid

the FAA-certified altitude and speed combinations (avoidance area). This

area is where recovery from an engine failure might not be successful. All

aircraft have an area of avoidance; however, the area is larger for the MD

600N than for the OH-6A and MD 500E helicopters (see fig. 3).

Other types of Border Patrol missions may also be limited based on MD

600N maximum weight and/or aircraft balance limits.6

 For example, using

Border Patrol software provided to us by Air Operations to calculate

weight and balance, we found aircraft in Deming and El Paso would be

outside of acceptable ranges with a full tank of fuel, a pilot, copilot,

infrared night equipment and an equipment operator. This capability was

listed as requirement in the Border Patrol’s solicitation for a multipurpose

aircraft. Aircraft in the other two sectors would be 20 pounds below

maximum weight if the unused rear seat was removed for the mission.

Several pilots noted the MD 600N, as equipped by the Border Patrol, is

“nose-heavy.” While flight is possible outside of approved weight and

balance ranges, limits are established because an overweight or

unbalanced craft can’t perform as certified by the FAA. Thirty pounds of

ballast, or “dead weight,” was permanently installed in the tail of the

Border Patrol’s helicopters to try to improve on the out-of-balance

 

6

 The MD 600N is certified by the FAA to fly at a maximum weight of up to 4,100 pounds at density

altitudes of 4,000 feet or below, and 3,850 pounds for locations above 4,000 feet. Both the El Paso

sector its Deming station are above 4,000 feet. For balance, the weight must be distributed within a

certain number of inches of the aircraft’s center of gravity.
B-284951

Page 14 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

condition.7 An MDH official noted that it is the 640 pounds of equipment

installed for the Border Patrol—most of which is in the instrument panel—

that caused the imbalance. A captain for one of the local law enforcement

agencies also characterized the MD 600N as nose-heavy. The agency added

ballast and moved the radios and batteries to the rear of the aircraft to

compensate, according to the captain. An MDH official said that this

agency added almost as much equipment to their aircraft as did the Border

Patrol.

Two Border Patrol pilots suggested that the MD 600N could be an

acceptable aircraft for a desert area with wide-open spaces suitable to high

and fast flying. However pilots working in the desert do not believe the MD

600N is appropriate for their circumstances because they also fly low and

slow. In addition, sand and dirt have caused problems with the engine. A

similar problem with the OH-6A engine was handled by adding a filter,

according to the Air Operations Deputy Chief. He stated that the Border

Patrol plans to test a filter for certification on the MD 600N in October

2000 that might alleviate the problem.

Two patrol agents in charge stated that the variety of missions should be

reflected in the aircraft for each sector. One said that the “one size fits all”

(i.e., multimission) requirement does not reflect sectors’ different flying

environments. He does not feel that the missions will be effectively and

safely accomplished as long as the policy is in effect. Another thought that

every sector should have a diverse fleet of aircraft, including a few MD

600Ns for transporting “VIPs” and agents or for performing FLIR missions.

He said that the bulk of the fleet should be a smaller aircraft to perform the

daily Border Patrol missions.

The Chief of Air Operations and some sector chiefs generally agreed that

the MD 600N does provide the Border Patrol with multiple capabilities.

However, given their experience to date that indicates the MD 600N may

be inappropriate for a large part of their mission, sector chiefs are

reconsidering whether a multipurpose aircraft is the right approach.

Border Patrol Air Operations officials stated that they wanted to procure a

helicopter that had multimission capabilities. They concluded that the MD

600N could fly low, slow or fast, and carry passengers and high-tech

equipment. It can perform different missions, according to the officials, by

configuring each mission differently, depending on the requirements. For

 

7

 An MDH official stated that the addition of ballast is not unusual to compensate for the weight of

equipment added by users.

Sector Management

Questions Use of

Multipurpose Helicopter
B-284951

Page 15 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

example, for observation missions, a single pilot with full fuel for

maximum flying hours would be possible. Or, to transport several persons

or load more equipment, less fuel would be carried. According to the

officials, the MD 600N in its different configurations was capable of

performing everything that the Border Patrol missions require.

Several sector chiefs supported the MD 600Ns ability to support multiple

tasks, but they questioned whether it was the right aircraft for all Border

Patrol missions. For example, one sector chief, who was part of the MD

600N procurement team, said the goal was to give pilots the ability to

support new technologies, such as FLIR and the flexibility to be able to fly

low if necessary. The chief acknowledged and forwarded to an INS

Western Region official the pilot’s concerns about safety and handling but

believes that the pilots will become more comfortable flying the MD 600N

as they gain experience. However, he stated that if pilots believed that the

equipment is a hindrance, then perhaps the decision to purchase more of

the MD 600Ns should be reconsidered.

In another sector, the sector chief said that he thought the MD 600N was a

good aircraft because it was quiet, and pilots liked how it handled in

smooth air. However, they have had problems with the aircraft, as

documented in several memos. The sector chief had requested additional

aircraft but did not ask for MD 600Ns because he said that the aircraft had

been on the ground more than they had been in the air in his sector. He

said that he does not want any more MD 600Ns in his sector and

recommended that the Border Patrol not purchase any more MD 600Ns

until the problems are fixed.

A third sector chief said that they occasionally use the MD 600N for

transporting agents in support of other operations. He also said the

helicopter can get lower to see tracks. However, a memorandum from the

sector regarding acquiring additional MD 600Ns stated: “Presently, the MD600N aircraft that were acquired to replace the OH-6A helicopters have a

less than 48 percent availability record. Additionally, the pilots in all

operating sectors have concerns about the safety of the aircraft that are

real and documented.” The memorandum further states that many of the

problems could have been avoided by simply asking the various sector

officials what was needed for operational use in their areas.

The assistant sector chief in the fourth sector with MD 600Ns reported that

about 80 percent of the sector’s work was low flying patrol work but that

the MD 600N was not conducive to low flying. In addition, the sector chief
B-284951

Page 16 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

said that desert conditions of the sector had caused problems for the

NOTAR tail fan and the automated engine control system.

The poor reputation of the MD 600N has also extended to sectors not

flying the aircraft. Sector chiefs were asked for feedback on the contents

of a May 2000 memorandum from Air Operations to the Chief of the Border

Patrol in which more MD 600Ns were requested. One sector chief slated to

receive four aircraft, if more are purchased, wrote emphatically that the

sector “does not request four (4) MD-600N helicopters.” Another sector

that would be assigned two MD 600Ns, if more were bought, reported to

Air Operations that they did not believe the MD 600N would be effective

for them. The sector official stated that they would prefer other aircraft.

While there was no consensus among managers about the role of the MD

600N for the Border Patrol, the multipurpose approach is being

reconsidered. According to the Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol, a May

2000 sector-chief meeting included the MD 600N as part of a discussion of

the kind of future fleet they envisioned. One sector chief at the meeting

said that the chiefs supported every sector deciding what type of aircraft

they needed, based on the tasks for their particular sector, rather than

purchasing one multipurpose aircraft.

Pilots in all four sectors with the MD 600N reported a lack of confidence in

the MD 600N because of flight safety and performance concerns. These

concerns included a perceived lack of ability to successfully recover from

an engine failure when flying at lower altitudes and speeds (autorotation

characteristics), problems with the helicopter’s electronic engine control

system, control cable defects and poor flight-handling characteristics.

Several pilots outside of the Border Patrol also have had some of these

concerns. MDH officials stated that the autorotation characteristics of the

MD 600N were approved by the FAA and that the problems with aircraft

components either had been or would soon be addressed.

Most of the pilots we interviewed believed that the autorotation

characteristics of the MD 600N are inappropriate for much of the flying

performed during Border Patrol air operations missions. Autorotation is a

pilot-recovery maneuver performed in the event of an engine failure that

keeps the main rotor blades moving so that the aircraft descent can be

controlled. Aircraft height and airspeed factors to be avoided during

autorotation are depicted as a height/velocity curve.8

 Pilots are instructed

 8

 The chances of successfully completing an autorotation are validated for a given height and speed as

part of the aircraft’s FAA certification. This ability differs for different aircraft and is detailed in the

craft’s flight manual in a height/velocity diagram. Air speed and altitude combinations where

Many Border Patrol

Pilots Lack Confidence

in the MD 600N

Helicopter

Concerns About

Autorotation

Characteristics
B-284951

Page 17 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

to avoid flying within the curve area, but they are not prohibited from

doing so. Several pilots pointed out that the curve for the MD 600N

includes more area to avoid than for some other Border Patrol helicopters,

such as the OH-6A and MD 500E models. The pilots said they believed that

because of the larger area to avoid with the MD 600N and its higher rate of

descent, it would be more difficult to land safely during autorotation than

other model helicopters.

MDH officials stated that the pilots based their concerns on a

misunderstanding of the height/velocity curve rather than on the

helicopter’s operational characteristics. According to MDH, the MD 600N’s

height/velocity curve appears to cover more area because of more

stringent testing conditions used for establishing the curve.9

 However, we

examined the height/velocity curves for several helicopters that were

tested at or estimated for sea level. The MD 600N height/velocity curve had

a larger area to avoid (see fig. 3). A senior FAA certification official said

that this is a valid means for showing how different aircraft height/velocity

curves relate to the height and airspeed of a typical Border Patrol mission.

 autorotation success has not been demonstrated are indicated as an area inside the height/velocity

curve.

9

 The MD 600N was certified under part 27 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. p. 27). An

MDH official stated FAR 27 requires testing to be done at 7,000 feet, while the MD 500E model was

tested under an earlier regulation, that allows testing to be done at sea level, where more of the

helicopter’s weight is supported by denser air.
B-284951

Page 18 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Note: H/V curve measured at or estimated for sea level. Helicopter weights used for the curves are

3,000 pounds for the MD 500E; 4,100 pounds for MD 600N; 5,000 pounds for the Bell 407; 4,961

pounds for the AS 350, and 2,550 for the OH-6A. Conditions assumed are that the aircraft is landing

on a firm, level and smooth surface.

Source: GAO analysis of manufacturers’ data.

An MDH official said they took a test pilot to one sector to discuss the

autorotation concerns with Border Patrol pilots and provided additional

Figure 3: Height/Velocity Curves for MD

500E, MD 600N, Bell 407, American

Eurocopter AS 350, and Hughes OH-6A
B-284951

Page 19 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

autorotation training to all Border Patrol sectors with MD 600Ns, at

company expense. Based on feedback from Air Operations management to

MDH, a company official said he believes that many of the concerns were

addressed. MDH officials also said they were testing a 1 to 2 degree change

in the angle of the rotor blades that will make the MD 600N easier to

handle during autorotations. If testing goes well, the change will be made

at no cost to customers, according to MDH officials. A proposed stability

augmentation system may provide additional improvements, an MDH

official said.

Several pilots also stated, however, that the manner in which the MD 600N

handles could make successful autorotations more difficult, in part,

because it descends faster than other helicopters, such as the OH-6A and

MD 500E. According to an MDH official, the rate of descent for the MD

500E is 1,600 to 2,200 feet per minute and the MD 600N rate is 1,800 to

2,300 feet per minute or more.10 One training pilot said the aircraft can be

safely autorotated; but because it is heavier and has a higher descent rate,

there is little room for error at the bottom of the descent. Pilots simulate

autorecovery during training in a MDH aircraft at 3,400 pounds, according

to an MDH official, although the MD 600N is certified to carry up to 4,100

pounds. Several pilots stated that they did not believe this prepared them

adequately for an actual emergency. Pilots at two of the three local law

enforcement agencies we visited also shared the perception of poor MD

600N autorotation capabilities.

Many of the pilots also did not have confidence in the electronic engine

control system of the MD 600N because some of the parts have

malfunctioned and because of incidents in which they believed that the

system failed to operate properly. MDH and Air Operations management

said that they believe that the problems have been repaired.

The engine control system for the MD 600N is a Full Authority Digital

Engine Control (FADEC) system composed of two parts, an electronic

control unit (ECU) and a hydromechanical unit (HMU). The ECU uses

sensors to signal to the HMU how much fuel should be sent to the engine,

based on automated operations or on pilot commands. The FADEC system

can be switched to pilot operated (manual) mode by the pilot or by the

system itself when the ECU cannot reliably gauge fuel requirements. The

 10 A memorandum from the Chief of Air Operations to one sector chief provides data putting the MD

600N rate of descent at 2,400 to 2,600 feet per minute. Although the rates are acceptable, the document

notes that the descent rate is higher than past models.

Engine Control System

Problems
B-284951

Page 20 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Bell 407 and AS 350, similar class helicopters, also have electronic engine

control systems.

Three Border Patrol sectors operating the MD 600N reported problems

with the FADEC system:

• Based on recurring FADEC failures in one sector over a 4-month period, a

pilot requested that its MD 600N be grounded in June 1999. The patrol

agent in charge stated in a memorandum to his sector chief that “Should

we experience an ECU failure at a low power setting while performing

enforcement operations at low altitudes the outcome would be

disastrous.”11 The source of the malfunctions was a problem known by

MDH and its engine subcontractor. MDH planned to upgrade the MD

600Ns with a modified part when the components were sent in for

overhaul. The sector mechanic was not given the modified part and

FADEC problems continued. In the instances of FADEC failures, pilots

were able to land the MD 600N safely following emergency procedures.

When the engine manufacturer recognized the problem the upgraded part

was provided.

• According to an Air Operations memorandum, FADEC problems in

another sector in September 1999 were due to the same faulty part that

caused problems in the first sector, but quick pilot action avoided any

damage. After this incident, all Border Patrol MD 600Ns were upgraded

with the new part.

• In the third sector, a reported FADEC problem was evaluated, but it could

not be duplicated or substantiated by ground testing of the system.

Such incidents have reduced the confidence of Border Patrol pilots in the

aircraft. According to the Deputy Chief of Air Operations, following an

ECU failure in one sector the pilot landed the MD 600N in a field rather

than fly back to the airport. The Deputy stated that he had to fly to the

sector and recover the aircraft because the pilots in the sector were afraid

to do so. He believes this illustrates how little pilots understand the

FADEC system, in spite of the emphasis placed on training. Such failures

are not a life-threatening emergency, he said.

One of the three local law enforcement agencies we visited had also

experienced a problem with the FADEC system on its MD 600N. During a

critical point in flight—takeoff at night—the power went to a fixed-fuel

 

11 ECU failure is covered in the pilot flight manual under Emergency and Malfunction Procedures.

According to the Air Operations Deputy Chief and an MDH official, an ECU failure is a standard

procedure published in the pilot’s flight manual and taught to pilots during their transition course, and

there is no reason to believe it could be disastrous.
B-284951

Page 21 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

mode, much like a gas pedal being stuck at a high-power setting. The pilot

recovered from the situation without incident.

According to MDH correspondence, as one of the first companies to

integrate automated engine controls into light single-engine helicopters,

some problems have occurred. The problems identified by the Border

Patrol applied to all aircraft using a particular engine, including those in

Bell 407 helicopters. Six of the 28 service bulletins issued by MDH on the

MD 600N were related to FADEC operations. An MDH official said MDH

worked with the engine subcontractor to resolve FADEC issues. All the

HMU parts that were upgraded were paid for under the manufacturer’s

warranty. Since all MD 600Ns were upgraded with the latest parts no

additional FADEC problems with the faulty subcomponent have occurred,

according to the Air Operations memorandum.

An MDH official said they recognized that there was also a need for more

training in emergency procedures with the FADEC system. According to

an Air Operations memorandum and Air Operations officials, all sectors

were provided with additional training to simulate FADEC malfunctions.

The time devoted to the FADEC system in introductory training was

increased; FADEC emergency procedures were to be stressed in

semiannual training; and written instructions for handling FADEC failures

was to be sent to all sectors.

Many Border Patrol pilots stated that two related problems have raised

concerns about the reliability of the MD 600N antitorque system: (1)

defective antitorque cable components and (2) sticking or binding

antitorque foot pedals. An MDH official stated that MDH is replacing the

defective cable components with parts made under a revised

manufacturing process and is considering how to fix the problem of the

pedals sticking.

Concerns about the MD 600N antitorque cable components were raised

with the 1999 crash of a MD 520N helicopter12 and the subsequent

reporting of cracks and corrosion in cable controls on a number of

helicopters using the NOTAR technology. Several Border Patrol pilots and

mechanics expressed concern because the same parts implicated in the

crash are also used on the MD 600N. As a result of the crash, FAA and

MDH issued mandatory instructions to inspect and change cable control

parts on the MD 520N and MD 600N model helicopters. An NTSB

investigation of the accident had not been completed; however, facts

 

12 The MD 520N is a smaller NOTAR helicopter manufactured by MDH, Inc.

Antitorque Problems
B-284951

Page 22 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

collected to date indicated that two cable control parts on the accident

aircraft were damaged and cracked.

MDH paid for replacement of the cable control parts at no cost. Of the 109

MDH customers that confirmed their inspections to the company in

writing, 48 found cable control corrosion and cracking. An MDH official

said MDH believes the cracking and corrosion problem was due to an

incorrect heat treatment for the parts. MDH has revised the heat treating

for the cables to prevent cracking. The replacement parts have been

delivered to the Border Patrol, and MDH plans to have new cables to all

customers with NOTAR technology helicopters by December 2000.

A second antitorque concern was raised in two Border Patrol sectors that

reported problems with “stuck pedals.” Pilots use the pedals to increase or

decrease the antitorque force from the NOTAR tail and in making turns

during hovers. The problem reportedly occurs when a cable from the

pedals and its connecting part do not align correctly and binds or sticks.

Additional pilot movements reportedly cause the pedals to return to

normal operation.

Mechanics in one sector were able to duplicate the stuck pedal conditions.

Mechanics in another sector reported the problem to MDH and were

initially told that it was a “rigging”13 problem. However, according to an Air

Operations memorandum, in both instances, the parts had not been

disturbed or “rigged” since the MD 600Ns were received from MDH. An

official at one local law enforcement agency said the agency had identified

a way to prevent the pedals on its MD 600N from sticking, while an official

at another law enforcement agency reportedly still had the problem.

An MDH official said that MDH is still looking at the stuck pedal issue. In

one sector, MDH authorized tying an aluminum splint around the cables to

prevent them from binding. This was considered a short-term fix, the

official stated, and MDH is working with the cable vendor toward a

permanent solution by the end of calendar year 2000. The splint was

removed at MDH direction when the new cables were installed, according

to a sector mechanic.

Poor flight handling characteristics of the MD 600N are key complaints of

most Border Patrol pilots. According to the pilots, heavy controls, aircraft

instability—particularly during wind turbulence—and generally poor

ergonomics make the helicopter fatiguing to fly. An MDH official said MDH

 

13 Rigging refers to the adjustments or settings on different parts of the helicopter.

Poor Flight Handling

Characteristics
B-284951

Page 23 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

has received this feedback from several other MD 600N customers, and

have proposed modifications to relieve some of the pilot’s concerns.

Pilots in all four Border Patrol sectors reported that the MD 600N was

heavy on the controls and very fatiguing to fly. Pilots explained that it

requires a great deal of physical strength to operate the controls and that

they need to constantly adjust the controls to fly “in trim.” The flight test

for the MD 600N procurement identified the same problem. The chair of

the technical evaluation committee reported to the INS Source Selection

Board that the MD 600N “control forces required to maneuver the

helicopter are extreme. It is almost a necessity to use the trim motor for

every movement of the controls and this increases the pilot’s workload.”

According to several pilots, the constant effort to fly the MD 600N limits

the amount of time to about 2 hours that pilots can fly without taking a

break. This was confirmed by an MDH official, who said that he had heard

from other customers that 2 hours was about the maximum flight time

without a break. Air Operations officials said that some Border Patrol

pilots fly longer than 2 hours and should be able to fly for 4 hours without

a break but could take one earlier if needed.

The heavy controls are not a new complaint, nor unique to Border Patrol

pilots. This problem was identified by Border Patrol procurement test

pilots in their formal evaluation of aircraft flight characteristics. FAAcertification test-pilots for the MD 600N and pilots flying MD 600Ns for a

local law enforcement agency also told us that controls were heavy. The

Army tested a version of NOTAR technology for its uses and rejected it.

One reason was due to poor handling characteristics, according to the Test

and Evaluation Officer of the Army unit and the Army evaluation report.

The Army official said that the aircraft the Army tested was very different

from the current MD 600N—which he has flown, but he said that the

handling characteristics were similar. He said it took a lot of work to get

the helicopter to do what you wanted it to do.

In addition, many of the Border Patrol pilots said that maintaining control

of the MD 600N is difficult under certain conditions, particularly when it is

windy. The Technical Evaluation Report for the helicopter’s procurement

noted similar problems. Although no overall MD 600N deficiencies were

noted, the report states “Flight into high winds and gusts were tiring on the

pilot. The aircraft’s flying tail means the helicopter is extremely sensitive

to both flight control inputs and power changes making coordinated flight

difficult in high wind.”
B-284951

Page 24 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

The Air Operations Deputy Chief stated that the MD 600N is certified as

controllable for winds in excess of 17 knots. This certification applies for

when the helicopter hovers. An FAA official said that outside of hover

conditions there is no standard for stability, and approval is more

subjective. FAA-certification pilots said that initially the aircraft directional

control was not acceptable because of its tendency to “yaw” or turn to one

side without pilot direction. A “strake”14 was added to reduce this

tendency. According to Border Patrol pilots, the MD 600N still tends to

yaw at lower altitudes and speeds, which are common on Border Patrol

missions.15 At high speeds and altitudes FAA certification pilots reported

that control was difficult, as did two other pilots.

To respond to Border Patrol and other customers’ concerns about pilot

fatigue and control difficulties, MDH proposed three modifications:

1. Adjust the engine rotations per minute to reduce the shake of the

cyclic stick at ground idle. MDH plans to finish with testing of the

change by December 2000 and believed that the change can be made

by the engine contractor updating the FADEC software, at no cost to

customers.

2. Change the angle of the rotor wings to make handling easier during

autorotation maneuvers. MDH said that it will test this change in

August 2000. If testing goes well, the change is to be implemented at no

cost to customers.

3. To improve stability, including during wind gusts, MDH is adapting a

stability augmentation system used on the MD 520N for the MD 600N.

The system automates some of the control adjustments needed to keep

the helicopter operating in trim. At least 30 Border Patrol pilots have

tested a system prototype and gave it high ratings for improved

stability and reducing the pilot workload to keep the aircraft flying in

trim.16 When testing is complete, MDH will request FAA certification

for the change. As of September 2000, MDH had planned to charge

 

14 Described as a “bent piece of metal that runs down the center line of the helicopter nose. The Border

Patrol has replaced this piece with a wire strike protection kit that also serves the same function as the

strake.

15 The 600N flight manual warns: “An unanticipated right yaw can occur when operating at low altitude

and low airspeed where a pilot, focusing his attention on surface objects may be distracted from the

aerodynamic conditions affecting the helicopter’s attitude. If no directional or cyclic control inputs are

made, a nose down pitch and a right roll may follow the right yaw.”

16 One pilot’s evaluation sheet stated: “Pilot workload reduced enabling me to devote more attention

outside the aircraft to do mission.”
B-284951

Page 25 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

customers about $47,000 per helicopter for the system and its

installation. Border Patrol officials plan to have the system installed on

all current and any future MD 600Ns.

In addition to the heavy controls, some pilots said that the MD 600N is so

uncomfortable that it affects their ability to do their work. The pilots said

that after 2 hours, they must stop for a break; and several said that they

suffered from pain in their knees, back, and buttocks caused by

uncomfortable seats. Some pilots reported using cushions provided by Air

Operations headquarters or their own cushions to relieve some of the

discomfort. Several pilots also said that visibility is limited because of the

door frames, particularly while using the cushions. They reported that they

must get in awkward positions to look at objects below or behind them.

(A) Pilots explained that

visibility is limited by

the door frames, and

that awkward positions

are sometimes necessary

to see objects below

or behind them.

(B) Some pilots reported

using seat cushions

provided by Air Operations

headquarters or their

own cushions to

relieve some of the

discomfort caused by

the seats in the MD 600N.

(B)

(A)

A

Source: GAO.

Figure 4: MD 600N Ergonomics
B-284951

Page 26 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Air Operations officials agreed that the seats in the MD 600N are

uncomfortable. Pilots had said they wanted padded seats, so the officials

said they asked for high-quality seats during the procurement.17 Air

Operations officials recently took action to replace the seats provided

under the original procurement. Seats tested by Border Patrol pilots during

the flight evaluations for the stability augmentation system have been

ordered and are being manufactured, as of September 21, 2000, according

to INS.

A major concern of most sector chiefs and their staffs was the significant

amount of time in which the MD 600N helicopters were unavailable for use

or “down.” Air Operations records for December 1998 to March 2000 show

that the 10 MD 600Ns assigned to Border Patrol field operations were

unavailable, on average, over 50 percent of the time.18 This downtime

included any time that the helicopters were not operational due to avionics

repair, maintenance, or while waiting for parts. In comparison, the four

Border Patrol Eurocopter “A-Star” helicopters were down 28 percent of

the time during the same period. Reasons for the downtime included

delays in obtaining an engine repair contract, slow manufacturer approval

for modifications, and parts availability.

 

17 The helicopter solicitation listed as a desirable cabin feature for the offerer to include pilot and

copilot seats that are padded and have lumbar support. The seats on the MD 600N are padded but have

no lumbar support.

18 The eleventh Border Patrol MD 600N is assigned to Air Operations and is used mainly as a training

vehicle by instructor pilots. It does not fly sector missions on a regular basis and has flown fewer hours

than the field helicopters. It was unavailable about 25 percent of the time.

MD 600N Availability

and Maintenance

Concerns
B-284951

Page 27 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol Air Operations data.

The consequences of the MD 600N helicopters not being available were

greater in sectors without other helicopters in their inventory. For

example, during our visits to two sectors, all six of the MD 600Ns were

unavailable. One of the sectors had OH-6A helicopters for backup, but the

other sector’s single backup OH-6A was awaiting an engine, leaving the

sector without any helicopters. The patrol agent in charge said that with no

working helicopters, ground agents’ requests for assistance could not be

supported, including an incident where an agent was being fired on by

armed drug smugglers.

An Air Operations official said that specific helicopters may have had

problems that explained why they were inoperable. The official stated that,

for example, two MD 600Ns were down due to foreign object damage to

Figure 5: Downtime for Border Patrol 600N Helicopters
B-284951

Page 28 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

the engines. The damage was discovered in November 1999, but the

helicopters were not returned to service until March and April 2000,

respectively, because Air Operations was without an engine repair

contract from October 1999 to June 2000. Emergency engine repairs were

requested in late November but not authorized until mid-February 2000.

In response to our questions about MD 600N availability, Air Operations

officials directed a review in one sector on availability and possible

reasons for delay. The resulting report stated that for two aircraft they

could find no documentation justifying the reasons why they were out of

service for extended periods. Also, concerns were raised that mechanics

were charging time to a designated aircraft in the sector’s fleet whether

they were working on that particular aircraft or not. The report noted that

repairs and incorrect part numbers caused some delays but did not explain

what appeared to be excessive maintenance time.

A written response by the patrol agent in charge from the sector reviewed

disputed the findings of the maintenance review, stating that the down

time of the aircraft is warranted due to untimely provision of parts, repairs,

and waiting for authorizations to make modifications. For example,

according to the response, one aircraft was down waiting for control stick

modifications for many weeks. The parts were sent to an MDH

subcontractor; and when the parts were returned, they had to be sent back

because the work was incomplete. Regarding mechanic time charges, the

response agreed with the Air Operations description of how mechanics

accounted for their time but pointed out that their accounting did not

differ for the MD 600N and other aircraft. According to the response,

excessive maintenance time was where additional work was needed.

An MDH official also said that he was unaware of any reason for the

Border Patrol’s MD 600Ns to be sitting on the ground. In contrast to the

Border Patrol ’s experience, the MDH official stated that one local law

enforcement agency has had no problem with downtime for their two MD

600Ns. Officials from that agency confirmed the MDH statement and said

that maintenance downtime for their MD 600Ns is lower than they

experienced with their prior helicopters. An MDH official reported that a

simple analysis of their data showed that parts for the MD 600N provided

under warranty in 1999 took an average of 2 days to obtain.19 We were

unable to reconcile Air Operations and sector data on the provision of

parts not under warranty or parts sent for repair.

 

19 All warranties for the 11 Border Patrol aircraft have expired, with the exception of specific parts with

warranty limits based on flight hours.
B-284951

Page 29 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

However, Border Patrol mechanics in all four sectors attribute excessive

downtime for the MD 600N to a multitude of problems they have had with

the aircraft. For example, in a memorandum to the chief patrol agent in

one sector, a mechanic described the problems with the MD 600N: “Since

the delivery of this aircraft we have continually experienced serious

malfunctions. Some of the more recent malfunctions that come to mind

would include executing an emergency landing due to an indication of an

electrical fire, fuel found leaking through a wiring harness, and severe

engine compressor erosion, with a repair cost in excess of $74,000.”

Scheduled maintenance has also taken longer than the manufacturer’s

estimates, according to several mechanics. MDH estimates for periodic

inspections do not account for the time needed for repairs, parts

replacement, or other work, explained one patrol agent in charge. Pilots

and mechanics in three sectors said that when the MD 600Ns have gone

down for scheduled maintenance and are taken apart, problems not

expected have been found that must be fixed before the aircraft are

returned to service. Several mechanics noted that without strong technical

support from MDH, they spend considerable time troubleshooting.

Maintenance time is unusually high, even considering the newness of the

MD 600N, several mechanics stated.

One patrol agent in charge and mechanic agreed with Air Operations

officials that most parts in stock were delivered quickly, they also said that

not all parts requested were delivered in a timely manner. For example, in

one sector a toggle switch took 41 days to arrive.20 The Assistant Chief of

Air Operations agreed that this was excessive. Air Operations could have

authorized a local purchase of the part, but did not do so despite calls from

the sector regarding the status of the part, according to the sector’s

maintenance supervisor. The Assistant Chief said that Air Operations may

not act right away when a part is requested. For example, they might

research the part or may wait and order a number of parts at once.

Sometimes it can take a month to get a part, the Assistant Chief said.

Mechanics in two sectors said that the time necessary to have components

repaired could also be lengthy. For example, in one sector, a part was

leaking oil and was sent to MDH for repair. It was over 2 months before

the part was returned. Another sector reported that 3 days into a routine

300 hour inspection, the horizontal stabilizer was found to be damaged. It

was submitted for repair in mid-September 1999, and was not returned

 

20 The part was requested under priority “03,” which is for parts needed within a minimal time and

scheduled for delivery within 8 days.
B-284951

Page 30 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

until late December 1999. The Air Operations Deputy Chief said that the

cause of the damage was investigated; and when new fiscal year funding

was received, the part was repaired.

Finally, mechanics in two sectors said that the design of the helicopter

makes working on it time consuming because many repairs require that

the aircraft be taken apart. One mechanic stated, for example, that often

carpet must be pulled up, seats removed, and the interior vinyl removed in

order for mechanics to access the aircraft’s parts for a 100-hour inspection.

Helicopters by other manufacturers, such as Bell, have their transmissions

and drive trains located externally and would not need to have the

interiors removed for a routine inspection, he said. The interiors have also

experienced unusually high levels of wear and tear because of the need to

remove them, one mechanic said.
B-284951

Page 31 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

(B)

Original locations of the interior

components taken from the

MD 600N for maintenance.

Photos illustrate

(A) the bare interior

of the fuselage and

(B) the components

removed and stored

in an outside area, in

order to perform

maintenance on

the MD 600N.

(A)

(B)

A

Source: GAO Photo.

While mechanics in one sector praised MDH’s technical support for the

MD 600N, saying that the technical representative has made every effort to

accommodate them, the other three sectors voiced a number of criticisms.

MDH officials and Air Operations management stated that technical

support and service for the MD 600N suffered during the transitions from

McDonnell Douglas to Boeing and then to MDH. MDH officials said that

Figure 6: Aircraft Repairs Often Require Interior to Be Removed

Technical Support

Reported as Not

Always Helpful
B-284951

Page 32 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

since then, they have made personnel changes, retained many staff with

MD 600N experience, and have a representative devoted to Border Patrol

part requests. The company plans to outsource work such as the fuselage,

according to an MDH official to improve the cost-effectiveness of some

parts. To improve the efficiency of supplying parts, MDH has also begun to

expand its parts inventory. An MDH official said that he was not aware of

some of the problems expressed by Border Patrol mechanics and said that

MDH cannot address concerns unless it hears about them.

Some improvements in customer service have been noted; however,

mechanics continued to report weak technical support. One sector

mechanic reported that when a senior technical representative was

involved with a trim motor problem in July 2000, the representative was

very concerned with fixing the problem and saw that it was resolved.

However, the same mechanic was called in June to repair a MD 600N

stranded in the field where it had landed to assist agents with 14 illegal

aliens. The technical representative couldn’t explain why there was a

problem or how to fix it, the mechanic said. Eventually, the mechanics

“hot wired” the aircraft to bring it back to the hangar.

In another sector in June, 2000, structural cracks and buckling in the

airframe of an MD 600N developed, according to a memorandum to the

sector chief. The sector mechanic said that MDH and Air Operations

officials suggested that he put a “patch” on the area. The mechanic did not

believe this was appropriate and asked for MDH engineers to document

that such a repair would be structurally sound. Repair instructions from

MDH were received on July 21, 2000. Air Operations then decided that

factory officials should determine the cause of the crack, and it was

removed from the sector. A report from MDH on the damage stated that a

large depression/dent near the crack was not considered typical and that a

visual examination of the area suggested damage resulted from an impact

of an external object. An FAA-certified repair was completed by August 22,

2000, at the MDH factory. The patrol agent in charge strongly disagreed

with the characterization of the damage. He noted that several mechanics

and pilots looked at the area for damage before the helicopter was taken to

the factory; and none was evident except for the buckling and cracks. A

third sector also reported similar dissatisfaction with MDH’s technical

support.

Helicopters play an essential role in supporting the Border Patrol’s overall

mission. The variety of helicopters currently in the Border Patrol fleet

perform various missions that require long periods of surveillance;

mountain operations; night surveillance, using vision enhancement

Conclusions
B-284951

Page 33 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

equipment; and high-speed transportation of agents and/or equipment to

remote sites. The bulk of their work involves surveillance at low altitudes

and speeds. The majority of the Border Patrol’s helicopters, however, are

over 35 years old.

The procurement of the MD 600N was based upon the premise that one

helicopter type would be appropriate to meet a variety of air operations

needs in the various sectors. Only two of the six aircraft originally

considered were evaluated as meeting the solicitation requirements for

such a multipurpose helicopter. While the MD 600N technically meets the

range of air operations requirements, it may not be the best choice in

filling specific needs of each sector.

Border Patrol pilots, mechanics, and sector managers lack confidence in

the ability of the MD 600N to safely, efficiently, and reliably perform. Pilots

have experienced problems with the electronic engine controls, antitorque

cables, and are concerned about their ability to safely autorotate the

aircraft. The MD 600N has proven difficult to handle and fatiguing to fly—

weaknesses that were evident before the aircraft was purchased.

Mechanics document numerous problems they have encountered in

keeping the aircraft operating. The aircraft have been down, on average,

half the time, and this is a problem recognized by sector chiefs, pilots, and

mechanics.

Testing is under way for several MD 600N modifications to improve the

performance of the aircraft. Most notably, the stability augmentation

system may greatly improve MD 600N stability and reduce some pilot

workload. Redesigned cables and FADEC parts, the addition of an engine

filter, and new seats may also address some problems. However, other

issues remain. Whether the MD 600N is suitable for meeting all mission

requirements—particularly for low speed and low altitude work, remains a

question. The improvements also do not address pilot lack of confidence in

the safety of the aircraft and limited aircraft availability.

We recommend that before any more MD600Ns are purchased, the

Commissioner of INS require Border Patrol officials to address with MDH

the safety, handling, and availability issues raised by pilots and mechanics.

We also recommend that the Commissioner require the Border Patrol

reassess its decision to purchase one multipurpose helicopter to meet a

variety of air operations mission requirements.

Recommendations
B-284951

Page 34 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

INS’ provided written comments on a draft of this report. In its general

comments, which are included as appendix I, INS stated that it concurred

with our recommendations and that the issues covered in our report were

not unknown to the program. With regard to the safety, handling, and

availability issues, INS stated that steps are already being taken to ensure

that these concerns are fully addressed prior to additional aircraft

procurement. INS pointed out that it is testing a stability augmentation

system to ease pilot workload concerns and to improve aircraft handling.

It is also providing a new seat to increase pilot comfort, and is testing an

engine filter to improve aircraft performance under sandy conditions. We

believe these are steps taken in the right direction. However, concerns

surrounding suitability of the aircraft for typical Border Patrol missions

and the availability of the aircraft require further attention.

INS also agreed with our recommendation to reassess the decision to

purchase one multipurpose helicopter to meet a variety of air operations

mission requirements. However, regarding the sector-by-sector analysis of

terrain, flying conditions and mission requirements that we had suggested

in the draft report, INS said that the analysis is part of its historical support

function. With its comments, INS provided memorandums from 1994 and

1995 that showed that each sector provided information to Air Operations

that helped to establish sector requirements. These requirements included

low and slow flight operations, long-range and improved night operations

capabilities. Therefore, we have modified our recommendation and

various sections of the report to reflect this information.

INS also provided specific and technical comments that amplified points in

its general comments. Many of these comments took issue with our

findings relating to suitability, safety, handling, comfort, and availability.

Regarding suitability of the aircraft to perform light duty observation

missions, INS stated the MD 600N is a medium-sized aircraft that fulfills

requirements between the light observation OH-6A aircraft and heavier

duty aircraft. Further, INS stated that three sizes of helicopters will be

needed to meet the mission requirements. INS said that the MD 600N has

not replaced smaller aircraft and would not do so as long as the smaller

aircraft are supportable. These statements are inconsistent with INS’

earlier positions. INS procurement documents and budget requests show

that (1) the MD 600N is a multipurpose aircraft capable of operating in a

wide range of Border Patrol scenarios, including light observation

missions and (2) INS was anticipating procuring as many as 45 MD 600N

helicopters to replace the majority of the 57 helicopters currently in its

fleet. Further, a May 2000 memorandum from the Chief of Air Operations

stated that the MD 600N is intended to replace the light observation OH-6A

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-284951

Page 35 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

aircraft. Nevertheless, if INS’ comments reflect a change in position, then

these seem to be steps in the right direction toward meeting our

recommendation of reassessing the decision to purchase one multipurpose

helicopter.

INS raised an issue concerning what portion of the Border Patrol air

mission involved low and slow flying. It stated that a large percentage of

its current mission profile is in the light category because over 60 percent

of their current fleet are light category aircraft that are capable of little

else. However, both Border Patrol pilots and Border Patrol sector

requirement memorandums identify low and slow flying as a primary

mission requirement. Therefore, the Border Patrol needs aircraft that are

suitable for the low and slow mission.

Regarding safety, most of INS’ comments related to a comparison of the

height-velocity curves of the MD 600N and those of other aircraft (see fig.

3). INS stated that the figure portrays the MD 600N as less safe because of

its larger height-velocity avoidance area (the combination of altitude and

airspeed where an autorotative landing might not be safely made). Our

portrayal was meant to show where a typical mission falls in relation to the

avoidance areas of the different aircraft. According to INS’ Air Operations

Manual, operations in this area should be avoided or limited to the minimal

amount necessary to complete operational maneuvers. Figure 3 shows that

a typical patrol mission falls entirely within the MD 600N’s avoidance area,

but only partially within this area for the other aircraft. This is a valid

means for comparison, according to a senior FAA official, as is noted in

our report.

INS commented that FAA certified the MD 600N as to airworthiness and

safety. Our report does not question the aircraft certification. Rather, given

the fact that a typical mission profile requires flying in the MD 600N’s

avoidance area, we question the appropriateness of the MD 600N for the

work.

Concerning handling and comfort, INS noted that several improvements

are under way, such as the addition of the stability augmentation system

and redesigned seats. They also provided information showing that these

improvements were well received by the pilots that tested them. These

improvements are noted in our report. INS also took issue with our

characterization of the MD 600N as cramped and uncomfortable and

provided a comparison with the other aircraft deemed acceptable in the

procurement competition. The cramped conditions inside the aircraft, as

described in our report, were abstracted from formal procurement
B-284951

Page 36 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

evaluation documents prepared by Border Patrol pilots. Cramped

conditions were not attributed to the other aircraft in the final

competition.

Concerning availability, INS stated that our chart showing the limited

availability of the MD 600N is misleading because 20 percent of the MD

600N fleet (two aircraft) were unavailable for 5 months due to engine

repair contracting delays. We acknowledged this point in the report.

Nevertheless, our analysis for the 18 months we reviewed showed that the

MD 600N fleet was not available for field operations at least 50 percent of

the time. INS noted that the availability of aircraft is an interdependent

relationship of maintenance performance by the sector, technical support,

and parts availability; and they will continue to strive for excellence in

each of these areas.

INS also provided additional information, which we have evaluated and

included in the report, as appropriate.

Copies of this report are being sent to Senators Orrin G. Hatch and Patrick

J. Leahy, Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate

Committee on the Judiciary; Representatives Henry J. Hyde and John

Conyers, Jr., Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the House

Committee on the Judiciary; Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd,

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Appropriations

Committee; Representatives C.W. Bill Young and David Obey, Chairman

and Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Appropriations;

Senators Fred Thompson and Joseph Lieberman, Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee; and

Representatives Dan Burton and Henry Waxman, Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member of the House Government Reform Committee. We will

also send copies to the Honorable Janet Reno, the Attorney General and

the Honorable Doris Meissner, Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service and others upon request.
B-284951

Page 37 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

The major contributors to this report are acknowledged in appendix II. If

you or your staff have any questions on this report, please call Darryl

Dutton on (213) 830-1000, or me on (202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Stana

Associate Director

Administration of Justice Issues
Page 38 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I: Comments From the U.S. Department of

Justice

40

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 46

Appendixes

Table 1: Border Patrol Aircraft Fleet and Locations Along

the Southwest Border

5 Tables

Figure 1: Border Patrol Sector Headquarters Along the

Southwest Border

4

Figure 2: MD 600N Flight Controls 6

Figure 3: Height/Velocity Curves for MD 500E, MD 600N,

Bell 407, American Eurocopter AS 350, and Hughes

OH-6A

18

Figure 4: MD 600N Ergonomics 25

Figure 5: Downtime for Border Patrol 600N Helicopters 27

Figure 6: Aircraft Repairs Often Require Interior to Be

Removed

31

Figures

Abbreviations

ECU electronic control unit

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FADEC Full Authority Digital Engine Control

FLIR forward-looking infrared

HMU hydromechanical unit

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

MDH MD Helicopters Incorporated

NOTAR Patented name for MDH no tail rotor antitorque system

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
Page 39 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters
Appendix I

Comments From the U.S. Department of

Justice

Page 40 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters
Appendix I

Comments From the U.S. Department of Justice

Page 41 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters
Appendix I

Comments From the U.S. Department of Justice

Page 42 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters
Appendix I

Comments From the U.S. Department of Justice

Page 43 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters
Appendix I

Comments From the U.S. Department of Justice

Page 44 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters
Appendix I

Comments From the U.S. Department of Justice

Page 45 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters
Appendix II

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 46 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters

Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777

Darryl W. Dutton, (213) 830-1000

In addition to those named above, Monica Kelly, Bunnie Lempesis, John P.

Swain, Katherine M. Raheb, Michael P. Dino, Ann H. Finley, and Adam

Vodraska made key contributions to this report.

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments
Page 47 GAO/GGD-00-201 Border Patrol Helicopters
Ordering Copies of GAO Reports

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA

and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or

more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25

percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using

fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to

obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

To contact GAO FraudNET use:

Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-Mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(183641)