R22 operational safety - somebody enlighten me

[Genghis the Engineer]

I was visiting my parents yesterday, and to be frank hiding inside from the weather.

Roughly speaking, we were under the anvil of a CB, in light rain, with audible thunder in the distance but no visible lightning. The surface wind was around 15knots and steady, but at the cloudbase (my guess, around 300ft) it was clearly strong and very disturbed - visible from the texture of the cloud. Visibility was poor - maybe 2km or so.

As an experienced fixed wing pilot (but not a rotary pilot at-all) it all looked like conditions I wouldn't fly a kite in, let alone an aeroplane.


When along comes an R22 (no, I didn't see his registration), I think one I'd seen at (my guess) 500ft flying roughly towards the core of the CB around 10 minutes earlier before the rain had started. I'd have put him around 200ft, flying fast (80+ knots would be my guess), with the aircraft making noticeable yawing oscillations through something like ±5° (from motion of the tail). From his heading, he would appear to have been running away from the core of the CB (and who can blame him!).


My reaction, as an opinionated fixed wing pilot, was that he'd gone somewhere he shouldn't, was running away from it, but was nonetheless struggling. My uninformed opinion was that he was daft to be staying airborne, and should have just landed in one of the many available open fields and sat the weather out (almost certainly what I'd have done in a STOL aeroplane anyhow).

Presumably he got where he was going safely, since there was no helicopter crash on the news last night. But, please somebody enlighten me...

- Are these appropriate conditions for an aircraft like that?
- Would good practice be to run away in nasty conditions (as he/she seemed to be doing), or to land and sit it out?
- What are the sensible limits for something like an R22 (or for that matter, a bigger helicopter)?

G

[ShyTorque]

Genghis, with a helicopter the norm is to fly until you are really scared then land. With more experience you tend to land before you get really scared.

After ten years or so on other helicopters I flew an R-22 in good VMC and I reached that threshold after fifteen minutes each way. I have never flown an R-22 since. It does appear that some pilots have a higher fear threshold, or less common sense than me. ;)

The helicopter I fly now has a lightning detect facility. If it shows a series of strikes, I fly round that area and tend to avoid the area under the anvil, using the wx radar to help.

I do have a few hours flying very near T/S's in helicopters, including a few "interesting" ones with a man on the wire plucking very grateful folk from ships. In those particular instances, an ongoing risk assessment had to be made. It was obviously correct, as I'm still here and so are a few folk who might not otherwise have survived.

A small, unstabilised, VFR only equippped helicopter is no place to be in a thunderstorm but running away is sometimes a very good option, even if it means using a few extra heartbeats. The 500 foot rule still applies though!

[Whirlybird]

Are these appropriate conditions for an aircraft like that?
NO!!! But that doesn't stop any number of idiots thinking it's OK. Hopefully they get scared before they kill themselves.

Would good practice be to run away in nasty conditions (as he/she seemed to be doing), or to land and sit it out?
It depends on how nasty the weather is where you're running away. Landing and sitting it out is probably safer, and certainly to be recommended if the weather was as nasty as you say. Again, that doesn't stop any number of idiots....(see above)

- What are the sensible limits for something like an R22 (or for that matter, a bigger helicopter)?[/

When I was a new PPL(H), I got told that if you're having to descend below 500 ft and/or slow down to less than 60kts, it's time to land. I might stretch those limits slightly now (while keeping the 500 ft rule), but I emphasise the word "slightly". You need to land before it becomes unsafe to try, while you can still see obstacles. But again, that doesn't stop any number of idiots....etc.

Learning to pilot a helicopter and learning common sense are two different things. :(

[topendtorque]

Genghis
I’m probably one of the, no sense no feeling dudes that Shy refers to.

You are right flying anywhere near lightning is just plain daft.
Flying R22sin light rain we also discounted a stupid when we noticed that the clutch light just kept on and on and on and well what about belt tension? Bugger that eh!

Heavy rain erodes hell out of the rotating parts and any helicopter equipped with grease nipples, well the good old clay based grease that we still HAVE to use turns into what looks like good cutting compound. Then you land and do a regrease and curse yourself for getting caught in rain.

Sitting it out when there is no option in widespread sudden downpours and lightning is very frightening. One’s mind dwells on the good old physics laws where electrical charges will stay on the outside of a metal container, but what would happen if - if this plexi / fibreglass structure with no doors took a hit. Well you could get out and sit under a tree or in the open???

Flying without stabilisation is not an issue, they don’t need the assistance, you can either fly one or you shouldn’t have a license.

Turbulence is usually not an issue. Say you’re in a throttled back C182 at 80 knots and you encounter a wind pocket travelling at say 40 knots – big bump.

In things rotary the blades will be at say 400 knots and encountering the same gust has much less effect.

I’ve always been most frightened in a small F/W, especially when I’m all alone with myself miles from anywhere.

I’ve yet to encounter a severe micro downdraft but always figured that the helicopter unlike the F/W would have enough room to stay afloat just above the ground where the air must flatten out.
We usually figure that if you're out in the bush and you know there are no wires around, then what your VFR rules says is best, 'as low and slow as you need to be.'
At least you can see what is going on by observing the trees.

As long as the CB storm cell is not accompanied by lots of widespread rain you can land or loiter somewhere aways quite easily. Usually they transit areas in about 25 minutes, well in the tropics anyway, that’s not long.

The tail will flick around just the same as in severe mechanical turbulence, that’s 2/3 days out of every 4/5 days here in our winter.

Always stay further away from the lead of a storm cell, say ten miles, than anywhere else around it - five miles.
TET

[TheMonk]

:} :} lightning detector? stablizer? hahaha

You don't like driving a Ferrari, you like driving an S Class Mercedes. :) Don't tell me you've never done "scudd running"? hehehe...

When I'm the driver, give me a Ferrari. When I'm the passenger, give me the Benz.

It's all good...

Oh BTW I did a "for real" full touch down auto once AND LIVED. hahaha. Carb icing in R22. Surprised the heck out of me. My passenger thought it was a normal thing to do, although the initial drop did startled him a bit but he's too cool to admit that. I didn't want to fly it back, but we were poor and thought that we'd have to pay for the pickup. Waited awhile, checked everything and restarted. The rest of the flight actually went well. Told the FOB, Advanced Aviation in Frederick, MD that I may have oversped the rotor (Hey I'm cheap, but I wont put someone else's life in danger). He said he'd have it checked, but he told me not to say anything about it to anyone. Huh? I don't think he had it checked. I checked the temp strip on the gear boxes, they were still within limits though. maybe that's all he did too.

Da Monk

[slowrotor]

The Robinson R-22 has one airworthiness directive that prohibits flight in moderate turbulence. Read the AD for details.
You have to wonder why the AD was issued. My opinion is related to the rotor head design. The lack of lead/lag hinges allows large loads in conditions of sharp gusts.

[Hairyplane]

I have a Robinson Safety Notice to hand - there are 39 of them in the back of the R44 POH.

SN32 commences -

'Flying in high winds or turbulence should be avoided but if unexpected[!] high winds or turbulence are encountered..........'

It then provides the pilot with 6 tips on what to do next.

The key word here is 'unexpected'.

'Severe turbulence' I recall from one of Training Manuals is described as 'a feeling of momentary weighlessness in the seat.'

Robinson - great machine. Fly on nice days, dont overload it, stay current.:ok:

Hairy

[ShyTorque]

:} :} lightning detector? stablizer? hahaha
You don't like driving a Ferrari, you like driving an S Class Mercedes. :) Don't tell me you've never done "scudd running"? hehehe...
When I'm the driver, give me a Ferrari. When I'm the passenger, give me the Benz.
It's all good...
Oh BTW I did a "for real" full touch down auto once AND LIVED. hahaha. Carb icing in R22. Surprised the heck out of me. My passenger thought it was a normal thing to do, although the initial drop did startled him a bit but he's too cool to admit that. I didn't want to fly it back, but we were poor and thought that we'd have to pay for the pickup. Waited awhile, checked everything and restarted. The rest of the flight actually went well. Told the FOB, Advanced Aviation in Frederick, MD that I may have oversped the rotor (Hey I'm cheap, but I wont put someone else's life in danger). He said he'd have it checked, but he told me not to say anything about it to anyone. Huh? I don't think he had it checked. I checked the temp strip on the gear boxes, they were still within limits though. maybe that's all he did too.
Da Monk

Yes, I've done more than my fair share of scud running. An S-76 Class Merc will certainly outrun a "Ferrarobbi". :)

[206Fan]

Is it 6 or 7 that have stoofed this month so far?Thomas,

Six R22s and Two R44s. The Robinson Accident Database will be off the scale come the end of January nevermind the end of 2012. Ridiculous!

Glad the occupants got out of this one.

[TOT]

Is it 6 or 7 that have stoofed this month so far?

r22

r22

gazelle

can you remind me of the others,- 6 or 7 ? thanks

[206Fan]

TOT,

can you remind me of the others,- 6 or 7 ? thanks All the unfortunate incidents of Jan 2012!


R22 Incidents.
ASN Aircraft accident 16-JAN-2012 Robinson R22 Beta II G-FIRS (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141915)

ASN Aircraft accident 15-JAN-2012 Robinson R22 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141910)

ASN Aircraft accident 10-JAN-2012 Robinson R22 Beta II D-HHTA (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141856)

ASN Aircraft accident 06-JAN-2012 Robinson R22 Beta G-CHZN (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141633)

ASN Aircraft accident 06-JAN-2012 Robinson R22 Beta N8066U (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141691)

ASN Aircraft accident 03-JAN-2012 Robinson R22 Beta II VH-FHR (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141596)


R44 Incidents
ASN Aircraft accident 11-JAN-2012 Robinson R44 Raven II SE-JPZ (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141857)

ASN Aircraft accident 03-JAN-2012 Robinson R44 Raven II C-FGBX (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141537)


Other Incidents.
ASN Aircraft accident 17-JAN-2012 Arospatiale AS 350B3 Ecureuil C-FMPG (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141929)

ASN Aircraft accident 16-JAN-2012 Bell 214ST N5748M (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141912)

ASN Aircraft accident 14-JAN-2012 Helicopter (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141896)

ASN Aircraft accident 12-JAN-2012 Bell UH-1H Huey II PNP-352 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141872)

ASN Aircraft accident 10-JAN-2012 Westland (Arospatiale) SA 341G Gazelle G-WDEV (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141791)

ASN Aircraft accident 08-JAN-2012 Bell 412HP FAC0005 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141778)

[cyclic_fondler]

Let's just all revel in the fact and be grateful that another Robbo has been reduced to scrap.

Sorry TC, but unfortunately Robinson is producing them faster than they're being crashed!

Torrance, CA— Robinson Helicopter Company continues to be the world’s leading producer of civil helicopters. In 2011, the company produced 356 helicopters (212 R44s, 88 R66s and 56 R22s), more than double 2010’s production of 162.

While the R44 remains Robinson’s top selling helicopter, the response to its latest model, the R66 Turbine, has been very strong. The R66 was FAA certificated in October 2010. As of December 31, 2011, total orders received for the new model exceeded 360.

[Thomas coupling]

Rotary Spanner: thanks for that, I was beginning to think the pond was empty.
Stringfellow: Don't get me wrong, the Robbo is 100% airworthy and a product cleverly designed to fill a niche in the market...BUT....it doesn't take prisoners.
It is extremely unforgiving when it decides not to play and would be a handful for any experienced aviator in those circumstances. Novices and people who can only just afford to fly helos (the vast majority of robbo owners) are the main customers and are the least prepared to cater for malfunctions associated with this type of helicopter. It's the three wheeler of the car world driven by people who think it's a hot hatch. (In the main).
They simply aren't equipped, trained or prepared for eventualities that other helicopters find acceptable. Do you hear the same bad news eminating from the Enstrom/300 and similar, world.
Frank R has done his bit by offering the factory training module, post sale. This highlights some of the more "sensitive" nuances of flying the robbo, but I wager the vast majority of users can't be bothered to attend.

[RMK]

It seems few have a solid grasp of statistics. Robinson has now produced over 10,000 helicopters and the vast majority of private helicopter pilots fly Robinsons, in part due to availability. I’ve flown and have never liked Sikorsky/Schweitzer 300’s. As for Enstrom’s, I once saw one at an aviation expo, but have never actually seen one at an airfield – in near a decade of privately flying helicopters! I know Enstroms exist, I’ve seen photos and Mr Kenyon often speaks of them on here, but there doesn’t seem to be enough about to render any meaningful statistics.

I’ll bet if we check DVLA statistics, more Ford Focus are wrecked than Rolls Royce Phantoms. Does that infer a Ford Focus is a “death box” and we expect everyone to be driving Phantoms?

[rotorspeed]

TC - you're right of course, the HOGE power check is best done outside the avoid curve. No idea what this looks like on a R22 but if that means a height of 600ft, would just say though that at a 200ft hover it is easier to maintain visual references and stability. Newbies shouldn't underestimate how different a hover OGE at 500ft plus feels compared to one IGE - it can feel rather strange!

[cyclic35]

HOGE power check is best done outside the avoid curve. No idea what this looks like on a R22.

would just say though that at a 200ft hover it is easier to maintain visual references and stability.

Couldn't see a way of sending PM.

Would not be happy hovering an R22 @ 200 AGL.:=

[[email protected]]

Except that if those 10000 owners had the money they would buy a jetranger or a squirrel or pretty much anything but an underpowered piston with dubious handling qualities - flown one, been in a crash in one, sticking to real helicopters:)

[Aucky]

A real helicopter - like one of these?

Latest Accident Reports
19-Jan-12 LV-ZXO Bell 412EP Petit Martinique, Grenada
19-Jan-12 N369TL Robinson R44 St Mary Parish, US-Louisiana (2K)
19-Jan-12 Forrestdale Lakes, Australia
18-Jan-12 Eurocopter EC225 Aberdeen, UK
17-Jan-12 C-FMPG Eurocopter AS350B3 Cultus Lake, Canada (1F)
16-Jan-12 N5748M Bell 214ST Nadi-Ali, Afghanistan (3F)
16-Jan-12 N59479 Bell 206B Comfort, US-West Virginia
16-Jan-12 N63HZ Fairchild-Hiller FH1100 Soest, Germany
16-Jan-12 N605PD Bell 407 Rockville Centre, US-New York
16-Jan-12 G-FIRS Robinson R22 Llanwddyn, UK

just saying.... not just robbies that lead to accidents. I think we understand the risks when we get in any helicopter :=

[902Jon]

18-Jan-12 Eurocopter EC225 Aberdeen, UK

Hardly an accident. Aircraft made an emergency landing.

The EC225 helicopter was just outside Aberdeen when a transmission temperature indicator came on yesterday.
A spokesman for Aberdeen-based Bond said: “There was a fault in a wire. However, everything was fine after checks were made.”

[902Jon]

19-Jan-12 LV-ZXO Bell 412EP Petit Martinique, Grenada
Emergency landing. No injuries.

19-Jan-12 N369TL Robinson R44 St Mary Parish, US-Louisiana (2K)

Crash. 2 fatal.

19-Jan-12 Forrestdale Lakes, Australia
Emergency landing. No injuries.

18-Jan-12 Eurocopter EC225 Aberdeen, UK
Emergency landing. No injuries.

17-Jan-12 C-FMPG Eurocopter AS350B3 Cultus Lake, Canada (1F)
Crash. 1 fatal

16-Jan-12 N5748M Bell 214ST Nadi-Ali, Afghanistan (3F)

Crash. 3 fatal

16-Jan-12 N59479 Bell 206B Comfort, US-West Virginia
Emergency landing. No injuries.

16-Jan-12 N63HZ Fairchild-Hiller FH1100 Soest, Germany

Crash. No injuries.

16-Jan-12 N605PD Bell 407 Rockville Centre, US-New York
Emergency landing. No injuries.

16-Jan-12 G-FIRS Robinson R22 Llanwddyn, UK
Crash. 2 - minor injuries

So - most of these "accidents" were only emergency landings. The Canadian RCMP Squirrel was flying in Canadian winter conditions on an emergency exercise, and the Bell 214 in Afghanistan, a war zone. Somewhat different than going out for an agreeable lunch at a hotel.

[Antitorque]

It would seem no matter how much they cost, piston or turbine they still crash from time to time. So I dont think all of the 10000 owners would waste their money on over priced turbines.

Biggests is not always best !!!!

[SilsoeSid]

For what it's worth Aucky, I've not seen anyone shot down as much and as efficiently as that before :ok:

[Aucky]

He'll be back don't worry with much the same argument as 902 (which I was waiting for). I'm not trying to put anyone down, just saying that all helicopters have risks involved. Yes a twin has added redundancy in certain circumstances, and more advanced warning systems, and in some circumstances a far more experienced pilot who might make better decisions preventing a crash. But an R44 is far from underpowered unless full of fuel and Pax. Power is all relative isn't it - 2 POB, 3/4 fuel in an R44 and your good to land anywhere that you'd want to go with 3 POB in a 206. Interestingly I sat in on an instructional flight in a 120 from Redhill, 3 up, a fair bit of fuel, and rate of climb at max take-off power @60kts was 500'min. Hardly plentiful of power but probably considered by most a 'real' helicopter. I've seen much better 3 up in an R44, and without the "dubious handling" tail rotor issues when heavy and pulling lots of power...

I'd like to fly any of the aforementioned helicopters, not bashing any of them, but accept the associated risks involved in each case.

[Antitorque]

Aucky well said.

Nice to read some good honest input.

keep it up !!

[SilsoeSid]

Sorry, I meant to say,

'For what it's worth Aucky, I've not seen anyone shot down as much and as efficiently, as you have just been, before !'

:ok:

[Thomas coupling]

This thread is in danger of drifting.........

Aucky:

Of the 8 incidents you quoted (the remaining 2 were robbo's) I would hazard a guess that perhaps 3 were pilot error, looking briefly at the headlines.

Of the 8 robbo's that have stoofed in the last 2 weeks, how many of those were pilot error?
The problem is this: if you make an error with a 'normal' helo, a normal helo gives you a little slack. Sometimes that's enough to recover the situation and live to fly another day. With a Robbo it doesn't afford you that luxury. And this is when a (novice) pilot gets 'burned'.

I think if you pulled up all the crashes over the last few years, Pro Rata, the Robbo still shines through as the most prevalent.
It's cheap it's basic and it bites...simples. Add to that the type of person who flies it; the schools that use it to teach abbo's and you end up with a lethal cocktail within financial reach of the "masses".
Christ, you only have to walk around the damn thing..........
Do the factory course, stick to the limited flight envelope and don't treat it like a Ford mondeo! Then, you might live long enough to move onto something (single engined piston) substantial.

[Aucky]

Back here again... sorry, wasn't my intention.

TC - I think we know where you stand on the robinson range. Of the 8 robbo's that have stoofed in the last 2 weeks, how many of those were pilot error? I didn't know anyone knew the actual answer to this yet. Please do tell...

I think if you pulled up all the crashes over the last few years, Pro Rata, the Robbo still shines through as the most prevalent Once again I'd be keen to see the details if you have them? Especially when corrected for the comparative number in the sky. But i'm sure your right, if you include those down to pilot error. If your going to use the old car analogy, I think it's obvious statistics would show that any fiesta (inexperienced driver) will be in more lethal accidents than mercedes (experienced driver). We know the robinson is less forgiving, and less well matched with somebody of low experience than perhaps a 206 in the event of certain mechanical failures, but i'm still not sold that this likelihood is higher (when corrected for the number in the sky, and the number of hours flown)... If we accept that level of risk, then all we can do is try to be your best at what we do, learn from the unfortunate mistakes of others, and best prepare ourself for the worst. I am not able to conclude the never ending debate, nor is anyone, unless someone actually produces the relevant statistics... But a has been said by many before, I wouldn't be flying without them, so am thankful that they are about. Thankfully for you, you don't have to get in one :ok:

Sid - I thought that was a little out of character :ouch:

[Thomas coupling]

I see another Robbo down again today:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/474812-two-dead-wax-lake-helicopter-crash.html

Pushing it closer to the 500 mark since inception:
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety WikiBase > ASN Aviation Safety Database results (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=R22)

[[email protected]]

Lies, damn lies and statistics - you can't adjust the figures pro rata to reduce the risk because it ignores the facts:

Robinsons are flown by many low time, non-professional pilots with irregular continuity of flying practise and almost zero post-graduate instruction.

In ANY helicopter that would represent a high level of risk but, when coupled with a low inertia rotor system, a teetering head susceptible to mast-bumping, a high rotor mast which (along with the lack of control power) makes dynamic rollover more prevalent, no autostabilisation and no IFR capability (because of the handling qualities) you have a recipe for disaster.

Hence the actual number of Robbie accidents (not emergency landings) - that is a lot and despite trying to break that down by numbers of aircraft, hours flown or any other statistical fudge factor, you find that Uncle Frank's babies have killed a lot of people.

TC's link speaks for itself.

If all new drivers were in new Fiestas with ABS, airbags, stability control etc etc they would certainly survive more low-experience mistakes - if they were in 30 year-old 2CVs (the Robbie is not a new helicopter) they would be less likely to do so.

[hillberg]

Hey Crabby- How do you get auto stablization? Bell 212?:eek:
Every other machine I've flown from Robinson,Hughes,Enstrom,Bell,Sikorsky,Brantly,Rotorway,Type certified & experimental has No auto sab equiptment.:{

Control power has nothing with Dynamic roll over.:ugh:

Mast bumping? Try the Bell line when the Army was finding new ways to make smokin holes.:=

You need to go back to school & learn more on helicopter design, use & real risks.:rolleyes:

What do you fly?:}

[SilsoeSid]

Once again I'd be keen to see the details if you have them?

Helicopter Safety | Home (http://www.helicoptersafety.org).

I like this page :E
Helicopter Safety | UK Helicopter Accident Occurences By Manufacturer (http://www.helicoptersafety.org/acManufacturer.asp)

[toptobottom]

SS

According to that data, the Robbie is safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell...!! :p
http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab71/prooner/Capture.jpg

[Aucky]

TTB - I have to agree when looking at those stats.

Sid - from the website you linked - Taken from a study of the Griffin Helicopters accident database since 09 Jan 1997 the study comprises a review of 405 rotary wing accidents and incidents involving UK registered aircraft of which 386 involved helicopters and 40 were fatal.

So lets compare the number of G-reg aircraft by make from G-INFO vs accidents & % fatal:

No of Robinsons on the G-REG = 465 vs 148 accidents 31% (9.5% fatal)
No of Bell helicopters on the G-REG = 122 (including Agusta-Bell variants) vs 33 accidents 27% (21.2% fatal, of which 18 people were killed in the total 33 accidents)
No of Eurocopters on the G-REG = 184 vs 72 accidents 39.1% (12.5% fatal)
No of Enstrom on G-REG = 54 vs 28 accidents 52% (3.57% fatal)
No of Sikorsky on the G-REG = 57 vs 21 accidents 36.8% (9.52 fatal)

This is based on that stats you have provided for the UK over a given period vs the number UK registered aircraft by each make. It doesn't paint a particularly pretty picture really, regardless of type. Shame we don't know how many hours are flown by average on each aircraft type too. I reckon each robbie is flying a good number more than each jet ranger or enstrom on average...? Let's not forget that these figures also include (and make no compensation for) the vast number of inexperienced pilots flying about in robbies compared with other types as previously mentioned by most...

Sid - I like this page :E not quite sure why...

TC - I think if you pulled up all the crashes over the last few years, Pro Rata, the Robbo still shines through as the most prevalent Not by Sid's stats.

Crab - Hence the actual number of Robbie accidents (not emergency landings) - that is a lot and despite trying to break that down by numbers of aircraft, hours flown or any other statistical fudge factor, you find that Uncle Frank's babies have killed a lot of people. If you do make it all proportional then Sid's statistics suggest that a robbie is indeed safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell even behind the hands of the low-houred masses. If you don't make it all proportional and relevant then Franks babies are certainly safer than that fiesta.

(ducking for cover)

[SilsoeSid]

I don't quite see how they have suddenly become my stats.
Anyway

SS
According to that data, the Robbie is safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell...!! :p
http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/a...er/Capture.jpg


Aucky;
TTB - I have to agree when you looking at those stats.

I take it you both missed;
Helicopter Safety | UK Helicopter Accident Trends (http://www.helicoptersafety.org/trends.asp)
Robinson Helicopter Corporation were the manufacturer with the highest number of accidents occuring to their helicopters, being involved in 148.

The R22 was the helicopter type involved in most helicopter accidents during the period, being involved in 101.

The R22 was the helicopter type involved in the highest number of fatal helicopter accidents, being involved in 8.

:8
According to toptobottoms picture, during the period stated;
Of the 386 accidents shown 38.4% were Robinsons.
Of the total number of fatalities 35% were in Robinson.
s
Compare those figures to the company with the next greater set of numbers,
Of the 386 accidents shown 18.7% were Eurocopter
Of the total number of fatalities 22% were Eurocopter
:ok:

Please, either of you, explain how
"According to that data, the Robbie is safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell...!! "
:ugh:

[SilsoeSid]

This argument goes round and round.:rolleyes:

Apart from some folk simply misinterpreting data, the figures also don't allow for the overall hours flown by type, number of occupants carried by type, operational use of type, along with other factors that may balance the figures more comparatively.

Some like Robinsons, some don't.
Some feel safe, some don't.
Simples!

[[email protected]]

HillbergYou need to go back to school & learn more on helicopter design, use & real risks. I think you may need to go back to school and learn to read English:ugh:

Where in my post did I say any of those other helos had autostab? I listed some poor qualities of the R22 which are not all specific to type; which other popular helicopter has the same list? And which other manufacturer has to run a safety course to make pilots aware of all the aircraft's shortcomings?

The low inertia rotor head has caused many a vertical crash when the pilot reacts too late to an engine failure - blades cone up, aircraft falls from sky!

The teetering head susceptible to mast bumping has caused rotor mast failures and MR blade strikes on cockpits and tail booms. Didn't Uncle Frank learn anything from the US Army's crashes?

A high rotor mast COUPLED (read the word) with a low control power means that you are more likely to encounter dynamic rollover (the high rotor mast is a long lever) and less likely to recover in the early stages (low control power means opposite cyclic has little effect). To my knowledge, no-one has ever dynamically rolled over a Lynx - could this have something to do with the huge control power (effective hinge offset - 14%) that means the cyclic can produce a large rolling moment of the fuselage even at low collective pitch settings? Control power is a factor in dynamic rollover.

No autostabilisation has caused many IIMC events to become fatal crashes and the lack of IFR certification is because of the aircraft's poor handling qualities.

If you really want to know - I have flown the Gazelle, Wessex, Lynx, Sea King, AW139, Bell 212, Bell UH-1, Bell 206, Squirrel AND the R22. At the moment I fly the Sea King 3 and 3A in the SAR role - I'm not sure what any of that has to do with this thread but you seem to think it is important.

As SS has shown (repeatedly) the stats make the Robbie the leader in numbers of accidents and fatalities.

[Aucky]

Sid - I don't quite see how they have suddenly become my stats.

They're the stats that you presented us with and 'Like', they're also seemingly the most comprehensive list of stats for the UK so they're what we're using.

Crab - As SS has shown (repeatedly) the stats make the Robbie the leader in numbers of accidents and fatalities.

Right, you guys are educated folk... I can tell from your posts on other topics that are informative and useful. It doesn't matter how 'repeatedly' Sid states that... Does the fact that more people have died in cars than helicopters over any given period mean that they are more dangerous? Not necessarily. Why? Because there are proportionately a lot more cars around, and as a percentage of those cars the likelihood of dying in one is actually comparatively small, there is a greater chance that if you get in a helicopter that you will die although less people die in them than cars. With that in mind...

Sid - I take it you both missed;
Helicopter Safety | UK Helicopter Accident Trends
Quote:
Robinson Helicopter Corporation were the manufacturer with the highest number of accidents occuring to their helicopters, being involved in 148.

The R22 was the helicopter type involved in most helicopter accidents during the period, being involved in 101.

The R22 was the helicopter type involved in the highest number of fatal helicopter accidents, being involved in 8.

No didn't miss that, there are 4 times the number of Robinsons in the UK, than there are Bell's, if they are of equal safety you would expect 4 times the number of accidents, which there were basically as we'd expect. However 21% of those accidents were fatal in the Bell's where only 9% were fatal in the robbies.

There are 3 times the number of Robinsons in the UK than there are Eurocopters, so you would expect there to be 3 times the number of accidents if they were equally safe... Actually there were only twice as many, so proportionally the eurocopters crash with much greater regularity, and 12.5% of these crashes were fatal vs the robbies 9.5%...

Still with me? We could go on through the other types...

There are 8 times the number of Robinsons in the UK than there are Sikorskys, so you would expect there to be 8 times the number of accidents if they were equally safe... Actually there were only 7 times as many, so proportionally the skiorskys crash with much greater regularity, and 9.5% of these crashes were fatal exactly the same as the robbies 9.5%...

So, when you compare a robinson with a eurocopter, sikorsky, enstrom & bolkow et... less robinsons crash as a percentage of the number of that type of aircraft in the air which is the useful statistic to use when concerning safety. Thats what the stats show! And... of those crashes a greater percentage in the bell, eurocopter, and sikorsky are fatal (the fatality stats don't take into account number of people board which is likely to be more in variants of the sikorsky, bell, augusta variety arguably making them more dangerous). Thereby showing the robsinson is in fact less likely to crash, and in the event of a crash less likely to lead to a fatality (and in the event of a fatality likely to have less people on board). Yes, there is a greater chance that if a helicopter crashes in the UK it's a robinson, because there are 3 times more of them in the uk than ANY other make, but any robinson in the sky is less likely to crash than the eurocopters, sikorsky's, enstroms etc... even with all the low-hour, low-experience pilots at the stick.

Once again, I fly Bell's too, and love doing so, and would like to fly the other more statistically dangerous types too Eurocopters, Sikorskys... but i don't spend hours online trying to put them down for being less safe.

How you can interpret these stats in any other way is beyond me and I think you'd be quick to read them this way if they painted a less favourable picture about the robinson.

This argument goes round and round. Too true!! but why? because needless posts by those who only fly 'real' helicopters start bashing the aircraft. Perhaps consider before next time blaming the aircraft that infact the stats show that the robbie is by no means more likely to crash than any other type. Yes there is a greater chance that if a helicopter crashes in the UK it's a robinson, because there are 3 times more of them in the uk than ANY other make, but any robinson in the sky is less likely to crash than the eurocopters, sikorsky's, enstroms etc... even with all the low-hour, low-experience pilots at the stick.

Good news no-one hurt, but even better news that another Robinson bites the dust. Their ratings in the accident statistics database will be off the scale after 2012 has been plotted. Is it 6 or 7 that have stoofed this month so far?
The Lada's of the helo world have caused more upset than the worth of it. Good riddance. The government should ban them like they did the cars. Helpful, informative? not really....

With this in mind perhaps we can leave the Robinson argument out of it, and try to use these threads to promote useful informative information to those that have asked for it in future? I think that would be the most beneficial outcome for all as this does get tiring, and it's that same folk who spur it on ever time. My persistence on this occasion is purely to try and achieve exactly that. Why not just leave the bashing... you bring it up, back it up with stats that prove exactly the opposite, and then complain that it comes back to this again. So maybe don't bring it up...

newfieboy, I think it was uniformkilo and aucky on page one that gave us the impression it was a confined area site. Hence the advice given by some earlier. Then the photos appeared. Actually our comments regarding confined area were due to the fact it was a hotel, which if one's being prudent, should be treated as a confined/unprepared site, and based on the first hand experience of Tegwin, Hairyplane, & BrantlyB2B in previous posts who highlighted the potential difficulties with this site (30ft conifers etc...) - i think your somewhat scraping the barrel here with finding excuses to put us down for trying to offer sound advice to those who actually wanted to learn something here, and hopefully got something useful from our posts before you started bashing the aircraft that unfortunately was involved in this accident.

Uniform kilo - Back to Vyrnwy, yes please :ok:

[JimL]

The only way to settle this discussion is to normalise the data; to do that you need to know the accident rates - i.e. the number of accidents over the number of hours flown.

No-one can do that because the hours flown (in the Robinson) are not collected. (They could be estimated because of its maintenance/overhaul regime.) One of the reasons that CAT exposure has never been extended to the Robinson is because we could not establish the reliability of its engines without those figures.

The headline rate (called that for a good reason) is of no use to anyone trying to establish the risk profile. As some have pointed out, data could be collected about the population of pilots who fly the Robinson; that at least might provide some clues about the human factors elements.

With respect to the headline rate, the analogy with the accident record of certain cars was a good one.

Jim

[Aucky]

JimL - I agree, it cannot be concluded without all the additional required information. I think it's generally accepted that the profile of pilots across the board is accepted as being generally less skilled, low-hour pilots on the robinson range, and more skilled, high-time pilots on the bigger types. Also I think a good number of Robinsons are flying around 200-300 hrs a year, many a lot more, and some a bit less, which is probably comparable to the 206's across the board? probably more than the average eurocopters? From what we have in front of us the accident rates in robinsons (especially considering the relatively lack of experience in many of their pilots) doesn't seem to be as disproportionately high as is often made out. Infact not at all. Would you agree?

People presenting such statistics, in hope of shaming the robinson family, is a waste of time, lacks evidential value, and without further information suggests that robinsons are in general safer.

[topendtorque]

No-one can do that because the hours flown (in the Robinson) are not collected.

yes we all know about that don't we?

There is nothing Darwinian about the profusion of Robinsons, Henry T Ford capitalised on the same theory as did the Australian manufacturer of the cheap family car - drum roll - the Holden - after the war.

Old Henry had some interesting quotes for those interested, some right up TC's alley.

Like this;-

Henry Ford (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford131220.html)
A market is never saturated with a good product, but it is very quickly saturated with a bad one. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford131220.html)

Actually I was going to ask for a bit more than a servo and a pie shop as I won't carry much out in my blessed Cessna 206, but then I guessed welll, i'll just saunter up to the rubbery, get plastered check the entertainment, have a big hot curry and blast off.

If I was in a Robinson it would be quite OK cause I could do a vertical out of there in my Beta at MAUW alla-ways-up to 5,000DA, leaving plenty of room for the other big talking cats A, that might be prowling around.

[John R81]

Normalising data for statistical analysis is unlikely to be possible. In addition to total hours you would need to also know the pilot's experience, what the helicopter was being used for, etc. This information is not going to be available.

I did wonder whether there would be anything interesting in looking at the insurance insurance premium for aircraft as a ratio of hull value. This takes advantage of all the work that the insurance companies have already done in looking at the risk each type carries. There still would be a problem as I anticipate (I don't know) that the number of potential passengers in the machine will affect insurance premiums because of the greater risk of injury or loss-of-life payout (max passenger x1 R22, x3 R44, x4 B206, x6 EC130, etc).

[6th Gear]

Off topic I know.. just curious, but say for a minute all you commercial drivers were given a brand new R22 as a gift which you weren't permitted to sell.
How many of you would refuse to fly it?

[EN48]

How many of you would refuse to fly it?

Not a "commercial driver" but I wouldnt fly it (been there, done that). I'd lease it to my local flight school. :E

[SilsoeSid]

Does the fact that more people have died in cars than helicopters over any given period mean that they are more dangerous? Not necessarily. Why? Because there are proportionately a lot more cars around, and as a percentage of those cars the likelihood of dying in one is actually comparatively small, there is a greater chance that if you get in a helicopter that you will die although less people die in them than cars.


Based on that argument, crossing the roads should be one of the safest things we can do. :ugh:

Reported road accidents and casualties: 1950-2010 (http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/ras40007.xls)

Of course those figures still don't show us how many people per year cross the road :rolleyes:

[hillberg]

I'll fly anything:ok:, It's not the machine,:= Meat servo failures are the number one cause for bent iron,:{ Not power plant failures. :eek:crunch time.:ugh:

[Thomas coupling]

Aucky - you sound like my wife (God bless her) in that "you don't understand me darling":
I am not denigrating Uncle Frank - he has transformed private helo flying. Without him, it would still be seen as a dream for the majority of mortals. In fact I am not actually rubbishing the R22.
I am flagging up the fact that when Frank built this meccano kit, he built it with the bare minimum of everything: metalwork, horse power, systems, performance, TBO's, etc etc. He did it to keep costs down and to be able to build on a mass scale. He either forgot, or purposely ignored the key element: The squidggy soft fragile component that sits inside making it work.
92% of all R22 accidents are due to pilot error compared to the global average of 72%. This is where I come in. I am commenting on the fact that the Robbo is very unforgiving in the wrong hands. And if we can't reduce the number of squidggy soft fragile control modules wanting to fly helo's, then perhaps the next best option is to remove the Robbo?

In support of Frank and his mates, try this for a fast ball:

Robinson R-22 Accident Analysis 1979-1994 (http://www.rotorshop.com/r22_accident_analysis.html)

It states the Robbo is the safest ever light helo:eek: But it can't get away from the fact that the NTSB hate robbo's with a passion (don't know why:mad:).

Now this comes with a warning: The guy authoring this is also a rep from the
R22 & R44 Pilot & Owners Association and is an avid defender of the types.

Finally there is always this from an old buddy of ours (original Ppruners), who has sadly passed away now:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/189931-robinson-r44.html

Lu absolutely detested Robbo's with a passion - however unlike me, he hated them because he genuinely thought they were unfit for purpose:eek::eek:



Food for thought ...........................................

[soggyboxers]

I have little of real value to contribute here, except to say how sad it is to see a thread hijacked in this way by a crowd of Robinson bashers.

It's sad that a helicopter had an accident at the delightful-looking private hotel landing site at lake Vrynwy, which I personally would love to visit in any kind of helicopter. I'm pleased that it was not fatal. Powys is a beautiful part of Wales and the old Victorian dam at the end of the lake is not only of historical interest, but will also undoubtedly still be standing there, long after the arguments on this thread have died out. It's easy to criticise the landing site as being very difficult or poo-poo it as being very easy, but with different camera angles and lens focal lengths it's difficult to say on the basis of a few photos. It's also true that one man's easy is another man's difficult, depending on overall experience, recency and role experience.

I am now, sadly, deemed by many blinkered regulators to be too old to fly CAT (would that I were an American or Australian), but spent 46 happy years flying "furious palm trees". I was an ab-initio instructor teaching on Bell 47s when Bristow Helicopters decided to replace them with R22s at the old Redhill flying train ing school, and thought it a very retrograde step, taken only for financial reasons. I well remember going for my first flight in one with a (now-late) former, much-respected contemporary of mine, David Dixon who at the time was the commercial director of Sloane Helicopters the (then) UK distributors. David turned up with his usual smile, bright braces (suspenders for our American readers) and winning ways and told me to open my mind and not pre-judge the R22, despite my telling him that he would never convince me to like it. Well, it was certainly very different from the Bell 47, but in a few short hours I had to agree with David: I loved it and to this day it is one of my three favourite helicopters (the other 2 being Eurocopter products; one a single and one a twin, which are also spoken of by many as being flawed). I consider it to be a fine basic trainer as long as its characteristics are well briefed to students. There are better (and much more expensive) trainers, but in the commercial world as opposed to the military, it's a sound commercial proposition for most helicopter schools (as is its main competitor, the Schweizer 300 CBi).

However, that's just my opinion and you can be sure that if you put 3 helicopter pilots in a crew room you'll always get 3 different opinions on which is the best helicopter and which is the best way to do something. To answer one question which was asked earlier; yes, if I won one in a prize draw I'd love to have it and would fly it as often as I could afford. Were I to find that I were the lucky winner of the Euro millions lottery, I'd probably buy an R44 for my own personal use, despite being most current on the Sikorsky S76. But then again, what do I know; in this modern age I'm just an old age pensioner and therefore my brain has decayed to the point where I'm no longer capable of rational thought :{

[rotorfossil]

To add two pence worth to soggyboxers post. When we swopped the Bell 47's for 22's, we assumed that the average hours to first solo would increase. Not so; there was no difference and this was before the the governors were fitted. However, I do go along with the premise that Robinsons in general and 22's in particular are so often flown by low experience people, with poor currency, or are operated in the training role which will always result in an increased risk. Ask the insurance companies!
The only gripe that I have with the 22 is that the instructor can never be too far from the controls whenever close to the ground and particularly during EOL's. This has resulted in several generations of flying instructors sitting like coiled springs whenever the student has control and also tending to employ the "heavy controls" technique, which is disastrous for a student's confidence. I have also noted an increasing tendency for instructors to prevent the students making mistakes before seeing whether he notices the mistake and sorts it out. After all sometime, when out by himself he is going to have to deal with his mistakes without prompting.