How are the R44 fuel bladders going?

[mickjoebill]

I noticed that of a few recent R44 misadventures that the occurances of post crash fire seems lower than the days of pre fuel bladders.

Early days, but is anyone keeping track of the outcome following fleet wide retrofitting of fuel bladders is having on occupant survivability in a crash?

I'm particularly interested in low speed incidents where, in the past, it has been thought that entrapment or being knocked out prevented occupants from making a timely escape before they were overcome by fire.


Mickjoebill

[Ag-Rotor]

We had an R44 hit a power line whilst spraying prior to Bladder Tanks and 1 after Bladder Tanks fitted and on both occasions both aircraft were totally destroyed, no fire at either crash and both Pilot received minor to no injuries.

[mickjoebill]

no fire at either crash and both Pilot received minor to no injuries.

Good to hear..

[What Limits]

I was involved in the investigation of an R44 accident in a remote area. To cut a long story short, the pilot induced a loss of control and flew into terrain.
During the descent through trees, a substantial tree trunk caused the deformity of the pilot-side cabin and gave the pilot a good clout on the side of the head. Because he was wearing a helmet he was only stunned and not incapacitated.
It was thought that the same tree went on to pierce the pilot-side (auxiliary) fuel tank (not modified with the fuel bladder) which spilled contents on to the engine exhaust manifold.
When the pilot came round, he found himself unable to exit on the pilots side as the cabin had come to rest up against trees so he egressed out of the left side. He also found himself some way into the underseat baggage stowage as his seat had deformed into the crumple zone under the seat.
The aircraft was on fire so the pilot egressed with his survival go-pack which he had stowed on the back seat and although he made an attempt to douse the flames with the onboard fire extinguisher, the aircraft cabin burned to the ground.
What we learned
Wear a helmet - the pilot would not have survived if incapacitated
Fit bladder tanks
Dont fill up the underseat compartment as this is the crumple zone
Have your go-pack accessible
Know how to get out through alternative exits

The cause of the crash was not positively determined but low cloud and poor visibility were factors.

[RVDT]

...................or make a conscious decision to not even fly in a Robinson product.

Don't ever confuse legality with safety.

[John R81]

I think you can only either generalise through statistics of total crash / fire split into two populations (with / without bladder fitted) or take a rather in-depth look at individual accidents.

If looking at a single accident you would need to consider whether the bladder tank did / would have made a difference. For example, deformation of the metal tank that lead to loss of integrity and fuel leak / fire might have turned out differently with a bladder fitted. A fuel tank penetrated by a tree branch and ripped due to forward motion leading to fuel leak / fire might well have ended up with the same fuel leak / fire. That kind of analysis is often part of the accident investigation report so past accidents (with no bladder) might also be a useful source of data.

John

[Hairyplane]

Hi Mickjoebill,

In response to your initial post, I wouldn't fly or ride in a non-modded machine. The case for fitting bladder tanks is a complete no-brainer. I therefore hope that the programme is well under way globally.

Mine was one of the first machines to be done here AFAIAA. I didn't wait to be told. A post accident fire in an otherwise survival accident is the stuff of nightmares. The reports are out there.

What price do you put on your own head, or, far more important, what price do you put on the heads of your innocent passengers?

Just my opinion.

HP

[Spunk]

If it was that dangerous to fly a Robinson without the fuel bladder tanks how come that all those H269s or Enstroms etc just get along without fuel bladder tanks? Can't those tanks just burst upon impact as well?
Shouldn't we go ahead and change the certification requirements for helicopters in general (fuel bladder tanks only, please)?
Maybe that's why the authorities hesitated that long before they turned the SB in an AD?

Just a thought?

[nigelh]

Maybe but those helicopters don't seem to smack into Mother Earth very often so not an issue .....the Enstrom has not had a single fatality in the UK in over 50 years !!!!!!

[topendtorque]

only a short time on 480's, so i can't remember their structure but 269's have tanks separte from the main structure, firewall etc, that makes a big difference.

[Rotor Kop]

"Maybe but those helicopters don't seem to smack into Mother Earth very often so not an issue .....the Enstrom has not had a single fatality in the UK in over 50 years !!!!!!"

That may be because there are a LOT LESS Enstroms being used for training............

[mickjoebill]

Watched a beautiful as350 burn after a take off crash at bankstown.
Pilot scampered with minor injuries, but it burnt, no fireball but was a writeoff before fire brigade arrived about 15 minutes later.

I guess it was a ruptured tank?

Mickjoebill