Another Robinson crash
 

The pilot killed was a very well respected member of the canadian helicopter industry. She will be sorely missed and condolences to all her friends and family. I personally did not know her but I have several friends grieving... :( :(

Would you mind PMing me her name? I'm just hoping it's not who I think it is.

Name hasn’t been released yet, previously worked at STARS in Grand Prairie and Highland.

Not sure why this thread needs to be titled as “another” by some Robinson-bashing cretin. Lots of 44’s flying with a reputation in the industry (outside of pprune) as good helicopters.

Probably because Since 1982, there have been at least 512 deaths in 291 Robinson crashes worldwide..

Does seem a touch high. figures shamelessly googled.

Safer than riding a Motorbike I guess

Condolences to all concerned

3305 Bell UH1 variants were destroyed during the Vietnam war (figures shamelessly Googled). Does seem a touch high.

As Disraeli put it. Lies. Damn lies.... And statistics.

In the US, currently a similar number of Bells and Robinsons are crashing each year. Of course, there are more of each than any other type, so that skews the stat's. And, no doubt the Bells are doing more challenging stuff like long line work, and Robinsons are doing more challenging stuff like primary instruction. And, with the operating costs so low, no doubt the Robinsons are being flown by people with a lot less experience (myself included), which also skews the stat's.

Given that this latest event may involve someone with a lot of experience, perhaps it is the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, with all of the design improvements since the original 22's and 44's were launched, and SFAR 73, it's getting awfully hard to blame the machine itself as the root of all evil nowadays. That said, there are still a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth from an earlier time in the evolution of the Robinson designs, some who have personally lost someone dear to them, and we'll hear from them loudly whenever a Robinson goes down, regardless of the cause.

Regardless of whether you think Robinsons are "death machines" or not, there is no question they have made rotary wing flight available and accessible to many more people than would otherwise be the case, and I personally know many Robinson pilots who happily fly a Robinson rather than not fly at all.

The thing is, when evaluating the merits of the machine, is to eliminate the pilots from the equation.

IOW how many crashes caused by the design/manufacture and not the pilot or maintenance?

There is a suggestion that some RH blades have failed catastrophically in flight when operated in accordance with best practice (no low g, no high speed into turbulence etc). If there are a number of those then we have a problem.

We will compare with new basic trainers:


https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase...hp?AcType=G2CA

One occupant survived the crash and was extracted from wreckage, so presumably there was no fire.

It is so unfortunate that the improved crash worthiness version of the fuel system took as long as it did to be implemented.

Mjb

The number of crashes per hours flown expressed as a percentage of the total hours flown by each manufacturers fleet would be an interesting comparison, but I’m shamelessly too lazy to google it.

Helisweet - the interesting statistic from all those Guimbal accidents was zero fatalities, I assume that was your point of comparison to the Robinsons.

There are also a few that are students losing the tail while near the ground, probably struggling with the fenestron.

The name is out now.

Karen Coulter.

I never met her, but tough loss regardless.

RIP

I would expect there to be more incidents with Robinson's than most other manufacture simply because of the numbers.

Slagging off Robinson for killing and burning many might be an acceptable issue if there was a similar thread highlighting the killing capabilities of the AS350/H125 series [and quite a few other legacy types].

The manufacturer of the AS350 spent a great deal of time and trouble enhancing the safety of their 40 years old design - so much so that the added safety was [is] effectively delivering the passengers to a funeral pyre. The timescale of those improvements is such that many crews that would have died in many an accident are, thanks to stroking seats and other improvements, now being killed by post-crash fire.

Putting right what may be the last detail - the creation of a crashworthy fuel tank - has taken 40 years. Far longer than Robinson has been an issue.

It may be that this 'final solution' for the AS350 will simply highlight another legacy killer in the design. For that we need to wait.

The difference is about what is causing the crash - in the Robinsons there is still a higher proportion of mid-air breakups than any other make.

Which other make has such a history of rotor separation, MR to tail boom strikes and in-flight breakup?

If you are dead before you hit the ground then crashworthiness becomes irrelevant.

Crab
I m no Robinson fan but the Super Puma must be neck and neck with the Robinson

not following this thread, but as I just read the article in this link, I might as well post it here:
Robinson crash injures four at the Namur aerodrome in Temploux (Belgium) - Aviation24.be

Hughes500 - I know what you mean but it is the number of crashes to produce the high level of fatalities that is the poor Robinson stat - the Super Puma manages to achieve a high body count with far fewer accidents.