To: T’aint natural
I made reference to your comment about the NTSB and Frank Robinson hating each other. I simply stated that even if this were true the NTSB and Frank Robinson never let this mutual hatred get in the way of participation in an accident investigation. This hatred as you called it placed the two participants into different corners. One participant was trying to find the cause and the other was steering the investigation away from investigating a fault that was common to all of the loss of control accidents and that thing was the rotorhead.
I never said that the NTSB was in Frank Robinson’s’ pocket. I stated and the newspaper article stated that he would exert undue influence in the investigation so that the ultimate finding was pilot error.
Regarding the FAA countering the findings of the NTSB on the 737 problem it is well known that the findings of the FAA fall on the side of the airlines. To ground the 737 would have been catastrophic to the airlines. The FAA would have performed a cost benefit analysis to determine the cost to the airlines against the cost of the airlines paying out insurance claims in the event of another 737 loss of control accident stemming from a defective rudder control system. In other words, it was cheaper to let another 737 crash than it was to ground the fleet.
Regarding your comment about what lawyers do with the evidentiary material provided by the prosecution my comment is that is what lawyers do and the law allows it. Regarding how they manipulate the evidence in presenting it to the jury that too is what lawyers do. In some cases murderers get off Scot-free and aircraft must be taken out of production because of higher insurance rates. That is a problem but it is a lawyers sworn duty to give his client the best defense possible even if he has to manipulate the evidence presented to the jury.
Whether Frank Robinson petitioned the FAA to change the 50-hour rule or not the findings of the Georgia Tech report was the ultimate device that changed the training of Robinson Pilots. It also placed restrictions on the flying of Robinson Helicopters. You stated that Frank Robinson’s’ involvement has reduced the rate of accidents. In the last year there have been four loss of control accidents and quite possibly a fifth and the NTSB is investigating all four or five of them to find a common cause. I think it is the rotor design and I have told the NTSB of my thoughts and in 1996 I composed a report and sent it to them.
Here is another point that you may not be aware of. Robinson Helicopters has been sued on many occasions stemming from crashes of their helicopters. In many cases the jury found on the side of the plaintiff and a substantial award was made. The plaintiffs’ lawyers never collected a cent. It seems that everything inside the Robinson factory is leased and I was told that he sold the building to his wife. Frank Robinson is a millionaire many times over but he keeps his money in offshore banks and it is therefore untouchable. On paper in the United States Frank Robinson is a pauper.
Me thinks thou doth protest too much (possible grammatical and spelling error). Either you like to argue which is not a bad characteristic or, you have a vested interest in Robinson Helicopters.
To: Arm out the window
My answer to the first paragraph in your post is “YES”
In answer to your second question, all helicopters must be tested for sideslip and out of trim flight.
The out of trim and sideslip is not dictated by the test pilots and engineers it is a requirement of Advisory Circular 27-1 CERTIFICATION OF NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT. The helicopter manufacturer is required to demonstrate these requirements in order to gain certification.
The question that I have is if the R22 was certified as being able to demonstrate sideslip and out of trim flight why didn’t the test pilots discover that these maneuvers caused severe flapping loads that could lead to mast bumping and /or rotor incursion. The basis for my question is that in January of 1995 the FAA mandated that the R22 and R44 be restricted from flying out of trim at any time and that the pilot should avoid sideslip during flight. The reason was to avoid high flapping loads that would result in mast bumping and / or fuselage incursion.
Nothing in the design was changed but after 1995 the helicopters were restricted from flying under the same conditions under which they were certificated.
------------------
The Cat