Which is the best helicopter for training?

[blave]

(disclaimer: I sincerely hope I do not start yet another Robinson Pissing Match with my comments...)

I have about 85 hours in the 300C/B and 300C, and about 10 in the R22 (actually, 10.1 - just got the SFAR73 signoff recently!). Most of my overall time is over the last 15 months or so.

In addition, I have spent a lot of time investigating the Robinson Factor - I've read the Special Investigation Report on Loss of Main Rotor Control that the NTSB did, I've read about 1/2 of the Lu Zuckerman Debates, I've read a lot of the Robbie NTSB accident reports... frankly 'cause I wanted to determine whether I really wanted to fly, let alone ride in, them.

Right now here is where my head is at: I'm willing to get back into the R22, but I'm always going to be very mindful about "sudden/large control inputs", and I'll be pretty nervous in medium-turbulence (or worse) conditions. I also know that if I want to go very far or take two pax, I'll need to take the 300C that I have access to, 'cause in the R22 with me and my fairly light instructor, we were good for about 15 gallons of go-juice. (Actually, I can't take *any* pax in an R22 right now, due to the insurance requirements of the one FBO that has them for rent in the San Francisco Bay Area - I think the minimum is 50 TIT.)

What I wonder about these loss of main rotor issues is whether at least some of them were due to either sudden turbulence, resulting in a low-time and/or inattentive pilot making large cyclic inputs, or same trying to avoid a bird or whatever and doing a pushover in the process. I also wonder if I will ever inadvertently f*** up and do the same - hopefully my SFAR73 training and my "awareness" of the potential outcome will keep me honest but I still wonder what I'll do if I encounter turbulence that suddenly unloads the rotor. It happened to me in my one R44 cross-country flight and it was very unnerving...

What I also wonder about the R22, along this line of thought, is whether a design change should be made to decrease the available movement range of the cyclic. I have no idea whether the current range of motion is required to allow for all flight regimes, but it sure seems like the thing has a lot of longitudal and lateral travel.

Regarding using the R22 as a trainer: IF the instructor is very diligent, and IF the very low-time student doesn't manage to still surprise the instructor with a giant pushover, then I think that training in the R22 will result in a very competent helo pilot whose skills will transfer nicely to lots of other, bigger types. In contrast, IMO the S300 is a lot "easier" and more forgiving to fly, and certainly has more carry capacity and range (for two reasonably-sized occupants) - Even with a single tank the S300 will fly for over 2.5 hours with full fuel, and still spare about 600 lbs of cabin payload. So for some combinations of student/CFI, a refuel will be mandatory on a cross-country training flight of any length.

One final thought is that training in an S300 will most likely (and should) be done without a throttle governor - I would think that this would make transitioning to another piston helo that doesn't have a Guv more easy, even though at least some training in the R22 is theoretically done with the Guv off.

That's all my .02.... Safe flying to you.

Dave Blevins
San Jose, CA, USA

Edit: I wanted to add that my comment about the "diligent CFI" is directly due to the circumstances of a fatal accident that happened not too far from here (WVI), involving a very high-time CFI that was giving an introductory flight to a potential student. IIRC, it was the classic case of a high time fixed-wing pilot getting into an R22 for the first time. I have wondered if that guy just whanged the cyclic forward while the CFI was looking the other way - and thus no time for the CFI to react... That is the sort of situation that gives me pause before unconditionally recommending the R22 as a primary trainer.