Frank Robinson Lecture Tuesday 5th October

[Flying Lawyer]

Date: Tuesday 5 October 2010

Venue: Royal Aeronautical Society, No 4 Hamilton Place, London W1

Time: 1800 (Followed by Q&A session and then a reception.)

Cost: Free to all - non members welcome.



The RAeS is next to the InterContinental Hotel.

http://www.raes.org.uk/raes/images/aircraft_images/hamilton.jpg

http://www.tubemap.com/underground.gif Hyde Park Corner 3 mins, Green Park 5-6 mins.

[muffin]

Do you need tickets Tudor? If so, where from?

[Heliport]

No tickets required.

You can just turn up but it would help catering if you notify the RAeS that you will be attending.

Email: conference @ aerosociety dot com

[VeeAny]

Tudor

I had just started to arrange to be in London for that when I realised I will be in Portugal at HeliTech.

I would have loved to have been there to hear him speak.

GS

[Aesir]

I wish I could attend. Frank is a very smart guy and alway´s interesting to hear him speak.

[darrenphughes]

Any chance it'll be recorded and uploaded to youtube?

[topendtorque]

somewhat a coup i guess.



Any chance it'll be recorded and uploaded to youtube
?

Or just a link through here for us who don't use that UT rubbish.

[FSXPilot]

Maybe at the Q & A you can ask him when Robinson are going to start making blades that don't fall to bits.

[CRAN]

Is anyone else planning to attend on the 5th?

[stringfellow]

myself and two friends will be there. just let the venue know how many are turning up i believe.

[nobloodywind]

Stringfellow, could either you or someone ask the gentleman why it is that he doesn't fit tamper proof time recorders to his helicopters?
I have seen many comments about records falsification on the Robinson types. Perhaps he would sell many more parts if he could tab the hours. Some people have told me that they would like to see the hours being recorded on the collective instead of the engine, he may have a comment about that? Thanks.

[stringfellow]

no wind,,


il do my best certainly. in my short experience flying robbies i was not aware of the ability to tamper with the hour meters but its certainly food for thought. the 44 IS collective activated the 22 activated by rising oil pressure im led to believe. schools would have a fit if it changed as at min they get paid from rotor start to pulling the mixture on the 22.

all the best.

[Aucky]

no wind - I have to agree with stringfellow. The 44's (raven & raven II) are collective activated, so it is normal for schools/pilots to add 0.1 to the Datcon time to allow for the start-up.

I was once told that it was possible to stop the datcon counting in the earlier 22's if you sacrificed one of your tach's as they used one of the tach circuits, but I believe this has been addressed and it is run off oil pressure now. I don't think most people/schools worth their weight would dare mess with the clocks anyway but i'm told it used to to common practice in the mustering/spraying game so that outback farmers could avoid maintenance costs := combine that with the manoeuvres they pull (no discredit to their ability) not surprised that the accident rate was high in that game.

Aucky

[Gordy]

so it is normal for schools/pilots to add 0.1 to the Datcon time to allow for the start-up.

Get caught doing that in the US and you will be charged with falsification of logbooks. The question has been brought up and answered by FAA legal department.

[Aucky]

Gordy - Is that for real? that makes no sense, were talking collective activated aircraft yes? Where the whole start, warm up and pre-take off checks are not included in the recorded Datcon time? In the UK as soon as the rotors are turning you are piloting that aircraft and so it's only fair you should log it. In South Africa I saw schools adding 0.1 on a 22 := (on the basis that even after the engine stops the rotors are turning and that your still piloting the aircraft for a few minutes, though this is somewhat taking the P155, and simply a way for the schools to make 10% extra for free on each training flight).

By that logic do they make you take 0.1 off the time off an oil pressure activated Datcon in a 22? :}

(I suppose, any excuse an afternoon court :E)

[Gordy]

Aucky---Yes it is for real. The rules for logging "FLIGHT TIME" are different...here is the legal opinion:

“U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration

APR 27 2007
(address omitted)

Dear Mr. (omitted),

This responds to your letter dated December 13, 2006, in which you ask three questions concerning the logging of flight time in a helicopter. The answers all flow from the definition of "flight time" found in section 1.1 of Title l4 Code of Federal Regulations.

Your three questions are:

1. May a pilot log as "flight time" to qualify for a certificate or rating under 14 CFR Part 61, or for purposes of qualifying under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2), that time accrued in a helicopter when the aircraft is sitting on the ground with the engine running and rotor blades turning, but the aircraft has not moved from its parking place and flight has not yet commenced?

2. May a pilot log as "flight time" to qualify for a certificate or rating under 14 CFR Part 61, or for purposes of qualifying under 14 CFR 135.243(b)(2), that time accrued in a helicopter after the end of a flight prior to shut down when the helicopter has set down and come to a rest at its parking place, flight has ceased, but the engine is still running and rotor blades are still turning?

3. If a helicopter is equipped with a "time in service" meter that is actuated only by the collective pitch control, may a pilot add a couple of tenths of an hour of "flight time" to their log book in excess of the aircraft "time in service" meter reading, to account for the time that the aircraft is starting and running up at the beginning of the training period prior to lift off, and that time the engine is idling and cooling down after the last landing, prior to the engine being shut off?

The regulations in pertinent part define "flight time" as "
ilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing." 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. As with fixed-wing aircraft, flight time in a helicopter commences the moment that it moves under its own power away from its parking place for the purpose of flight- whether departure is commenced by lifting off or taxiing. (Helicopters can be equipped with different types of landing gear; and those equipped with wheels or pontoons have the option of a vertical lift-off or taxiing before lift-off.) Flight time ends for any helicopter operation when the helicopter comes to rest after landing.

It follows from the plain words of the regulation that the circumstances you described could not be logged as flight time. The answer to all three questions is that flight time may not be logged.

This response was prepared by Viola Pando, Attorney in the Regulations Division of the Chief Counsel and has been coordinated with General Aviation Division of Flight Standards Service. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact us at your convenience at (202) 267-3073.

Sincerely,

Rebecca MacPherson
Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations Division”

[Aucky]

Thanks, that's an interesting read. I'm not going to argue, and 100% accept that definition for an explicit understanding of the term "flight time" however I think it's reasonable to accept that one should be credited for the "flight time" + time that they are manipulating the controls with engine & rotors turning.

So.... I was joking when I asked before whether 0.1 is deducted in most 22's for training in the states :O, but in all seriousness is it or has the 55% RPM take off been perfected:ok:?? Alternatively is the metering method of a different type?

Aucky

[Gordy]

So.... I was joking when I asked before whether 0.1 is deducted in most 22's for training in the states , but in all seriousness is it

Technically it should be....and there are some examiners who will question you about your hours if you have the "exact" minimums. The other overlooked issue is "instrument hours". On an instrument training flight, one should NOT log the whole flight as simulated IFR---There is a portion of the flight which is VFR---the take off and landing.

I have heard of some comparing the aircraft records with a student's logbook. There are other examiners who really do not understand these rules also.

I am no longer in the flight training industry, but am responsible for hiring and firing decisions. To be fair, the people I would be hiring have way more hours than minimums, but I do tend to ask them about their logging practices.

[Willows]

Any ideas what sort of topics he will cover?

[HelipadR22]

I'm surprised you can just turn up with no booking, I would have thought it would be packed out.

I'm very tempted to go along.

[toptobottom]

You cannot just turn up without booking. Anyone wanting to attend must first register with the Royal Aeronautical Society or you won't get access:

Melissa Bailey
Royal Aeronautical Society
No.4 Hamilton Place
London
W1J 7BQ
Tel:　 +44 (0)20 7670 4345
Fax: +44 (0)20 7670 4349
　
Email:[email protected] ([email protected])

[nobloodywind]

I certainly would attend if I could, here is a person who is a champion problem solver, engineer and motivator all in the one wrap.

Regarding the tampering of time recorders, I don't think it is endemic of the mustering or ag industry in isolation, or in particular just the Robinson type.

I had heard that the NZ CAA were trying to do something about tamper proof devices?? I wonder what has happened there?

It is not a question of the weight of the legislation or penalties for those who are caught, it is a matter of setting in place a system to short circuit the practice in a failsafe manner.

The problem is those who believe they will not be caught. Stopping hour meters from working is a very simple thing to do I am told.

I think Mr Robinson's intellect and capacity is what might be required to provide us all a fix for this major problem, as one last little job for us.

Surely it would be a major relief to all of the regulators around the world to know that they would not have to be forever grovelling around checking up on two bit criminals and to be able to concentrate on better issues.

All the best for a good lecture.

[Flying Lawyer]

toptobottom:You cannot just turn up without booking. Anyone wanting to attend must first register with the Royal Aeronautical Society or you won't get access

That is not correct.

As previously posted -
The RAeS would appreciate notification that you will be attending
http://www.laejatc.org/images/animated_email.gif: conference @ aerosociety.com
http://www.chesapeakebaysampler.com/broadwater/AnimatedSmallTelephone.gif 0207 670 4345

but it is not a requirement.

You can just turn up.


SOP for all RAeS evening lectures. The Bill Boeing lecture theatre seats 250+ people.

For more information about the lecture, click: The Need for Simplicity in Helicopter Design (http://www.raes.org.uk/conference/PDFs/CIE10.pdf)


FL FRAeS


.

[FLY 7]

I went to the Cierva lecture last night at the RAS, and very much enjoyed Frank's talk.

I'm probably a bit of a Robinson sceptic, but found the development history and the reasoning behind the design decisions fascinating.

The delivery was quite slow but very precise and the audience was hanging onto his every word. He talked for about 90mins and spent quite a bit of time on his childhood and early career.

Whenever he discussed the the design details of anything - flexible joints, tail rotor, rotor head, cyclic, etc, - he always said "...and it works just fine".

Seemed to jump from the R22 to R66, so not much specific discussion about the R44. He did say that he really wanted a diesel power plant for the next generation Robinson, but just could not get the weight down, and the RR300 turbine was the best possible alternative.

He took questions at the end, which was also very interesting, but time over-ran.

[Graviman]

It was a genuine pleasure to hear someone who has spent so long developing helicopers discuss the technical issues in depth. It was an even greater pleasure to hear the enthusiasm for the simple design approach still burning strong.

The investigation to eliminate tail rotor shaft bearings (damper to control 1st and 2nd flexural eigenmodes) was a nice bit of attention to detail. The explanation of the cyclic design to allow more movement to desensitise lateral control showed lateral thought. Interesting discussion about engines too...

[helicopter-redeye]

The bit I found interesting was the (almost) throw away comment about oil companies stopping Avgas production hence the R66 had to go to a turbine because "... we were going to get grounded..".

While Avgas will disappear one day, a lot of aircraft still use it. Will it mean a mass issue of STCs to fly on another gasoline type (mogas) and a restriction on altitude, or mass re-engine fitting of the 360 and 540 types?

Nice to see the man who has dominated so much of our lives for so long in person.

h-r

[topendtorque]

Glad to hear this went well, look forward to more detail if and when it can be organised.

One thing I would like to have asked about was the joint on the A166 clutch shaft at the forward end. Possibly the only bad joint on the R22 aircraft and the cause of the recent WA coronial, if you listen to the preconceived ideas of ATSB, but certainly it seemed the subject of some acrimonious debate between the operator and the ATSB.

Was there mention of this joint? and how it might be improved. main problem is that when the bolts are tightenend it forces an ellitpical and therefore - out of contact with the shaft - form of the yoke.

[Flying Lawyer]

Audio recording of the talk by Frank Robinson:

The Need for Simplicity in Helicopter Design (http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/2010/12/audio-the-need-for-simplicity-in-helicopter-design/)


FL

[Ian Corrigible]

The initial write-up on the lecture from the RAeS Aerospace International (http://www.raes.org.uk/cmspage.asp?cmsitemid=Publications_International) magazine:

Robinson slams glass cockpits
http://i.imgur.com/pZGr7pl.jpg

Light helicopter pioneer and former president & ceo of Robinson Helicopters, Frank Robinson, speaking at the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Cierva lecture on 5 October has branded modern glass cockpits a ‘distraction’ — arguing that they may contribute to aviation accidents. While he did not rule out glass cockpit-equipped Robinson helicopters in the future — he stressed he wanted to keep pilots looking outside the cockpit.

helicopter-redeye - Frank's 100LL argument is a red herring: given the number of recip-powered planks in service (GAMA (http://www.gama.aero) counts 160,000 in the U.S. alone, compared to only 3,500 recip helos), a replacement fuel is going to appear, no question. AvWeb (http://www.avweb.com/news/airventure/EAAAirVenture2010_100LLReplacement_DontPanic_202973-1.html) is doing a good job of tracking the issue, including the SwiftFuel (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/SwiftFuelExpandsTesting_203523-1.html) and G100UL (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/AOPA_Looks_Forward_To_G100UL_202849-1.html) offerings.

I/C

[topendtorque]

Audio recording of the talk by Frank Robinson:



thankyou for that Flying Lawyer. an avid description also of what americans are really good at - being practical.
tet