Second crash R66 South Dakota

[kylesampson]

I'm not a pilot I just wanted to get this out there. My wifes uncle just died in a R66 in South Dakota. Anyone who has one better wait and see what happens in this investigation. What I have been told so far is that the rotor came off in mid flight. I just wanted to give other owners a heads up.

[BlueWhiteSky]

Do you have any link to press reports or other info related to that accident? I did a quick search on the Internet but no evidence found.
This woud be the second R66 down.

[Ian Corrigible]

RHOG report here (http://www.robinsonhelicopters.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=34?PHPSESSID=6bf98058432e8630924b73e48418d02f&&topic=1328.msg6771;topicseen#new).

FAA preliminary accident report here (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/P_1003_N.txt) (incorrectly noted as an R22; N266 CY was S/N #10 (http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N266CY.html))

News article here (http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=121634)

I/C

[Heliboy68]

:( Sorry to hear that. Two incidents in as many days!!!

[pedje]

NTSB investigates fatal Robinson R66 crash



The lone pilot of a Robinson R66 helicopter was killed on 1 October following what appears to have been an in-flight breakup of the five-passenger type, first certified in October 2010.

The accident is the second fatal accident involving the R66 and the first in the US. An R66 crashed in Colombia, South America, in July, killing both occupants on board.


Thats the 2nd crash of the R66 in a short time, anyone know more about this ??
We are currently deciding whether to add another EC 120 to our fleet our the R66 but i would like to know more about these accidents first..






©NTSB


The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the accident, which according to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) preliminary report, happened near Philip, South Dakota, in the late afternoon in good weather. The NTSB does not issue a preliminary report until a minimum of 10 days after an accident.

On the NTSB's website, a picture of the crash site is labeled as "aircraft impacted the ground following an apparent in-flight breakup".

N266CY is registered to P P & J, based in Gillette, Wyoming, according to FAA records. The helicopter was certificated in March 2011.

The R66, Robinson's first turbine helicopter, is powered by a Rolls-Royce RR300 turboshaft engine. The helicopter is widely regarded as the most advanced, powerful and user-friendly helicopter the Torrance, California-based manufacturer has produced to date.

[Dick Sanford]

Without pre-empting the NTSB report; The information I have to date is that the accident was caused by a low 'G' manoeuvre.

[RPM AWARE]

no disrespect meant Pedje but this is old news...

[206 jock]

No disrespect in turn to you RPM but it's the first I've heard about Negative G/Mast bumping in this case. And the source of this is as close as you will get to an official Torrance factory statement.

I'd be willing to bet that there was a massive, collective sigh of relief emanating in California when they found that out. I'm sure this forum will be a livelier place for the next few days (R66, mast bumping, same old Robinson problems etc).

[Runway101]

We are currently deciding whether to add another EC 120 to our fleet our the R66 but i would like to know more about these accidents first..

If you need it soon and can afford it go for the EC120, otherwise just wait it out or go for another R44.

[Jackop3]

I heard from an experienced mechanic that the R66 tail boom, got a "weak point" just in the upper part of the tail rotor guard, in the accident in Colombia, according to the pictures it seems like the tail boom went out from this part, maybe something like that happened in South Dakota??

[206 jock]

Err Jackop3, suggest you read the post above from Dick Sanford.

Then visit this website: MSA Home (http://www.morningtonsanfordaviation.com/home.html) - as I intimated above, Dick is 'connected' and his post will have been made with due consideration and probably the knowledge of the factory.

I'm genuinely gobsmacked that this thread has been so quiet.

Two fatal crashes so early in the life of a new helicopter is unusual. What Dick is saying is that one of them looks like pilot error.

[Jackop3]

Thanks 206, I already read what Dick said, but the thing is that I knew in person both of the people crashed in Colombia and actually I got the pictures of the accident, the pictures shows that the tail boom went off because some stress in the lower part of the tail boom, just in the connection with the tail rotor guard, there wasn't a tree, and they never hit nothing with the tail, in the second accident, Iam not sure how an experimented pilot flying Robbies can get in a low G condition.

You touch the fact that he said something with the consideration and probably the knowledge of the factory, well I can tell you that the factory is going to say that the Colombian accident was because a main rotor low RPM, the thing here is this guys lost their tail boom before the low RPM.

And totally agree with you "Two fatal crashes so early in the life of a new helicopter is unusual", lets see what is the result of the USA investigation

[Dick Sanford]

I very rarely post comments because I like to deal in facts, or with accurate information available at the time. The problem with comments on accidents prior to an official report is that unless you are part of the investigation we do not know. What may look or seem obvious to a layman is not necessarily correct. To even suggest that by just looking at a general picture of a part of an accident wreckage, a person can determine whether or not that the part failed pre or post impact is unwise and unhelpful.
My current information about the first R66 accident is that the wreckage has signatures that are consistent with a Low RPM Rotor Stall event. The accident is still under investigation. The engine EMU might be helpful.

I note the reference to "experienced pilot" in the second R66 accident.
Perhaps it would be wise to check on the type of experience the pilot has rather than just saying "the pilot was experienced.
What would be the worst type of "experienced pilot" flying a two bladed helicopter?
I will leave the question open.
RHC are not in the habit of misleading anybody when it comes to the causes of accidents.

[deeper]

so dick, without being part of the investigation you have decided that a low g manouvre took place.

one on board, in a helicopter type that has suffered its fair share of main rotor failures and you THINK otherwise yet you say that we should not speculate.

blowing your own trumpet me thinks.

robinson not misleading, blowing someone else's trumpet.

and on top of that you like to deal in facts.

i am with jackop3 as the most likely piece of speculation. with photos.

and 206 jock, dick sanford is "connected" is he, you can't see me but i am bowing in reverence, and you say he is using factory information, well it must be right then mustn't it.

i think i could hear that sigh of relief emanating from california.

what would be the worst type of experienced pilot flying a two bladed helicopter ???.

i am sure we would all like to know please.

[Hughes500]

Deeper

Might be correct that Trick Dicky is somewhat tied to RHC !!!!!!

[SuperF]

I'll take a stab at the worst type of experience, with regards to light helicopters, probably 105/117 experience, followed by the likes of 500/350/407, especially if they have thousands of hrs.

best type of exp, would be in a 206, or 44, 22, thats if people are talking about low G etc, in a 66

[Dick Sanford]

Deeper, it might help if you read my post.

[toptobottom]

Deeper, before you do that, try this (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=richard+sanford+helicopter+safety&l=1);)

[Jackop3]

I'm totally sure That you Dick got more information than me about this two accidents in the new R66, I'm worried because I'm flying a 66 now.
The Emu of the Colombian accident showed a low Rpm in the main rotor, but remember That the tail boom was founded 400 ft from the cabin crash.
What about the second fatality? What do you mean about he wasn't a experimented pilot?
Again, thanks for your comments, I just want to figure what is happening with this new helicopter.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

[enginair]

Jackop3 our EMU shows N1, N2 , TQ and MGT only , N2 can be slower than NR ie Auto obviously TQ would be low

[Dick Sanford]

Jackop3. Main Rotor to Tailcone contact is consistent with Low RPM Rotor Stall.
i.e "cause and effect"
The worst type of "experienced pilot" flying two bladed helicopters is; high time fixwing pilots with low rotary hours.

[Jackop3]

"Jackop3. Main Rotor to Tailcone contact is consistent with Low RPM Rotor Stall.
i.e "cause and effect""

Totally agree with you but in the Colombian accident the blades of the main rotor never touched the tail cone, according to the pictures. I got almost 100 pictures of that accident that i can share with anyone and you can see that the blades of the main rotor never touched the tail cone.

"The worst type of "experienced pilot" flying two bladed helicopters is; high time fixwing pilots with low rotary hours"

I'm not 100 percent sure, but what I heard is that the South Dakota pilot was an experimented ROBINSON pilot.:ugh:

[Soave_Pilot]

NTSB Identification: CEN12FA001
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, October 01, 2011 in Philip, SD
Aircraft: ROBINSON HELICOPTER CO R66, registration: N266CY
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On October 1, 2011, about 1255 mountain daylight time, a Robinson Helicopter, R66, N266CY, was substantially damaged during an in-flight breakup while in cruise flight near Philip, South Dakota. The private pilot, the sole occupant, was fatally injured. The helicopter was registered to and operated by P P & J LLC., of Gillette, Wyoming. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a flight plan was not filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The cross-country flight originated from the Gillette-Campbell County Airport (GCC), around 1105 en route to Winner Regional Airport (ICR), Winner, South Dakota.

A friend of the pilot was at GCC when the pilot was preparing for the flight. The friend reported that the pilot appeared to be in good health and was excited about the flight. He further reported that the pilot had ?topped off? the helicopter with fuel before departure. Approximately an hour and a half later the pilot called the friend during the flight. The pilot reported that he was between Wall, South Dakota, and Philip, South Dakota, and inquired if the Philip Airport (PHP), had jet fuel available. The friend called the pilot back a few minutes later to say PHP did not have jet fuel. The friend stated that the pilot did not report any anomalies with the helicopter during either conversation.

An eyewitness located approximately 2 miles northwest of the accident site, observed the helicopter flying from west to east, along a river, at approximately 1,000 feet above ground level (AGL). The eyewitness reported that he heard nothing abnormal as the helicopter flew past him. He then observed the helicopter make a turn to the left before it flew out of view behind trees. About 20-30 seconds later, he heard a noise that he described as sounding like an ?exploding propane tank.?

The helicopter wreckage and debris came to rest on rolling ranch land and was spread out over an area approximately 1,520 feet long by 600 feet wide. The main rotor head, with attached blades, came to rest 513 feet from the main wreckage. The main wreckage consisting of the fuselage, engine, and tail rotor assembly, had sustained substantial thermal damage from a post crash fire.

At 1255, the automated weather observing system at PHP, located 3 nautical miles northeast from the site of the accident, reported wind from 150 degrees at 6 knots, 10 statute miles visibility, clear of clouds, temperature 84 degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 39 degrees Fahrenheit, and a barometric pressure setting of 30.00 inches of Mercury.

[RPM AWARE]

"The main rotor head, with attached blades, came to rest 513 feet from the main wreckage".

[kylesampson]

Hey Dick

The information I received is that the crash was due to mechanical failure. Perhaps you should respect the deceased and not try to blame them without the facts, as their family reads this.

[foxmead]

Kylesampson:
Why not wait until the NTSB have completed their investigations before making what can only be at this early stage is an assumption, no matter how well informed.

[kylesampson]

Just stating the assumption the NTSB told the family. If that later changes so be it. I was just saying that people blaming this on the pilot at this stage is inappropriate. I was just trying to inform those that are flying the R66 to have it checked out before waiting a year for the report. Being safe is better then the alternative.

[Soave_Pilot]

"The main rotor head, with attached blades, came to rest 513 feet from the main wreckage".


From my perspective, if this was a low g robbie cut, the main rotor would be still attached to the rest of the helo..

[Gordy]

kylesampson

Just stating the assumption the NTSB told the family.

Having dealt with the NTSB on numerous occasions, I am pretty sure they do NOT make assumptions---especially to the family, until the investigation is complete.

Is what you say a FACT, especially based upon this comment:

Perhaps you should respect the deceased and not try to blame them without the facts, as their family reads this.

As was stated on this site before, I believe that some threads on Rotorheads are for the exchange of views on the factors that may have led to unfortunate incidents and accidents. If you're not prepared to accept the views or share in the speculation posted by others on this thread, then with the greatest respect, stay away! after all--- YOU are the one who started it:

What I have been told so far is that the rotor came off in mid flight. I just wanted to give other owners a heads up.

SEE HERE (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/466312-second-crash-r66-south-dakota.html#post6730752)

[henra]

From my perspective, if this was a low g robbie cut, the main rotor would be still attached to the rest of the helo..

Not necessarily.
In previous Low RRPM Rotor Stall Mast Bumping accidents the Rotor stayed on longer than the tail boom in most instances, sometimes it stayed on until the ground.
However if it was a straghtforward (Pushover type) Low G Mast Bumping w/o low RRPM it could lead and has done so in the past to a loss of the complete Rotor assy.

The only other 'typical' reason for losing the entire head is M/R blade fracture. But in this case you would expect one blade separated (at least partly) from the hub.

So far this case does not seem to show completely untypical signs for a Robbie accident.

[Dick Sanford]

I am not sure what the term "Robby cut" means, however if it means Main Rotor to Tailcone contact that has severed the Tailcone, then this is usually consistent with "Low RPM Rotor Stall"

Low 'G' mast bumping can cause a failure of the main rotor drive shaft, which allows the rotor hub and blade Assy to part from the aircraft, complete with a part of the drive shaft.

[kylesampson]

Hey Gordo

Maybe you should wise up if you can't figure out why I used the word assumption.

[Gordy]

kylesampson

Firstly, I am NOT Gordo.

Secondly, exactly WHERE did you use the word "assumption" in your initial post?

Second crash R66 South Dakota
I'm not a pilot I just wanted to get this out there. My wifes uncle just died in a R66 in South Dakota. Anyone who has one better wait and see what happens in this investigation. What I have been told so far is that the rotor came off in mid flight. I just wanted to give other owners a heads up.

Like I said---this website is for professional pilots "for the exchange of views on the factors that may have led to unfortunate incidents and accidents".

I suggest you are NOT a professional pilot, therefore if you are not willing to
accept the views or share in the speculation posted by others on this thread, then with the greatest respect, stay away!

Also...READ the name of this site CAREFULLY:

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/misc/pplogonew3.gif

Good bye.

[Arrrj]

Gordy,

Well said. :ok:

Maybe you can have a go at the bloke on this thread, (Jackop3), http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/457329-r66-down-colombia.html, who clearly is not a pilot and is pushing some ridiculous ill informed rubbish and speculation.

There are some really good posters on PPRUNE and that guy is NOT one of them. :=

Arrrj

[kylesampson]

Damn Gordo I hope all pilots aren't as dumb as you. Did I say I used it in the original post? The assumption was in response to foxmeads post.

You are correct I am not a pilot and you don't have to assume or suggest it. Hell I told you that right off and I hope the R66 is a perfectly sound machine. Furthermore, if I would have known that a lot of pilots were such pompous asses, I would have not tried to help them.

I'm sure that you will never own a R66 so this will never concern you. If you were such an all wise all knowing pilot you would be out flying or consulting rather then blogging on a rumor site as you so eloquently pointed out in the title.

Bye the way please stay out of Wyoming we don't take kindly to people who are from a location that believes in butt sex with non homo-sapiens:E

[Gordy]

Kyle,

I have neither the desire, or feel the need to defend myself to you. Please go just go away.

Goodbye.

[topendtorque]

from kylesampson
Bye the way please stay out of Wyoming we don't take kindly to people who are from a location that believes in butt sex with non homo-sapiens


if i get in quick I might beat the mods, but Kylesampson ol' son this is way outa line. A retraction and apology to whom concerned would be appropriate.

most if not nearly all folks here aren't in the line of delivering threats, that's not to say we don't sometimes take the mickey right out of each other, it happens regularly to me i'm sure.

gordy is a highly experienced profressional in his field of endeavour and even not knowing him it's easy to see he's well respected as well as with a lovely fiancee.

you could perhaps notify here and PM him direct
cheers tet

[Widewoodenwingswork]

Tet, I think he was having a dig at Gordy's location (Sodomy non sapiens!), hence the big dopey smiley face at the end of it. This thread however, HAS come close to running it's course IMHO.

[Soave_Pilot]

The only other 'typical' reason for losing the entire head is M/R blade fracture. But in this case you would expect one blade separated (at least partly) from the hub.

So far this case does not seem to show completely untypical signs for a Robbie accident.

You mean that because the NTSB said the main rotors were both still attached to the hub, and the tailcone assembly was not mentioned to be broken off the helo?


And anyone who is not comfortable with the discussion here, perhaps should leave the thread or even the website. I am a pilot who is gonna be flying this machine in 60 days, so the discussion will continue.

[Dick Sanford]

Soave_Pilot

With a caveat that I am not part of the accident investigation team for the 1st or 2nd R66 accident, therefore I can pass on only what I have been told and that information is as good as it gets apart from the NTSB I would like to re iterate.

The first R66 accident is consistent with a Low RPM Rotor Stall accident, this in its self is usually due to mishandling the controls.

The second R66 accident is consistent with Low 'G' this in its self is usually due to mishandling the controls.

I hope that you are aware of how you can get yourself into these situations and the incipient stages of these Critical Flight Conditions.

Treat the helicopter with the respect it is due and you will love flyiing the R66 for a long time.

Fly safely

[blakmax]

Up front. I am not a pilot, but I do have specialist expertise of relevance to some specific aspects of aviation accidents. I was involved in investigations of another RHC product where the boom was cut by a blade and that effort resulted in http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/A08_25_29.pdf (http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/A08_25_29.pdf)

I have also raised issues in relation to other rotary wing types (I am not an anti-RHC fanatic) and I have raised my concerns in relation to issues within my expertise on other threads with a mixed reception; some strongly supportive and some in a similar (somewhat aggressive) vein to some of the material posted above. Indeed, after some "guidance" from some PM's I have taken a more restrained attitude to my comments.

Because of the minimal time in service for the R66, I would be totally surprised if the mechanisms which led to the above NTSB recommendations are of relevance in the case of the recent R66 crashes, so I have not commented at all to date. I do not believe that my expertise is of relevance in these events.

However, if I did believe that I could contribute to the discussion I would be reluctant to accept that the sole criterion for eligibility for posting was that I was a pilot. Yes, this is PPRuNe, but if it was solely for PILOTS, then why are there so many non-pilot streams on this site? Often the delineation in each thread is blurred to the extent that it is difficult to define boundaries where non-pilots can contribute.

I also suggest that the inference of some of the above postings is that in many accidents the assuption from the start is that pilots are responsible for crashes and non-pilots can b*gger off. (We can discuss the last sentence in terms of homosapiens or alternatives, but that diverges from the point.) The assertion that all knowledge is possessed only by pilots is clearly not always the case.

There are actually a significant number of crashes which are based on engineering and processing issues, not pilot issues and in some circumstances those issues require specialist expertise which may even fall outside the capability of manufacturers and in some cases even the level of understanding of investigating authorities. Hence the catch cry "wait for the official report" is meaningless. In one case where I was involved, the manufacturer suggested that the failure was caused by separation of the luggage door and impact with the blade. Evidence? The luggage door was not found in the marine crash site. In reality the adhesive bond failure modes over a wide range of the segments of recovered blade were inconsistent with an impact initiated event on a well bonded structure.

If a failure is investigated by a pilot investigator, there is a reasonable expectation that he/she will have a predisposition to a finding which relates to pilot error. There is also evidence that if an investigative expert has expertise in fatigue of metals, that investigator will find fatigue issues in his/her investigations and in several cases the conclusions of fatigue involvement can be clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate. It is a fact of life that investigators will focus on their area of expertise, and I am sure that I am not immune from such a pre-disposition.

Such approaches carry a high risk of mis-diagnosis and do little to advance flight safety. So do some of the discussions in this thread.

My point is that to suggest that you must ONLY be a pilot to discuss crash issues is rediculous. However, comments must be relevant. Some of the above comments (both pilot and non-pilot based) carry a strong implication of the absence of a partner during regular sexual encounters, and my mother told me that such activities carry a high risk to eyesight.

Summary: If you are not a pilot, keep your comments relevant. If you are a pilot, show some tolerance of alternative opinions. If you are a manufacturer, make your observations (determinations?) plausible.

I agree with Soave Pilot. Don't terminate the discussion, just keep it relevant and avoid personal abuse. Cold shower, deep breath, a good scotch, now lets get the discussion of the issues.

Regards

Blakmax

[Dick Sanford]

Blakmax

The accident investigator is not looking to apportion blame.

[John R81]

Dick

Blakmax never said they did. I think that you are reading his post wrong.

I am an owner and a PPL. I definately want to hear from engineers, lawyers, or anyone who has a valid point to make. I think that was the only point BM was raising. If so, then I agree with him.

[Dan Reno]

Rumour has it that the R77 will resolve all "R" issues.

[Captain Cashmere]

Why not wait until the NTSB have completed their investigations before making what can only be at this early stage is an assumption, no matter how well informed.

Because this is PPRuNe, nobody ever waits, everyone is an expert. :mad:

[OvertHawk]

"rumour has it the R77 will solve all R issues"!

How? Is it going to be made by Bell? :E

[Dan Reno]

No, Sikorsky.

[Soave_Pilot]

Soave_Pilot

With a caveat that I am not part of the accident investigation team for the 1st or 2nd R66 accident, therefore I can pass on only what I have been told and that information is as good as it gets apart from the NTSB I would like to re iterate.

The first R66 accident is consistent with a Low RPM Rotor Stall accident, this in its self is usually due to mishandling the controls.

The second R66 accident is consistent with Low 'G' this in its self is usually due to mishandling the controls.

I hope that you are aware of how you can get yourself into these situations and the incipient stages of these Critical Flight Conditions.

Treat the helicopter with the respect it is due and you will love flyiing the R66 for a long time.

Fly safely


Thanks Dick :ok:

[blakmax]

The accident investigator is not looking to apportion blame.

I agree totally, Dick. The objective of any investigation must be to identify the cause.

John R81 is correct. The intent of my message was to advocate that the forum needs input from a broader range of contributors than just pilots.

Regards

Blakmax

[Gordy]

blakmax

For the record, I was in NO way trying to exclude any non pilots from joining in the discussion---I along with most others on here welcome input from anyone who has something to offer. Once again, I quote my comments, which I actually found on another thread, and in no way exlcude anyone:

I believe that some threads on Rotorheads are for the exchange of views on the factors that may have led to unfortunate incidents and accidents. If you're not prepared to accept the views or share in the speculation posted by others on this thread, then with the greatest respect, stay away!

My comment about reading the Pprune logo was more aimed at the word "rumor" than anything else. I am right there with you and Soave Pilot...

Don't terminate the discussion, just keep it relevant and avoid personal abuse.

TET.... Thanks

[topendtorque]

in several cases the conclusions of fatigue involvement can be clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate.


seen that for sure and had to endure a most protracted, humiliatimg and expensive argument as a result of it.

even though the fatigue issue at hand was of a separate but extremely direct relevance to ongoing safety of the product.

[Arrrj]

Soave_Pilot,

I am endorsed on the R66 and have flown one for 6-7 hours, in varying conditions / loads etc. I own and fly a R44 II and have for years. The R66 flies very similar to the R44, except it has heaps more power (read more power and less weight !), and (if anything) doesn't handle quite as "sharp" as a R44. I found no difficulty converting from R44 to R66. In fact, apart from the obvious similarities between the two machines, I thought that the R66 handled (in some ways) like the EC120B.

Probably because most of my hours are in 2 blade machines, I experienced none of the issues reported to be the cause of either of the two accidents.

I hope that assists you. You will enjoy the machine.:ok:

Arrrj

[henra]

You mean that because the NTSB said the main rotors were both still attached to the hub, and the tailcone assembly was not mentioned to be broken off the helo?


Yes that was where I took my assumption from. Losing a part of the blade sufficient to lead to a loss of the entire Rotor assembly (especially in a 2-Blade teetering Rotor) usually leads to tremendous and characteristic disintegration already mid-air.
I assumed signs of any such occurences would have been mentioned if they were present.
A cut off the M/R w/o too much other disintegration points more towards a 'classic' low- G occurence.
At this point this is obviously all speculation but sadly we have a rather solid history of incidents with the Robbies to look for similarities. And there are more than a few...

[Dick Sanford]

Soave
Sorry, I should of added the most important part of Critical Flight Conditions is " you should know how to recover instinctively" from their incipient stages.

Error due to lack of sleep after arriving in Borneo.

[Ghost Aviator]

Hi this is my first post. My Boss just bought an R66 which I will be certified on. He won't be taking possession of it for a few months. I am a 8,200 Hr pilot with about 3,000 of these on R22's & R44's. The rest of my hours are turbine. These two crashes make me very nervous. If indeed it is pilot error I will be able to sleep at night , but if this is a design flaw(which I am leaning towards). I might consider a different flying job. There doesn't seem to be very much info on the two crashes and as far as I can see the preliminary reports are that it is mechanical failure. If this is low-G mast bumping It could have been avoided . Please help me with any new info or reports on this . Thank you.

[hillberg]

If you feel it "chuging" reduce the speed & load the rotors (a little cyclic climb) :=It just might be pylion whril that is getting the R-44 & R-66 to shake the tails loose. :eek:Seems to be worse at low weights & the R66 has no heavy piston poper to add stability-I could be full of it.:rolleyes: But then agian?:bored:

[Shawn Coyle]

Ghost:
Is the R-66 approved in Canada yet?

[anti-talk]

Completely new new Tail Rotor design appears for the 66, more anti torque required for more engine power same TR as an R44 before new design recently launched ,more pitch ??? , Hmm
Perhaps excessive Tail Rotor Flap - dont think the 66 has pedal stops ( I stand to be corrected there only flown 5 hours in one last year)
Just throwing an Idea out there.

[Ghost Aviator]

Hi. The answer to your question about the the R66 being certified in Canada is that as of April 9/12 it has not . I spoke with the rep for Robinson and he tells me they are very close, as in very very close. The hydraulic problem has been addressed and TC is pleased with the results. I was also in contact with TC to substantiate this info. Thank you . Ghost Aviator.

[SuperF]

and those Low G tail chops arent limited to R products. Lots of 204, 205, 206's that have been badly bent choping or trying to chop their tails off for that exact same reason. In fact when i did the Robbie safety course, im sure part of the low G discussion came from a US Army safety vid about Nap of Earth flying, and that featured the UH1's. it was back in the 90's however, and some of that decade is a bit vague!!!

Im happily not flying Robbies now, they were never big enough for me, but have unfortunatley seen the results close up of Bells choping their tails and it is not a pretty sight.

[Soave_Pilot]

Hello, I'll throw in my input for you guys:

I've been flying a R66 for a few months now, logged in about 75hrs so far, great machine, but I'll tell you flying solo and light weight is a bit tricky specially in turbulent air (thermals, windy, etc, etc) those bigger blades will give you a nice glide but you might not want that when you're light... hehe, so what I do when I'm solo? I just fly at no more than 60% torque that will not give me more than 100 kts.. they'd better wait... but I'll be there :E:E

[RINKER]

Interesting you say that Soave Pilot. I doubt I will ever get to fly the R66 but even myself in the R44 solo, especially with not a lot of fuel on a windy day could get exciting, I always prefered at least one passenger (victim) to bring along to help smooth out the bumps !
R

[donfly]

Mast bumping is a nasty thing, no doubt. Considering the thousands and thousands of hours helicopters with semi-rigid rotors, they must be flown within their design envelope, or you will lose your mast and rotor. With the AH-1S Cobra, we would do RTT's (Return To Target) maneuvers and learned to keep that rotor loaded. Same with the Huey and B-206's.
Can't say what happened to those R-66's that crashed, but I would not try anything different from normal take-offs, landings and standard maneuvers. In the BO-105LS (same thing that Red Bull uses in their airshows), you had 1000 HP. When light, it would leap off the ground. Of course, in that aircraft, you could transition from a rapid ascent to straight and level without getting into mast bumping (rigid rotor). My point? respect the aircraft and know your limitations. We need to let the full investigation be completed before we jump to conclusions. Hopefully, the truth will provide either guidance or wisdom (whether to fly one/buy one?).
Fly safe

[nocarsgo]

http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20140410/suit-over-robinson-helicopter-deaths-must-be-litigated-in-us-judge-says