Robinson Safety Courses

[Rotorbike]

Please tell me why you do not respond to the technical facts that I place on this forum regarding the design of the Robinson rotorhead.

He and many others have tried Lu but you haven't been listening.......

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Rotorbike, thanks for the info. The place looks like what we would want to use when we get out there. I will keep it in mind.

It is probable that 4 or 5 of us are going to go over for 2 weeks and visit the factory then all do the safety course. Some serious training, some fun flying and some serious partying Can’t wait.

Lu you really don’t get it do you?!

[JoePilot]

Regarding Lu: Lu's interminable drivvel is highly counter productive.

It is a turn off to all technically competant people who just can't cope with bashing their head against his verbose and technically illiterate rantings.

What he has managed to piece together about his chosen subject has mostly been learnt at the expense of some of the finest rotary practicioners' patience after his idiotic mis-coceptions have been roundly refuted countless times.

It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't try and pass himself off as someone with authority.

It is down right fraudulent of him.

There are many humble members who preface their comments with qualifiers ("Inexperienced as I am ..." etc.) I'm sure if he did the same many would not feel so angry and serious debate might occur.

I personally regret the damage he does to an excellent forum.

He does one service (IMHO) which is to flush out some of the technically inept who allow their anti Robbo bias to cloud thier objectivity when Lu's 'on a roll'.

... sorry to hijack (but Lu's drivvel should be stamped out where it occurs)

[RW-1]

I'm laughing rght now, for on a thread I have had NO involvement in at ALL: the results seem eerily familiar to anyone who have been on this merry go round ...

Oh well, fun watching it happen AS PREDICTED.

Back to other priorities.

To those going to the course soon: tell us how you liked it when you get back.

[ 05 November 2001: Message edited by: RW-1 ]

[Steve76]

RW1
Mate! its like a de-ja-vu of a dejavu...if thats the correct spelling.
This should be renamed the 'Groundhog' thread.
LOL
CB

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: All

I’ll take this opportunity to get out of your hair at least, as far as this thread is concerned. I have been called everything from the village idiot to something like a total fool. It’s a free society and every one is entitled their own opinion. You have yours and I have mine but it is difficult to come to a decent understanding. You collectively have chastised me on the basis of the comments of one individual that has told me I am wrong. Most of your negative comments stemmed from his comments and most of you probably didn’t know what he was talking about. As far as the 18-degree offset is concerned I may be totally wrong and that will be proven when the test is performed. However regarding the rotorhead design, that individual that said I was wrong only came back with more criticism yet he offered absolutely no positive or negative comments regarding my statement about the rotorhead design and how the restricted flapping action contributes to mast bumping and rotor separation.

I will not go away on this matter. I am attempting to have a cut-away drawing of the rotorhead placed on the Internet and when that happens, I will start another thread. I honestly believe that Robinson pilots should take more interest in this matter and put their model loyalties aside because this can effect your lives.

I would suggest you read my bio under interests. You are included in that statement.

Welcome back Joe Pilot and RW-1

[ 06 November 2001: Message edited by: Lu Zuckerman ]

[baranfin]

I really don't want to get involved in this but I would like to say my opinion on this subject. Regarding the 18 deg. offset. I do not understand the intricacies of this, but if it is indeed the reason the 22 doesn’t like out of trim flight, it’s in the POH. So therefore the only time I am out of trim is when I'm 30 feet off the deck on aprch/depart. The same thing goes for zero-g; I avoid anything that would put me in that situation like the plague. The reason for this is, as I understand it, the onset of zero-g and mast bump is extremely quick and violent, I don’t believe that I would react correctly. And to the fact that Robinson helicopters is trying to cover up their mistakes and shortcomings? I don't doubt it; I could understand why they want to cover this up (that doesn’t make it right). It’s the bottom line, that’s why all helicopters aren’t dual engine as well, and why I am training in an R-22 instead of a S-60. I’ll let you guys argue whether or not the 22 is more susceptible to MB than other teetering head copters, while I try and avoid the stuff that’ll bury me.

[ 06 November 2001: Message edited by: baranfin ]

[Kyrilian]

Vortex what?
Thanks for starting this thread. I too am interested in taking the course at some point. Seems like one must really plan ahead! For the moment I'm going to respond to the 'off-topic' argument however. Sorry

RW-1
Hey, welcome back. Back when you and Lu were slamming each other I thought you were a bit harsh. I'm happy to see you step back from the fray this time. Thanks

Lu,
I've responded before regarding the 18 degree offset and the reason for it. I'm not going to repeat myself because I don't think it's any use. However, I will make one point.

You recently said, "I have contacted a member of this forum who is an instructor on R22 and R44 and I am awaiting his response. In a personal email he indicated that the cyclic is to the right of center in normal flight. That was demonstrated using a stick plotting board. If he does perform the test, it will put this matter to rest."

Unfortunately, I don't think this will put the issue to rest at all. Remember that even the rotor is not the sole source of aerodynamic forces and moments on the helicopter. As you may know, translating tendency is the effect that the translational force of the tail rotor has on the helicopter, most noticeable during hover. It must be offset by lateral application of the stick (to the left on a Robbi). Since the vertical stabilizer acts to provide some yaw force during fast forward flight (roughly proportional to forward speed^2) and the rotor torque that needs to be counteracted by the tail rotor/tail fin decreases with speed, it stands to reason that the need for tail rotor thrust (and thus application of lateral cyclic to overcome it) will decay as speed increases. So if you want to make a plot of stick position, in theory it should start to the left of a longitudinal line at hover and slowly approach it as speed increases. This doesn't account for transverse flow effect but that will just manifest itself in a leftward bulge along the line, between hover and cruise. The plot that you say someone has created during flight seems to be quite well described by this translating tendency theory. I'm sure it's not the only effect though.

I'm not sure why you're so darned intent upon making us all understand your point. It's clear that the theory behind all of this is beyond your abilities--probably beyond mine as well. With several very knowledgeable people refuting your theory however, and no concrete evidence in your favor (I don't think your accident statistics support your assertion very much), I just wish you'd do some more research on your own before crying foul and complaining about how dangerous these little beasts are.
Did you ever go out to an airport where you can watch the disc as someone moves the stick exactly fore and aft or side to side? Did you ever get back to Ray Prouty, who I think misunderstood your question the first time? In-flight tests as you've noted above are simply too complex to prove anything. We've heard everything you've said before, so saying it again won't change our response. If you go to a library and bury your head in some reading materials (I've mentioned Johnson, though it's not an easy read--try the new Leishman book, it's being reprinted mid-November and reads very easily) and come back with a good understanding of offset hinge and delta-3 flapping dynamics, or even just the dynamics of a second order system, we might pay a bit more attention. At least I will Until then it's just like arguing with someone who just saw the Wright brothers fly, yet tries to prove mathematically and physically why manned heavier-than-air flight is impossible. Very frustrating...

P.S. Nice to see that not all your posts have the thumbs-down icon as before

[headsethair]

Robinson Safety Course

Just attended this 3.5 day course at Torrance. Great training (for all helicopter pilots), great factory tour - a very impressive, clean 800-staff production area. And a pleasing recommendation for this website from Pat Cox of the Robinson Technical staff.
Happy to post a few words on the course if anyone's interested...

[Heliport]

Yes please

I think many people will be interested to learn exactly what the course covers, whether or not they fly Robbies.


Heliport

[Slotty]

Do they still show the old Army Low G mast bumping video?

[Bluegold]

RHC Saftey Course

The safety course in Torrance is to be recommended for any aspiring chopper pilot in my humble opinion.

Sat last year and found it to be of much worth. Knowledgeable and friendly lecturers, test pilots, factory staff etc. all make for a worthy and satisfying 2.5 days.

One also has the rare opportunity to meet like-minded people from all corners of the globe.

Go for it

[headsethair]

OK - I am travelling today but will try to post some words on the course asap. Had a great chat with Frank and Tim Tucker about what RHC are doing breaking ground next door to the factory.....big expansion......another factory two-thirds the size of the existing......will take up some of the current pressure (6 months backlog on 22 & 44) and increase output to 10 machines a week. But also - definitely something new coming and most likely not reciprocating. FR not forthcoming - but others were. However, I wouldn't be surprised if FR told others to talk.......keep the trail foggy! New building not complete for 18 mths to 2 years - and the exact FR quote was "We do not have a new machine in the works." And, of course, he's right. They don't even have the works yet!
I will go through my notes and post back here. Suffice to say, best $450 I ever spent (in flying). It's $350 for 22. You get 90 mins flying and about 3 days of classroom/factory stuff on safety & ops.
And yes - they did show the mast-bumping video from US Army. Also a new video from Indonesia of a 44 getting into settling with power on the approach to a rooftop hotel pad. It was a promo video shoot for the hotel, shot from another craft and the pilot decided to go in downwind because the director wanted the best light........a terrible tragedy, the machine just went down hard on the pad, rolled and skidded through the apparently flimsy barrier on the edge of the roof - and then down the side of the skyscraper. Our class went silent for some time - then a voice asked "Did he go all the way ?"
The world's most needless question.

[RDRickster]

I went to the course last December and thought it was truly excellent. They didn't have the R44 settling with power video though. Anyway, the course was a great way to learn about performance capabilities, but more importantly it taught you how to properly manage it's limitations. The value and return on investment for this course can't be beat!

[Helinut]

I did the RHC course a number of years ago - a real godsend, exceptional value.

It gave me a similar feeling as the Bell Academy B206 course that I attended in Fort Worth, which is equally good if you fly the JetRanger (but appropriately more expensive).

You can't beat factory training in these situations, if the manufacturer takes it seriously

[Tmflyer]

RHC Factory Course

RHC now requires course attendance every 6 years

Went last Feb, and enjoyed the second go-around as much as the first, over 15 years ago

The out of class time with fellow attendees as well as the absolutely top notch classroom and flight instruction were some of the best I have ever seen in my 40 years as a rotorhead, including my several courses at "Mother Rucker"

Pat G N45PG

[Dantruck]

Did the Robbo course in the UK some years ago, and tied in a factory visit while on an unrelated business trip to LA a couple of weeks later. All very good stuff. Would highly recommend the course to any heli pilot.

Have done not disimilar training courses at MD and would echo the sentiment that factory training is best, at least when it comes to ship-specific stuff.

All of it money well spent. And if you're still in doubt think of it all as cheap insurance.

Dantruck

[headsethair]

Report

Every newly-qualified helicopter pilot should go on this course Ð regardless of type qualification. And every instructor should also sign-up. (In the USA, itÕs compulsory.)
And my feeling is that
I came to that opinion on day 1 as we were escorted across the factory floor for the first time Ð it is quite astonishing what Frank Robinson and his family have achieved in little more than a quarter-century. Even more so when you consider that all you see (260,000 sq ft) is paid for by civilian sales Ð not military or big commercial money).
85% of the parts required are manufactured at this facility Ð raw material in one end, finished machines out the other.
The factory tour alone is worth the trip Ð but we were there to learn safety & maintenance and class beckoned at 8am each day. My exercise book is crammed with notes and tips from an intensive time. Short breaks were enjoyed with fellow students Ð and I really enjoyed meeting pilots from all corners with varying abilities. A multi-thousand hour FAA inspector, a Texas rancher, Florida policeman, a Seattle woman with 120 hours who hadnÕt yet been able to fly her husband because you need 150 hours P1 in the USA before you can take passengers in an R22. Every minute was a learning moment. Yes Ð some of the videos from the US Army looked and sounded like episodes of The Fast Show Ð but you still learned. And other videos were hard to take Ð truly awful tragedies caught on tape. But, I know, these machines can bite Ð and most often itÕs because of whatÕs called pilot error. Even our instructor, the famed Tim Tucker, admitted to making errors of judgement.
Day 1 started with The Man Ð Frank came into the classroom in stealth style. We were unaware. When a voice announced ÒGood morning Ð IÕm Frank RobinsonÓ we knew the treat was starting. He lectured for about 20 minutes Ð focussing on safety issues and pilot performance. He is so concerned with this subject that he has established a house rule for all staff flyers Ð no passengers until 300 hrs. And a firm rule for ÒferryÓ work Ð a large number of new owners want to collect their ship from the factory and fly it home. Unless you conform to FrankÕs 10 ferry rules (which include logbook entries for at least 5 landings above 5000 DA), you canÕt have your toy for self-delivery.
In an entertaining Q&A after the lecture, Frank took on allcomers. ÒWould you consider a 3-balde rotor ?Ó (No Ð weight and performance and hangar space), ÒDoes the recent accident in Australia threaten the rest of the world ?Ó (No Ð we are mightily concerned that some operators in Australia constantly ignore the timelife of components. They just donÕt log hours correctly Ð if at all. This is a problem for CASA.)
And ÒWhy are you clearing all that land next to this factory ?Ó (New facility to add two-thirds more space Ð ready in two years Ð need capacity Ð want to increase output from 7 machines a week to 10 Ð 6 months backlog on both 22 and 44 currently. No new machine in the works.) Yeah well, the works arenÕt built yet!
ÒHave you achieved all you want in helicopters ?Ó (Well Ð I better get a move on if I havenÕt Ôcos IÕm 73 now!)

He then handed over to our main tutor Tim Tucker. And I really cannot take up ppruneÕs valuable server space with a complete report on the next 3 days of lectures and videos. Suffice to state that the stats show (in descending order) the main causes of non-fatal accidents in Robinsons : Practise Autos, Weather, Wire Strikes, Low RPM rotor stall.

55% of all accidents have an Instructor on board. And RobinsonÕs new mantra is Òhigh hoverÓ. A lot of accidents are caused by instructors teaching students that a 1-2 ft hover is safe. It isnÕt Ð it has caused many rollover accidents when the student has made a wrong large control input and the skids have dug-in sideways. So Ð always teach a 5-6 ft hover.

Most R22 accidents are low time pilots Ð so the rule now is that you cannot instruct or take passengers until you have 150 hrs all 22 time, or 250 TT of which 100 on 22, or 500 TT of which 50 must be 22. This is to stop low time instructors being bad teachers.

Later, Tim gave Instructors 4 rules for Practise Autos :

Throttle roll-off at 17 or 18 inches MAP only. Put foot on right pedal and tense leg. (Guarding against wrong pedal input by the student). Intercept Student if RPM drops to 95%. Only allow one mistake by the student and then terminate the exercise.

Tim was also my instructor for the 90-minute flight appraisal. This 16,000 hour helicopter veteran has been working with Robinson for over 25 years and he actually bought the first production R22 from Frank. The man is cool Ð so cool I could swear that he was using his eyelids to control the helicopter, such was the fine control he exhibited. He put me through my paces Ð and I particularly enjoyed the Maximum Glide autos. Using 90 kts and 90% rotor rpm, we glided effortlessly along the length of Long Beach Harbour Ð the main concern is that you do the entire exercise with the low rpm horn blaring. Then we did some more standard autos Ð but this time into one of 3 practise pads at Long Beach airport. This full-on commercial field has 10 runways, with 3 always active.

And Tim emphasised another current Robinson mantra Ð low speed approaches are best. They have evidence that high speed approaches are causing accidents Ð big control inputs at the bottom are causing instability and big flares are taking off tail rotors.

Maintenance was lectured by RobinsonÕs engineering whiz Pat Cox. Again, the attention to detail was astonishing. And space does not permit full disclosure Ð but Pat held court on such issues as hangar-rash (a big and expensive problem) and overspeeds. Some excellent demo trolleys of Robinson systems helped explain hydraulics and clutch mechanisms Ð and several trolley loads of bent bits hammered home the major issues such as mast-bumping and bad magneto maintenance.

In summary Ð you canÕt even get an hourÕs self-fly hire in the UK for the price Robinson charges for this course. No brainer Ð do it. Tip Ð combine it with a holiday and arrive in California a few days before the course. Jet lag and lectures donÕt always mix Ð but the endless supply of coffee and donuts (and some great lunches) helps!

[t'aint natural]

Fascinating, headsethair, thanks for that. I would say, though, that 'high hover' is not a new mantra. Frank was banging on about it when I did the course nearly ten years ago.
I think (I may be wrong) that Frank used to advocate the 'hockey-stick' approach, keeping the speed on to stay out of the avoid curve. Perhaps there's been a change of mind there.
Most fascinating of all - 55% of accidents happen with an instructor on board. That really reinforces the nature of the work the R22 does.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Headsethair, I whole heartedly agree with your assessment of the course. VERY informative... (and great promotional machine for robinson esp. the factory tour!!)

Your post inspired me to go through my notes where I found this quote...

We've never had a blade come through the cockpit in a survivable accident.

We all knew what he meant (situation not survivable before blade ever reached the cockpit) but it's still a great quote.