Points to ponder #1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a mountain and lots of snow
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Points to ponder #1
This is not the first shot in a war. They are statements of fact and should give you something to think about.
As I have previously posted I have been lurking on this forum for over two years without posting. This will be my first post.
There has been a major firestorm on this forum dealing with one person’s opinions relative to the Robinson helicopter line (R-22 and R-44). There were many objections to the ideas offered and many of these objections were very abusive. In examining the responses I felt there were many objections relating to vested interests, not wanting to accept the ideas offered and in certain cases due to a personal dislike of the person offering the ideas. I gave a lot of thought to these ideas and whether they had any basis in fact and as a result I did a bit of investigation on my own.
I contacted the NTSB requesting any data relating to 34 loss of control accident ranging from 1981 to 1996. Since that time there were at least five others all after the rulemaking of the FAA and the development of the safety course and the SFAR. I also obtained a copy of the Loss of control report issued by the NTSB. In addition I obtained via the Freedom of Information Act a copy of a private letter issued by Mr. James Hall the Acting Chairman of the NTSB and sent to David R. Hinson the Administrator of the FAA.
The letter to the FAA primarily addressed three specific loss of control accidents. The first accident addressed in the letter occurred in the UK (G-PUDD). It described the hull after the crash stating that both rotor blades struck the fourth bay on the tail boom. In part here are the main findings: An instability of the main rotor, rocking of the mast, and extreme pitch divergence of the main rotor blades appeared to precede all of the fractures of the main rotor flight control system. The reason for the main rotor pitch divergence has not been determined and the investigation of the accident is continuing. This accident occurred on June 8, 1994 and I do not believe they have determined the cause of the rotor divergence.
The second accident occurred on August 10, 1993 in Hawaii; The report in part reads: Examination of the retrieved wreckage revealed that one main rotor blade was bent downward and had entered the left forward section of the cockpit. The main rotor hub exhibited deep gouges where the droop tusks contacted the hub; the droop stop tusks were sheared. The upper transmission and lower mast remained intact; however, the upper main rotor shaft was bent approximately 30-degrees, consistent with an aerodynamically divergent blade striking the body of the helicopter during powered flight. The Safety Board was unable to establish the exact cause of the main rotor divergence.
The third accident described in the letter occurred on June 29, 1992: ….However, a main rotor blade had left its’ impressions on the crushed left side of the tailbooms’s first bay area. Both pitch change links exhibited bending overload failures and the tusks were fractured from each spindle, consistent with damage resulting from the divergence of the main rotor blades from their normal plane of rotation. In the first two accidents the Safety Board stated that they felt the helicopters were operating in their normal specified ranges. This accident provided a tape of the last seconds of the aircraft in controlled flight and proved that the helicopter was not involved in a zero G incident or a low rotor situation.
The letter also addressed quality control related problems. In several cases it was determined that R-22 main rotor blades did not meet quality control standards and that they were allowed to be installed by a signoff from the Designated Engineering Representative who at that time was Frank Robinson.
In the Loss of Control Report the NTSB on many occasions requested that the R-22/44 be grounded until the exact cause of the rotor divergence could be determined. This was never done. The report addressed in many instance that the design of the rotor blades led to their divergent behavior and recommended wind tunnel and computer simulations be performed.
I could go on but it would tie up a lot of space on the server.
These are my thought on this matter. What do you think.
I thought I would change my smily
As I have previously posted I have been lurking on this forum for over two years without posting. This will be my first post.
There has been a major firestorm on this forum dealing with one person’s opinions relative to the Robinson helicopter line (R-22 and R-44). There were many objections to the ideas offered and many of these objections were very abusive. In examining the responses I felt there were many objections relating to vested interests, not wanting to accept the ideas offered and in certain cases due to a personal dislike of the person offering the ideas. I gave a lot of thought to these ideas and whether they had any basis in fact and as a result I did a bit of investigation on my own.
I contacted the NTSB requesting any data relating to 34 loss of control accident ranging from 1981 to 1996. Since that time there were at least five others all after the rulemaking of the FAA and the development of the safety course and the SFAR. I also obtained a copy of the Loss of control report issued by the NTSB. In addition I obtained via the Freedom of Information Act a copy of a private letter issued by Mr. James Hall the Acting Chairman of the NTSB and sent to David R. Hinson the Administrator of the FAA.
The letter to the FAA primarily addressed three specific loss of control accidents. The first accident addressed in the letter occurred in the UK (G-PUDD). It described the hull after the crash stating that both rotor blades struck the fourth bay on the tail boom. In part here are the main findings: An instability of the main rotor, rocking of the mast, and extreme pitch divergence of the main rotor blades appeared to precede all of the fractures of the main rotor flight control system. The reason for the main rotor pitch divergence has not been determined and the investigation of the accident is continuing. This accident occurred on June 8, 1994 and I do not believe they have determined the cause of the rotor divergence.
The second accident occurred on August 10, 1993 in Hawaii; The report in part reads: Examination of the retrieved wreckage revealed that one main rotor blade was bent downward and had entered the left forward section of the cockpit. The main rotor hub exhibited deep gouges where the droop tusks contacted the hub; the droop stop tusks were sheared. The upper transmission and lower mast remained intact; however, the upper main rotor shaft was bent approximately 30-degrees, consistent with an aerodynamically divergent blade striking the body of the helicopter during powered flight. The Safety Board was unable to establish the exact cause of the main rotor divergence.
The third accident described in the letter occurred on June 29, 1992: ….However, a main rotor blade had left its’ impressions on the crushed left side of the tailbooms’s first bay area. Both pitch change links exhibited bending overload failures and the tusks were fractured from each spindle, consistent with damage resulting from the divergence of the main rotor blades from their normal plane of rotation. In the first two accidents the Safety Board stated that they felt the helicopters were operating in their normal specified ranges. This accident provided a tape of the last seconds of the aircraft in controlled flight and proved that the helicopter was not involved in a zero G incident or a low rotor situation.
The letter also addressed quality control related problems. In several cases it was determined that R-22 main rotor blades did not meet quality control standards and that they were allowed to be installed by a signoff from the Designated Engineering Representative who at that time was Frank Robinson.
In the Loss of Control Report the NTSB on many occasions requested that the R-22/44 be grounded until the exact cause of the rotor divergence could be determined. This was never done. The report addressed in many instance that the design of the rotor blades led to their divergent behavior and recommended wind tunnel and computer simulations be performed.
I could go on but it would tie up a lot of space on the server.
These are my thought on this matter. What do you think.
I thought I would change my smily
a Robinson flown the Robinson way is no more dangerous than any other type
Are there any idications that all these aircrafts involved where not flown the "Robinson way"??
Better red than ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R-22/44
(a). If we can have the two types split out rather than combined (wrongly);
(b). And by date, as some changes may/ will have happened over time.
Thanks in advance. I have put the kettle on for some more tea.
h-r
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linda:
Nice bait for the group but this fish thinks there is a hook under that worm.
As you wrote:
"They are statements of fact and should give you something to think about."
But you state no conclusions. What are your thoughts or conclusions based upon the data presented?
Nice bait for the group but this fish thinks there is a hook under that worm.
As you wrote:
"They are statements of fact and should give you something to think about."
But you state no conclusions. What are your thoughts or conclusions based upon the data presented?
Last edited by diethelm; 6th Jan 2005 at 16:49.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Near a mountain and lots of snow
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you asked....
To: diethelm
By virtue of my background I am unable to offer any technical conclusions that is why I posted the above material requesting the conclusions of those members of the forum. In reading the various reports it is obvious that the NTSB concluded that the Robinson blades suffered from some induced aerodynamic instability. It is also obvious that the NTSB wanted the FAA to cancel the certification of both aircraft. The FAA refused to ground or cancel the certification of both aircraft instead they suggested the performance of various studies to determine why the blades were diverging from their plane of rotation. I don’t know if they ever found out as there have been no design changes or, a massive replacement of the blades. Regarding the blades there are several examples of blades failing due to poor quality control.
It was stated above that if the helicopters were flown the Robinson way there would be no problems. This is and is not true. After the Robinson way was developed and flight maneuvers were changed there were still several incidents of loss of control due to rotor blade divergence. The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes. I believe the R-22 as originally designed was to be flown as a Ferrari but due to the input of the FAA it has to be flown as a Ford Station Wagon.
Once again I ask the members of this forum to make their own conclusions.
But you state no conclusions. What are your thoughts or conclusions based upon the data presented?
It was stated above that if the helicopters were flown the Robinson way there would be no problems. This is and is not true. After the Robinson way was developed and flight maneuvers were changed there were still several incidents of loss of control due to rotor blade divergence. The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes. I believe the R-22 as originally designed was to be flown as a Ferrari but due to the input of the FAA it has to be flown as a Ford Station Wagon.
Once again I ask the members of this forum to make their own conclusions.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linda,
It has been my experience that the NTSB sometimes makes those kinds of suggestions, mostly as CYA paperwork, with little understanding of the underlying technical facts. Their investigators are typically not trained engineers, they are fact gatherers, like detectives, with training on how to capture those facts. The FAA has the engineering talent to understand and appraise these facts. (please understand that I use "engineer" to mean someone with formal University training in math and science to understand these things, not a mechanic with excellent maintenance skills, as is the British usage of the word.)
Many helicopter accidents involve rotor/fuselage contact, unfortunately. The notion that some instability is needed to make that happen is quite flawed, and the ability to detect and classify instabilities is part of the normal certification process, with data that the FAA requires to be gathered and approved by FAA engineers.
Part of the issue here is Lu's unguided missile about 18 degrees of missing rigging, the hook he has hung his hat on for years. Because he is unable to understand delta 3 in its most basic form and his stubborn nature, you now have unearthed a cabal of dastardly nature. This could be the plot of a John Irving novel, where the blind lead the blind happly into new dizzying paranoid heights.
A question: If you mistrust the FAA, why do you let your husband fly anything? Those same black-hearted bastards who you infer buried this problem have surely got others that will get him, N'est-pas?
I am looking up those dates to try and understand the particular accidents. Do you care to post the letter that you paraphrase?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X14890&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X13165&key=1
It has been my experience that the NTSB sometimes makes those kinds of suggestions, mostly as CYA paperwork, with little understanding of the underlying technical facts. Their investigators are typically not trained engineers, they are fact gatherers, like detectives, with training on how to capture those facts. The FAA has the engineering talent to understand and appraise these facts. (please understand that I use "engineer" to mean someone with formal University training in math and science to understand these things, not a mechanic with excellent maintenance skills, as is the British usage of the word.)
Many helicopter accidents involve rotor/fuselage contact, unfortunately. The notion that some instability is needed to make that happen is quite flawed, and the ability to detect and classify instabilities is part of the normal certification process, with data that the FAA requires to be gathered and approved by FAA engineers.
Part of the issue here is Lu's unguided missile about 18 degrees of missing rigging, the hook he has hung his hat on for years. Because he is unable to understand delta 3 in its most basic form and his stubborn nature, you now have unearthed a cabal of dastardly nature. This could be the plot of a John Irving novel, where the blind lead the blind happly into new dizzying paranoid heights.
A question: If you mistrust the FAA, why do you let your husband fly anything? Those same black-hearted bastards who you infer buried this problem have surely got others that will get him, N'est-pas?
I am looking up those dates to try and understand the particular accidents. Do you care to post the letter that you paraphrase?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X14890&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X13165&key=1
Last edited by NickLappos; 6th Jan 2005 at 18:50.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: At Work
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linda:
Is a Ford station wagon unsafe, or simply unsafe if asked to perform like a ferrari?
Technically speaking I have no idea. I have yet to figure out how the thermos knows when to keep hot things hot and cold things cold. How do it know? But let us stay on your argument from a non-technical standpoint.
You state that the "The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes" but you do not state it is an unsafe design. Fans of Formula 1 would argue that Minardi or Jordan or Williams need "major design changes" to compete with Ferrari in Formula 1 but that does not mean the their cars are unsafe. Did the measurable outcome of the intended design of the R22 simply result in measurable performance less than the original design expectations or is the result unsafe?
Here is an interesting observation.
If it was truly an unsafe design, why would 4 out of 4 local FAA DE's be perfectly willing to fly an R22 but only one was willing to fly a rotorway?
So, do you believe it is an unsafe design or that the intended attempt to design a ferrari at that price was not successful? Further without regard for the intent of the design but the result, is the resulting product a reasonable compromise between cost of design and manufacture versus performance and limitations?
Is a Ford station wagon unsafe, or simply unsafe if asked to perform like a ferrari?
Technically speaking I have no idea. I have yet to figure out how the thermos knows when to keep hot things hot and cold things cold. How do it know? But let us stay on your argument from a non-technical standpoint.
You state that the "The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes" but you do not state it is an unsafe design. Fans of Formula 1 would argue that Minardi or Jordan or Williams need "major design changes" to compete with Ferrari in Formula 1 but that does not mean the their cars are unsafe. Did the measurable outcome of the intended design of the R22 simply result in measurable performance less than the original design expectations or is the result unsafe?
Here is an interesting observation.
If it was truly an unsafe design, why would 4 out of 4 local FAA DE's be perfectly willing to fly an R22 but only one was willing to fly a rotorway?
So, do you believe it is an unsafe design or that the intended attempt to design a ferrari at that price was not successful? Further without regard for the intent of the design but the result, is the resulting product a reasonable compromise between cost of design and manufacture versus performance and limitations?
Hey Linda. .
What are you trying to achieve?
Why the coy, I'm-too-shy-to-write-anything-on-this-forum-for-two-years entrance - and then you make a serious attempt to get all Robinson Helicopters grounded!!
Kin L!!
Dunno what kind of Ferrari's you've been in but I would (fondly) liken the R22 to a Vespa or one of those Smart cars
. . and could you be more concise? You think the pitch links are too weak, right? Or are you just going for the mystery factor. .
Bull. .
What are you trying to achieve?
Why the coy, I'm-too-shy-to-write-anything-on-this-forum-for-two-years entrance - and then you make a serious attempt to get all Robinson Helicopters grounded!!
Kin L!!
Dunno what kind of Ferrari's you've been in but I would (fondly) liken the R22 to a Vespa or one of those Smart cars
. . and could you be more concise? You think the pitch links are too weak, right? Or are you just going for the mystery factor. .
By virtue of my background . .
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it.
This is not to support Robinson or any other manufacturer.
For what it's worth, my take on the Robbie is that it's a great machine within its limits, but should not be used for training. To be fair to Frank Robinson, that was not his original intention.
Phil
This is not to support Robinson or any other manufacturer.
For what it's worth, my take on the Robbie is that it's a great machine within its limits, but should not be used for training. To be fair to Frank Robinson, that was not his original intention.
Phil
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linda,
How do you know that the helis in question were being flown the "Robinson Way"? What evidence do you have that supports your statements? I assume you were not witness to the accidents in question so how do you know the fashion in which these helis were being flown in. You really don't, do you? You have a very flimsy NTSB report of these accidents and that's it.
Also, as far as your statement saying that there hasn't been a massive blade replacement: Where have you been the last nine months? There has been a blade replacement AD in the spring of 2004 and now there is yet another Service Bulletin prescribing additional heli blades to be replaced within the next year.
Maybe you'll want to get a little more current info next time before you post wrongs.
Regards,
Mark
How do you know that the helis in question were being flown the "Robinson Way"? What evidence do you have that supports your statements? I assume you were not witness to the accidents in question so how do you know the fashion in which these helis were being flown in. You really don't, do you? You have a very flimsy NTSB report of these accidents and that's it.
Also, as far as your statement saying that there hasn't been a massive blade replacement: Where have you been the last nine months? There has been a blade replacement AD in the spring of 2004 and now there is yet another Service Bulletin prescribing additional heli blades to be replaced within the next year.
Maybe you'll want to get a little more current info next time before you post wrongs.
Regards,
Mark
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Linda
You say in examining the responses (as a non-technical person): "I felt there were many objections relating to vested interests, not wanting to accept the ideas offered and in certain cases due to a personal dislike of the person offering the ideas."
What 'vested interests'?
Frank Robinson? Readers no doubt had in mind his vested interest when reading the explanation he posted. Good reason to be cautious, but it doesn't automatically follow what he said was untrue.
Instructors/pilots/owners? It could be argued they have a strong vested interest in their own safety rather than the success of the model.
Engineers? Why would they have a vested interest in any one model?
Top engineering test pilots? None of them employed by Robinson.
not wanting to accept the ideas offered
Or rejecting them after proper consideration? You make no mention of the numerous informed, carefully reasoned and detailed posts by people well-qualified to comment on the ideas offered.
personal dislike of the person offering the ideas
It's true there were sometimes signs of exasperation with 'the person'. Whether or not that was justified or understandable in the circumstances is a matter of opinion but, if you assume it was simply because of the 'controversial' ideas offered, you're mistaken.
You say you've posted "statements of fact". And just a few opinions?
"It was stated above that if the helicopters were flown the Robinson way there would be no problems. This is and is not true."
Who says?
"The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes."
Do you offer that as a statement of fact?
You refer to "the Robinson helicopter line (R-22 and R-44)".
Do you mean that? Your comments seem to relate to the R22.
I'm sure people would be interested to read a copy of the 'private letter' from the Acting Chairman of the NTSB to the Administrator of the FAA. Will you post it?
Heliport
BTW, no vested interest (or any other particular interest) in Robinsons.
You say in examining the responses (as a non-technical person): "I felt there were many objections relating to vested interests, not wanting to accept the ideas offered and in certain cases due to a personal dislike of the person offering the ideas."
What 'vested interests'?
Frank Robinson? Readers no doubt had in mind his vested interest when reading the explanation he posted. Good reason to be cautious, but it doesn't automatically follow what he said was untrue.
Instructors/pilots/owners? It could be argued they have a strong vested interest in their own safety rather than the success of the model.
Engineers? Why would they have a vested interest in any one model?
Top engineering test pilots? None of them employed by Robinson.
not wanting to accept the ideas offered
Or rejecting them after proper consideration? You make no mention of the numerous informed, carefully reasoned and detailed posts by people well-qualified to comment on the ideas offered.
personal dislike of the person offering the ideas
It's true there were sometimes signs of exasperation with 'the person'. Whether or not that was justified or understandable in the circumstances is a matter of opinion but, if you assume it was simply because of the 'controversial' ideas offered, you're mistaken.
You say you've posted "statements of fact". And just a few opinions?
"It was stated above that if the helicopters were flown the Robinson way there would be no problems. This is and is not true."
Who says?
"The Robinson way is a cosmetic cover up to avoid major design changes."
Do you offer that as a statement of fact?
You refer to "the Robinson helicopter line (R-22 and R-44)".
Do you mean that? Your comments seem to relate to the R22.
I'm sure people would be interested to read a copy of the 'private letter' from the Acting Chairman of the NTSB to the Administrator of the FAA. Will you post it?
Heliport
BTW, no vested interest (or any other particular interest) in Robinsons.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're surely not suggesting that new member Linda Lovelace might not be the non-technical wife of a helicopter pilot who decided to post after reading the forum for over two years - as she claimed on another thread?
Hmmm! You might have a point. Linda Lovelace was the name of the 'actress' who starred in the 70's porn movie 'Deep Throat'.
And 'Deep Throat' was the code name of the anonymous informant who helped the journalists expose the Watergate scandal.
Where will this end? We might eventually end up at the Mecca of all conspiracy theory enthusiasts - the famous 'grassy knoll.'
That's a thought. Did the investigators even consider whether the fatal shot(s) might have come from a helicopter?
Hmmm! You might have a point. Linda Lovelace was the name of the 'actress' who starred in the 70's porn movie 'Deep Throat'.
And 'Deep Throat' was the code name of the anonymous informant who helped the journalists expose the Watergate scandal.
Where will this end? We might eventually end up at the Mecca of all conspiracy theory enthusiasts - the famous 'grassy knoll.'
That's a thought. Did the investigators even consider whether the fatal shot(s) might have come from a helicopter?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paco said:
Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it.
Not true, paco, the law is smarter than that, and so are you and me. The court considers the art as it was when the design was made, not all the stuff since learned. It has to be shown that when the design was made, there was reasonable evidence that the design wouldn't work, and that the manufacurer knew or should have known it, and ignored it. same standard that you use when a cop pulls you over, "Gee, is this a 35 mph zone?"
If the court was allowed to consider that improvements were evidence of previous unfitness, it would completely stop all development, a very bad thing for all.
Manufacturers are encorouged to improve their designs, and fear of court reprisals is not an issue.
Flying Lawyer, do I have this right?
PS, this is one of the reasons why buying new rather than "grandfathered" machines is a nice idea.
Regarding Deep Throat, I would be disapointed to find our Deep Throat was less like Linda Lovelace and more like Hal Holbrook!
Let's not forget that, under the American system, if you make major design changes, and thereby tacitly admit that the original design was wrong, you lay yourself wide open to major court action. I can understand why they try to disguise it.
Not true, paco, the law is smarter than that, and so are you and me. The court considers the art as it was when the design was made, not all the stuff since learned. It has to be shown that when the design was made, there was reasonable evidence that the design wouldn't work, and that the manufacurer knew or should have known it, and ignored it. same standard that you use when a cop pulls you over, "Gee, is this a 35 mph zone?"
If the court was allowed to consider that improvements were evidence of previous unfitness, it would completely stop all development, a very bad thing for all.
Manufacturers are encorouged to improve their designs, and fear of court reprisals is not an issue.
Flying Lawyer, do I have this right?
PS, this is one of the reasons why buying new rather than "grandfathered" machines is a nice idea.
Regarding Deep Throat, I would be disapointed to find our Deep Throat was less like Linda Lovelace and more like Hal Holbrook!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
You and I might be smarter than that, Nick, but I doubt the law is, paricularly when a lawyer might argue that "if the helicopter wasn't there, the passenger wouldn't have died", leaving aside the fact that the customer ordered the helicopter in the first place! Watch out for the jury, too - in the States they can overturn the law in many, if not all cases.
I know of one or two cases where improvements and changes have not been made to products precisely because of the possibility of that interpretation. They have to call them enhancements rather than redesigns.
Sad, isn't it?
Phil
I know of one or two cases where improvements and changes have not been made to products precisely because of the possibility of that interpretation. They have to call them enhancements rather than redesigns.
Sad, isn't it?
Phil