R22 Corner
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Just an idea
Why can't the helicopter industry develop a small self-contained electronic device, which is located within the sealed gearbox. The gearbox could easy provide the electricity required at the same time the revolutions are counted. Additional relevant data can be obtained from sensors within the device.
Also, this device does not have to be expensive, because it plays no roll in the functioning of the craft. The device can be read by sticking a jack into a socket and there would be no way to change the prerecorded data.
Also, this device does not have to be expensive, because it plays no roll in the functioning of the craft. The device can be read by sticking a jack into a socket and there would be no way to change the prerecorded data.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
From: Oz. Mahgni
Sprocket
-if the blade life of an R22 is exceeded, you can expect it to break.-
Is that really the case? Other posts in this thread have recounted how a number of R-22's used in mustering in Australia have exceeded their hours by a factor of 3 thats 8000 hrs. I have personally seen several that have done 4000, one that must have been up around 6000. The accepted practice was to write up 1 in 3 and that not to include ANY non-revenue. If you were to find out what number of Robbies have been operated in Australia on mustering ops over the past 20 years and apply a few statistics I think you would see that in fact blade failure is far and away the exception rather than the norm. From memory(and its a bad one) there have been only 3 catastrophic failures of R-22 rotor blades. One of those was poor old Shaun Murphy and that one was put down to poor machining of a blade bolt hole. Laboratory testing of the blade showed it had exceeded its hours by only 10%, 200 hrs. If he hadn't exceeded his hours it wouldn't have happened, however you can't ignore the fact that the reason the blade failed was that there was a fault in the manufacture/ repair(can't recall exactly which). There was another one early on which delaminated because the Robinson blade bonding room was the same as the blade painting room and the glue didn't stick to the spar properly bacause of the overspray on it. Then there was one(can't remember the poor guys name) in south central queensland which was obviously blade failure/ separation. I haven't seen any reports on that one so can't comment on the cause. And now theres the Sydney incident. It would be impossible to put a realistic figure on it but lets say the R-22 fleet in Australia has had 150 machines operating 1000 hrs a year for the past 15 years. Thats over 2 million really hard hours. Now all of my figures are just educated guesses, and I'm sure there are many out there who can show that I'm wide of the mark on a few, however I hope you can see where I'm trying to go with this. I believe that if there really was a problem with R-22 rotor blades, we would have seen a lot MORE blade failure accidents.
Don't get me wrong, I in no way condone exceeding ANY component life. I used to have a Hughes 300 mustering in Australia and I kept my maintenance on time as much as I could. Bloody Robinsons sent me broke. No way I could compete with young ex-ringers totally ignoring maintenance requirements and burning Mo-gas. Am I p..ssed about that? Damn right. But having seen how those poor little Robbies were abused over the years has certainly given me some respect for their design.
Interesting that no-one commented on LU's post about the private machine in the U.S throwing its blades. Obviously doesn't sit well with those who just want to dump on the mustering guys.
-if the blade life of an R22 is exceeded, you can expect it to break.-
Is that really the case? Other posts in this thread have recounted how a number of R-22's used in mustering in Australia have exceeded their hours by a factor of 3 thats 8000 hrs. I have personally seen several that have done 4000, one that must have been up around 6000. The accepted practice was to write up 1 in 3 and that not to include ANY non-revenue. If you were to find out what number of Robbies have been operated in Australia on mustering ops over the past 20 years and apply a few statistics I think you would see that in fact blade failure is far and away the exception rather than the norm. From memory(and its a bad one) there have been only 3 catastrophic failures of R-22 rotor blades. One of those was poor old Shaun Murphy and that one was put down to poor machining of a blade bolt hole. Laboratory testing of the blade showed it had exceeded its hours by only 10%, 200 hrs. If he hadn't exceeded his hours it wouldn't have happened, however you can't ignore the fact that the reason the blade failed was that there was a fault in the manufacture/ repair(can't recall exactly which). There was another one early on which delaminated because the Robinson blade bonding room was the same as the blade painting room and the glue didn't stick to the spar properly bacause of the overspray on it. Then there was one(can't remember the poor guys name) in south central queensland which was obviously blade failure/ separation. I haven't seen any reports on that one so can't comment on the cause. And now theres the Sydney incident. It would be impossible to put a realistic figure on it but lets say the R-22 fleet in Australia has had 150 machines operating 1000 hrs a year for the past 15 years. Thats over 2 million really hard hours. Now all of my figures are just educated guesses, and I'm sure there are many out there who can show that I'm wide of the mark on a few, however I hope you can see where I'm trying to go with this. I believe that if there really was a problem with R-22 rotor blades, we would have seen a lot MORE blade failure accidents.
Don't get me wrong, I in no way condone exceeding ANY component life. I used to have a Hughes 300 mustering in Australia and I kept my maintenance on time as much as I could. Bloody Robinsons sent me broke. No way I could compete with young ex-ringers totally ignoring maintenance requirements and burning Mo-gas. Am I p..ssed about that? Damn right. But having seen how those poor little Robbies were abused over the years has certainly given me some respect for their design.
Interesting that no-one commented on LU's post about the private machine in the U.S throwing its blades. Obviously doesn't sit well with those who just want to dump on the mustering guys.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
From: 48 Deg South
Lowlvldvl.
I actually went and spent some time watching HeliMuster at VRD and was pleased with what I saw there. Johnny Armstrong even took me to their "dump" on the property and there must have been over 200 R-22 blades, as well as a couple of wrecks, so obviously these blades were trashed when out of hours. Have some great pics showing these massive piles of R-22 blades in a big heap - would have been a bogus parts guy's wet dream come true.
I honestly think that the mustering industry have picked up their game over the past few years - unless someone here wants to outline otherwise.
I actually went and spent some time watching HeliMuster at VRD and was pleased with what I saw there. Johnny Armstrong even took me to their "dump" on the property and there must have been over 200 R-22 blades, as well as a couple of wrecks, so obviously these blades were trashed when out of hours. Have some great pics showing these massive piles of R-22 blades in a big heap - would have been a bogus parts guy's wet dream come true.
I honestly think that the mustering industry have picked up their game over the past few years - unless someone here wants to outline otherwise.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
From: Oz. Mahgni
Autorotate,
Yes,I certainly agree that the majority of mustering operators have improved their act over the past few years. Getting tough with one or two seems to have had the desired effect on the rest.
Unfortunately though, some of the organizations who are happy to be held up as shining examples now are the same ones who started the whole hour cheating culture in the first place. Anybody remember a certain B-47 ostensibly registered VH-GOD?
Yes,I certainly agree that the majority of mustering operators have improved their act over the past few years. Getting tough with one or two seems to have had the desired effect on the rest.
Unfortunately though, some of the organizations who are happy to be held up as shining examples now are the same ones who started the whole hour cheating culture in the first place. Anybody remember a certain B-47 ostensibly registered VH-GOD?
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
From: Port Townsend,WA. USA
blade cracking
Lu,
Is it possible to inspect blades for cracks before the blade fails?
Someone told me that blades are subjected to whirl testing on a stationary machine and then if the blade fails at, say 4000 hrs, the life limit would be set at say 1000hrs.
I bought parts for an old Hiller 12 (time life tension/torsion straps) the dealer said they were knew but they looked more used than ones I had.
Trust doesn't cut it for me,I like to have parts that can be inspected. Otherwise a small chip should be bonded inside the blade (like my cat has under the skin)with a G-switch and timer that can be read by a simple scanner.
Can blades be inpected or do they just fail at random without warning?
Is it possible to inspect blades for cracks before the blade fails?
Someone told me that blades are subjected to whirl testing on a stationary machine and then if the blade fails at, say 4000 hrs, the life limit would be set at say 1000hrs.
I bought parts for an old Hiller 12 (time life tension/torsion straps) the dealer said they were knew but they looked more used than ones I had.
Trust doesn't cut it for me,I like to have parts that can be inspected. Otherwise a small chip should be bonded inside the blade (like my cat has under the skin)with a G-switch and timer that can be read by a simple scanner.
Can blades be inpected or do they just fail at random without warning?
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
From: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Lowlvldvl: This is a link to the Qld crash report.
Click Here
A quote from the report …….
There is always a possibility of manufacturing design or faults being a contributor to the three blade separations (in Oz) and even if this was the case the separations still occurred after the life limit of the blades were exceeded. Apart from the manufacturer, two common factors with the failed blades are:
1. Mustering time
2. MRB Life limit expiry
3. Anyone care to add some more?
For the benefit of overseas flyers, the last para in amendment 6 of the AD states ….
(I’m sure Lu might have something to add here)
Dave: There are some suggestions already, like yours in previous pages of this thread. The idea might work, but I don’t know how many operators will “take” to the initial outlay to have something like that installed.
Perhaps it could be one way for operators to “buy back” their 2200hr MRB life.
On the subject of Lu’s mention of the US blade accident: It refers something other than actual blade failure. The blade/hub bolt showed signs of failure (the way I understand it). A different set of factors need to be considered here as these bolts are subject to removal/reinstallation sometimes, but I know Lu has always had doubts about the design of the M/R hub which incorporates the said bolt.
I will be interested in the final outcome of the investigation report …..as long as Heliports monitoring of Accident investigations works!
Click Here
A quote from the report …….
Helicopter history
The helicopter had recorded 2,124.6 hours time in service (TIS). That total flight time was derived from the helicopter hour meter, as the pilot's logbook and helicopter maintenance release were incomplete. The last flight entered in the pilot's logbook was on 2 July 2000, 27 days prior to the accident. The last entry on the helicopter maintenance release was 4 July 2000, at 2,102.4 hours TIS, 25 days before the accident. Those were the hours at the time of release to service following a 100-hour inspection, completed on the same date and TIS. No flight entries had been made from that date until the time of the accident.
Helicopter operations
There was anecdotal evidence from witnesses who were familiar with the operation of the helicopter that suggested it might have been operating more hours than was being documented. A review of company and helicopter records was completed to substantiate helicopter operating hours. That review comprised analysis and comparison of company customer flight time and fuel invoices and helicopter spares usage versus recorded helicopter flight time. That evidence suggested the helicopter operating hours were being under-reported and supported the anecdotal evidence of the witnesses.
The helicopter had recorded 2,124.6 hours time in service (TIS). That total flight time was derived from the helicopter hour meter, as the pilot's logbook and helicopter maintenance release were incomplete. The last flight entered in the pilot's logbook was on 2 July 2000, 27 days prior to the accident. The last entry on the helicopter maintenance release was 4 July 2000, at 2,102.4 hours TIS, 25 days before the accident. Those were the hours at the time of release to service following a 100-hour inspection, completed on the same date and TIS. No flight entries had been made from that date until the time of the accident.
Helicopter operations
There was anecdotal evidence from witnesses who were familiar with the operation of the helicopter that suggested it might have been operating more hours than was being documented. A review of company and helicopter records was completed to substantiate helicopter operating hours. That review comprised analysis and comparison of company customer flight time and fuel invoices and helicopter spares usage versus recorded helicopter flight time. That evidence suggested the helicopter operating hours were being under-reported and supported the anecdotal evidence of the witnesses.
1. Mustering time
2. MRB Life limit expiry
3. Anyone care to add some more?
For the benefit of overseas flyers, the last para in amendment 6 of the AD states ….
The original fatigue life set by the manufacturer, and specified in the helicopter’s airworthiness limitations, was based on a load spectrum that took into account normal operations and training use, but did not consider the more severe flight loads imposed by aerial mustering operations. Consequently, the retirement life specified in the airworthiness limitations section of the maintenance manual may not be suitable for MRBs that have been used in an aerial mustering role. It is expected that Robinson Helicopter Co. and/or the FAA will provide a more detailed analysis of the impact of aerial mustering operations on R22 MRB fatigue life. When such an analysis becomes available, the blade retirement life for helicopters engaged in mustering operations, and this directive maybe revised again.
Dave: There are some suggestions already, like yours in previous pages of this thread. The idea might work, but I don’t know how many operators will “take” to the initial outlay to have something like that installed.
Perhaps it could be one way for operators to “buy back” their 2200hr MRB life.
On the subject of Lu’s mention of the US blade accident: It refers something other than actual blade failure. The blade/hub bolt showed signs of failure (the way I understand it). A different set of factors need to be considered here as these bolts are subject to removal/reinstallation sometimes, but I know Lu has always had doubts about the design of the M/R hub which incorporates the said bolt.
I will be interested in the final outcome of the investigation report …..as long as Heliports monitoring of Accident investigations works!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
From: Queensland Australia
By Lu's own description he doesn't have anything.
A helicopter crashed without witnesses. The machine was found to be completely wrecked with one blade separated in the MIDDLE of the blade and one blade separated at the root. The machine could have had any number of things go wrong with it. There is no evidence or suggestion, except in Lu's "anti-Robinson mind" that blade separation occured in the air or prior to an impact while in flight.
In fact there is no evidence it actually left the ground - a dynamic roll-over with blade impact can just as legitimately be an explanation.
At present we have a situation in Australia, discussion of which does not need Lu's consistent anti-Robinson bias stirring to muddy the waters.
A helicopter crashed without witnesses. The machine was found to be completely wrecked with one blade separated in the MIDDLE of the blade and one blade separated at the root. The machine could have had any number of things go wrong with it. There is no evidence or suggestion, except in Lu's "anti-Robinson mind" that blade separation occured in the air or prior to an impact while in flight.
In fact there is no evidence it actually left the ground - a dynamic roll-over with blade impact can just as legitimately be an explanation.
At present we have a situation in Australia, discussion of which does not need Lu's consistent anti-Robinson bias stirring to muddy the waters.
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Well, excuse me.
To: RobboRider
Do I detect a bit of animosity in your comments? All I did was to post an NTSB report regarding a crash of an R-22 which implied based on the location of one blade section relative to the primary crash site that blade separation may have taken place. In another post I stated that blade failure could occur at any time and it could result from a manufacturing defect or any other reason and when it does happen it could be chalked up to “Murphy’s Law”. That is until the exact cause has been determined.
As far as testing there are several methods depending on where the potential failure is located. There is a tap test to determine if the bonding surfaces have separated. There is the Dye Penetrant type test to determine if any cracks exist, there are also visual inspections using high powered magnification and this testing could also involve eddy current testing or even magna flux testing. In most cases airframe manufacturers do not include these tests in the maintenance manual. Tests of this type are created based on a field failure or discrepancy report and once the test has been sent out via an AD the test will be incorporated into the maintenance manual when it is updated (usually every six months).
Now to set everybody straight that feel that I am biased against the Robinson design let me assure you that I am equally biased against Bell, Agusta or any other Aerospace company that sells their products fully knowing that there are problems in the design. These problems could relate to maintainability, reliability or even systems safety. The reason that most people on this forum object to my postings relative to the R-22 / 44 is that they have a vested interest in the Robinson helicopter and they could never admit that there are potential problems that could result in death and destruction. I have been working in this field since 1968 and I believe I have been doing a pretty good job.
Do I detect a bit of animosity in your comments? All I did was to post an NTSB report regarding a crash of an R-22 which implied based on the location of one blade section relative to the primary crash site that blade separation may have taken place. In another post I stated that blade failure could occur at any time and it could result from a manufacturing defect or any other reason and when it does happen it could be chalked up to “Murphy’s Law”. That is until the exact cause has been determined.
As far as testing there are several methods depending on where the potential failure is located. There is a tap test to determine if the bonding surfaces have separated. There is the Dye Penetrant type test to determine if any cracks exist, there are also visual inspections using high powered magnification and this testing could also involve eddy current testing or even magna flux testing. In most cases airframe manufacturers do not include these tests in the maintenance manual. Tests of this type are created based on a field failure or discrepancy report and once the test has been sent out via an AD the test will be incorporated into the maintenance manual when it is updated (usually every six months).
Now to set everybody straight that feel that I am biased against the Robinson design let me assure you that I am equally biased against Bell, Agusta or any other Aerospace company that sells their products fully knowing that there are problems in the design. These problems could relate to maintainability, reliability or even systems safety. The reason that most people on this forum object to my postings relative to the R-22 / 44 is that they have a vested interest in the Robinson helicopter and they could never admit that there are potential problems that could result in death and destruction. I have been working in this field since 1968 and I believe I have been doing a pretty good job.
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
From: 48 Deg South
NZ Emergency AD on R-22 Blades PLUS ++
Was just talking to one of the local operators and NZ CAA have issued an AD today saying basically the same thing as in OZ, if your machine has a history of mustering then its 1500 hrs time ex for the blades, until further notice.
Now an interesting thought here is, NZ Robbies have been used extensively for venison recovery (Deer hunting) and the same scenario where hours arent logged in many cases. Now if the AD covers mustering, then in NZ, in my opinion, it should also cover any R-22 thats been on venison recovery as this part of the industry has the same problems as the mustering industry in OZ.
Comments anyone.
Now an interesting thought here is, NZ Robbies have been used extensively for venison recovery (Deer hunting) and the same scenario where hours arent logged in many cases. Now if the AD covers mustering, then in NZ, in my opinion, it should also cover any R-22 thats been on venison recovery as this part of the industry has the same problems as the mustering industry in OZ.
Comments anyone.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
From: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Mmmmm.... looks lke a couple of 47J doors in the background.
I can remember a story about JW getting ejected through the bubble of a "J" (still attached to the drivers seat) after it hit a dry river bank. He was so pissed off with the machine, he took to it with his crash axe!
I bet its remains are in there somewhere.
I can remember a story about JW getting ejected through the bubble of a "J" (still attached to the drivers seat) after it hit a dry river bank. He was so pissed off with the machine, he took to it with his crash axe!
I bet its remains are in there somewhere.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
From: Australia
UHHH HELLLOOOOOOOOOOO
To RobboRider,
After viewing your last post i could not help but respond!
You stated that
1) there was no evidence that the crashed R22 even left the ground!
2) that there is no evidence of blade separation!
What planet are you from, ????
Fraser was a friend of mine and i take personal insult to your uneducated posting!
The facts are whether you like it or not are that the aircraft suffered a blade separation approx 30mins into a dual instruction training session resulting in two needless deaths.
The wreckage was strewn over a 500metre line leading to the main airframe, indicitive of a break up in flight, wittness's described the noise and that bits were seen to fall away from the aircraft,,, Hello!!!!!!!!!!
what part of this are you not understanding????
It would appear on face value that the a/c had more time on the blades than was reported on the Maint Release..
That being the case whose fault was this Accident,?
Robbo Rider you really must be some sort of idiot to even think of slandering the pilots good name and reputation by your post, how dare you.
After viewing your last post i could not help but respond!
You stated that
1) there was no evidence that the crashed R22 even left the ground!
2) that there is no evidence of blade separation!
What planet are you from, ????
Fraser was a friend of mine and i take personal insult to your uneducated posting!
The facts are whether you like it or not are that the aircraft suffered a blade separation approx 30mins into a dual instruction training session resulting in two needless deaths.
The wreckage was strewn over a 500metre line leading to the main airframe, indicitive of a break up in flight, wittness's described the noise and that bits were seen to fall away from the aircraft,,, Hello!!!!!!!!!!
what part of this are you not understanding????
It would appear on face value that the a/c had more time on the blades than was reported on the Maint Release..
That being the case whose fault was this Accident,?
Robbo Rider you really must be some sort of idiot to even think of slandering the pilots good name and reputation by your post, how dare you.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 563
Likes: 1
From: queensland australia
r22's grounded
the following link will take you to the casa website relating to the blade problems of the r22 in australia.
http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/NEW/urgent.htm
one of the reasons given for the a.d. being directed at mustering machines, (not the under writing of hours) is that the r22 was not designed for the forces experienced during mustering operations.
it's amazing that everytime there is a problem with the r22 we are told that it was never designed to do that job, or words to that effect. what then was it actually designed to do???.
are we to believe that mustering pilots put too much stress on the airframe and blades of the robbie and it cannot handle it. what a load of absolute rubbish. most of the pilots i know, and there are plenty, are amongst the best handlers of the machine in the world. they get the best out of the robbie not the worst. mustering is not hard work most of the time just long hours in the sky. it is straight forward and common sense flying.
you don't see too many blokes throwing their machines around unless a blonde with a camera is around. it's just another flying job. a very satisfying and adventuresome one i must admit, and lots of money too.
these are not an idle comments frank. come over here and see for yourself, or tim when he is over next.
as of yesterday it is estimated that one third of the r22 fleet in australia will be on the ground with a massive wait for replacement blades.
this will ground a lot of honest operators but you can bet your bottom dollar that the main offenders (under recorders, the main problem), will not miss a beat and no one will check.
i have flown these machines since 1979 and if they are operated within the legal time limits they will not let you down.
so what are we to do with the other users of the machine, ag operators, flying schools, some students are pretty dramatic helicopter handlers, or even the private owners, how does casa know that they are not subjecting their robbies to these supposedly dangerous stresses, why don't they have to comply.
unfortunately robinsons have had more than their share of blade problems from the very beginning and we know about the problems of underrecording of hours in this country but please don't insult us by by telling us we don't know how to fly properly. most aussie musterers fly in excess of a thousand hours a season in a very hostile environment, very hot, very low level, everyday, yet the accident rate in the mustering industry is far less than the general helicopter population suffers.
one of the problems endemic to our mustering industry is that a percentage of our pilots did not become pilots to become part of the aviation industry (shock, horror), they became pilots to put cattle in the yards because it is efficient. these thinkers don't care about helicopters per se, they treat them like motor bikes or toyotas. they do it at unsustainable prices with no thought of the end costs. simple mathematics will show that that if your not making money you can't buy the bits that wear out. so don't write the time down and the bits wont wear out. simple thinking for a simple mind. then sell it with some hours left to you mate down the road, he won't care. the abuse of the robbie in australia has proven that the machine is very robust in fact.
i digress, if the robinson r22 helicopter cannot handle flight in conditions applied by high time professional pilots who don't have a death wish then maybe there is a larger picture, maybe they should all be grounded until the picture is clearer.
http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/NEW/urgent.htm
one of the reasons given for the a.d. being directed at mustering machines, (not the under writing of hours) is that the r22 was not designed for the forces experienced during mustering operations.
it's amazing that everytime there is a problem with the r22 we are told that it was never designed to do that job, or words to that effect. what then was it actually designed to do???.
are we to believe that mustering pilots put too much stress on the airframe and blades of the robbie and it cannot handle it. what a load of absolute rubbish. most of the pilots i know, and there are plenty, are amongst the best handlers of the machine in the world. they get the best out of the robbie not the worst. mustering is not hard work most of the time just long hours in the sky. it is straight forward and common sense flying.
you don't see too many blokes throwing their machines around unless a blonde with a camera is around. it's just another flying job. a very satisfying and adventuresome one i must admit, and lots of money too.
these are not an idle comments frank. come over here and see for yourself, or tim when he is over next.
as of yesterday it is estimated that one third of the r22 fleet in australia will be on the ground with a massive wait for replacement blades.
this will ground a lot of honest operators but you can bet your bottom dollar that the main offenders (under recorders, the main problem), will not miss a beat and no one will check.
i have flown these machines since 1979 and if they are operated within the legal time limits they will not let you down.
so what are we to do with the other users of the machine, ag operators, flying schools, some students are pretty dramatic helicopter handlers, or even the private owners, how does casa know that they are not subjecting their robbies to these supposedly dangerous stresses, why don't they have to comply.
unfortunately robinsons have had more than their share of blade problems from the very beginning and we know about the problems of underrecording of hours in this country but please don't insult us by by telling us we don't know how to fly properly. most aussie musterers fly in excess of a thousand hours a season in a very hostile environment, very hot, very low level, everyday, yet the accident rate in the mustering industry is far less than the general helicopter population suffers.
one of the problems endemic to our mustering industry is that a percentage of our pilots did not become pilots to become part of the aviation industry (shock, horror), they became pilots to put cattle in the yards because it is efficient. these thinkers don't care about helicopters per se, they treat them like motor bikes or toyotas. they do it at unsustainable prices with no thought of the end costs. simple mathematics will show that that if your not making money you can't buy the bits that wear out. so don't write the time down and the bits wont wear out. simple thinking for a simple mind. then sell it with some hours left to you mate down the road, he won't care. the abuse of the robbie in australia has proven that the machine is very robust in fact.
i digress, if the robinson r22 helicopter cannot handle flight in conditions applied by high time professional pilots who don't have a death wish then maybe there is a larger picture, maybe they should all be grounded until the picture is clearer.
Last edited by imabell; 15th August 2003 at 11:46.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
From: mostly in the jungle...
Imabell,
you are right on!
Personally I believe, if flown correctly as you suggest, mustering will do not a lot of damage to any Helicopter, less so to the R-22.
I think primary flight training will take a way higher toll on the R-22 than Ag-flying or mustering.
Question: Except for checkouts or training, there is only one person on board when mustering or not (observer or so...)?
If so you must be incredible rough to hurt a R-22, even with full fuel you should have plenty of power in any situation.
In this case you should not fly one, or anything for that matter...
3top
you are right on!
Personally I believe, if flown correctly as you suggest, mustering will do not a lot of damage to any Helicopter, less so to the R-22.
I think primary flight training will take a way higher toll on the R-22 than Ag-flying or mustering.
Question: Except for checkouts or training, there is only one person on board when mustering or not (observer or so...)?
If so you must be incredible rough to hurt a R-22, even with full fuel you should have plenty of power in any situation.
In this case you should not fly one, or anything for that matter...
3top
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
From: mostly in the jungle...
Rotaryman,
I suggest you cool off a bit. Your tone indicates that you might still be on the edge over the Sydney crash, and if it turns out that it was overtimed parts, rightfully so.
But (pending his own statement...) I don´t think RobboRider refered to the Sydney R-22 but the Tulalip, WA R-22 accident, and there he is right, no one saw the actual disintegration of the R-22 when it happened. For all the report (according to Lu´s post...) says it may never have left the ground!
I guess Frank R. would be very interested to analyse some of the 8000 hr blades mentioned on this thread! ....if someone just could proof that they have the time!
I hope they get the responsible people and lock them up for good AND make it well known in the industry!
3top
I suggest you cool off a bit. Your tone indicates that you might still be on the edge over the Sydney crash, and if it turns out that it was overtimed parts, rightfully so.
But (pending his own statement...) I don´t think RobboRider refered to the Sydney R-22 but the Tulalip, WA R-22 accident, and there he is right, no one saw the actual disintegration of the R-22 when it happened. For all the report (according to Lu´s post...) says it may never have left the ground!
I guess Frank R. would be very interested to analyse some of the 8000 hr blades mentioned on this thread! ....if someone just could proof that they have the time!
I hope they get the responsible people and lock them up for good AND make it well known in the industry!
3top
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
My two peenies in the pot.
This may seem strange coming from me but I would like to make a statement. About eight months ago I watched a Discovery show about mustering. I was absolutely amazed at the agility of the R-22. I saw no evidence of rough handling or abusing of the airframe or dynamic systems. What I did see was a lot of cyclic input in order to muster the cattle into the “Pen”. Cyclic input means blade flapping and blade flapping means lead and lag. Since the R-22 is incapable of leading and lagging due to the lack of a vertical hinge the lead lag action is reacted by the blade root, the cone hinges, the teeter hinge and then the mast. This lead lag action places the blades under a great deal of stress, which can lead to blade loss. Of course over running the allotted time will result in fatigue with the same results.
Some of the posters on these threads have stated that they knew of operators that put thousands of hours over the life limits on the blades without any major problems. So, who is right and who is wrong?
The CASA edict to change blades will cause a major impact on the mustering community as well as other operators in Australia but as they say, it is better to err on the side of safety.
I do agree about the comment about Frank Robinson saying that the R-22 was not designed for mustering. Hell, he says the same thing about training whenever there is a fatal accident.
Some of the posters on these threads have stated that they knew of operators that put thousands of hours over the life limits on the blades without any major problems. So, who is right and who is wrong?
The CASA edict to change blades will cause a major impact on the mustering community as well as other operators in Australia but as they say, it is better to err on the side of safety.
I do agree about the comment about Frank Robinson saying that the R-22 was not designed for mustering. Hell, he says the same thing about training whenever there is a fatal accident.
Iconoclast
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
From: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Report reading 101
To: RobboRider
Go back and re read the NTSB report.
This implies that the helicopter was in controlled flight and it was not a dynamic rollover.
The helicopter was destroyed during a loss of control and collision with terrain at Tulalip, Washington.
This implies that the helicopter was in controlled flight and it was not a dynamic rollover.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 1
From: Australia
Imabell,
You are correct. But the same problem comes up with TBO times all over.
If the hours recorded are ok and legal but the component looks like it has done twice as much as logged then it must be down to what it is used for....
Put another way - a 5000 hour component returned for overhaul that should have gone back at 2000 hours. Paperwork says 2000 hours. Actually done 5000 hours. Folks at the factory look at this component and say "2000 hours and its trashed. No way we can extend the TBO on these things. May even have to shorten the TBO judging by the wear " (yes people, that is how the TBO is adjusted after initial testing)
That is why an IO-520 in an Agwagon has a 1200 hr TBO and the same engine in a C206 has an 1800 hr (I think) TBO. Bring it in trashed with only the "legal" hours logged then it must be down to what it is used for....
Makes me
. Endemic fudging of hours has prevented the manufacturers from extending the TBO on these things. Imagine how high the legal TBO would be now if hours were logged properly.
I'm with you Imabell - simple thinking for a simple mind has got us to this situation.
You are correct. But the same problem comes up with TBO times all over.
If the hours recorded are ok and legal but the component looks like it has done twice as much as logged then it must be down to what it is used for....
Put another way - a 5000 hour component returned for overhaul that should have gone back at 2000 hours. Paperwork says 2000 hours. Actually done 5000 hours. Folks at the factory look at this component and say "2000 hours and its trashed. No way we can extend the TBO on these things. May even have to shorten the TBO judging by the wear " (yes people, that is how the TBO is adjusted after initial testing)
That is why an IO-520 in an Agwagon has a 1200 hr TBO and the same engine in a C206 has an 1800 hr (I think) TBO. Bring it in trashed with only the "legal" hours logged then it must be down to what it is used for....
Makes me
. Endemic fudging of hours has prevented the manufacturers from extending the TBO on these things. Imagine how high the legal TBO would be now if hours were logged properly. I'm with you Imabell - simple thinking for a simple mind has got us to this situation.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
From: Gaithersburg, MD
As I've never flown mustering, and I don't claim to understand the interpersonal and political angles regarding CASA and the mustering industry. However, Frank was quoted as saying that 90% of the accidents occur in Oz, and Oz only accounts for 10% of Robinson sales. Lu brings up some good points about constant cyclic adjustments; that may be a factor and it is most likely the main difference between flying characteristics in mustering and other endeavors (training, private flights, etc). Seems like mustering would have a much higher percentage of hovering and air-taxi operations than most.
Design limitations?
Documentation discrepancies?
Policy management?
Pilot education and training?
It sucks that the honest folks are getting the brunt of this discrimination.
Design limitations?
Documentation discrepancies?
Policy management?
Pilot education and training?
It sucks that the honest folks are getting the brunt of this discrimination.