Robinson R44
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There cannot be many industries where you design and sell an item then later on it is decided that your design is flawed, then you can make a profit out of the customers who bought your product having to pay for modifications to your original flawed concept. I would like to see Toyota or Ford try that !!!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: around and about
Age: 71
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Caa/easa Ad
Mike
I don't think it will be the CAA (UK) who will issue an AD - almost certainly it will be EASA; CAA have no discretionary authority anymore. It seems they have to do as they are told by EASA now we are all in the 'pooh' together
- VFR
I don't think it will be the CAA (UK) who will issue an AD - almost certainly it will be EASA; CAA have no discretionary authority anymore. It seems they have to do as they are told by EASA now we are all in the 'pooh' together
- VFR
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R44 Bladder Tanks - deja vu?
This first came to light as a Service Letter in December 2009; see
http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sl36.pdf
As you will see from the Service Letter the replacement bladder tank was then priced at $13,500 and it was to become mandatory at on factory overhauls but no other time limit was specified.
I have heard it mentioned that the new Service Bulletin with a compliance time limit attached to it may be an effort by RHC to stave off an AD from the FAA. The almost 50% discount offered in the SB would tend to support this view as it follows similar pattern to earlier R44 issues such as the mandatory blade replacement on early R44 Astros.
As mentioned on a related thread there are about 5,000 R44s in service around the world. Having to produce an extra 5,000 sets of tanks would be a major production effort.
I have a question to ppruners on this:-
Will the bladder tanks have to be replaced at the the standard 12 year rebuild?
Bladder tanks are not uncommon if fixed wing aircraft neither are bladder tank leaks mainly due to age related degradation.
No word, as yet, from RHC about a similar mod on R22s. Instead bacck in 2006 RHC suggested that the occupants wear Nomex Flight Suits and Helmets;
http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sn40.pdf
although to be fair this same Safety Notice did also apply to R44s.
http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sl36.pdf
As you will see from the Service Letter the replacement bladder tank was then priced at $13,500 and it was to become mandatory at on factory overhauls but no other time limit was specified.
I have heard it mentioned that the new Service Bulletin with a compliance time limit attached to it may be an effort by RHC to stave off an AD from the FAA. The almost 50% discount offered in the SB would tend to support this view as it follows similar pattern to earlier R44 issues such as the mandatory blade replacement on early R44 Astros.
As mentioned on a related thread there are about 5,000 R44s in service around the world. Having to produce an extra 5,000 sets of tanks would be a major production effort.
I have a question to ppruners on this:-
Will the bladder tanks have to be replaced at the the standard 12 year rebuild?
Bladder tanks are not uncommon if fixed wing aircraft neither are bladder tank leaks mainly due to age related degradation.
No word, as yet, from RHC about a similar mod on R22s. Instead bacck in 2006 RHC suggested that the occupants wear Nomex Flight Suits and Helmets;
http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sn40.pdf
although to be fair this same Safety Notice did also apply to R44s.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just finished the Robinson Safety Course last week. We were told by the instructor that the decision to do the bladder tank was Frank's decision. Since the R44 was certified the regulations on helicopter design had changed. The R66 required a bladder tank and Frank decided to make a change to the R44 using bladders. The instructor stated he did not foresee the Service Letter becoming an AD. However, an SB becomes mandatory for 'for hire' operators. Plus any factory overhaul or major repair will get the bladders. Other facilities that do overhauls are not required at this time to do the bladders on an overhaul.
As for the course itself, I was quite pleased with it. I came away with things that I feel I should have gotten during my initial training. And it is a shame that students don't get this. My opinion right now is that even if a pilot doesn't plan on flying a Robinson, the course is well worth the money spent.
As for the course itself, I was quite pleased with it. I came away with things that I feel I should have gotten during my initial training. And it is a shame that students don't get this. My opinion right now is that even if a pilot doesn't plan on flying a Robinson, the course is well worth the money spent.
Last edited by rick1128; 20th Jan 2011 at 14:05.
Yep, the R66 needs bladder tanks and therefore now the R44 owners have to pay for it. Thats the way uncle Frank is able to offer a better price for the new R66, cause with such a simple paper the production of bladder tanks will reach the green area.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 67
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might have to do with the large number of fires associated with R44 accidents...
When I first attended the RHC safety course in the 1980s Frank mentioned to the class that he was very proud that the R22 had never had a post crash fire that was survivable (i.e. any post crash fire was associated with impact forces large enough that the occupant were killed by the impact forces). He mentioned at the time that he had copied the Hughes 500 egg shape and attributed that with great strength and crashworthiness.
I've noticed that the same does not seem to be true of the R44. Taking a quick look through the NTSB accidents I see all the following in which there was a post crash fire and either people survived, or as best as I could tell reading the report people might have been able to survive (it's not always clear from the report).
ERA10WA510, ERA10WA428, WPR10LA354, WPR09CA470, ANC08CA112, LAX08CA182, DFW08LA122, NYC08FA026, SEA07FA223, DFW06FA102
Remember a while back Robinson came out with the safety notice suggesting the use of Nomex flight suites? I think Robinson has realized for a while that the fuel tanks of the R44 are much more likely to spill than those in the R22.
While it sucks to have to pay to upgrade the fuel tanks (and I assume lose a little tank capacity), it appears to me that the R44 really does need some changes to address post crash fires - the change to flexible fuel lines and this Service Bulletin seem like good ideas to increase the chance that we can walk away from a survivable accident...
When I first attended the RHC safety course in the 1980s Frank mentioned to the class that he was very proud that the R22 had never had a post crash fire that was survivable (i.e. any post crash fire was associated with impact forces large enough that the occupant were killed by the impact forces). He mentioned at the time that he had copied the Hughes 500 egg shape and attributed that with great strength and crashworthiness.
I've noticed that the same does not seem to be true of the R44. Taking a quick look through the NTSB accidents I see all the following in which there was a post crash fire and either people survived, or as best as I could tell reading the report people might have been able to survive (it's not always clear from the report).
ERA10WA510, ERA10WA428, WPR10LA354, WPR09CA470, ANC08CA112, LAX08CA182, DFW08LA122, NYC08FA026, SEA07FA223, DFW06FA102
Remember a while back Robinson came out with the safety notice suggesting the use of Nomex flight suites? I think Robinson has realized for a while that the fuel tanks of the R44 are much more likely to spill than those in the R22.
While it sucks to have to pay to upgrade the fuel tanks (and I assume lose a little tank capacity), it appears to me that the R44 really does need some changes to address post crash fires - the change to flexible fuel lines and this Service Bulletin seem like good ideas to increase the chance that we can walk away from a survivable accident...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Used to be north of the 26th Parallel, now South
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As most of the crashes involving R44'S are pilot error maybe that situation should be addressed rather than slugging every one to make it.. supposedly more crash worthy....
Ag-rotor,
Pilot error is what causes MOST accidents over all, not only in the Robbies, so what should we "address" as you say??
NASA is testing out "airbags" that would deploy under the belly to cushion the fall, and make the aircraft more crash-worthy. Probably just useless waste of money and effort then....right??
NASA Uses Giant Swingset To Test Helicopter Airbag | Autopia | Wired.com
Fact is, as long as there is helicopters, we WILL sad to say, have accidents regardless of what efforts put in place to have a zero-accident policy...Therefore things like this need to be addressed.
Why do you pay for insurance by the way?? I have done so for 20 or so years, but has yet never had the use for it! But I bet, quite a few others have had good use for theirs...
As most of the crashes involving R44'S are pilot error
NASA is testing out "airbags" that would deploy under the belly to cushion the fall, and make the aircraft more crash-worthy. Probably just useless waste of money and effort then....right??
NASA Uses Giant Swingset To Test Helicopter Airbag | Autopia | Wired.com
Fact is, as long as there is helicopters, we WILL sad to say, have accidents regardless of what efforts put in place to have a zero-accident policy...Therefore things like this need to be addressed.
Why do you pay for insurance by the way?? I have done so for 20 or so years, but has yet never had the use for it! But I bet, quite a few others have had good use for theirs...
Last edited by Nubian; 22nd Jan 2011 at 11:00. Reason: Adding link
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: airport
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't remember where I read that, possibly here on pprune, but I was under the impression that before the Nomex letter was released by RHC somebody was in the process of taking them to court over an accident. It may also have been at the RHC safety course.
Maybe, and this is pure speculation, this legal issue resulted into the need for these bladder tanks now. We all know how difficult it is to insure an aviation company, remember what happened to that carburetor company that went out of business a few years ago, just because they couldn't afford insurance (not that they would have been sued by anyone, but they were just making carburetors for Lycoming engines and that was considered high risk by insurance companies).
I vaguely remember the story of Frank ordering and testing the samples of the flight suite, including putting them into the sun for weeks, then deciding to sell one single color for some specific reason. Must have been Tim Tucker at the safety course who was telling this story...
Maybe, and this is pure speculation, this legal issue resulted into the need for these bladder tanks now. We all know how difficult it is to insure an aviation company, remember what happened to that carburetor company that went out of business a few years ago, just because they couldn't afford insurance (not that they would have been sued by anyone, but they were just making carburetors for Lycoming engines and that was considered high risk by insurance companies).
I vaguely remember the story of Frank ordering and testing the samples of the flight suite, including putting them into the sun for weeks, then deciding to sell one single color for some specific reason. Must have been Tim Tucker at the safety course who was telling this story...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: East of the sun, west of the moon, straight on till morning
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway101,
I know the guys at the carburetor company you speak of. They were in fact sued due to an accident that was clearly pilot error (ran out of gas.) The lawyers slapped a suit on anybody even associated with the airplane. Most settled to make them go away, as that's the way it's done here in the states.
The carburetor company's lawyer decided to fight but alas he was not as adroit at defense as the company would have wished. Next thing you know they have a $20 million judgement against them. After the trial their insurance company dropped them as being too expensive to insure.
Interesting footnote is that the president of the company later was summoned to Washington to testify before congress about frivolous lawsuits. Congress agreed it was outrageous and decided that perhaps they should cap judgements at $12 million instead.
As to the bladders, I don't know how Frank ever got the R44 certified without them? It's about time they make that design flaw right. Too bad the customers have to pay.
I know the guys at the carburetor company you speak of. They were in fact sued due to an accident that was clearly pilot error (ran out of gas.) The lawyers slapped a suit on anybody even associated with the airplane. Most settled to make them go away, as that's the way it's done here in the states.
The carburetor company's lawyer decided to fight but alas he was not as adroit at defense as the company would have wished. Next thing you know they have a $20 million judgement against them. After the trial their insurance company dropped them as being too expensive to insure.
Interesting footnote is that the president of the company later was summoned to Washington to testify before congress about frivolous lawsuits. Congress agreed it was outrageous and decided that perhaps they should cap judgements at $12 million instead.
As to the bladders, I don't know how Frank ever got the R44 certified without them? It's about time they make that design flaw right. Too bad the customers have to pay.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FW,
It is quite simple how Frank got the R44 certified without bladders. They were not required by the certification regs at the time. The regulations have since changed, but the 44 is grandfathered, so it is not required for the bladders to be installed in 44's.
It is quite simple how Frank got the R44 certified without bladders. They were not required by the certification regs at the time. The regulations have since changed, but the 44 is grandfathered, so it is not required for the bladders to be installed in 44's.
UK - Current state of play ?
My understanding was that in the UK it wasnt currently a mandatory requirement (although that could of course change) other than if you want your R44 rebuilt by a Robinson certified facility (e.g. 12 years / 2200 hours).
I dont see anything different above but just want to check my facts.
CC
I dont see anything different above but just want to check my facts.
CC
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeking a Robinson 44
Am looking for a private owner of a R44 who would be ok with letting a
pilot rent it from him for a number of hours per year for my use -
I am based in the South West of England
So any one interested please get in touch
Many thanks
Commercial Heli Pilot
Heliman8
pilot rent it from him for a number of hours per year for my use -
I am based in the South West of England
So any one interested please get in touch
Many thanks
Commercial Heli Pilot
Heliman8
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robinson Helicopter Complaints
My 3 year old Raven 1 with only 300 hours total time was found to have blade delaminating despite maintaining the blades to Robinson recommendations. The bond line has never been exposed as I have kept them well painted, and I have washed blades after every flight. I had to buy new blades and my helicopter was out of service for six weeks. This has been financially devastating from both a replacement cost and loss of revenue.
· FAA AD 6/17/11, pilots are required, on the day of each flight, to inspect blades to detect main rotor blade skin debond which can lead to loss of control of the helicopter
· Robinson designed and manufactured the steel blades experiencing the delaminate problem
· Delaminated blades must be replaced at owner expense at an estimated cost of $50,000; plus loss of revenue for owner operators during the 4 - 6 week replacement downtime
· Owners may only purchase replacement blades from Robinson
· Robinson no longer manufactures the design flawed steel skin blades and replaced them with their 4th generation designed aluminum blades
FAA AD 6/17/11 indicates the FAA is considering mandating the replacement of R22 and R44 rotor blades.
R44 Bladder Tank Retrofit
We have power in numbers so if enough Robinson helicopter owners join our cause we can put pressure on Robinson Helicopter Company to do right by its customers and if not we will proceed with a class action lawsuit against Robinson Helicopters.
Please join us at Robinson Helicopter Design and Manufacturing Defects - Owner Complaints
· FAA AD 6/17/11, pilots are required, on the day of each flight, to inspect blades to detect main rotor blade skin debond which can lead to loss of control of the helicopter
· Robinson designed and manufactured the steel blades experiencing the delaminate problem
· Delaminated blades must be replaced at owner expense at an estimated cost of $50,000; plus loss of revenue for owner operators during the 4 - 6 week replacement downtime
· Owners may only purchase replacement blades from Robinson
· Robinson no longer manufactures the design flawed steel skin blades and replaced them with their 4th generation designed aluminum blades
FAA AD 6/17/11 indicates the FAA is considering mandating the replacement of R22 and R44 rotor blades.
R44 Bladder Tank Retrofit
- Service Bulletin SB-78 requires all R44 helicopters to be retrofitted with bladder tanks.
- Owners must pay for the retrofit at an estimated cost of $12,000
- Additional financial losses to commercial owner operators include the approximate 2 week downtime for the installation
- Owners can only purchase the Bladder Tank from Robinson
- Robinson will profit off the estimated 5000 owners affected by Robinson's mandated retrofit
We have power in numbers so if enough Robinson helicopter owners join our cause we can put pressure on Robinson Helicopter Company to do right by its customers and if not we will proceed with a class action lawsuit against Robinson Helicopters.
Please join us at Robinson Helicopter Design and Manufacturing Defects - Owner Complaints
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have sent you a PM
Hi Alphanumeric character set.
I have sent you a personal message. Since you are new here, look above the "quick links" tab at the top of the page.
Regards
Blakmax
I have sent you a personal message. Since you are new here, look above the "quick links" tab at the top of the page.
Regards
Blakmax
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Washing blades after every flight?
I'm wondering if washing your blades so much contributed to the debonding. I don't wash mine very often at all and fly in corrosive environments: dust in AZ and rain in WA. Yes, my 1200- hour, 6yo blades have been repainted twice, but there is no evidence of debonding.
As for the fuel bladders, that is not a "required" upgrade -- at least, not until overhaul. (I'm Part 135 and my POI is not requiring it.) The SB is a knee-jerk reaction to an accident that occurred in WA a few years back that resulted in a post-crash fire. Robinson is, as usual, attempting to protect itself from future legal action by recommending this "improved" fuel tank system. If we don't get it and have a fire, they'll point to the SB and blame us.
You talk about Robinson profiting off the fuel tank retrofit. I guess the cost of R&D and FAA approvals don't count in your calculations. Saying they profit from every tank sold is like saying we profit from every dollar we collect beyond fuel costs. I'm not saying there's no profit for Robinson. I'm saying that profit is likely not nearly as big as you think. Perhaps the discount on the tank purchase before year-end is more reflective of their actual costs?
While I feel your pain, having had problems with other Robinson components over the years, I don't think that pressure from owners is going to make a difference. And I can't imagine that threatening a class action lawsuit would get you very far, either. Even if you did succeed, the lawyers are likely to far more than you'll ever see.
No aircraft is perfect. Design changes happen all the time. If you don't like your Robinson, why not just sell it and get something you think won't have any problems? Good luck with that.
As for the fuel bladders, that is not a "required" upgrade -- at least, not until overhaul. (I'm Part 135 and my POI is not requiring it.) The SB is a knee-jerk reaction to an accident that occurred in WA a few years back that resulted in a post-crash fire. Robinson is, as usual, attempting to protect itself from future legal action by recommending this "improved" fuel tank system. If we don't get it and have a fire, they'll point to the SB and blame us.
You talk about Robinson profiting off the fuel tank retrofit. I guess the cost of R&D and FAA approvals don't count in your calculations. Saying they profit from every tank sold is like saying we profit from every dollar we collect beyond fuel costs. I'm not saying there's no profit for Robinson. I'm saying that profit is likely not nearly as big as you think. Perhaps the discount on the tank purchase before year-end is more reflective of their actual costs?
While I feel your pain, having had problems with other Robinson components over the years, I don't think that pressure from owners is going to make a difference. And I can't imagine that threatening a class action lawsuit would get you very far, either. Even if you did succeed, the lawyers are likely to far more than you'll ever see.
No aircraft is perfect. Design changes happen all the time. If you don't like your Robinson, why not just sell it and get something you think won't have any problems? Good luck with that.
Last edited by heligal; 19th Jul 2011 at 13:18.