ROBINSON FORUM NEEDED (URGENTLY)
Guest
Posts: n/a
To All:
I have to set the record straight on something. Lu said above that he was giving me a place to post a diagram. This is not quite how it is. For anybody who wants to post a diagram in THEIR posts, I will set up a URL free of charge and send it to them so THEY can use it their post. This is what I have done for Lu and a few others as well. They are HIS diagrams and HIS posts, not mine.
To EarPiece:
I tried to bow out a while back but Danny asked me to please stay on because he did not have another volunteer. I had hoped that my "resignation speech" of last year would bring one or two volunteers - not.
This is a volunteer effort on my part and takes up a considerable amount of my time. If you want it, it's all yours. Just say the word and I'll gladly hand over to you.
Cheers
I have to set the record straight on something. Lu said above that he was giving me a place to post a diagram. This is not quite how it is. For anybody who wants to post a diagram in THEIR posts, I will set up a URL free of charge and send it to them so THEY can use it their post. This is what I have done for Lu and a few others as well. They are HIS diagrams and HIS posts, not mine.
To EarPiece:
I tried to bow out a while back but Danny asked me to please stay on because he did not have another volunteer. I had hoped that my "resignation speech" of last year would bring one or two volunteers - not.
This is a volunteer effort on my part and takes up a considerable amount of my time. If you want it, it's all yours. Just say the word and I'll gladly hand over to you.
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Earpiece
Regarding the forum alluded to by Helidrvr where I got beaten up. I survived but the forum didn't. The moderator of that forum closed it because of the verbal abuse heaped upon me and for some really nasty remarks made against other individuals and specific operators and managers. If you were to post on that forum at that time you would have been disected three ways from center and spit out. I survived and many of the people that supported me also contribute to these forums or, at least they read the postings. They also send me email messages telling me to keep up the good work.
The forum is open now but only after the moderator told everyone to cool it. That forum is JUST HELICOPTERS. Try it as there are minimal if no posts about Robinson Helicopters.
------------------
The Cat
Regarding the forum alluded to by Helidrvr where I got beaten up. I survived but the forum didn't. The moderator of that forum closed it because of the verbal abuse heaped upon me and for some really nasty remarks made against other individuals and specific operators and managers. If you were to post on that forum at that time you would have been disected three ways from center and spit out. I survived and many of the people that supported me also contribute to these forums or, at least they read the postings. They also send me email messages telling me to keep up the good work.
The forum is open now but only after the moderator told everyone to cool it. That forum is JUST HELICOPTERS. Try it as there are minimal if no posts about Robinson Helicopters.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Earpiece's criticisms of Lu have my support.
I'm sorry, but I think Lu really has become a complete and utter bore. His posts were interesting at first and certainly generated responses, but now I no longer bother to read them.
I'm all in favour of controversial posts which lead to useful discussion, but his lengthy and numerous posts on this thread alone are good illustrations.
(Before you adopt your characteristic rude and patronising attitude Lu, I willingly admit your technical knowledge is far greater than mine will ever be.)
Flying Lawyer asked why there are so few posts by current military pilots - Earpiece has answered in part. Why were they "ordered" to leave? What a loss!
Since you've chosen to bring age into it, how old are you Lu? Your views, patronising attitude and reluctance to accept any new ideas give the impression of a quite elderly man - I'd guess at 70 plus.
If Helidrvr really wants to move on, surely there's another Professional Pilot willing and able to take his place?
A current ATPL(H)?
Perhaps a former military heli pilot now flying trucks?
212man?
Ark Royal?
ANOrak?
PurplePitot?
Any other professional?
[This message has been edited by nomdeplume (edited 04 January 2001).]
I'm sorry, but I think Lu really has become a complete and utter bore. His posts were interesting at first and certainly generated responses, but now I no longer bother to read them.
I'm all in favour of controversial posts which lead to useful discussion, but his lengthy and numerous posts on this thread alone are good illustrations.
(Before you adopt your characteristic rude and patronising attitude Lu, I willingly admit your technical knowledge is far greater than mine will ever be.)
Flying Lawyer asked why there are so few posts by current military pilots - Earpiece has answered in part. Why were they "ordered" to leave? What a loss!
Since you've chosen to bring age into it, how old are you Lu? Your views, patronising attitude and reluctance to accept any new ideas give the impression of a quite elderly man - I'd guess at 70 plus.
If Helidrvr really wants to move on, surely there's another Professional Pilot willing and able to take his place?
A current ATPL(H)?
Perhaps a former military heli pilot now flying trucks?
212man?
Ark Royal?
ANOrak?
PurplePitot?
Any other professional?
[This message has been edited by nomdeplume (edited 04 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh my God, I don't believe this. The whole military debate of a year ago starts up again and totally out of context.
Come on Earpiece, the mils were never "ordered" off. I received some e-mails from people who were getting annoyed with all the post which contained - to them - unintelligible military lingo and dealt with topics of little interest to the civvies. Since there ALREADY IS a military forum I suggested that those topics might be better posted there. This created some strong reactions from a few of the military types but was settled amicably after post nr 13 or 14. Ironically, this experience taught us all a lesson about trying to pigeonwhole certain individuals. Go figure.
I believe that these forums should always remain meritocracies. If you have something to contribute and it merits attention it will get it otherwise let it fade into the sunset. On public forums, dictatorships of well organized minorities (sometimes referred to as democracy) is something to be avoided.
Yes I am a working ATPL with over 30 years in the game and do my best to encourage the younger types to get into the business. I consider us a community and as such am wiling to contribute where I can. After 2 years here, I am ready to move on. I just don't think that it is very sporting to run out on Danny without some form of succession. If EarPiece or somebody else has some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on how to better continue this forum I'll be more than happy to give him the gavel. I don't think however that Danny will be to keen on instituting thought control.
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 04 January 2001).]
Come on Earpiece, the mils were never "ordered" off. I received some e-mails from people who were getting annoyed with all the post which contained - to them - unintelligible military lingo and dealt with topics of little interest to the civvies. Since there ALREADY IS a military forum I suggested that those topics might be better posted there. This created some strong reactions from a few of the military types but was settled amicably after post nr 13 or 14. Ironically, this experience taught us all a lesson about trying to pigeonwhole certain individuals. Go figure.
I believe that these forums should always remain meritocracies. If you have something to contribute and it merits attention it will get it otherwise let it fade into the sunset. On public forums, dictatorships of well organized minorities (sometimes referred to as democracy) is something to be avoided.
Yes I am a working ATPL with over 30 years in the game and do my best to encourage the younger types to get into the business. I consider us a community and as such am wiling to contribute where I can. After 2 years here, I am ready to move on. I just don't think that it is very sporting to run out on Danny without some form of succession. If EarPiece or somebody else has some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas on how to better continue this forum I'll be more than happy to give him the gavel. I don't think however that Danny will be to keen on instituting thought control.
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 04 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Nomdeplume
Nomdeplume said:
“I'm sorry, but I think Lu really has become a complete and utter bore. His posts were interesting at first and certainly generated responses, but now I no longer bother to read them.
I'm all in favor of controversial posts which lead to useful discussion, but his lengthy and numerous posts on this thread alone are good illustrations”.
Lu responds:
The reason my original posts were as you say interesting was that there was a legitimate discussion of highly technical points. Then, typical of forums it only took one person to go off thread and then others joined in on that particular point and drove the primary subject of that thread into the tank. I was constantly trying to steer it back on point but I like others before me had to sit and watch the whole thing deteriorate. Regarding my posts on this thread, what do you expect me to do? Earpiece made some comments about me and the subject matter of my various posts and I replied. Regarding going off thread have you ever heard the story of the experiment where they placed ten individuals in a line? The first person was provided with some information and he was to relay that information to the next person in line and so on down to the tenth person in that line. That last person was then to repeat the information to the test conductor. The story had completely changed and was totally unlike the story told to the first person. This is what happens in a thread on a forum. If you want to see evidence of this, check out the military forum on the CH-47 crash in Scotland. In my threads I have to try to keep the thread in line while at the same time I have to deal with five other individuals who are discussing something not related to the original subject.
Nomdeplume said:
“Since you've chosen to bring age into it, how old are you Lu? Your views, patronizing attitude and reluctance to accept any new ideas give the impression of a quite elderly man - I'd guess at 70 plus”.
Lu Responds:
I don’t feel elderly but I am 70 years old as of December 2000. Regarding my inability to accept any new ideas (or deal with new technology) I disagree. In the last five years I have done the following, 1) I prepared the certification documents for the flight control, hydraulic system, antiskid brakes and landing gear on the Canadair CL604 and Regional Jet. 2) I prepared the RMS documentation for the reconnaissance pod on the F-16 and the air driven hydraulic pumping system used on the B-767-400-ER. 3) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the electronic upgrade of the KC-135 and the RMS documentation for the cargo conversion of DC-9s, B-727s and B-737s. 4) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the A340 and the A3XX cargo loading systems. And, 5) I performed FMEAs on all of the capital equipment at a major pharmaceutical company. Each of these systems was different and each required a different approach. Meanwhile, I had to contend with the internal politics of the companies that I was consulting with.
Within the next two weeks I expect to go out on another contract at any one of 7 companies that have expressed interest in my consulting services. Not bad, for a 70 year old man.
Regarding my patronizing attitude that stems from 1) a heavy background in teaching and, 2) sometimes I feel that I am dealing with ignorant individuals.
IN RESPONDING TO YOUR POST I AM GUILTY OF DOING WHAT YOU ACCUSED ME OF. BEING LONG WINDED AND CONDECENDING. THAT IS THE POINT I TRIED TO MAKE ABOVE IN THAT THIS THREAD IS ON THE WAY TO THE TANK BECAUSE OF HAVING TO RESPOND TO AN ACCUSATION OR, BEING TOLD I AM WRONG.
------------------
The Cat
Nomdeplume said:
“I'm sorry, but I think Lu really has become a complete and utter bore. His posts were interesting at first and certainly generated responses, but now I no longer bother to read them.
I'm all in favor of controversial posts which lead to useful discussion, but his lengthy and numerous posts on this thread alone are good illustrations”.
Lu responds:
The reason my original posts were as you say interesting was that there was a legitimate discussion of highly technical points. Then, typical of forums it only took one person to go off thread and then others joined in on that particular point and drove the primary subject of that thread into the tank. I was constantly trying to steer it back on point but I like others before me had to sit and watch the whole thing deteriorate. Regarding my posts on this thread, what do you expect me to do? Earpiece made some comments about me and the subject matter of my various posts and I replied. Regarding going off thread have you ever heard the story of the experiment where they placed ten individuals in a line? The first person was provided with some information and he was to relay that information to the next person in line and so on down to the tenth person in that line. That last person was then to repeat the information to the test conductor. The story had completely changed and was totally unlike the story told to the first person. This is what happens in a thread on a forum. If you want to see evidence of this, check out the military forum on the CH-47 crash in Scotland. In my threads I have to try to keep the thread in line while at the same time I have to deal with five other individuals who are discussing something not related to the original subject.
Nomdeplume said:
“Since you've chosen to bring age into it, how old are you Lu? Your views, patronizing attitude and reluctance to accept any new ideas give the impression of a quite elderly man - I'd guess at 70 plus”.
Lu Responds:
I don’t feel elderly but I am 70 years old as of December 2000. Regarding my inability to accept any new ideas (or deal with new technology) I disagree. In the last five years I have done the following, 1) I prepared the certification documents for the flight control, hydraulic system, antiskid brakes and landing gear on the Canadair CL604 and Regional Jet. 2) I prepared the RMS documentation for the reconnaissance pod on the F-16 and the air driven hydraulic pumping system used on the B-767-400-ER. 3) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the electronic upgrade of the KC-135 and the RMS documentation for the cargo conversion of DC-9s, B-727s and B-737s. 4) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the A340 and the A3XX cargo loading systems. And, 5) I performed FMEAs on all of the capital equipment at a major pharmaceutical company. Each of these systems was different and each required a different approach. Meanwhile, I had to contend with the internal politics of the companies that I was consulting with.
Within the next two weeks I expect to go out on another contract at any one of 7 companies that have expressed interest in my consulting services. Not bad, for a 70 year old man.
Regarding my patronizing attitude that stems from 1) a heavy background in teaching and, 2) sometimes I feel that I am dealing with ignorant individuals.
IN RESPONDING TO YOUR POST I AM GUILTY OF DOING WHAT YOU ACCUSED ME OF. BEING LONG WINDED AND CONDECENDING. THAT IS THE POINT I TRIED TO MAKE ABOVE IN THAT THIS THREAD IS ON THE WAY TO THE TANK BECAUSE OF HAVING TO RESPOND TO AN ACCUSATION OR, BEING TOLD I AM WRONG.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Helidrvr:
Thanks for answering my question regarding the absence of military helicopter pilots on this Forum.
I'm amazed that some people complained to you because they couldn't understand the military 'lingo' and topics - instead of asking for explanations so they could follow and learn.
Lu:
As an enthusiastic amateur, I fall into your category of people who are ignorant / inexperienced in rotary matters.
I hope you don't mind me suggesting that you may find people less antagonistic if you don't patronise those who fall into that category.
Similarly, you sometimes appear to be rather intolerant of even well-informed/experienced PPRuNers who express an opinion with which you disagree. Your engineering credentials and experience are obviously beyond doubt, but the old saying that we're never too old to learn may be apposite. A contrary point of view may just be right?
[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 04 January 2001).]
Thanks for answering my question regarding the absence of military helicopter pilots on this Forum.
I'm amazed that some people complained to you because they couldn't understand the military 'lingo' and topics - instead of asking for explanations so they could follow and learn.
Lu:
As an enthusiastic amateur, I fall into your category of people who are ignorant / inexperienced in rotary matters.
I hope you don't mind me suggesting that you may find people less antagonistic if you don't patronise those who fall into that category.
Similarly, you sometimes appear to be rather intolerant of even well-informed/experienced PPRuNers who express an opinion with which you disagree. Your engineering credentials and experience are obviously beyond doubt, but the old saying that we're never too old to learn may be apposite. A contrary point of view may just be right?
[This message has been edited by Flying Lawyer (edited 04 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
LU FOR MODERATOR!
... NOT
Somewhere around page 1 or 2 of the LU-dick-russ 'Certification debate' it became obvious that Lu doesn't really understand the subject and often just regurgitates misunderstood snippets from text books - he's a painfully boring intransigent argumentative plane spotter - Helidrvr came down on Lu's side and the bore**** continued for way too long...
However surley in the spirit of PPrune it should be an inclusive forum with diversity and a wealth of experience - I, we, you! must just learn not to get roped into pointless drivel...
I can't believe anyone tried to exclude military pilots - some of them are quite good pilots, they often have their own independant views and whilst they may not be very experienced (on average) they are the product of aptitude selection (even if that does include 'compliant' as one of the criteria) .. and it is where most of the civil administrators started.
Inclusive tolerant discussion FANTASTIC ... there are some OUTSTANDING people in this forum and tolerating idiots like Lu is just the price we must pay for not disappearing into many closed minded little cliques.
... It's like TV
... Helidri - good job, not easy, hard work, well done, keep it up. etc...
... NOT
Somewhere around page 1 or 2 of the LU-dick-russ 'Certification debate' it became obvious that Lu doesn't really understand the subject and often just regurgitates misunderstood snippets from text books - he's a painfully boring intransigent argumentative plane spotter - Helidrvr came down on Lu's side and the bore**** continued for way too long...
However surley in the spirit of PPrune it should be an inclusive forum with diversity and a wealth of experience - I, we, you! must just learn not to get roped into pointless drivel...
I can't believe anyone tried to exclude military pilots - some of them are quite good pilots, they often have their own independant views and whilst they may not be very experienced (on average) they are the product of aptitude selection (even if that does include 'compliant' as one of the criteria) .. and it is where most of the civil administrators started.
Inclusive tolerant discussion FANTASTIC ... there are some OUTSTANDING people in this forum and tolerating idiots like Lu is just the price we must pay for not disappearing into many closed minded little cliques.
... It's like TV
... Helidri - good job, not easy, hard work, well done, keep it up. etc...
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Flying Lawyer Esquire
In order to respond I have to use a tennis analogy to explain my actions. When all of this started it was like my opponent was the machine that lobbed balls at me. The speed and trajectory were always the same, which allowed me to respond from a fixed position. The machine was replaced by one individual and he moved around which forced me to move around in order to hit the ball. Soon I was facing multiple opponents each hitting their own ball. After a while, all of the balls became the same ball and as each ball was lobbed at me I had to respond. However, when I was doing that two or three more balls were being sent my way.
After a while, I started to hit the balls twice as hard as they were sent my way. I became very angry and/or upset because the balls that were being sent towards me were all the same but they were different colors and that made me even more angry as I had to respond to each of those balls as if they were the only ball in play. That made me angrier as my opponents felt that they were the only opponents I was playing with and demanded that I should respond to his ball and only his ball. In several other cases some of my opponents got angry because I wouldn’t play by their rules and they took their ball(s) out of play only to return and play again but not by the rules of the game.
I played the same tennis game on Just helicopters and my opponents played with barbed tennis balls and whenever they could they would try to inflict injury on me. I got the same complaints as those listed in the fourth paragraph in your post (above).
The reason I come off as being pedantic is because I believe that a part of my function on these threads is to educate. The reason I come off as seeming to be intolerant is because I have to field the same questions from many different thread participants. Most of these are guys that don’t follow the thread on a daily basis and when they come in they ask a question that had been answered ten posts previous.
I think I am right in what I say but a lot of the guys don’t agree with me. Verbally they tell me I am wrong and when I challenge them to prove me wrong they clam up stating their opinions and tell me I’m still wrong. I don’t feel that I have to constantly prove that I am right but I feel that the oneness is on them to prove me wrong through their actions and not their words.
Another thing that really pisses me off is when someone tells me I am wrong and prove it by saying that Frank Robinson said I was wrong. Those that have taken that point of view are in my mind ignorant in the subject area and really don’t understand that what FR said was pure Bull S**t and did not relate to the subject being discussed.
Regarding being too old to learn as opposed to never being too old to learn I provide the following which comes from a previous post on this thread.
I don’t feel elderly but I am 70 years old as of December 2000. Regarding my inability to accept any new ideas (or deal with new technology) I disagree. In the last five years I have done the following, 1) I prepared the certification documents for the flight control, hydraulic system, antiskid brakes and landing gear on the Canadair CL604 and Regional Jet. 2) I prepared the RMS documentation for the reconnaissance pod on the F-16 and the air driven hydraulic pumping system used on the B-767-400-ER. 3) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the electronic upgrade of the KC-135 and the RMS documentation for the cargo conversion of DC-9s, B-727s and B-737s. 4) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the A340 and the A3XX cargo loading systems. And, 5) I performed FMEAs on all of the capital equipment at a major pharmaceutical company. Each of these systems was different and each required a different approach. Meanwhile, I had to contend with the internal politics of the companies that I was consulting with.
PS Why don't you join the Lawyer Pilots bar Association in the States. It's a good organization and you can get a US perspective in Aviation Law. I have belonged for over five years and as a non lawyer I have gained a great deal of knowledge.
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 04 January 2001).]
In order to respond I have to use a tennis analogy to explain my actions. When all of this started it was like my opponent was the machine that lobbed balls at me. The speed and trajectory were always the same, which allowed me to respond from a fixed position. The machine was replaced by one individual and he moved around which forced me to move around in order to hit the ball. Soon I was facing multiple opponents each hitting their own ball. After a while, all of the balls became the same ball and as each ball was lobbed at me I had to respond. However, when I was doing that two or three more balls were being sent my way.
After a while, I started to hit the balls twice as hard as they were sent my way. I became very angry and/or upset because the balls that were being sent towards me were all the same but they were different colors and that made me even more angry as I had to respond to each of those balls as if they were the only ball in play. That made me angrier as my opponents felt that they were the only opponents I was playing with and demanded that I should respond to his ball and only his ball. In several other cases some of my opponents got angry because I wouldn’t play by their rules and they took their ball(s) out of play only to return and play again but not by the rules of the game.
I played the same tennis game on Just helicopters and my opponents played with barbed tennis balls and whenever they could they would try to inflict injury on me. I got the same complaints as those listed in the fourth paragraph in your post (above).
The reason I come off as being pedantic is because I believe that a part of my function on these threads is to educate. The reason I come off as seeming to be intolerant is because I have to field the same questions from many different thread participants. Most of these are guys that don’t follow the thread on a daily basis and when they come in they ask a question that had been answered ten posts previous.
I think I am right in what I say but a lot of the guys don’t agree with me. Verbally they tell me I am wrong and when I challenge them to prove me wrong they clam up stating their opinions and tell me I’m still wrong. I don’t feel that I have to constantly prove that I am right but I feel that the oneness is on them to prove me wrong through their actions and not their words.
Another thing that really pisses me off is when someone tells me I am wrong and prove it by saying that Frank Robinson said I was wrong. Those that have taken that point of view are in my mind ignorant in the subject area and really don’t understand that what FR said was pure Bull S**t and did not relate to the subject being discussed.
Regarding being too old to learn as opposed to never being too old to learn I provide the following which comes from a previous post on this thread.
I don’t feel elderly but I am 70 years old as of December 2000. Regarding my inability to accept any new ideas (or deal with new technology) I disagree. In the last five years I have done the following, 1) I prepared the certification documents for the flight control, hydraulic system, antiskid brakes and landing gear on the Canadair CL604 and Regional Jet. 2) I prepared the RMS documentation for the reconnaissance pod on the F-16 and the air driven hydraulic pumping system used on the B-767-400-ER. 3) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the electronic upgrade of the KC-135 and the RMS documentation for the cargo conversion of DC-9s, B-727s and B-737s. 4) I Prepared the RMS documentation for the A340 and the A3XX cargo loading systems. And, 5) I performed FMEAs on all of the capital equipment at a major pharmaceutical company. Each of these systems was different and each required a different approach. Meanwhile, I had to contend with the internal politics of the companies that I was consulting with.
PS Why don't you join the Lawyer Pilots bar Association in the States. It's a good organization and you can get a US perspective in Aviation Law. I have belonged for over five years and as a non lawyer I have gained a great deal of knowledge.
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 04 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
JoePilot,
The problem with the military last year was caused by a lot of post which appeared to be dealing with purely military issues and unit politics, i.e. not about pilotage, aircraft handling etc. The topics were about military issues rather than rotorcraft issues. This was the rub.
As far as Lu's posts is concerned. His opinion about the R22 appeared to focus on an apparently flawed CERTIFICATION process and not the quality of the product itself. As we all know it mushroomed out of control because of all the replies, but that's history. He specifically stated in one of his post that he found the R22 a well designed and well manufactured helicopter. From my own observation I totally agree - the engineering seems brilliant in its simplicity.
As I read it, Lu's beef has always been with the idea of certifying a helicopter to a more narrow flight envelope than is normally required by law and thereby setting us up for pilot error. R22's are everywhere.
So mostly out of curiosity I took an R22 course about 8 years ago. I was in for a shock though when I questioned why a high time pilot like me would have to take the full SFAR course. The reply was unequivocal and to me highly alarming: "Because an experienced pilot like you will expect the R22 to be capable of maneuvers which he has become accustomed to performing in other helicopters. In the R22 some of these might kill you if you don't watch out." I found this hard to believe and, my curiosity now even more aroused, decided to continue anyway.
I didn't know anything about 72 vs. 90 degree and understood gyroscopic presession not nearly as well as I do now thanks to Lu and all the others who posted on the subject. The idea that a production helicopter would be designed to a much narrower operating envelope than is expected of all others on the market (I also knew nothing about the certification requirements which Lu correctly describes) bothered the heck out of me. During training my instructor thoroughly convinced me of the special hazards alluded to and I decided then and there that any involvement with the R22 would for me remain restricted to my little SFAR adventure.
Back to what for me is the central and as a pilot ONLY significant issue raised by Lu. By allowing ONE helicopter design to be certified to especially unforgiving flight characteristics when compared to all others on the market the potential for PILOT ERROR is substantially increased.
To put it differently, what may be an acceptable maneuver in a 206 has the potential of becoming a killer in an R22. As those of you who have been working pilots for a few thousand hours know, we regularly switch from one aircraft type to another in the course of a regular work day.
Consider flying an B206 for 2 or 3 hours or, even worse, an MD500 and then jumping into an R22. Now add a little Murphy to the mix and get an engine failure 1 minute after lift-off. I now depend totally on reflex and what reflexes do you think those are going to be? Q.E.D.
All the other arguments are for me just so much fluff. If Lu and many others want to amuse themselves by thrashing out the finer points of aerodynamics, that's just fine by me. But the truth is that I really don't give a Rat's A.. about that. As a pilot I am going to do everything I can do to avoid getting set up for pilot error. This job is tough enough as it is and flying the R22 just doesn't seem worth the risk for me. I'll grant you that if I was 20 again and had to find a way to satisfy my desire to become a helicopter pilot on limited funds I might look at it differently. Blissfully I started flying when the B47 was the only training bird and also the major working machine of the day and didn't have to struggle with this.
Cheers
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 05 January 2001).]
The problem with the military last year was caused by a lot of post which appeared to be dealing with purely military issues and unit politics, i.e. not about pilotage, aircraft handling etc. The topics were about military issues rather than rotorcraft issues. This was the rub.
As far as Lu's posts is concerned. His opinion about the R22 appeared to focus on an apparently flawed CERTIFICATION process and not the quality of the product itself. As we all know it mushroomed out of control because of all the replies, but that's history. He specifically stated in one of his post that he found the R22 a well designed and well manufactured helicopter. From my own observation I totally agree - the engineering seems brilliant in its simplicity.
As I read it, Lu's beef has always been with the idea of certifying a helicopter to a more narrow flight envelope than is normally required by law and thereby setting us up for pilot error. R22's are everywhere.
So mostly out of curiosity I took an R22 course about 8 years ago. I was in for a shock though when I questioned why a high time pilot like me would have to take the full SFAR course. The reply was unequivocal and to me highly alarming: "Because an experienced pilot like you will expect the R22 to be capable of maneuvers which he has become accustomed to performing in other helicopters. In the R22 some of these might kill you if you don't watch out." I found this hard to believe and, my curiosity now even more aroused, decided to continue anyway.
I didn't know anything about 72 vs. 90 degree and understood gyroscopic presession not nearly as well as I do now thanks to Lu and all the others who posted on the subject. The idea that a production helicopter would be designed to a much narrower operating envelope than is expected of all others on the market (I also knew nothing about the certification requirements which Lu correctly describes) bothered the heck out of me. During training my instructor thoroughly convinced me of the special hazards alluded to and I decided then and there that any involvement with the R22 would for me remain restricted to my little SFAR adventure.
Back to what for me is the central and as a pilot ONLY significant issue raised by Lu. By allowing ONE helicopter design to be certified to especially unforgiving flight characteristics when compared to all others on the market the potential for PILOT ERROR is substantially increased.
To put it differently, what may be an acceptable maneuver in a 206 has the potential of becoming a killer in an R22. As those of you who have been working pilots for a few thousand hours know, we regularly switch from one aircraft type to another in the course of a regular work day.
Consider flying an B206 for 2 or 3 hours or, even worse, an MD500 and then jumping into an R22. Now add a little Murphy to the mix and get an engine failure 1 minute after lift-off. I now depend totally on reflex and what reflexes do you think those are going to be? Q.E.D.
All the other arguments are for me just so much fluff. If Lu and many others want to amuse themselves by thrashing out the finer points of aerodynamics, that's just fine by me. But the truth is that I really don't give a Rat's A.. about that. As a pilot I am going to do everything I can do to avoid getting set up for pilot error. This job is tough enough as it is and flying the R22 just doesn't seem worth the risk for me. I'll grant you that if I was 20 again and had to find a way to satisfy my desire to become a helicopter pilot on limited funds I might look at it differently. Blissfully I started flying when the B47 was the only training bird and also the major working machine of the day and didn't have to struggle with this.
Cheers
[This message has been edited by helidrvr (edited 05 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
helidrvr,
Many thanks for a useful summary of what Lu has been saying. It seemed that way to me too; what I've learned from the pages and pages of discussion is: Be careful; R22s may bite!
Lu,
I suspect this may illustrate what is annoying some people - your longwindedness rather than your arguments. Sometimes it may be necessary, but often not. For example, your tennis ball analogy is a good one, but could have been stated in two sentences - and would have had more impact. I may disagree with you, but I'd defend to the death your right to state your opinions. But please, state them briefly. Especially if you want them read.
------------------
Whirly
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
Many thanks for a useful summary of what Lu has been saying. It seemed that way to me too; what I've learned from the pages and pages of discussion is: Be careful; R22s may bite!
Lu,
I suspect this may illustrate what is annoying some people - your longwindedness rather than your arguments. Sometimes it may be necessary, but often not. For example, your tennis ball analogy is a good one, but could have been stated in two sentences - and would have had more impact. I may disagree with you, but I'd defend to the death your right to state your opinions. But please, state them briefly. Especially if you want them read.
------------------
Whirly
To fly is human, to hover, divine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu Z:
You say
Can't you see that attitude is just one of the things which irritates people about your posts? The rest of us give our opinion, and (generally) respect different opinions given by others when we reply to them. We don't presume to "educate" people. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand.
People might take you more seriously if you expressed your views in a more balanced way. Compare your style with Helidrvr's last post. We might agree with him, we might not, or perhaps we just can't decide. But it's a well-written, reasoned, personal point of view without any arrogance, or presumption to "educate" others.
You seem to have an obsession about Robinsons and to be waging a campaign against them, and possibly a personal vendetta against FR who you try to discredit at every opportunity. Your recent request for information from Robinson-trained personnel on the "Just Helicopters" Forum is a good illustration.
If you you don't like Robinsons, don't fly them. Others can make their own decisions.
You say the criticims made by Flying Lawyer have already been made by others on another Forum. Isn't it worth considering that the criticism might be valid?
You say
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">"I believe that a part of my function on these threads is to educate."</font>
People might take you more seriously if you expressed your views in a more balanced way. Compare your style with Helidrvr's last post. We might agree with him, we might not, or perhaps we just can't decide. But it's a well-written, reasoned, personal point of view without any arrogance, or presumption to "educate" others.
You seem to have an obsession about Robinsons and to be waging a campaign against them, and possibly a personal vendetta against FR who you try to discredit at every opportunity. Your recent request for information from Robinson-trained personnel on the "Just Helicopters" Forum is a good illustration.
If you you don't like Robinsons, don't fly them. Others can make their own decisions.
You say the criticims made by Flying Lawyer have already been made by others on another Forum. Isn't it worth considering that the criticism might be valid?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I thought that these forums were supposed to be a way for individuals to express their opinions, disseminate information and to act as an excellent global communications portal.
This particular thread started out as what I believed to be quite a reasonable request considering the number of Robinsons there are in the world now. But then would we also expect a Bell forum, an Agusta Forum, A Sikorsky Forum? Where do you stop? This thread has since been dragged into the gutter and become a personal attack on Lu.
There is no doubting Lu's credentials and experience in my eye's. He has constantly shown as in depth (sometimes deeper)an undertsanding and knowledge of systems than anybody who has replied to his comments. I for one have absolutely no Technical experience, but as an Operator who contracts out Maintenance, I do have an active interest in any aspect that may affect aviation safety. Not just my own but everybody's.
I have taken some of Lu's comments and used them as a basis for discussions / research with my primary Maintenance Organisation. I for one do not necessarily always agree with Lu, but his points of view always evoke passionate responses both privately and on this forum.
I have learnt an incredible amount from the topics discussed here, from Lu, Flying Lawyer, HeliDrvr and all the others who respond on a regular basis. Take the whole discussion and digest slowly and you come out with a very balanced viewpoint.
So stick to the ideals of PPrune and stop slagging off individuals.
Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are.
This particular thread started out as what I believed to be quite a reasonable request considering the number of Robinsons there are in the world now. But then would we also expect a Bell forum, an Agusta Forum, A Sikorsky Forum? Where do you stop? This thread has since been dragged into the gutter and become a personal attack on Lu.
There is no doubting Lu's credentials and experience in my eye's. He has constantly shown as in depth (sometimes deeper)an undertsanding and knowledge of systems than anybody who has replied to his comments. I for one have absolutely no Technical experience, but as an Operator who contracts out Maintenance, I do have an active interest in any aspect that may affect aviation safety. Not just my own but everybody's.
I have taken some of Lu's comments and used them as a basis for discussions / research with my primary Maintenance Organisation. I for one do not necessarily always agree with Lu, but his points of view always evoke passionate responses both privately and on this forum.
I have learnt an incredible amount from the topics discussed here, from Lu, Flying Lawyer, HeliDrvr and all the others who respond on a regular basis. Take the whole discussion and digest slowly and you come out with a very balanced viewpoint.
So stick to the ideals of PPrune and stop slagging off individuals.
Just because you think you are right doesn't mean you are.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just found this little gem on another thread. Thanks to Ppruner known as SPS. Like your attitude.
quote - "It is good to be constantly reviewing your own knowledge.You must never think you know it all. You should never stop learning because you think you know it all. That stops you listening to anyone else's view.....And they might be right!"
quote - "It is good to be constantly reviewing your own knowledge.You must never think you know it all. You should never stop learning because you think you know it all. That stops you listening to anyone else's view.....And they might be right!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Stoppachoppa
That little gem stemmed from a personal email I sent to SPS and it was repeated in another way by Flying Lawyer.
You have to understand two things about me 1) my prime thrust in these threads and in the work I do is to make aircraft as safe as possible through sound design and 2) I am like a dog with a bone and the dog refuses to let go. However if the bone is eventually taken away from the dog he will not be angry, he will just get another bone.
As far as my hating Robinson Helicopters that was summed up in Helidrvrs' post above. But he didn't say it all. I think the rotorhead design causes problems that effect safety of flight and I think their rigging procedures SUCK. As far as my dislike for Frank Robinson I don't hate him.
It is like someone stating that Bill Clinton was a good President but he did (does) a lot of things that you don't like. In both cases the gentlemen under discussion don't always tell the truth.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 January 2001).]
That little gem stemmed from a personal email I sent to SPS and it was repeated in another way by Flying Lawyer.
You have to understand two things about me 1) my prime thrust in these threads and in the work I do is to make aircraft as safe as possible through sound design and 2) I am like a dog with a bone and the dog refuses to let go. However if the bone is eventually taken away from the dog he will not be angry, he will just get another bone.
As far as my hating Robinson Helicopters that was summed up in Helidrvrs' post above. But he didn't say it all. I think the rotorhead design causes problems that effect safety of flight and I think their rigging procedures SUCK. As far as my dislike for Frank Robinson I don't hate him.
It is like someone stating that Bill Clinton was a good President but he did (does) a lot of things that you don't like. In both cases the gentlemen under discussion don't always tell the truth.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 05 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Neutral99
I completely agree with you that my replies are long-winded. I find it necessary to be that way in order to properly explain my points of view relative to a very complex subject. If it were in an instructional situation and I had all of the participants in one classroom I could start with elementary flight theory and cover every subject on all of the Robinson threads in two hours because I could draw pictures to help explain the various point being covered. I could also field questions that related directly to that portion of the subject matter being taught at that time. I know that for a fact because I have done it before. This forum does no allow me that facility so I have to couch my responses in a long-winded technical manner. That is why I created the four diagrams that I constantly refer to.
The reason Helidrvr can be both eloquent and brief in his replies is because of his ability to synopsize material that has already been covered. Put him in my place and he will do it the same way. (I think). And why you might ask, it is because he is a person that will explain every point in detail because he wants to convey his point of view relative to complex subject matter.
I don’t have an obsession about Robinson. What I do have is an obsession about safety of flight because that is the line of work I am involved in.
Regarding my posting on Just Helicopters addressed to Robinson mechanics, I placed it there for the same reason I placed on the Rotor heads forum. I was soliciting facts from those mechanics about what they were taught in their respective training courses. I didn’t get a single reply from the Just Helicopters forum but I got a lot of replies from non-mechanics on the Rotorheads forum. The replies that I got were from individuals that carried their animosity/objections from another thread and none of the postings had a single thing to do with the subject of the post. Refer to the tennis analogy.
Hopefully this response is not long winded. Of course I could respond by parroting a certain individual and just say F. O.
------------------
The Cat
I completely agree with you that my replies are long-winded. I find it necessary to be that way in order to properly explain my points of view relative to a very complex subject. If it were in an instructional situation and I had all of the participants in one classroom I could start with elementary flight theory and cover every subject on all of the Robinson threads in two hours because I could draw pictures to help explain the various point being covered. I could also field questions that related directly to that portion of the subject matter being taught at that time. I know that for a fact because I have done it before. This forum does no allow me that facility so I have to couch my responses in a long-winded technical manner. That is why I created the four diagrams that I constantly refer to.
The reason Helidrvr can be both eloquent and brief in his replies is because of his ability to synopsize material that has already been covered. Put him in my place and he will do it the same way. (I think). And why you might ask, it is because he is a person that will explain every point in detail because he wants to convey his point of view relative to complex subject matter.
I don’t have an obsession about Robinson. What I do have is an obsession about safety of flight because that is the line of work I am involved in.
Regarding my posting on Just Helicopters addressed to Robinson mechanics, I placed it there for the same reason I placed on the Rotor heads forum. I was soliciting facts from those mechanics about what they were taught in their respective training courses. I didn’t get a single reply from the Just Helicopters forum but I got a lot of replies from non-mechanics on the Rotorheads forum. The replies that I got were from individuals that carried their animosity/objections from another thread and none of the postings had a single thing to do with the subject of the post. Refer to the tennis analogy.
Hopefully this response is not long winded. Of course I could respond by parroting a certain individual and just say F. O.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Helidriver -
Stick around, you're doing a fine job. Maybe even Bill K. could pick up a few pointers from you. Regarding threads + topics here, keep in mind that what you do as moderator is very little different from what a Prime Minister or President does - ANYTIME you voice an opinion or take a stand you will upset someone out there. So far you have been pretty evenhanded in the way you moderate.
Stick around, you're doing a fine job. Maybe even Bill K. could pick up a few pointers from you. Regarding threads + topics here, keep in mind that what you do as moderator is very little different from what a Prime Minister or President does - ANYTIME you voice an opinion or take a stand you will upset someone out there. So far you have been pretty evenhanded in the way you moderate.