Robinson R22 Corner [Archive copy]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lu, you defend lawyers by saying the manipulation of the facts is legal therefore it is right. What a load of B***S***T!
This is exactly why there is no more justice in the justice system. The truth is no longer the issue in a court, it is just another incidental fact to be trampled under a mountain of paper and procedure.
This is not how I am approaching our discussions of the R22 and R44 characteristics, but I see that it is how you approach it and explains why so many people refuting your assertions seems to have no effect.
I've seen the results of an idiot killing himself in a 2-seat ultralight (USA) with a passenger while stunting at an airport. His family sues, the jury gets sympathetic, the lawyers twist and corrupt the facts of the case, and a huge cash award is handed out. The Idiot was wrong, nothing should have been awarded. I sympathize with their loss but it is his fault, suck it up and let people take responsibility for their own actions.
I too was in an accident in aviation. The leeches that call themselves reporters and lawyers pursued me. When I wouldn't talk to the reporters they made stuff up. Great entertainment to see the latest load of cr@p in the paper each morning while I was in hospital. The lawyers were all set to sue for $X.XX. This kind of ambulance chasing accomplishes nothing. It is better to uncover the truth and fix the way we do business and carry on from there.
I'm about to go training in the R44 in a few minutes, and I'll try to find evidence of anything dangerous in the aircraft, which is something I always do. As a training pilot I also get the machines fresh out of maintenance and we work out the bugs here before they go out to the field to work. I will refuse to fly in it if I find a reason to doubt it's safety.
Rant over, time to go fly...
[This message has been edited by HeloTeacher (edited 26 May 2001).]
This is exactly why there is no more justice in the justice system. The truth is no longer the issue in a court, it is just another incidental fact to be trampled under a mountain of paper and procedure.
This is not how I am approaching our discussions of the R22 and R44 characteristics, but I see that it is how you approach it and explains why so many people refuting your assertions seems to have no effect.
I've seen the results of an idiot killing himself in a 2-seat ultralight (USA) with a passenger while stunting at an airport. His family sues, the jury gets sympathetic, the lawyers twist and corrupt the facts of the case, and a huge cash award is handed out. The Idiot was wrong, nothing should have been awarded. I sympathize with their loss but it is his fault, suck it up and let people take responsibility for their own actions.
I too was in an accident in aviation. The leeches that call themselves reporters and lawyers pursued me. When I wouldn't talk to the reporters they made stuff up. Great entertainment to see the latest load of cr@p in the paper each morning while I was in hospital. The lawyers were all set to sue for $X.XX. This kind of ambulance chasing accomplishes nothing. It is better to uncover the truth and fix the way we do business and carry on from there.
I'm about to go training in the R44 in a few minutes, and I'll try to find evidence of anything dangerous in the aircraft, which is something I always do. As a training pilot I also get the machines fresh out of maintenance and we work out the bugs here before they go out to the field to work. I will refuse to fly in it if I find a reason to doubt it's safety.
Rant over, time to go fly...
[This message has been edited by HeloTeacher (edited 26 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
To: Helo Teacher
First of all, I wasn’t defending lawyers. I simply stated that they work within the system. Many have tried to change the system and in most cases these are the firms that are effected when an aircraft or automobile or whatever crashes. I admit that there are cases that not only should have not been won by the plaintiff they should never have been brought before a court. Case in point. An owner of a Piper Cub had been requested to remove his aircraft from an airfield because it was so poorly maintained. He was in process of installing a metal framework where the front seat would normally be and he was going to use this framework to support movie and TV cameras.
After he installed the cameras and framework he took the aircraft up for a flight test without establishing if he were still within CG limits. He wasn’t and he crashed while taking off. His surviving family members sued Piper because the seat belts were inadequate and that there were no shoulder harnesses in the aircraft. It was pointed out in the trial that shoulder harnesses were never mandated for that aircraft and that the seat belts were long overdue for a pull test. Piper lost. There are many others that ended in the same way. Possibly the lawyer manipulated the evidence and possibly the jury was stupid but until the system can be modified this will keep on happening. But on the other hand when an airliner goes down the manufacturer and operator will do every thing in their power to conceal the evidence.
There is a law firm that is based in Seattle and they are on retainer from every major manufacturer of aircraft. They are not only representatives of the firms in lawsuits they also provide the following service. Representatives of the law firm make periodic trips to their clients and teach a class on how to respond when one of their aircraft is involved in an accident. They teach that the records should be destroyed and if that is not possible the records would be concealed and if that wasn’t possible the records should be changed or obfuscated. These records should by law be made available to both the defense and the plaintiffs’ lawyers. If the records have been destroyed, lost or covered up by alteration then the plaintiffs lawyers have to resort to their own form of subterfuge to win their respective cases. This too is a part of the system that should be changed but as long as the lobbyists for the lawyer and the aircraft/automobile companies are hounding congress the system will never change.
Being an American living in Canada I quite often am told that the Americans are a litigious society and that the Canadians are not. I would think that there are just as many layers per capita in Canada as there are in the US. As of 1998 there were thirteen lawyers specializing in aviation law based in Ontario alone.
I am sorry to hear that you had been involved in an accident and from what you said you did not attempt to recover any monies as a result of the accident. In the States the Lawyers are restricted from contacting prospective clients for thirty days. When they do, the take the case on contingency which means that under normal conditions they get 30% of winnings and as a result will look to maximize the award. They make money and the families of the decedent also win big. They are still trying the Korea 007 flight as well as The Lockerbie 747. Did the owner of the accident aircraft collect on his hull insurance or did he just write it off?
As far as being classified as a witch hunter I am not. My job involves aircraft safety and as such I have an interest in that aspect of aircraft operation. If my theories about the Robinson Helicopters are totally disproved then my interests will go elsewhere. In either case I will sit back and watch them fall out of the air and wonder when the NTSB and FAA will take action.
------------------
The Cat
First of all, I wasn’t defending lawyers. I simply stated that they work within the system. Many have tried to change the system and in most cases these are the firms that are effected when an aircraft or automobile or whatever crashes. I admit that there are cases that not only should have not been won by the plaintiff they should never have been brought before a court. Case in point. An owner of a Piper Cub had been requested to remove his aircraft from an airfield because it was so poorly maintained. He was in process of installing a metal framework where the front seat would normally be and he was going to use this framework to support movie and TV cameras.
After he installed the cameras and framework he took the aircraft up for a flight test without establishing if he were still within CG limits. He wasn’t and he crashed while taking off. His surviving family members sued Piper because the seat belts were inadequate and that there were no shoulder harnesses in the aircraft. It was pointed out in the trial that shoulder harnesses were never mandated for that aircraft and that the seat belts were long overdue for a pull test. Piper lost. There are many others that ended in the same way. Possibly the lawyer manipulated the evidence and possibly the jury was stupid but until the system can be modified this will keep on happening. But on the other hand when an airliner goes down the manufacturer and operator will do every thing in their power to conceal the evidence.
There is a law firm that is based in Seattle and they are on retainer from every major manufacturer of aircraft. They are not only representatives of the firms in lawsuits they also provide the following service. Representatives of the law firm make periodic trips to their clients and teach a class on how to respond when one of their aircraft is involved in an accident. They teach that the records should be destroyed and if that is not possible the records would be concealed and if that wasn’t possible the records should be changed or obfuscated. These records should by law be made available to both the defense and the plaintiffs’ lawyers. If the records have been destroyed, lost or covered up by alteration then the plaintiffs lawyers have to resort to their own form of subterfuge to win their respective cases. This too is a part of the system that should be changed but as long as the lobbyists for the lawyer and the aircraft/automobile companies are hounding congress the system will never change.
Being an American living in Canada I quite often am told that the Americans are a litigious society and that the Canadians are not. I would think that there are just as many layers per capita in Canada as there are in the US. As of 1998 there were thirteen lawyers specializing in aviation law based in Ontario alone.
I am sorry to hear that you had been involved in an accident and from what you said you did not attempt to recover any monies as a result of the accident. In the States the Lawyers are restricted from contacting prospective clients for thirty days. When they do, the take the case on contingency which means that under normal conditions they get 30% of winnings and as a result will look to maximize the award. They make money and the families of the decedent also win big. They are still trying the Korea 007 flight as well as The Lockerbie 747. Did the owner of the accident aircraft collect on his hull insurance or did he just write it off?
As far as being classified as a witch hunter I am not. My job involves aircraft safety and as such I have an interest in that aspect of aircraft operation. If my theories about the Robinson Helicopters are totally disproved then my interests will go elsewhere. In either case I will sit back and watch them fall out of the air and wonder when the NTSB and FAA will take action.
------------------
The Cat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry for the name-calling Lu, just got a little hot under the collar about the defence of lawyers. For a profession that claims to defend our rights they sure trample justice into the dirt in too many cases. While I am aware that all lawyers aren't bad, I will never be comfortable with our justice system, not until truth becomes more than just an unnecesary incidental item.
Back to the R44, I tried very hard on this flight to assess precisely the amount of right cyclic deflection throuhgout the flight in all speed regimes. I did NOT try to seperate each input by aerodynamic requirement, because that is not how one flies. One flies by responding to the sum of the forces on the helicopter. A well designed system will make this total response seem very natural and intuitive.
Throughout the flight from hover to 95 knots (bubble window installed so 100 knot VNE) the right cyclic displacement was uniform. The slight right displacement in the hover was consistent and the cyclic moved steadily forward with increased speed. The amount of cyclic travel is also very small and while there easily could have been a small amount of lateral displacement, it is not easily detected.
While performing simulated stuck pedals we flew up to 45 degrees out of trim in cruise and up to 90 degrees out of trim as translational lift was lost. Pedal authority is great and the only adverse characteristic is increased pitch sensitivity (instability?) resulting in a tendency to pilot induced oscillation (PIO) while the student is flying. Being more familiar with the feeling of looking out the side window to fly I was able to stop the oscillations very easily. Increased forward cyclic was required to overcome the increased drag but otherwise control placement was normal.
I also got a chance to fly the R44 a few days ago in winds 30G40-45 knts. The turbulence in the low levels started to approach moderate so I stayed up out of it. When landing through the turbulence to end the flight, control response was good but becuase of the high control authority it was easy to overcontrol in response to gusts and I had to remind myself a couple times to ride the bumps rather than trying to fight them.
Overall I have found that from careful attention to flight characteristics there is no reason to doubt the safety of the aircraft. Disc flapping in flight, as observed from the cockpit has never been violent enough to cause concern (I do occasionally observe the disc as I follow the students control actions). My concerns are with regard to carb-ice, throttle correlation, and overcontrolling.
Carb-ice: turbine pilot don't have the automatic instinct to apply carb heat consistently and appropriately. It's easy to forget. It's dangerous to forget.
Throttle correlation: it's almost too good in that at times under manual throttle control an apparently opposite to normal throttle movement is required (ie. reduced throttle as collective is raised). A good design for reducing governor and cruise workload but at times anti-intuitive.
Overcontrolling: at no time should you be using full control deflection unless something is going wrong, and then it is still probably too much. It is easy to get into trouble flying hamfisted or very tense on the controls. The is purely a matter of learning and applying good pilot technique.
I await your response anyone else who cares to make an observation.
[This message has been edited by HeloTeacher (edited 20 June 2001).]
Back to the R44, I tried very hard on this flight to assess precisely the amount of right cyclic deflection throuhgout the flight in all speed regimes. I did NOT try to seperate each input by aerodynamic requirement, because that is not how one flies. One flies by responding to the sum of the forces on the helicopter. A well designed system will make this total response seem very natural and intuitive.
Throughout the flight from hover to 95 knots (bubble window installed so 100 knot VNE) the right cyclic displacement was uniform. The slight right displacement in the hover was consistent and the cyclic moved steadily forward with increased speed. The amount of cyclic travel is also very small and while there easily could have been a small amount of lateral displacement, it is not easily detected.
While performing simulated stuck pedals we flew up to 45 degrees out of trim in cruise and up to 90 degrees out of trim as translational lift was lost. Pedal authority is great and the only adverse characteristic is increased pitch sensitivity (instability?) resulting in a tendency to pilot induced oscillation (PIO) while the student is flying. Being more familiar with the feeling of looking out the side window to fly I was able to stop the oscillations very easily. Increased forward cyclic was required to overcome the increased drag but otherwise control placement was normal.
I also got a chance to fly the R44 a few days ago in winds 30G40-45 knts. The turbulence in the low levels started to approach moderate so I stayed up out of it. When landing through the turbulence to end the flight, control response was good but becuase of the high control authority it was easy to overcontrol in response to gusts and I had to remind myself a couple times to ride the bumps rather than trying to fight them.
Overall I have found that from careful attention to flight characteristics there is no reason to doubt the safety of the aircraft. Disc flapping in flight, as observed from the cockpit has never been violent enough to cause concern (I do occasionally observe the disc as I follow the students control actions). My concerns are with regard to carb-ice, throttle correlation, and overcontrolling.
Carb-ice: turbine pilot don't have the automatic instinct to apply carb heat consistently and appropriately. It's easy to forget. It's dangerous to forget.
Throttle correlation: it's almost too good in that at times under manual throttle control an apparently opposite to normal throttle movement is required (ie. reduced throttle as collective is raised). A good design for reducing governor and cruise workload but at times anti-intuitive.
Overcontrolling: at no time should you be using full control deflection unless something is going wrong, and then it is still probably too much. It is easy to get into trouble flying hamfisted or very tense on the controls. The is purely a matter of learning and applying good pilot technique.
I await your response anyone else who cares to make an observation.
[This message has been edited by HeloTeacher (edited 20 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ht,
Lawyer's, Solicitor's and the like, are just like you and I, however they are paid a fee to explain your story, or your side of a story, the fact is that some are better at it than others, and win cases, when common sense say otherwise, this is the area where most people tend to then say that the Lawyer is an abject lier, it is part of life's rich( for the lawyer that is)tapestry.
Lu, thank you for the answers thus far to my original, plus all the input from the other ppruners which has been very well put, I think you are brilliant to be able to answer most people's questions with quite clear and concise expanations, with well argued points.
You have my Regards
[This message has been edited by Vfrpilotpb (edited 29 May 2001).]
Lawyer's, Solicitor's and the like, are just like you and I, however they are paid a fee to explain your story, or your side of a story, the fact is that some are better at it than others, and win cases, when common sense say otherwise, this is the area where most people tend to then say that the Lawyer is an abject lier, it is part of life's rich( for the lawyer that is)tapestry.
Lu, thank you for the answers thus far to my original, plus all the input from the other ppruners which has been very well put, I think you are brilliant to be able to answer most people's questions with quite clear and concise expanations, with well argued points.
You have my Regards
[This message has been edited by Vfrpilotpb (edited 29 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Make no mistake, vfr, the Robinsons are quality products. The reason they are ubiquitous in the market is not because helicopters pilots, owners and operators are suicidal dunderheads looking for the cheapest option, but because the Robinsons do the job efficiently and safely. Over the past 22 years they have expanded the helicopter market, and the number of people engaged in helicopter flying, by a factor of five. Because of the fact that they brought so many new pilots to rotary wing flying, and because of glaring deficiencies in the US training system like the 50-hour rule, their accident rate was initially high, but it has been brought down by an increased understanding of rotary flight which has been fostered largely by Frank Robinson, with his factory safety courses and his insurance scheme.
Because of the inroads which were being made into the businesses of other manufacturers by the R22, denigration of the Robinson has always been there. It reached a crecendo after the R44 was introduced, as it began to compete directly with Bell and other products. I have heard bloodcurdling stories about the deficiencies of the R44 from the lips of a McDonnell Douglas (as was) representative, none of which were true. The matter has been helped along by long-time turbine pilots who looked down their noses at Robinsons, and by lawyers in the USA (and their expert witnesses, watch out for them) who saw a chance to make a killing, but Robinson continues to sell because he produces honest helicopters which do the job that's asked of them.
With Robinson shipping more helicopters than the rest of the industry in North America put together, it is obvious that his machines will more frequently be involved in accidents than others, especially given the uses to which they are put. But the accident rate does not match the percentage penetration of the market. If you look at he accident figures in the UK over the past ten years you'll see that the Robinsons are under-represented by a significant margin.
Because of the inroads which were being made into the businesses of other manufacturers by the R22, denigration of the Robinson has always been there. It reached a crecendo after the R44 was introduced, as it began to compete directly with Bell and other products. I have heard bloodcurdling stories about the deficiencies of the R44 from the lips of a McDonnell Douglas (as was) representative, none of which were true. The matter has been helped along by long-time turbine pilots who looked down their noses at Robinsons, and by lawyers in the USA (and their expert witnesses, watch out for them) who saw a chance to make a killing, but Robinson continues to sell because he produces honest helicopters which do the job that's asked of them.
With Robinson shipping more helicopters than the rest of the industry in North America put together, it is obvious that his machines will more frequently be involved in accidents than others, especially given the uses to which they are put. But the accident rate does not match the percentage penetration of the market. If you look at he accident figures in the UK over the past ten years you'll see that the Robinsons are under-represented by a significant margin.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi TN,
I agree with you on the increase of pilots who have come into RW flying and have been taught in the R22( I myself was) I have flown R44's and B206's, and I cannot help but feel inherantly more comforted in the B206,than the R44 which most people say are similar, I am new in my length of experience of flying, but to me the difference between the R44 and the Bell 206 can be compared to the difference found between a Ford Escort and BMW 750 Saloon, The Robinson product is very popular, but as Mr Robinson tells everone the R22 is not produced as a training vehicle, so why then do all the schools buy them and sell training flights in them, it has to be purely down to costs and low capital outlay compared with other forms of RW A/C.
I agree with you on the increase of pilots who have come into RW flying and have been taught in the R22( I myself was) I have flown R44's and B206's, and I cannot help but feel inherantly more comforted in the B206,than the R44 which most people say are similar, I am new in my length of experience of flying, but to me the difference between the R44 and the Bell 206 can be compared to the difference found between a Ford Escort and BMW 750 Saloon, The Robinson product is very popular, but as Mr Robinson tells everone the R22 is not produced as a training vehicle, so why then do all the schools buy them and sell training flights in them, it has to be purely down to costs and low capital outlay compared with other forms of RW A/C.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vfr: The 206 is an extraordinarily good helicopter. It's been around for 35 years and it has dominated the civil helicopter market despite having been rejected for the military contract for which it was designed.
There is nothing to choose between 206 and the 44 in terms of accidents. The 206 edges the 44 marginally on autorotational performance but the 44 is faster, goes further, and is more comfortable for back seat passengers.
Today's piston engines are as reliable or more reliable than small turbines, and much, much cheaper to buy, run and maintain. If you feel more at ease in a 206, fine, just don't get complacent. Owners and pilots are just like you - they regard cost as being secondary to safety, and if there was a solid foundation to much of the criticism directed at the R44, Robinson would be out of business in a week.
It is true that Frank Robinson says he didn't envisage that the R22 would be ubiquitously used for training. At the time the machine was taking shape in his mind, there were tens of thousands of helicopter pilots in the US, and the number was growing at a phenomenal rate. I was working in New York in the 1970s when the New York Police Department bought a dozen UH1s from the US military for $150 each, and sought to find out how many helicopter pilots they had on their books. They came up with more than 100, some of them working as beat cops. This was the market Robinson had his eye on, and the presumption was that most people buying a small personal helicopter would be damned good pilots who'd been trained by the military for Vietnam. Perhaps he's being a little disingenuous. I'm sure that while Robinson hoped he'd sell lots of helicopters, he didn't think he'd revolutionise the market and turn it on its head, as he has done.
Incidentally, if you go on the Robinson Safety Course in Torrance you'll be shown a US Army training film from the Vietnam era which warns against getting into low-g manoeuvres in helicopters with a two-bladed rotor, specifically the UH1. The Robinsons react quickly to low-g manoeuvres, so don't go there and know how to get back if you do.
As to training, there are plenty of choices. Several flying schools in the London area use the Hughes, and I think one tried to stay in business for a while using Enstroms. But I'm happy to hang my butt on Robinson's work. He makes good machines, just don't take a lend of them.
There is nothing to choose between 206 and the 44 in terms of accidents. The 206 edges the 44 marginally on autorotational performance but the 44 is faster, goes further, and is more comfortable for back seat passengers.
Today's piston engines are as reliable or more reliable than small turbines, and much, much cheaper to buy, run and maintain. If you feel more at ease in a 206, fine, just don't get complacent. Owners and pilots are just like you - they regard cost as being secondary to safety, and if there was a solid foundation to much of the criticism directed at the R44, Robinson would be out of business in a week.
It is true that Frank Robinson says he didn't envisage that the R22 would be ubiquitously used for training. At the time the machine was taking shape in his mind, there were tens of thousands of helicopter pilots in the US, and the number was growing at a phenomenal rate. I was working in New York in the 1970s when the New York Police Department bought a dozen UH1s from the US military for $150 each, and sought to find out how many helicopter pilots they had on their books. They came up with more than 100, some of them working as beat cops. This was the market Robinson had his eye on, and the presumption was that most people buying a small personal helicopter would be damned good pilots who'd been trained by the military for Vietnam. Perhaps he's being a little disingenuous. I'm sure that while Robinson hoped he'd sell lots of helicopters, he didn't think he'd revolutionise the market and turn it on its head, as he has done.
Incidentally, if you go on the Robinson Safety Course in Torrance you'll be shown a US Army training film from the Vietnam era which warns against getting into low-g manoeuvres in helicopters with a two-bladed rotor, specifically the UH1. The Robinsons react quickly to low-g manoeuvres, so don't go there and know how to get back if you do.
As to training, there are plenty of choices. Several flying schools in the London area use the Hughes, and I think one tried to stay in business for a while using Enstroms. But I'm happy to hang my butt on Robinson's work. He makes good machines, just don't take a lend of them.
Guest
Posts: n/a
i got to fly the first commercial robbie at pacific wing and rotor's facility at long beach all those years ago. hi tim!
i was in australia when the first one arrived at bankstown.
i have flown thousands of hours in them in training and cattle mustering.
believe me i've seen them take a pounding.
frank should take note of the machines ability to take abuse and double the time between overhaul, after all they are doing that, plus, anyway.
i have noted nearly all of the accidents involving this type since then.
main rotor divergence and all these other sideslipping problems that i read about on this forum don't seem to occur over here.
why is that? do we know something the rest of the world doesn't?
the main cause of robbie accidents in australia is unfortunately attributable to the pilot. this fact is readily available in our crash comics.
there have been however a few unexplained and/or unprosecuted accidents with the machine on ferry flights.
departure of the main rotor head and blades from the helicopter. pilot deceased. a/c hours unknown.
aircraft breaking up in the air. pilot deceased. a/c hours less than 2000. eight year old mustering machine
in the case of one in flight accident that i have been able to investigate point to one main rotor blade stiking the tail boom in a flat position not a severing motion as if the blade had a normal pitch angle.
i believe that the pitch change links on all aicraft involved in these types of accidents should be tested as i think that there could be a connection.
over a third of the fleet in australia are robbies and they do a massive amount of hours.
the average robbie out mustering will do about 1200 hours per season, some of these machines have been years without a 2000 hourly. they are not crashing due to an aerodynamic problem or mechanical failure.
according to frank the machine was never meant to work hard so why is it certificated in that category. money.
------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow
i was in australia when the first one arrived at bankstown.
i have flown thousands of hours in them in training and cattle mustering.
believe me i've seen them take a pounding.
frank should take note of the machines ability to take abuse and double the time between overhaul, after all they are doing that, plus, anyway.
i have noted nearly all of the accidents involving this type since then.
main rotor divergence and all these other sideslipping problems that i read about on this forum don't seem to occur over here.
why is that? do we know something the rest of the world doesn't?
the main cause of robbie accidents in australia is unfortunately attributable to the pilot. this fact is readily available in our crash comics.
there have been however a few unexplained and/or unprosecuted accidents with the machine on ferry flights.
departure of the main rotor head and blades from the helicopter. pilot deceased. a/c hours unknown.
aircraft breaking up in the air. pilot deceased. a/c hours less than 2000. eight year old mustering machine
in the case of one in flight accident that i have been able to investigate point to one main rotor blade stiking the tail boom in a flat position not a severing motion as if the blade had a normal pitch angle.
i believe that the pitch change links on all aicraft involved in these types of accidents should be tested as i think that there could be a connection.
over a third of the fleet in australia are robbies and they do a massive amount of hours.
the average robbie out mustering will do about 1200 hours per season, some of these machines have been years without a 2000 hourly. they are not crashing due to an aerodynamic problem or mechanical failure.
according to frank the machine was never meant to work hard so why is it certificated in that category. money.
------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow
Guest
Posts: n/a
And one robbie in Oz that was operated under the older 2000 hour TBO lost a main rotor blade, because the owner wanted to save some money.
Killed him AND a mate - although people are operating R22s in extreme conditions, they're putting their neck on the line when they fly it, and if the machine gets sold, someone else's. Personally I don't think either way of killing someone is acceptable.
I found the web page - http://www.casa.gov.au/airsafe/fsa/d...9nov/FSA45.pdf - but there appears to be no official accident report.
[Edited to include link to article]
[This message has been edited by The Nr Fairy (edited 27 June 2001).]
Killed him AND a mate - although people are operating R22s in extreme conditions, they're putting their neck on the line when they fly it, and if the machine gets sold, someone else's. Personally I don't think either way of killing someone is acceptable.
I found the web page - http://www.casa.gov.au/airsafe/fsa/d...9nov/FSA45.pdf - but there appears to be no official accident report.
[Edited to include link to article]
[This message has been edited by The Nr Fairy (edited 27 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anyone who gets into a helicopter is putting his life on the line. It's simply a matter of degree.
But unless there is evidence, don't condemn the machine. I see that yesterday Bell lost a $40 million lawsuit over a 407 crash which killed two people. If blame attaches to a machine, believe me the law will find it out. The rumour mill won't.
But unless there is evidence, don't condemn the machine. I see that yesterday Bell lost a $40 million lawsuit over a 407 crash which killed two people. If blame attaches to a machine, believe me the law will find it out. The rumour mill won't.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not condemning the machine - I fly R22s, and am well aware of the risks ( that would be true hopefully of any helicopter I eventually get to fly ).
What gets my goat when I see stories of the like related by imabell is the fact that other people are willing to take such huge risks ( not imabell, he's just relating them as told to him ). The time-expired blade in the accident mentioned in the CASA article arguably wouldn't have killed anyone if it had been replaced on time.
Having said that, if other people want to do that, then they had better make sure the only person they kill is themselves, or their post-mortem assets will be going elsewhere.
What gets my goat when I see stories of the like related by imabell is the fact that other people are willing to take such huge risks ( not imabell, he's just relating them as told to him ). The time-expired blade in the accident mentioned in the CASA article arguably wouldn't have killed anyone if it had been replaced on time.
Having said that, if other people want to do that, then they had better make sure the only person they kill is themselves, or their post-mortem assets will be going elsewhere.
Guest
Posts: n/a
NR: Australia and New Zealand are notorious for dodgy dealings on parts. I don't know whether this reputation is well-earned, but apart from the incident you mention, the only successful prosecution for manslaughter in this field involved a New Zealand-based company which sold on a scrap tail rotor which subsequently failed. And yes, the machine was an R22. I've heard other stories, too libellous to set down here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
australia is not notorious for dodgy dealing in bogus parts nor is new zealand. if that is a widely held view then that is totally wrong, and should be rectified.
a blade came off a robbie years ago and the pilot was killed, the machine had flown a minimum of 3800 hours without having a 2000 service. the machine had probably done a lot more than that. all the parts on the machine were ex factory.
the robbie that lost a blade and killed the pilot and severely injured the passenger had flown more hours than we will ever know.
the machine had developed a severe vibration in flight and was landed and inspected, the low time pilot/owner got back in and took off, the machine continued to vibrate so badly that even communication was pretty much impossible.
one of the blades had been replaced after an earlier blade strike, which blade failed has not been released. both blades were robbie blades.
there was a case of an automotive bearing being put in a robbie drive train and failing but the robbie had been mustering for a long time before it failed and there are other factors involved in that story and it's very interesting.
the part that was put on the nz machine was a genuine part that was unservicable not bogus. never the less this company was making their own bogus tail rotor blades. the non engineer boss had a history in australia prior to going to nz. he was jailed for his part in the crime.
bogus parts are parts that are made illegally by someone other than the legitimate manufacturer.
there was an article printed years ago in the aviation safety digest (now defunct),
an austalian world leader in accident investigation that had photographs of bogus bits made in india. they were mint even down to the rubber stamp i.d., they didn't get passed square one.
what instance is there of any light or heavy turbine helicopter crashing or having an emergency due to a bogus part. none that i know of.
i have been in this industry a long time and have had the pleasure of flying for some of the best in australia and the displeasure of flying for some of the not as good and have not seen nor heard of application of bogus parts to machines. the nz case is the only major case for years (and he was an australian).
i'm not stupid enough to think that it couldn't happen but doubt that is prevalent enough to be "well known" or has notoriety.
if you have been made aware of this type of problem do something about it. if you want to be part of an industry that holds a certain ammount of respect in the community do something about it. don't get too upset though that if you were to speak out that nothing will happen.
as for mentioning any of these accidents and incidents i believe that we have a right to find out what we can so that we can be better prepared to identify the problems in the future. the atsb is underfunded and undermanned and in the case of helicopters has little to no expertise. they will print the pilots faxed view of things, (ran out of power), as most helicopter accidents are not formally investigated.
if we thought that the unreliability of helicopters or bogus parts was the root cause of accidents i doubt if most of us would get in one. i know that my only concession to any religion is devout cowardice when it comes to pain.
anyway if we keep talking and keep thinking we might keep improving.
------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow
a blade came off a robbie years ago and the pilot was killed, the machine had flown a minimum of 3800 hours without having a 2000 service. the machine had probably done a lot more than that. all the parts on the machine were ex factory.
the robbie that lost a blade and killed the pilot and severely injured the passenger had flown more hours than we will ever know.
the machine had developed a severe vibration in flight and was landed and inspected, the low time pilot/owner got back in and took off, the machine continued to vibrate so badly that even communication was pretty much impossible.
one of the blades had been replaced after an earlier blade strike, which blade failed has not been released. both blades were robbie blades.
there was a case of an automotive bearing being put in a robbie drive train and failing but the robbie had been mustering for a long time before it failed and there are other factors involved in that story and it's very interesting.
the part that was put on the nz machine was a genuine part that was unservicable not bogus. never the less this company was making their own bogus tail rotor blades. the non engineer boss had a history in australia prior to going to nz. he was jailed for his part in the crime.
bogus parts are parts that are made illegally by someone other than the legitimate manufacturer.
there was an article printed years ago in the aviation safety digest (now defunct),
an austalian world leader in accident investigation that had photographs of bogus bits made in india. they were mint even down to the rubber stamp i.d., they didn't get passed square one.
what instance is there of any light or heavy turbine helicopter crashing or having an emergency due to a bogus part. none that i know of.
i have been in this industry a long time and have had the pleasure of flying for some of the best in australia and the displeasure of flying for some of the not as good and have not seen nor heard of application of bogus parts to machines. the nz case is the only major case for years (and he was an australian).
i'm not stupid enough to think that it couldn't happen but doubt that is prevalent enough to be "well known" or has notoriety.
if you have been made aware of this type of problem do something about it. if you want to be part of an industry that holds a certain ammount of respect in the community do something about it. don't get too upset though that if you were to speak out that nothing will happen.
as for mentioning any of these accidents and incidents i believe that we have a right to find out what we can so that we can be better prepared to identify the problems in the future. the atsb is underfunded and undermanned and in the case of helicopters has little to no expertise. they will print the pilots faxed view of things, (ran out of power), as most helicopter accidents are not formally investigated.
if we thought that the unreliability of helicopters or bogus parts was the root cause of accidents i doubt if most of us would get in one. i know that my only concession to any religion is devout cowardice when it comes to pain.
anyway if we keep talking and keep thinking we might keep improving.
------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow
Guest
Posts: n/a
I heard that the problem with thr R22 t/r blade that failed in NZ was, aside from coming off a previously crashed airframe ( I'm not sure if the blades were damaged in that accident ) was that the repaint covered the drain holes clearly visible in pukka R22 t/r blades at the tip. Problem is they cater for expansion and contraction of the air in the blades and that contributed to the failure.
I can't verify that, was told by someone well versed with R22s while in Oz. Anyone care to confirm / deny ?
I can't verify that, was told by someone well versed with R22s while in Oz. Anyone care to confirm / deny ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
This small question could possibley need a thread of its own, but lets see.
In the harsh realities of helicopter work,( ie Life and safety) is it acceptable to buy and use spare parts from scrapped machines or timex airframes or machines that have no obvious history known to the buyer of the said spare parts, even nuts and bolts have a finite life in service, and if parts are being used which have already possibly been harshly treated( even accidentaly) how would you know until the brown stuff hits the fan?
In the harsh realities of helicopter work,( ie Life and safety) is it acceptable to buy and use spare parts from scrapped machines or timex airframes or machines that have no obvious history known to the buyer of the said spare parts, even nuts and bolts have a finite life in service, and if parts are being used which have already possibly been harshly treated( even accidentaly) how would you know until the brown stuff hits the fan?