R22 operational safety - somebody enlighten me
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem no matter how much they cost, piston or turbine they still crash from time to time. So I dont think all of the 10000 owners would waste their money on over priced turbines.
Biggests is not always best !!!!
Biggests is not always best !!!!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
For what it's worth Aucky, I've not seen anyone shot down as much and as efficiently as that before 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
He'll be back don't worry with much the same argument as 902 (which I was waiting for). I'm not trying to put anyone down, just saying that all helicopters have risks involved. Yes a twin has added redundancy in certain circumstances, and more advanced warning systems, and in some circumstances a far more experienced pilot who might make better decisions preventing a crash. But an R44 is far from underpowered unless full of fuel and Pax. Power is all relative isn't it - 2 POB, 3/4 fuel in an R44 and your good to land anywhere that you'd want to go with 3 POB in a 206. Interestingly I sat in on an instructional flight in a 120 from Redhill, 3 up, a fair bit of fuel, and rate of climb at max take-off power @60kts was 500'min. Hardly plentiful of power but probably considered by most a 'real' helicopter. I've seen much better 3 up in an R44, and without the "dubious handling" tail rotor issues when heavy and pulling lots of power...
I'd like to fly any of the aforementioned helicopters, not bashing any of them, but accept the associated risks involved in each case.
I'd like to fly any of the aforementioned helicopters, not bashing any of them, but accept the associated risks involved in each case.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Sorry, I meant to say,
'For what it's worth Aucky, I've not seen anyone shot down as much and as efficiently, as you have just been, before !'
'For what it's worth Aucky, I've not seen anyone shot down as much and as efficiently, as you have just been, before !'
This thread is in danger of drifting.........
Aucky:
Of the 8 incidents you quoted (the remaining 2 were robbo's) I would hazard a guess that perhaps 3 were pilot error, looking briefly at the headlines.
Of the 8 robbo's that have stoofed in the last 2 weeks, how many of those were pilot error?
The problem is this: if you make an error with a 'normal' helo, a normal helo gives you a little slack. Sometimes that's enough to recover the situation and live to fly another day. With a Robbo it doesn't afford you that luxury. And this is when a (novice) pilot gets 'burned'.
I think if you pulled up all the crashes over the last few years, Pro Rata, the Robbo still shines through as the most prevalent.
It's cheap it's basic and it bites...simples. Add to that the type of person who flies it; the schools that use it to teach abbo's and you end up with a lethal cocktail within financial reach of the "masses".
Christ, you only have to walk around the damn thing..........
Do the factory course, stick to the limited flight envelope and don't treat it like a Ford mondeo! Then, you might live long enough to move onto something (single engined piston) substantial.
Aucky:
Of the 8 incidents you quoted (the remaining 2 were robbo's) I would hazard a guess that perhaps 3 were pilot error, looking briefly at the headlines.
Of the 8 robbo's that have stoofed in the last 2 weeks, how many of those were pilot error?
The problem is this: if you make an error with a 'normal' helo, a normal helo gives you a little slack. Sometimes that's enough to recover the situation and live to fly another day. With a Robbo it doesn't afford you that luxury. And this is when a (novice) pilot gets 'burned'.
I think if you pulled up all the crashes over the last few years, Pro Rata, the Robbo still shines through as the most prevalent.
It's cheap it's basic and it bites...simples. Add to that the type of person who flies it; the schools that use it to teach abbo's and you end up with a lethal cocktail within financial reach of the "masses".
Christ, you only have to walk around the damn thing..........
Do the factory course, stick to the limited flight envelope and don't treat it like a Ford mondeo! Then, you might live long enough to move onto something (single engined piston) substantial.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Back here again... sorry, wasn't my intention.
TC - I think we know where you stand on the robinson range.
I didn't know anyone knew the actual answer to this yet. Please do tell...
Once again I'd be keen to see the details if you have them? Especially when corrected for the comparative number in the sky. But i'm sure your right, if you include those down to pilot error. If your going to use the old car analogy, I think it's obvious statistics would show that any fiesta (inexperienced driver) will be in more lethal accidents than mercedes (experienced driver). We know the robinson is less forgiving, and less well matched with somebody of low experience than perhaps a 206 in the event of certain mechanical failures, but i'm still not sold that this likelihood is higher (when corrected for the number in the sky, and the number of hours flown)... If we accept that level of risk, then all we can do is try to be your best at what we do, learn from the unfortunate mistakes of others, and best prepare ourself for the worst. I am not able to conclude the never ending debate, nor is anyone, unless someone actually produces the relevant statistics... But a has been said by many before, I wouldn't be flying without them, so am thankful that they are about. Thankfully for you, you don't have to get in one
Sid - I thought that was a little out of character
TC - I think we know where you stand on the robinson range.
Of the 8 robbo's that have stoofed in the last 2 weeks, how many of those were pilot error?
I think if you pulled up all the crashes over the last few years, Pro Rata, the Robbo still shines through as the most prevalent
Sid - I thought that was a little out of character
Last edited by Aucky; 21st Jan 2012 at 15:48.
I see another Robbo down again today:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/474...ter-crash.html
Pushing it closer to the 500 mark since inception:
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety WikiBase > ASN Aviation Safety Database results
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/474...ter-crash.html
Pushing it closer to the 500 mark since inception:
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety WikiBase > ASN Aviation Safety Database results
Lies, damn lies and statistics - you can't adjust the figures pro rata to reduce the risk because it ignores the facts:
Robinsons are flown by many low time, non-professional pilots with irregular continuity of flying practise and almost zero post-graduate instruction.
In ANY helicopter that would represent a high level of risk but, when coupled with a low inertia rotor system, a teetering head susceptible to mast-bumping, a high rotor mast which (along with the lack of control power) makes dynamic rollover more prevalent, no autostabilisation and no IFR capability (because of the handling qualities) you have a recipe for disaster.
Hence the actual number of Robbie accidents (not emergency landings) - that is a lot and despite trying to break that down by numbers of aircraft, hours flown or any other statistical fudge factor, you find that Uncle Frank's babies have killed a lot of people.
TC's link speaks for itself.
If all new drivers were in new Fiestas with ABS, airbags, stability control etc etc they would certainly survive more low-experience mistakes - if they were in 30 year-old 2CVs (the Robbie is not a new helicopter) they would be less likely to do so.
Robinsons are flown by many low time, non-professional pilots with irregular continuity of flying practise and almost zero post-graduate instruction.
In ANY helicopter that would represent a high level of risk but, when coupled with a low inertia rotor system, a teetering head susceptible to mast-bumping, a high rotor mast which (along with the lack of control power) makes dynamic rollover more prevalent, no autostabilisation and no IFR capability (because of the handling qualities) you have a recipe for disaster.
Hence the actual number of Robbie accidents (not emergency landings) - that is a lot and despite trying to break that down by numbers of aircraft, hours flown or any other statistical fudge factor, you find that Uncle Frank's babies have killed a lot of people.
TC's link speaks for itself.
If all new drivers were in new Fiestas with ABS, airbags, stability control etc etc they would certainly survive more low-experience mistakes - if they were in 30 year-old 2CVs (the Robbie is not a new helicopter) they would be less likely to do so.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura Ca U.S.A.
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Crabby- How do you get auto stablization? Bell 212?
Every other machine I've flown from Robinson,Hughes,Enstrom,Bell,Sikorsky,Brantly,Rotorway,Type certified & experimental has No auto sab equiptment.
Control power has nothing with Dynamic roll over.
Mast bumping? Try the Bell line when the Army was finding new ways to make smokin holes.
You need to go back to school & learn more on helicopter design, use & real risks.
What do you fly?
Every other machine I've flown from Robinson,Hughes,Enstrom,Bell,Sikorsky,Brantly,Rotorway,Type certified & experimental has No auto sab equiptment.
Control power has nothing with Dynamic roll over.
Mast bumping? Try the Bell line when the Army was finding new ways to make smokin holes.
You need to go back to school & learn more on helicopter design, use & real risks.
What do you fly?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Once again I'd be keen to see the details if you have them?
I like this page
Helicopter Safety | UK Helicopter Accident Occurences By Manufacturer
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
TTB - I have to agree when looking at those stats.
Sid - from the website you linked -
So lets compare the number of G-reg aircraft by make from G-INFO vs accidents & % fatal:
No of Robinsons on the G-REG = 465 vs 148 accidents 31% (9.5% fatal)
No of Bell helicopters on the G-REG = 122 (including Agusta-Bell variants) vs 33 accidents 27% (21.2% fatal, of which 18 people were killed in the total 33 accidents)
No of Eurocopters on the G-REG = 184 vs 72 accidents 39.1% (12.5% fatal)
No of Enstrom on G-REG = 54 vs 28 accidents 52% (3.57% fatal)
No of Sikorsky on the G-REG = 57 vs 21 accidents 36.8% (9.52 fatal)
This is based on that stats you have provided for the UK over a given period vs the number UK registered aircraft by each make. It doesn't paint a particularly pretty picture really, regardless of type. Shame we don't know how many hours are flown by average on each aircraft type too. I reckon each robbie is flying a good number more than each jet ranger or enstrom on average...? Let's not forget that these figures also include (and make no compensation for) the vast number of inexperienced pilots flying about in robbies compared with other types as previously mentioned by most...
not quite sure why...
Not by Sid's stats.
If you do make it all proportional then Sid's statistics suggest that a robbie is indeed safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell even behind the hands of the low-houred masses. If you don't make it all proportional and relevant then Franks babies are certainly safer than that fiesta.
(ducking for cover)
Sid - from the website you linked -
Taken from a study of the Griffin Helicopters accident database since 09 Jan 1997 the study comprises a review of 405 rotary wing accidents and incidents involving UK registered aircraft of which 386 involved helicopters and 40 were fatal.
No of Robinsons on the G-REG = 465 vs 148 accidents 31% (9.5% fatal)
No of Bell helicopters on the G-REG = 122 (including Agusta-Bell variants) vs 33 accidents 27% (21.2% fatal, of which 18 people were killed in the total 33 accidents)
No of Eurocopters on the G-REG = 184 vs 72 accidents 39.1% (12.5% fatal)
No of Enstrom on G-REG = 54 vs 28 accidents 52% (3.57% fatal)
No of Sikorsky on the G-REG = 57 vs 21 accidents 36.8% (9.52 fatal)
This is based on that stats you have provided for the UK over a given period vs the number UK registered aircraft by each make. It doesn't paint a particularly pretty picture really, regardless of type. Shame we don't know how many hours are flown by average on each aircraft type too. I reckon each robbie is flying a good number more than each jet ranger or enstrom on average...? Let's not forget that these figures also include (and make no compensation for) the vast number of inexperienced pilots flying about in robbies compared with other types as previously mentioned by most...
Sid - I like this page
TC - I think if you pulled up all the crashes over the last few years, Pro Rata, the Robbo still shines through as the most prevalent
Crab - Hence the actual number of Robbie accidents (not emergency landings) - that is a lot and despite trying to break that down by numbers of aircraft, hours flown or any other statistical fudge factor, you find that Uncle Frank's babies have killed a lot of people.
(ducking for cover)
Last edited by Aucky; 22nd Jan 2012 at 01:04. Reason: Addition of Agusta-bell to Bell numbers
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I don't quite see how they have suddenly become my stats.
Anyway
I take it you both missed;
Helicopter Safety | UK Helicopter Accident Trends
According to toptobottoms picture, during the period stated;
Of the 386 accidents shown 38.4% were Robinsons.
Of the total number of fatalities 35% were in Robinson.
s
Compare those figures to the company with the next greater set of numbers,
Of the 386 accidents shown 18.7% were Eurocopter
Of the total number of fatalities 22% were Eurocopter
Please, either of you, explain how
"According to that data, the Robbie is safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell...!! "
Anyway
SS
According to that data, the Robbie is safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell...!!
http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/a...er/Capture.jpg
Aucky;
TTB - I have to agree when you looking at those stats.
According to that data, the Robbie is safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell...!!
http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/a...er/Capture.jpg
Aucky;
TTB - I have to agree when you looking at those stats.
Helicopter Safety | UK Helicopter Accident Trends
Robinson Helicopter Corporation were the manufacturer with the highest number of accidents occuring to their helicopters, being involved in 148.
The R22 was the helicopter type involved in most helicopter accidents during the period, being involved in 101.
The R22 was the helicopter type involved in the highest number of fatal helicopter accidents, being involved in 8.
The R22 was the helicopter type involved in most helicopter accidents during the period, being involved in 101.
The R22 was the helicopter type involved in the highest number of fatal helicopter accidents, being involved in 8.
According to toptobottoms picture, during the period stated;
Of the 386 accidents shown 38.4% were Robinsons.
Of the total number of fatalities 35% were in Robinson.
s
Compare those figures to the company with the next greater set of numbers,
Of the 386 accidents shown 18.7% were Eurocopter
Of the total number of fatalities 22% were Eurocopter
Please, either of you, explain how
"According to that data, the Robbie is safer than Sikorsky, Aeorspatiale, Rotorway, Eurocopter, Bolkow and Bell...!! "
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
This argument goes round and round.
Apart from some folk simply misinterpreting data, the figures also don't allow for the overall hours flown by type, number of occupants carried by type, operational use of type, along with other factors that may balance the figures more comparatively.
Some like Robinsons, some don't.
Some feel safe, some don't.
Simples!
Apart from some folk simply misinterpreting data, the figures also don't allow for the overall hours flown by type, number of occupants carried by type, operational use of type, along with other factors that may balance the figures more comparatively.
Some like Robinsons, some don't.
Some feel safe, some don't.
Simples!
Hillberg
I think you may need to go back to school and learn to read English
Where in my post did I say any of those other helos had autostab? I listed some poor qualities of the R22 which are not all specific to type; which other popular helicopter has the same list? And which other manufacturer has to run a safety course to make pilots aware of all the aircraft's shortcomings?
The low inertia rotor head has caused many a vertical crash when the pilot reacts too late to an engine failure - blades cone up, aircraft falls from sky!
The teetering head susceptible to mast bumping has caused rotor mast failures and MR blade strikes on cockpits and tail booms. Didn't Uncle Frank learn anything from the US Army's crashes?
A high rotor mast COUPLED (read the word) with a low control power means that you are more likely to encounter dynamic rollover (the high rotor mast is a long lever) and less likely to recover in the early stages (low control power means opposite cyclic has little effect). To my knowledge, no-one has ever dynamically rolled over a Lynx - could this have something to do with the huge control power (effective hinge offset - 14%) that means the cyclic can produce a large rolling moment of the fuselage even at low collective pitch settings? Control power is a factor in dynamic rollover.
No autostabilisation has caused many IIMC events to become fatal crashes and the lack of IFR certification is because of the aircraft's poor handling qualities.
If you really want to know - I have flown the Gazelle, Wessex, Lynx, Sea King, AW139, Bell 212, Bell UH-1, Bell 206, Squirrel AND the R22. At the moment I fly the Sea King 3 and 3A in the SAR role - I'm not sure what any of that has to do with this thread but you seem to think it is important.
As SS has shown (repeatedly) the stats make the Robbie the leader in numbers of accidents and fatalities.
You need to go back to school & learn more on helicopter design, use & real risks.
Where in my post did I say any of those other helos had autostab? I listed some poor qualities of the R22 which are not all specific to type; which other popular helicopter has the same list? And which other manufacturer has to run a safety course to make pilots aware of all the aircraft's shortcomings?
The low inertia rotor head has caused many a vertical crash when the pilot reacts too late to an engine failure - blades cone up, aircraft falls from sky!
The teetering head susceptible to mast bumping has caused rotor mast failures and MR blade strikes on cockpits and tail booms. Didn't Uncle Frank learn anything from the US Army's crashes?
A high rotor mast COUPLED (read the word) with a low control power means that you are more likely to encounter dynamic rollover (the high rotor mast is a long lever) and less likely to recover in the early stages (low control power means opposite cyclic has little effect). To my knowledge, no-one has ever dynamically rolled over a Lynx - could this have something to do with the huge control power (effective hinge offset - 14%) that means the cyclic can produce a large rolling moment of the fuselage even at low collective pitch settings? Control power is a factor in dynamic rollover.
No autostabilisation has caused many IIMC events to become fatal crashes and the lack of IFR certification is because of the aircraft's poor handling qualities.
If you really want to know - I have flown the Gazelle, Wessex, Lynx, Sea King, AW139, Bell 212, Bell UH-1, Bell 206, Squirrel AND the R22. At the moment I fly the Sea King 3 and 3A in the SAR role - I'm not sure what any of that has to do with this thread but you seem to think it is important.
As SS has shown (repeatedly) the stats make the Robbie the leader in numbers of accidents and fatalities.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sid - I don't quite see how they have suddenly become my stats.
Crab - As SS has shown (repeatedly) the stats make the Robbie the leader in numbers of accidents and fatalities.
Sid - I take it you both missed;
Helicopter Safety | UK Helicopter Accident Trends
Quote:
Robinson Helicopter Corporation were the manufacturer with the highest number of accidents occuring to their helicopters, being involved in 148.
The R22 was the helicopter type involved in most helicopter accidents during the period, being involved in 101.
The R22 was the helicopter type involved in the highest number of fatal helicopter accidents, being involved in 8.
Helicopter Safety | UK Helicopter Accident Trends
Quote:
Robinson Helicopter Corporation were the manufacturer with the highest number of accidents occuring to their helicopters, being involved in 148.
The R22 was the helicopter type involved in most helicopter accidents during the period, being involved in 101.
The R22 was the helicopter type involved in the highest number of fatal helicopter accidents, being involved in 8.
There are 3 times the number of Robinsons in the UK than there are Eurocopters, so you would expect there to be 3 times the number of accidents if they were equally safe... Actually there were only twice as many, so proportionally the eurocopters crash with much greater regularity, and 12.5% of these crashes were fatal vs the robbies 9.5%...
Still with me? We could go on through the other types...
There are 8 times the number of Robinsons in the UK than there are Sikorskys, so you would expect there to be 8 times the number of accidents if they were equally safe... Actually there were only 7 times as many, so proportionally the skiorskys crash with much greater regularity, and 9.5% of these crashes were fatal exactly the same as the robbies 9.5%...
So, when you compare a robinson with a eurocopter, sikorsky, enstrom & bolkow et... less robinsons crash as a percentage of the number of that type of aircraft in the air which is the useful statistic to use when concerning safety. Thats what the stats show! And... of those crashes a greater percentage in the bell, eurocopter, and sikorsky are fatal (the fatality stats don't take into account number of people board which is likely to be more in variants of the sikorsky, bell, augusta variety arguably making them more dangerous). Thereby showing the robsinson is in fact less likely to crash, and in the event of a crash less likely to lead to a fatality (and in the event of a fatality likely to have less people on board). Yes, there is a greater chance that if a helicopter crashes in the UK it's a robinson, because there are 3 times more of them in the uk than ANY other make, but any robinson in the sky is less likely to crash than the eurocopters, sikorsky's, enstroms etc... even with all the low-hour, low-experience pilots at the stick.
Once again, I fly Bell's too, and love doing so, and would like to fly the other more statistically dangerous types too Eurocopters, Sikorskys... but i don't spend hours online trying to put them down for being less safe.
How you can interpret these stats in any other way is beyond me and I think you'd be quick to read them this way if they painted a less favourable picture about the robinson.
This argument goes round and round.
Good news no-one hurt, but even better news that another Robinson bites the dust. Their ratings in the accident statistics database will be off the scale after 2012 has been plotted. Is it 6 or 7 that have stoofed this month so far?
The Lada's of the helo world have caused more upset than the worth of it. Good riddance. The government should ban them like they did the cars.
The Lada's of the helo world have caused more upset than the worth of it. Good riddance. The government should ban them like they did the cars.
With this in mind perhaps we can leave the Robinson argument out of it, and try to use these threads to promote useful informative information to those that have asked for it in future? I think that would be the most beneficial outcome for all as this does get tiring, and it's that same folk who spur it on ever time. My persistence on this occasion is purely to try and achieve exactly that. Why not just leave the bashing... you bring it up, back it up with stats that prove exactly the opposite, and then complain that it comes back to this again. So maybe don't bring it up...
newfieboy, I think it was uniformkilo and aucky on page one that gave us the impression it was a confined area site. Hence the advice given by some earlier. Then the photos appeared.
Uniform kilo - Back to Vyrnwy, yes please
The only way to settle this discussion is to normalise the data; to do that you need to know the accident rates - i.e. the number of accidents over the number of hours flown.
No-one can do that because the hours flown (in the Robinson) are not collected. (They could be estimated because of its maintenance/overhaul regime.) One of the reasons that CAT exposure has never been extended to the Robinson is because we could not establish the reliability of its engines without those figures.
The headline rate (called that for a good reason) is of no use to anyone trying to establish the risk profile. As some have pointed out, data could be collected about the population of pilots who fly the Robinson; that at least might provide some clues about the human factors elements.
With respect to the headline rate, the analogy with the accident record of certain cars was a good one.
Jim
No-one can do that because the hours flown (in the Robinson) are not collected. (They could be estimated because of its maintenance/overhaul regime.) One of the reasons that CAT exposure has never been extended to the Robinson is because we could not establish the reliability of its engines without those figures.
The headline rate (called that for a good reason) is of no use to anyone trying to establish the risk profile. As some have pointed out, data could be collected about the population of pilots who fly the Robinson; that at least might provide some clues about the human factors elements.
With respect to the headline rate, the analogy with the accident record of certain cars was a good one.
Jim
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HLS map - http://goo.gl/maps/3ymt
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
JimL - I agree, it cannot be concluded without all the additional required information. I think it's generally accepted that the profile of pilots across the board is accepted as being generally less skilled, low-hour pilots on the robinson range, and more skilled, high-time pilots on the bigger types. Also I think a good number of Robinsons are flying around 200-300 hrs a year, many a lot more, and some a bit less, which is probably comparable to the 206's across the board? probably more than the average eurocopters? From what we have in front of us the accident rates in robinsons (especially considering the relatively lack of experience in many of their pilots) doesn't seem to be as disproportionately high as is often made out. Infact not at all. Would you agree?
People presenting such statistics, in hope of shaming the robinson family, is a waste of time, lacks evidential value, and without further information suggests that robinsons are in general safer.
People presenting such statistics, in hope of shaming the robinson family, is a waste of time, lacks evidential value, and without further information suggests that robinsons are in general safer.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one can do that because the hours flown (in the Robinson) are not collected.
There is nothing Darwinian about the profusion of Robinsons, Henry T Ford capitalised on the same theory as did the Australian manufacturer of the cheap family car - drum roll - the Holden - after the war.
Old Henry had some interesting quotes for those interested, some right up TC's alley.
Like this;-
If I was in a Robinson it would be quite OK cause I could do a vertical out of there in my Beta at MAUW alla-ways-up to 5,000DA, leaving plenty of room for the other big talking cats A, that might be prowling around.