The R22 corner: Owning, flying & training questions
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NZ
Age: 41
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NZ Southern Alps
Age: 58
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hughesy, old boy,
You're a game man. Feeling like a bit of controversy, are we? Hope you have a good helmet for the incoming when in starts.
Good luck, and know when to duck, my friend.
GP
You're a game man. Feeling like a bit of controversy, are we? Hope you have a good helmet for the incoming when in starts.
Good luck, and know when to duck, my friend.
GP
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im thinking Hugesy that you have not flown 22s that much, almost always the people that bag them have not much experience on them, nothing wrong with them i reckon. Most 22 accidents are from pilot error like most accidents.
BF
BF
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would roll over in a stiff breeze .. but thats going to be a whole other thread, I can't wait !!!! ... 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ON A HILL
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Question About R22 Blade Root Bearings
Could someone tell me how the loadpath is passed through the stack of bearings in the 22 or 44 blade roots. I have dismantled them as far as removing the bearing pack from the blade, but have not had occasion to remove the bearings from their stub shaft. I cannot understand as yet how four of five bearings stacked in this manner achieve a higher load carrying capacity than say one thrust bearing and two radial bearings to accomodate the lift and driving forces. Puzzled Bug.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faa Sfar-73
I would like to know if the regulation SFAR-73 for Robinson R22 is still valid.
In the official letter (SFAR-73) I read as follows: .....3. Expiration date. This SFAR terminates on March 31, 2008, unless sooner superceded or rescinded.
From the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) Switzerland, the answer I get ist not satisfactory!
Thanks for your answers
In the official letter (SFAR-73) I read as follows: .....3. Expiration date. This SFAR terminates on March 31, 2008, unless sooner superceded or rescinded.
From the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) Switzerland, the answer I get ist not satisfactory!
Thanks for your answers
Last edited by Ranger III; 2nd Aug 2009 at 10:37. Reason: FAA SFAR-73
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the reason there is confusion about this is because the SFAR database seems to have a few anomolous entries in it.
One says SFAR73-2 is valid until terminated but the text of the document has 30 June 2009 in it , but the bottom of the document says until terminated. It appears we are supposed to replace the 30 June 2009 with the until terminated entry, I've just had a look at the way the wording about the dates was changed in the other versions of the document and it was done the same way.
The other says SFAR 73 is valid until 30 June 3009 (yes 3009) and yet the document itself say 30 June 2009.
I found this http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-12532.pdf which seems to detail what they actually meant.
I put some stuff together on this ages ago, it doesn't detail the SFAR requirements just the history of the SFAR and what they based it on you can find it at Griffin Helicopters | Interpreting SFAR 73 in the UK.
RangerIII remember that SFAR73 is only mandatory for FAA licenced pilots (possibly to FAA registred helicopters, but I cannot remember that). If you are not under FAA jurisdication the SFAR may not have been adopted by your local authority.
One says SFAR73-2 is valid until terminated but the text of the document has 30 June 2009 in it , but the bottom of the document says until terminated. It appears we are supposed to replace the 30 June 2009 with the until terminated entry, I've just had a look at the way the wording about the dates was changed in the other versions of the document and it was done the same way.
The other says SFAR 73 is valid until 30 June 3009 (yes 3009) and yet the document itself say 30 June 2009.
I found this http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-12532.pdf which seems to detail what they actually meant.
I put some stuff together on this ages ago, it doesn't detail the SFAR requirements just the history of the SFAR and what they based it on you can find it at Griffin Helicopters | Interpreting SFAR 73 in the UK.
RangerIII remember that SFAR73 is only mandatory for FAA licenced pilots (possibly to FAA registred helicopters, but I cannot remember that). If you are not under FAA jurisdication the SFAR may not have been adopted by your local authority.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: airport
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VeeAny
RangerIII remember that SFAR73 is only mandatory for FAA licenced pilots (possibly to FAA registred helicopters, but I cannot remember that). If you are not under FAA jurisdication the SFAR may not have been adopted by your local authority.
The topics of the awareness training were brought to my attention during normal ground lessons at my FAA school in the USA, while this school in Switzerland actually charges for it separately and wrapped it in a 4 hour course.
If I am not wrong then according to the SFAR73 that I remember this awareness training is needed by anyone who manipulates the controls of a R22, not just before the first solo as they describe it.
The R22 POH refers to SFAR73 so it may be required by the Swiss authorities as well, but I don't really know that.
SFAR73 is definitely still valid and not expired.
Runway101
Yes the SFAR is still valid, its just a matter of whether the local authorities have decided to adopt it or not. We are not all licenced as FAA pilots and as such not subject to their rules.
Indeed this link is the SFAR embodied in 14 CFR part 61 which is where it lives Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: and clearly says
which makes life a whole lot easier without needing to look at the SFAR database.
The POH refers to the awareness training in SFAR 73 as part of the last page of the limitations section, and that is only if the wind is outside the limits specified on that page.
That is as a result of an AD (the AD no. is specified at the bottom of the page) that modifies the flight manual, there was a similar one for the R44 which was rescinded a few years ago.
Please don't think that I am trying to say that its not worth doing, I think SFAR 73 is worth its weight in gold, its just the "Is it still applicable" and "Do you legally need to do it according to your national authority" that I am talking about.
Yes the SFAR is still valid, its just a matter of whether the local authorities have decided to adopt it or not. We are not all licenced as FAA pilots and as such not subject to their rules.
Indeed this link is the SFAR embodied in 14 CFR part 61 which is where it lives Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: and clearly says
This SFAR No. 73 shall remain in effect until it is revised or rescinded.
The POH refers to the awareness training in SFAR 73 as part of the last page of the limitations section, and that is only if the wind is outside the limits specified on that page.
That is as a result of an AD (the AD no. is specified at the bottom of the page) that modifies the flight manual, there was a similar one for the R44 which was rescinded a few years ago.
Please don't think that I am trying to say that its not worth doing, I think SFAR 73 is worth its weight in gold, its just the "Is it still applicable" and "Do you legally need to do it according to your national authority" that I am talking about.
Last edited by VeeAny; 2nd Aug 2009 at 18:35.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Down Under
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R22 ignition issues?
Hi,
I am having ignition problems with my R22 and feel that my ignition barrel may be not making contact as it should. Has anyone else had these issues?
I have the barrel out and am testing the different contacts, but without an ignition diagram, I am unable to determine which, or where the fault lies?
Does anyone have access to these diagrams? I can't find them on the net and my engineer is not back for 3 weeks from holiday?
I realise the key switch is wired into other circuits like the rotor brake, clutch system and landing light etc., but still cant find any other reason why its not switching as it should?
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
I am having ignition problems with my R22 and feel that my ignition barrel may be not making contact as it should. Has anyone else had these issues?
I have the barrel out and am testing the different contacts, but without an ignition diagram, I am unable to determine which, or where the fault lies?
Does anyone have access to these diagrams? I can't find them on the net and my engineer is not back for 3 weeks from holiday?
I realise the key switch is wired into other circuits like the rotor brake, clutch system and landing light etc., but still cant find any other reason why its not switching as it should?
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 426 Likes
on
225 Posts
You will of course remember, that to spark, magnetos are "ungrounded" rather than switched on. 
I wouldn't be too worried about it as you have just rendered the aircraft U/S.
Read up on the CASA Regs. I don't think this comes under "pilot maintenance".
Read up on the CASA Regs. I don't think this comes under "pilot maintenance".
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm sure all R22 instructors and pilots who read the 1996 NTSB Report were left with a lingering sense of unease. The problem was that the Californian accident with the student's informal CVR simply defied rational explanation, and that's where it sat with me until an incident last week.
I was flying as an instructor with a low time but very competent student on a routine sortie prior to sending him off on his third solo. We took off, and on the downwind turn (Left Hand), he slightly overbanked it to around 30 degrees. No cause for alarm, and I let him get on with it, knowing it was well within his capabilities to sort out.
In this condition we got hit by a gust, not severe, but enough to increase the bank angle another 10 degrees or so. At that point, my very competent student threw in a bunch of cyclic into the turn. The raw shock factor meant that we were almost on our side before I was able to return us to the horizontal.
However, the shock did not prevent me from observing what had happened. Basically he was pushing the T-Bar cyclic as hard as he could into his seat, as if trying to steer the ship back to level, rather than input opposite lateral cyclic. Of course by pushing the cyclic down, the geometry meant that he was actully adding into turn cyclic.
I have no doubt that had he been on his own, he would have crashed the aircraft and died. I'm also somewhat relieved that because of the shock factor my response was measured, because I think if I'd snatched it back to level we could have had mast bumping.
I'm posting this not to get brickbats or bouquets for what I did, but to give food for thought. I've always been agnostic about the T-Bar cyclic, but I think I'm coming off the fence after this incident.
I was flying as an instructor with a low time but very competent student on a routine sortie prior to sending him off on his third solo. We took off, and on the downwind turn (Left Hand), he slightly overbanked it to around 30 degrees. No cause for alarm, and I let him get on with it, knowing it was well within his capabilities to sort out.
In this condition we got hit by a gust, not severe, but enough to increase the bank angle another 10 degrees or so. At that point, my very competent student threw in a bunch of cyclic into the turn. The raw shock factor meant that we were almost on our side before I was able to return us to the horizontal.
However, the shock did not prevent me from observing what had happened. Basically he was pushing the T-Bar cyclic as hard as he could into his seat, as if trying to steer the ship back to level, rather than input opposite lateral cyclic. Of course by pushing the cyclic down, the geometry meant that he was actully adding into turn cyclic.
I have no doubt that had he been on his own, he would have crashed the aircraft and died. I'm also somewhat relieved that because of the shock factor my response was measured, because I think if I'd snatched it back to level we could have had mast bumping.
I'm posting this not to get brickbats or bouquets for what I did, but to give food for thought. I've always been agnostic about the T-Bar cyclic, but I think I'm coming off the fence after this incident.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 17th Aug 2009 at 16:01.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: airport
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically he was pushing the T-Bar cyclic as hard as he could into his seat, as if trying to steer the ship back to level, rather than input opposite lateral cyclic. Of course by pushing the cyclic down, the geometry meant that he was actually adding into turn cyclic.
Reactions to such unintended and uncontrolled attitudes happen in the sub-conscious, that's why it is so important to get this programmed into your brain. Only when things become second nature, if you know what to do in your sleep and by instinct, then you are ready to go fly a helicopter on your own.
Now I am not your chief, but in my opinion a qualified instructor should ask himself how his student would react in an unexpected situation that gives him only a blink of an eye to react. Would he do the right thing? And I am not talking about entering auto rotation quick enough if the engine fails or even lowering the collective instead of raising it. I am speaking of something unexpected and not trained for. If the answer is 'i am not sure' or 'i am not confident', don't let your student go solo. Try him, that's what you are there for. If they are not there yet, talk to them about visualization and sofa flying.
I am not sure how long you have been instructing or if I am on to something completely wrong here, but I'd rather take this as an opportunity for yourself to improve your ability to rate a student as ready or not (instead of blaming the stupid Robinson cyclic design).
There, I said it, I am also not a friend of the cyclic design, I would rather like to use something like in a real helicopter (actually, I would like to fly a real helicopter instead of a Robinson, best the AW139). But I personally wouldn't blame the cyclic for this eye opening situation. Take it positive and look out in the future.
My 2 cents.
(sorry if this sounds like a lecture, wasn't intended as such and you would probably be the more qualified person to give lectures to myself)