R44 accidents: Is there a pattern?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R44 accidents: Is there a pattern?
I know of FIVE similar accidents in the UK this year in R44s. Either on landing or taking off.
All by low-houred pilots.
None of them has hurt the occupants, but one sadly injured a by-stander.
But we shouldn't be relying on luck -- an accident like this in France killed all four occupants when the aircraft burst into flames.
Big Ls
All by low-houred pilots.
None of them has hurt the occupants, but one sadly injured a by-stander.
But we shouldn't be relying on luck -- an accident like this in France killed all four occupants when the aircraft burst into flames.
Big Ls
Bigls
I make it 6 possibly 7 G reg R44 accidents all with similar circumstances this year.
Something clearly isn't working, whether that's training , testing or general ability is another matter.
GS
I make it 6 possibly 7 G reg R44 accidents all with similar circumstances this year.
Something clearly isn't working, whether that's training , testing or general ability is another matter.
GS
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: england
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the instructor / flying school owned the aircraft they would probably be double sure the student was completely ready for the solo flight both mentally and practical ability on the the day.
Most machines have a minimum £5k excess on the insurance I would make the instructor responsible. This would reduce accidents / improve training.
Some idiot send me solo a 11 hours and it would of been less weather permitting. My machine your not going solo until 25 hours ready or not
I would be interested to hear of any other early solo's and how you got on (looking back now knowing what you know now)
Most machines have a minimum £5k excess on the insurance I would make the instructor responsible. This would reduce accidents / improve training.
Some idiot send me solo a 11 hours and it would of been less weather permitting. My machine your not going solo until 25 hours ready or not
I would be interested to hear of any other early solo's and how you got on (looking back now knowing what you know now)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Land of the Trolls
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you VeeAny, something seems to be lacking somewhere 
or maybe it's just bad judgement or common sense
can't stop visualising the video of the guy trying to take-off in a R44 beside a hangar, then clipping the over hanging door
haven't got the link to hand but I'm sure you've all seen it
regards
Pv
or maybe it's just bad judgement or common sensecan't stop visualising the video of the guy trying to take-off in a R44 beside a hangar, then clipping the over hanging door
haven't got the link to hand but I'm sure you've all seen it
regards
Pv
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right Gary.
How about this for a theory:
Chap does training with same instructor, same aircraft, roughly same amount of fuel, and roughly 1 hour flight duration.
Gets his licence.
Chap is either light or heavy: it doesn't matter.
Chap goes for long flight, without instructor, comes back and is spooked by the difference in the angle of the skids to the ground on first contact compared to what he's used to and what it was like on take-off.
Then the over/under controlling starts to happen, and the rest is history.
The same is also true on take-off, or with passengers sitting in the back, or just on one side.
It's all within limits, but it just "feels different". If you are in-experienced, this may well "feel wrong". Hence the ensuing over/under-control.
It's only a theory, I'm not an instructor and I'll be delighted if my theory is utter rubbish.
But as sure as eggs is eggs, there's a commonality in all these accidents, and it is just a matter of time before someone is killed. And it doesn't have to happen if we can work out what is going wrong.
Big Ls
How about this for a theory:
Chap does training with same instructor, same aircraft, roughly same amount of fuel, and roughly 1 hour flight duration.
Gets his licence.
Chap is either light or heavy: it doesn't matter.
Chap goes for long flight, without instructor, comes back and is spooked by the difference in the angle of the skids to the ground on first contact compared to what he's used to and what it was like on take-off.
Then the over/under controlling starts to happen, and the rest is history.
The same is also true on take-off, or with passengers sitting in the back, or just on one side.
It's all within limits, but it just "feels different". If you are in-experienced, this may well "feel wrong". Hence the ensuing over/under-control.
It's only a theory, I'm not an instructor and I'll be delighted if my theory is utter rubbish.
But as sure as eggs is eggs, there's a commonality in all these accidents, and it is just a matter of time before someone is killed. And it doesn't have to happen if we can work out what is going wrong.
Big Ls
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: lake district
Age: 48
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more should be made of weight and balance when solo in the r44 its a real handful.... minimum solo pilot weight 150lbs according to poh. i remember my first solo was half tanks and despite weighing 190lbs it felt so back heavy...
my suspicion is that while the r44 training is excellent... the weight and balance implications are just an after thought.
my suspicion is that while the r44 training is excellent... the weight and balance implications are just an after thought.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: West Midlands, UK.
Age: 73
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may sound ridiculous but what I really wanted on my first R22 solo (and on the little 'into the hover down to the ground' lifts prior) was a dummy sat in the left seat. Same height/bulk/weight as a regular instructor.
The dummy height was to keep the restricted viz real, the dummy weight for obvious reasons and the dummy bulk to retain the restricted elbow movement.
Without such a dummy I had seemingly limitless power, limitless viz and the freedom to do weird things with my left arm all with the sensation of the machine being tilted by 30 degrees.
Without the instructor/dummy a lot more light reflected from the instrument glass (I was trained to inspect the T's and P's regularly and, because I spent to much time on MS sim, I always wanted to look more inside than outside).
On the vast 30 hours I accrued post solo the feeling never left me and I asked regularly if I could take up a passenger to replace the instructor bulk.
The answer was always a sensible 'NO' from a 30,000 hours man who said 'we expect a period of consolidation'.
He was right of course as he was right in the pre-solo brief which covered most of the above except the psychological angle of not having something in the LHS.
Regards
Cron
The dummy height was to keep the restricted viz real, the dummy weight for obvious reasons and the dummy bulk to retain the restricted elbow movement.
Without such a dummy I had seemingly limitless power, limitless viz and the freedom to do weird things with my left arm all with the sensation of the machine being tilted by 30 degrees.
Without the instructor/dummy a lot more light reflected from the instrument glass (I was trained to inspect the T's and P's regularly and, because I spent to much time on MS sim, I always wanted to look more inside than outside).
On the vast 30 hours I accrued post solo the feeling never left me and I asked regularly if I could take up a passenger to replace the instructor bulk.
The answer was always a sensible 'NO' from a 30,000 hours man who said 'we expect a period of consolidation'.
He was right of course as he was right in the pre-solo brief which covered most of the above except the psychological angle of not having something in the LHS.
Regards
Cron
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: lake district
Age: 48
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why did your instructor not suggest some ballast??? its not a big ask!!! in the adrenaline mist of your first solo the last thing you want is an unfamiliar feeling aircraft.
discussing the feel of a solo aircraft should take place hours before the actual solo i feel, and ballast option should be thoroughly briefed.
discussing the feel of a solo aircraft should take place hours before the actual solo i feel, and ballast option should be thoroughly briefed.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember asking for ballast in my student days in the R22 but my flight instructor quite rightly refused it, making me more reliant on my own judgement for things like hovering and landing.
I once flew an R44 and couldn't help noticing the rubber grip on the cyclic had been torn to shreds by nervous students, many of them whom had transitioned from the R22 and were not used to flying a larger machine. The vertical movement in the T-cyclic doesn't help as it affects the sensitivity in lateral control and (depending on your knee height) the cyclic grip is presented to students at different angles (not ergonomically efficient).
I once flew an R44 and couldn't help noticing the rubber grip on the cyclic had been torn to shreds by nervous students, many of them whom had transitioned from the R22 and were not used to flying a larger machine. The vertical movement in the T-cyclic doesn't help as it affects the sensitivity in lateral control and (depending on your knee height) the cyclic grip is presented to students at different angles (not ergonomically efficient).
I'm not sure what the "similar accidents" or "similar circumstances" are that the previous posts refer to - please enlighten me! Unless you guys know something I don't, the PIC could have been a very experienced SFH'er?! Have i missed something 
TTB
TTB
R44
ReverseFlight - I remember my instructor (who weighed all of 150lbs) putting ballast under the left hand seat in my R22 in prep for my first solo. Thinking back, the ballast can't have weighed more than 20lbs, so the difference wouldn't have been that noticeable, even with such a light instructor. Maybe the placebo effect gave me more confidence (not necessarily a good thing!)? Providing the stude can lift nice and slowly into the hover, surely the difference in a/c attitude due to weight & balance is no worse than compensating for the effects of a stiff breeze?!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember being 'surprised' by the change in attitude of the 44 after I did my type rating with Geoff Day when he got out. 
(how is he these days? - not seen him for years)
I had about 100 hours at the time. I should imagine the first solo in a 44 would be a bit of a handful. The 44 doesnt strike me as an ideal trainer. Just my opinion. It was an Astro but I dont think the W&B implications are different are they?
(how is he these days? - not seen him for years) I had about 100 hours at the time. I should imagine the first solo in a 44 would be a bit of a handful. The 44 doesnt strike me as an ideal trainer. Just my opinion. It was an Astro but I dont think the W&B implications are different are they?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll never forget how different the R22 was on my first solo. 15 stone of instructor gets out and you lift for the first time and it took me a couple seconds to get it stable in the hover. After that it was ok.
I guess its what happens in those couple of seconds that either results in a take off or a bent chopper.
I guess its what happens in those couple of seconds that either results in a take off or a bent chopper.
TTB
The simlar circumstances I refer to are the 6 or 7 R44 seemingly dynamic rollover accidents that have occured this year to G registration R44 helicopters.
The AAIB are not investigating all of them (they may not be investigating any for all I know) and some will be dealt with by a form submitted to them by the pilot / operator.
I know for a fact that several of the pilots concerned are inexperienced, some of them were solo students and even if they were very experienced SFHers something has still gone wrong when accidents are happening just because the aircraft was landing or taking off, if there are no technical defects with the aircraft.
How many organisations stop their SFHers flying when they do not meet the limits of the AD set in the limitiations section of the R22 (not R44 anymore) POH ?
Unrelated to the R44 accidents but relevant nonetheless
Pilots make mistakes, but so do instructors, examiners and the system in which we operate, these accidents are not just happening and a shrug of the shoulders won't make them stop, I have suggested to the CAA a couple of times that they should start to look for patterns in where training is carried out and by whom the pilots who go on to have accidents are trained and tested by to see if there is any commonality, there may not be, but I doubt it.
There are examiners out there who will sign off LSTs and LPCs because they are being paid, they surely must shoulder some of the responsibility when some of the accidents that subsequently occur happen.
Is it right for examiners to fly over MAUW rather than split LSTs in two because they would need to refuel ? I suggest not, but it is happening. What message is that sending to the new pilots ?
Sometimes people fly outside their own abilites, sometimes they are taught badly and sometimes they are tested badly. The repsonsibility does not always lie with the guy at the controls, if he knows no better because the training and testing system has failed him.
The simlar circumstances I refer to are the 6 or 7 R44 seemingly dynamic rollover accidents that have occured this year to G registration R44 helicopters.
The AAIB are not investigating all of them (they may not be investigating any for all I know) and some will be dealt with by a form submitted to them by the pilot / operator.
I know for a fact that several of the pilots concerned are inexperienced, some of them were solo students and even if they were very experienced SFHers something has still gone wrong when accidents are happening just because the aircraft was landing or taking off, if there are no technical defects with the aircraft.
How many organisations stop their SFHers flying when they do not meet the limits of the AD set in the limitiations section of the R22 (not R44 anymore) POH ?
Unrelated to the R44 accidents but relevant nonetheless
Pilots make mistakes, but so do instructors, examiners and the system in which we operate, these accidents are not just happening and a shrug of the shoulders won't make them stop, I have suggested to the CAA a couple of times that they should start to look for patterns in where training is carried out and by whom the pilots who go on to have accidents are trained and tested by to see if there is any commonality, there may not be, but I doubt it.
There are examiners out there who will sign off LSTs and LPCs because they are being paid, they surely must shoulder some of the responsibility when some of the accidents that subsequently occur happen.
Is it right for examiners to fly over MAUW rather than split LSTs in two because they would need to refuel ? I suggest not, but it is happening. What message is that sending to the new pilots ?
Sometimes people fly outside their own abilites, sometimes they are taught badly and sometimes they are tested badly. The repsonsibility does not always lie with the guy at the controls, if he knows no better because the training and testing system has failed him.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Veeany - again I have to agree with you.
We have to look at the training and other factors.
As Veeany says, we cannot simply blame the pilots. The training, the schools, the instructors, the syllabus, the ethos, are all contributing factors that lead up to a pile of bits on the floor.
If the stats exist relating to accidents and incidents per school per pilot trained, it would be very, very interesting to see whether some schools were better or worse than others.
It would be a great marketing tool too -- a league table of safe training establishments would help a new pilot make his/her choice.
BigLs
We have to look at the training and other factors.
As Veeany says, we cannot simply blame the pilots. The training, the schools, the instructors, the syllabus, the ethos, are all contributing factors that lead up to a pile of bits on the floor.
If the stats exist relating to accidents and incidents per school per pilot trained, it would be very, very interesting to see whether some schools were better or worse than others.
It would be a great marketing tool too -- a league table of safe training establishments would help a new pilot make his/her choice.
BigLs
Re training and organisations paying lip service to LPC standards and the AD limits in a 22's POH, i'm quite sure it happens, but maybe not as much as it did (paradoxically, if incidents are on the increase, but maybe that's your point). I've seen many a low time, naively optimistic SFH'er turned away when the Wx has been marginal, particularly on gusty days, much to their dismay.
If a pilot is a familiar face and 'known' to the testing org as an experienced/competent pilot, then inevitably the LPC is more likely to be a formality than if the pilot is either unknown, or known to be inexperienced/incompetent. If complacency is creeping in across the board regardless, then that definitely is a worry.
If a pilot is a familiar face and 'known' to the testing org as an experienced/competent pilot, then inevitably the LPC is more likely to be a formality than if the pilot is either unknown, or known to be inexperienced/incompetent. If complacency is creeping in across the board regardless, then that definitely is a worry.
This sounds horribly like the Macclesfield incident recently posted; an experienced plank pilot getting into trouble soon after moving to rotary. Is this a pattern emerging?!
TTB
TTB
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't part of the problem lie with the fact that Mr. Robinson didn't design his helicopters with training in mind. I admit to being a fixed wing pilot who has only flown a few hours on Robinson's but I found them desparately twitchy to fly whereas the C150/152 and PA38 were designed with training in mind and were made as idiot proof as possible.
SammyPilot
We're in grave danger of resurrecting an age old debate about Robinsons and their suitability for training here, but for the record I don't believe Robinsons are 'twitchy'. However, being a lightweight machine, the R22 is particularly susceptible to gusty wind conditions and very sensitive to W&B/control inputs. Remember, all helicopters are inherantly unstable and coming from a C150/152 or PA38, a plank driver will initially find any helicopter a handful by comparison.
I think the issue in this thread is more about the quality of rotary training and subsequent testing. The suggestion here is that if these were not delivered thoroughly and effectively, could this have been a contributory factor in this and the 6 or 7 other similar R44 incidents?
TTB
We're in grave danger of resurrecting an age old debate about Robinsons and their suitability for training here, but for the record I don't believe Robinsons are 'twitchy'. However, being a lightweight machine, the R22 is particularly susceptible to gusty wind conditions and very sensitive to W&B/control inputs. Remember, all helicopters are inherantly unstable and coming from a C150/152 or PA38, a plank driver will initially find any helicopter a handful by comparison.
I think the issue in this thread is more about the quality of rotary training and subsequent testing. The suggestion here is that if these were not delivered thoroughly and effectively, could this have been a contributory factor in this and the 6 or 7 other similar R44 incidents?
TTB
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't part of the problem lie with the fact that Mr. Robinson didn't design his helicopters with training in mind.
One thing that cross my mind is the geography of hangars and aprons. Maybe operators need to consider where they position their landing spots and how they will be approached.
Cheers
Whirls