Second crash R66 South Dakota
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should non-pilots comment?
Up front. I am not a pilot, but I do have specialist expertise of relevance to some specific aspects of aviation accidents. I was involved in investigations of another RHC product where the boom was cut by a blade and that effort resulted in http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2008/A08_25_29.pdf
I have also raised issues in relation to other rotary wing types (I am not an anti-RHC fanatic) and I have raised my concerns in relation to issues within my expertise on other threads with a mixed reception; some strongly supportive and some in a similar (somewhat aggressive) vein to some of the material posted above. Indeed, after some "guidance" from some PM's I have taken a more restrained attitude to my comments.
Because of the minimal time in service for the R66, I would be totally surprised if the mechanisms which led to the above NTSB recommendations are of relevance in the case of the recent R66 crashes, so I have not commented at all to date. I do not believe that my expertise is of relevance in these events.
However, if I did believe that I could contribute to the discussion I would be reluctant to accept that the sole criterion for eligibility for posting was that I was a pilot. Yes, this is PPRuNe, but if it was solely for PILOTS, then why are there so many non-pilot streams on this site? Often the delineation in each thread is blurred to the extent that it is difficult to define boundaries where non-pilots can contribute.
I also suggest that the inference of some of the above postings is that in many accidents the assuption from the start is that pilots are responsible for crashes and non-pilots can b*gger off. (We can discuss the last sentence in terms of homosapiens or alternatives, but that diverges from the point.) The assertion that all knowledge is possessed only by pilots is clearly not always the case.
There are actually a significant number of crashes which are based on engineering and processing issues, not pilot issues and in some circumstances those issues require specialist expertise which may even fall outside the capability of manufacturers and in some cases even the level of understanding of investigating authorities. Hence the catch cry "wait for the official report" is meaningless. In one case where I was involved, the manufacturer suggested that the failure was caused by separation of the luggage door and impact with the blade. Evidence? The luggage door was not found in the marine crash site. In reality the adhesive bond failure modes over a wide range of the segments of recovered blade were inconsistent with an impact initiated event on a well bonded structure.
If a failure is investigated by a pilot investigator, there is a reasonable expectation that he/she will have a predisposition to a finding which relates to pilot error. There is also evidence that if an investigative expert has expertise in fatigue of metals, that investigator will find fatigue issues in his/her investigations and in several cases the conclusions of fatigue involvement can be clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate. It is a fact of life that investigators will focus on their area of expertise, and I am sure that I am not immune from such a pre-disposition.
Such approaches carry a high risk of mis-diagnosis and do little to advance flight safety. So do some of the discussions in this thread.
My point is that to suggest that you must ONLY be a pilot to discuss crash issues is rediculous. However, comments must be relevant. Some of the above comments (both pilot and non-pilot based) carry a strong implication of the absence of a partner during regular sexual encounters, and my mother told me that such activities carry a high risk to eyesight.
Summary: If you are not a pilot, keep your comments relevant. If you are a pilot, show some tolerance of alternative opinions. If you are a manufacturer, make your observations (determinations?) plausible.
I agree with Soave Pilot. Don't terminate the discussion, just keep it relevant and avoid personal abuse. Cold shower, deep breath, a good scotch, now lets get the discussion of the issues.
Regards
Blakmax
I have also raised issues in relation to other rotary wing types (I am not an anti-RHC fanatic) and I have raised my concerns in relation to issues within my expertise on other threads with a mixed reception; some strongly supportive and some in a similar (somewhat aggressive) vein to some of the material posted above. Indeed, after some "guidance" from some PM's I have taken a more restrained attitude to my comments.
Because of the minimal time in service for the R66, I would be totally surprised if the mechanisms which led to the above NTSB recommendations are of relevance in the case of the recent R66 crashes, so I have not commented at all to date. I do not believe that my expertise is of relevance in these events.
However, if I did believe that I could contribute to the discussion I would be reluctant to accept that the sole criterion for eligibility for posting was that I was a pilot. Yes, this is PPRuNe, but if it was solely for PILOTS, then why are there so many non-pilot streams on this site? Often the delineation in each thread is blurred to the extent that it is difficult to define boundaries where non-pilots can contribute.
I also suggest that the inference of some of the above postings is that in many accidents the assuption from the start is that pilots are responsible for crashes and non-pilots can b*gger off. (We can discuss the last sentence in terms of homosapiens or alternatives, but that diverges from the point.) The assertion that all knowledge is possessed only by pilots is clearly not always the case.
There are actually a significant number of crashes which are based on engineering and processing issues, not pilot issues and in some circumstances those issues require specialist expertise which may even fall outside the capability of manufacturers and in some cases even the level of understanding of investigating authorities. Hence the catch cry "wait for the official report" is meaningless. In one case where I was involved, the manufacturer suggested that the failure was caused by separation of the luggage door and impact with the blade. Evidence? The luggage door was not found in the marine crash site. In reality the adhesive bond failure modes over a wide range of the segments of recovered blade were inconsistent with an impact initiated event on a well bonded structure.
If a failure is investigated by a pilot investigator, there is a reasonable expectation that he/she will have a predisposition to a finding which relates to pilot error. There is also evidence that if an investigative expert has expertise in fatigue of metals, that investigator will find fatigue issues in his/her investigations and in several cases the conclusions of fatigue involvement can be clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate. It is a fact of life that investigators will focus on their area of expertise, and I am sure that I am not immune from such a pre-disposition.
Such approaches carry a high risk of mis-diagnosis and do little to advance flight safety. So do some of the discussions in this thread.
My point is that to suggest that you must ONLY be a pilot to discuss crash issues is rediculous. However, comments must be relevant. Some of the above comments (both pilot and non-pilot based) carry a strong implication of the absence of a partner during regular sexual encounters, and my mother told me that such activities carry a high risk to eyesight.
Summary: If you are not a pilot, keep your comments relevant. If you are a pilot, show some tolerance of alternative opinions. If you are a manufacturer, make your observations (determinations?) plausible.
I agree with Soave Pilot. Don't terminate the discussion, just keep it relevant and avoid personal abuse. Cold shower, deep breath, a good scotch, now lets get the discussion of the issues.
Regards
Blakmax
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Blakmax never said they did. I think that you are reading his post wrong.
I am an owner and a PPL. I definately want to hear from engineers, lawyers, or anyone who has a valid point to make. I think that was the only point BM was raising. If so, then I agree with him.
Blakmax never said they did. I think that you are reading his post wrong.
I am an owner and a PPL. I definately want to hear from engineers, lawyers, or anyone who has a valid point to make. I think that was the only point BM was raising. If so, then I agree with him.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not wait until the NTSB have completed their investigations before making what can only be at this early stage is an assumption, no matter how well informed.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Amazon Jungle
Age: 38
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soave_Pilot
With a caveat that I am not part of the accident investigation team for the 1st or 2nd R66 accident, therefore I can pass on only what I have been told and that information is as good as it gets apart from the NTSB I would like to re iterate.
The first R66 accident is consistent with a Low RPM Rotor Stall accident, this in its self is usually due to mishandling the controls.
The second R66 accident is consistent with Low 'G' this in its self is usually due to mishandling the controls.
I hope that you are aware of how you can get yourself into these situations and the incipient stages of these Critical Flight Conditions.
Treat the helicopter with the respect it is due and you will love flyiing the R66 for a long time.
Fly safely
With a caveat that I am not part of the accident investigation team for the 1st or 2nd R66 accident, therefore I can pass on only what I have been told and that information is as good as it gets apart from the NTSB I would like to re iterate.
The first R66 accident is consistent with a Low RPM Rotor Stall accident, this in its self is usually due to mishandling the controls.
The second R66 accident is consistent with Low 'G' this in its self is usually due to mishandling the controls.
I hope that you are aware of how you can get yourself into these situations and the incipient stages of these Critical Flight Conditions.
Treat the helicopter with the respect it is due and you will love flyiing the R66 for a long time.
Fly safely
Thanks Dick
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The accident investigator is not looking to apportion blame.
John R81 is correct. The intent of my message was to advocate that the forum needs input from a broader range of contributors than just pilots.
Regards
Blakmax
blakmax
For the record, I was in NO way trying to exclude any non pilots from joining in the discussion---I along with most others on here welcome input from anyone who has something to offer. Once again, I quote my comments, which I actually found on another thread, and in no way exlcude anyone:
My comment about reading the Pprune logo was more aimed at the word "rumor" than anything else. I am right there with you and Soave Pilot...
TET.... Thanks
For the record, I was in NO way trying to exclude any non pilots from joining in the discussion---I along with most others on here welcome input from anyone who has something to offer. Once again, I quote my comments, which I actually found on another thread, and in no way exlcude anyone:
I believe that some threads on Rotorheads are for the exchange of views on the factors that may have led to unfortunate incidents and accidents. If you're not prepared to accept the views or share in the speculation posted by others on this thread, then with the greatest respect, stay away!
Don't terminate the discussion, just keep it relevant and avoid personal abuse.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in several cases the conclusions of fatigue involvement can be clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate.
even though the fatigue issue at hand was of a separate but extremely direct relevance to ongoing safety of the product.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soave_Pilot,
I am endorsed on the R66 and have flown one for 6-7 hours, in varying conditions / loads etc. I own and fly a R44 II and have for years. The R66 flies very similar to the R44, except it has heaps more power (read more power and less weight !), and (if anything) doesn't handle quite as "sharp" as a R44. I found no difficulty converting from R44 to R66. In fact, apart from the obvious similarities between the two machines, I thought that the R66 handled (in some ways) like the EC120B.
Probably because most of my hours are in 2 blade machines, I experienced none of the issues reported to be the cause of either of the two accidents.
I hope that assists you. You will enjoy the machine.
Arrrj
I am endorsed on the R66 and have flown one for 6-7 hours, in varying conditions / loads etc. I own and fly a R44 II and have for years. The R66 flies very similar to the R44, except it has heaps more power (read more power and less weight !), and (if anything) doesn't handle quite as "sharp" as a R44. I found no difficulty converting from R44 to R66. In fact, apart from the obvious similarities between the two machines, I thought that the R66 handled (in some ways) like the EC120B.
Probably because most of my hours are in 2 blade machines, I experienced none of the issues reported to be the cause of either of the two accidents.
I hope that assists you. You will enjoy the machine.
Arrrj
I assumed signs of any such occurences would have been mentioned if they were present.
A cut off the M/R w/o too much other disintegration points more towards a 'classic' low- G occurence.
At this point this is obviously all speculation but sadly we have a rather solid history of incidents with the Robbies to look for similarities. And there are more than a few...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ecton
Age: 71
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soave
Sorry, I should of added the most important part of Critical Flight Conditions is " you should know how to recover instinctively" from their incipient stages.
Error due to lack of sleep after arriving in Borneo.
Sorry, I should of added the most important part of Critical Flight Conditions is " you should know how to recover instinctively" from their incipient stages.
Error due to lack of sleep after arriving in Borneo.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghost Aviator
Hi this is my first post. My Boss just bought an R66 which I will be certified on. He won't be taking possession of it for a few months. I am a 8,200 Hr pilot with about 3,000 of these on R22's & R44's. The rest of my hours are turbine. These two crashes make me very nervous. If indeed it is pilot error I will be able to sleep at night , but if this is a design flaw(which I am leaning towards). I might consider a different flying job. There doesn't seem to be very much info on the two crashes and as far as I can see the preliminary reports are that it is mechanical failure. If this is low-G mast bumping It could have been avoided . Please help me with any new info or reports on this . Thank you.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura Ca U.S.A.
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you feel it "chuging" reduce the speed & load the rotors (a little cyclic climb) 
It just might be pylion whril that is getting the R-44 & R-66 to shake the tails loose. 
Seems to be worse at low weights & the R66 has no heavy piston poper to add stability-I could be full of it.
But then agian?
It just might be pylion whril that is getting the R-44 & R-66 to shake the tails loose. Seems to be worse at low weights & the R66 has no heavy piston poper to add stability-I could be full of it. But then agian?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Florida
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely new new Tail Rotor design appears for the 66, more anti torque required for more engine power same TR as an R44 before new design recently launched ,more pitch ??? , Hmm
Perhaps excessive Tail Rotor Flap - dont think the 66 has pedal stops ( I stand to be corrected there only flown 5 hours in one last year)
Just throwing an Idea out there.
Perhaps excessive Tail Rotor Flap - dont think the 66 has pedal stops ( I stand to be corrected there only flown 5 hours in one last year)
Just throwing an Idea out there.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghost Aviator
Hi. The answer to your question about the the R66 being certified in Canada is that as of April 9/12 it has not . I spoke with the rep for Robinson and he tells me they are very close, as in very very close. The hydraulic problem has been addressed and TC is pleased with the results. I was also in contact with TC to substantiate this info. Thank you . Ghost Aviator.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and those Low G tail chops arent limited to R products. Lots of 204, 205, 206's that have been badly bent choping or trying to chop their tails off for that exact same reason. In fact when i did the Robbie safety course, im sure part of the low G discussion came from a US Army safety vid about Nap of Earth flying, and that featured the UH1's. it was back in the 90's however, and some of that decade is a bit vague!!!
Im happily not flying Robbies now, they were never big enough for me, but have unfortunatley seen the results close up of Bells choping their tails and it is not a pretty sight.
Im happily not flying Robbies now, they were never big enough for me, but have unfortunatley seen the results close up of Bells choping their tails and it is not a pretty sight.