FAA mandates replacement of R22 & R44 main rotorblades
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Snoopy
Re Lawsuit's on Product liability.
Here in the UK I manufacture a Carbon Steel Forging for use in the Transport Industry,..Its a brand new product, that stops cargo from departing any carrying platform when or if involved in any sort of Incident/Accident or rollover, We have used the very finest of steels and well known Testing procedure's at Fully ISO registered testing labs and facilities, we have full traceability plus temperature records for the forgings and cooling down times. Remember the words " Brand New Product " they have been tested to destruction by a Government testing house,
We carry a LLOYDS at LONDON Product Liability Insurance that covers us for
£5M for any one incident, we sell about 20 units per week, and we are covered should any or all fail,,,
So tell me, why If little ole me here in the North of the UK can get such excellent cover.....WHY CAN'T the ROBINSON COMPANY.. you state they have to put funds aside....are you saying they have NO PRODUCT LIABILITY cover....IE Insurance on their manufacturing and traceability of parts??
Peter R-B
Re Lawsuit's on Product liability.
Here in the UK I manufacture a Carbon Steel Forging for use in the Transport Industry,..Its a brand new product, that stops cargo from departing any carrying platform when or if involved in any sort of Incident/Accident or rollover, We have used the very finest of steels and well known Testing procedure's at Fully ISO registered testing labs and facilities, we have full traceability plus temperature records for the forgings and cooling down times. Remember the words " Brand New Product " they have been tested to destruction by a Government testing house,
We carry a LLOYDS at LONDON Product Liability Insurance that covers us for
£5M for any one incident, we sell about 20 units per week, and we are covered should any or all fail,,,
So tell me, why If little ole me here in the North of the UK can get such excellent cover.....WHY CAN'T the ROBINSON COMPANY.. you state they have to put funds aside....are you saying they have NO PRODUCT LIABILITY cover....IE Insurance on their manufacturing and traceability of parts??
Peter R-B
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter RB,
This is my last post in this thread and you are the perfect person to end it with.
You are trying to compare your "cargo stop" with a helicopter?????
Go back to sleep, Petey.
This is my last post in this thread and you are the perfect person to end it with.
You are trying to compare your "cargo stop" with a helicopter?????
Go back to sleep, Petey.
13
Suggest you go and get someone to explain the meaning and understanding of the English language. Not really difficult to understand the concept of product liability or insurance is it.
Suggest you go and get someone to explain the meaning and understanding of the English language. Not really difficult to understand the concept of product liability or insurance is it.
If they make something that's defective and has been proven to be defective they should replace it. For me that goes for cars, helicopters, boats whatever. The blade issue has been an ongoing problem, I can remember as a private owner having to fork out for -4 blades for my R22 when they had problems with -2's. I think Robinson's attitude is very poor here. I might be shot down in flames here but I seem to recall lycoming issuing new crankshafts for certain serial numbers in the R44 series and from my recollection they paid for them and the labour costs.. I also know that a number of owners had additional charges because when they " opened up the engine" other unrelated problems were found but the point being is that lycoming took responsibility. If I've got this wrong my apologies but I think I'm correct. People who fly the Robinson product are some of its greatest ambassadors and defend it continually on here and other places from the slagging off it gets.. Such a shame that Robinson don't embrace this loyalty with great support. Poor poor poor Mr Robinson.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have some sympathy for RHC
Guys, it may be a bit of a shock given my previous postings on the blade issue, but I actually have some sympathy for RHC.
The problem with these blades is related to degradation of the bond interface between the adhesive and the metal. The regulations (FARs) require demonstration of strength, fatigue resistance and damage tolerance, and I am sure that RHC would have complied with these requirements, otherwise they would not have received certification approval.
The real issue is that there is no specific requirement in the regs that stipulates demonstration that the bond will maintain strength throughout the life of the part. Understand that there are two component in adhesive bond which control strength; the bulk adhesive material and the interface between the adhesive and the metal.
Interfacial degradation is directly related to the methods for preparing the surfaces prior to bonding. The most probable mechanism of degradation is by hydration of the oxides on the bonding surface. For the oxides to hydrate the chemical bonds between the adhesive and the metal dissociate leading to disbonding. Now hydration takes time so if a test is undertaken at the time immediately after manufacture, then the strength would be adequate, but if the part is in service for a while the interface degrades and the strength of the bond progressively weakens.
This hydration is a direct result of environmental exposure, so you would expect that the regulations would address environmental effects and they do. However, the usual approach throughout almost all of the entire industry (NOT JUST RHC) to assessing environmental effects is to expose specimens for a short time until the moisture levels stablise and then test to generate design data. This approach will address the effects of moisture on the bulk adhesive properties.
The flaw with this approach is that the exposure time before testing is not long enough to enable hydration to occur. Therefore the results of the tests will provide sufficient confidence in the processes to convince the company and the FAA that the design is sound, even though the bond may experience interfacial degradation in later service. Yet testing of moisture conditioned specimens is standard practice throughout the industry.
The issue of hydration and bond degradation has only been known for a relatively short time and that knowledge came to light well after RHC started making -4 blades, so there is no reasonable expectation that RHC should have been aware of the additional needs for testing to assess resistance to environmental degradation and I am sure that almost all other manufacturers were equally unaware. Even if they eventually did become aware, the change of processes would require an entire and lengthy re-certification of the blade and hopefully that is what the -6 blades are.
I think the issue of product liability and warranty is a bit murky to say the least. If any company follows regs and adopts industry best practice to make a product are they liable if the regs are not explicit and industry best practice is deficient?
OK, I'm now going into my bomb shelter for a while....
Regards
Blakmax
PS I hope 13snoopy still is reading the thread even if he has stomped his feet and taken his bat and ball and gone away.
The problem with these blades is related to degradation of the bond interface between the adhesive and the metal. The regulations (FARs) require demonstration of strength, fatigue resistance and damage tolerance, and I am sure that RHC would have complied with these requirements, otherwise they would not have received certification approval.
The real issue is that there is no specific requirement in the regs that stipulates demonstration that the bond will maintain strength throughout the life of the part. Understand that there are two component in adhesive bond which control strength; the bulk adhesive material and the interface between the adhesive and the metal.
Interfacial degradation is directly related to the methods for preparing the surfaces prior to bonding. The most probable mechanism of degradation is by hydration of the oxides on the bonding surface. For the oxides to hydrate the chemical bonds between the adhesive and the metal dissociate leading to disbonding. Now hydration takes time so if a test is undertaken at the time immediately after manufacture, then the strength would be adequate, but if the part is in service for a while the interface degrades and the strength of the bond progressively weakens.
This hydration is a direct result of environmental exposure, so you would expect that the regulations would address environmental effects and they do. However, the usual approach throughout almost all of the entire industry (NOT JUST RHC) to assessing environmental effects is to expose specimens for a short time until the moisture levels stablise and then test to generate design data. This approach will address the effects of moisture on the bulk adhesive properties.
The flaw with this approach is that the exposure time before testing is not long enough to enable hydration to occur. Therefore the results of the tests will provide sufficient confidence in the processes to convince the company and the FAA that the design is sound, even though the bond may experience interfacial degradation in later service. Yet testing of moisture conditioned specimens is standard practice throughout the industry.
The issue of hydration and bond degradation has only been known for a relatively short time and that knowledge came to light well after RHC started making -4 blades, so there is no reasonable expectation that RHC should have been aware of the additional needs for testing to assess resistance to environmental degradation and I am sure that almost all other manufacturers were equally unaware. Even if they eventually did become aware, the change of processes would require an entire and lengthy re-certification of the blade and hopefully that is what the -6 blades are.
I think the issue of product liability and warranty is a bit murky to say the least. If any company follows regs and adopts industry best practice to make a product are they liable if the regs are not explicit and industry best practice is deficient?
OK, I'm now going into my bomb shelter for a while....
Regards
Blakmax
PS I hope 13snoopy still is reading the thread even if he has stomped his feet and taken his bat and ball and gone away.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: around and about
Age: 71
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Bonding
Blakmax,
VERY educational, thank you very much for explaining in simple language. But please advise to this ignoramus (!), does this hydration and degeneration of bond only occur on metal skins? As compared to composite construction (and bonding).
Sorry if this seems an asinine question, I have very little experience in this discipline; as an LAE one can only follow the TCH's repair procedures (or condemnation of the blade) - VFR
VERY educational, thank you very much for explaining in simple language. But please advise to this ignoramus (!), does this hydration and degeneration of bond only occur on metal skins? As compared to composite construction (and bonding).
Sorry if this seems an asinine question, I have very little experience in this discipline; as an LAE one can only follow the TCH's repair procedures (or condemnation of the blade) - VFR
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Composites
vfr440
You touch on a topic that annoys me. Most industry and the FAA consider "composites" to mean the fibre-reinforced material as well as adhesive bonding. I have never understood why. The analytical methods and failure modes and purpose of use are completely different. The only commonality is that they both start off as sticky materials which when cured form a structural material. I would really prefer that composite materials (fibre-composites) and composite construction (bonded structures) were treated completely separately.
Now to answer the question I think you are asking: Does hydration occur in bonds between adhesives and fibre composites? The answer is that I have no evidence to support the proposition, but equally I have some suspicions that it may. The mechanism may not be hydration of oxide layers, but it may well be hydration of polymeric bonds, but this is pure supposition.
Regards
Blakmax
You touch on a topic that annoys me. Most industry and the FAA consider "composites" to mean the fibre-reinforced material as well as adhesive bonding. I have never understood why. The analytical methods and failure modes and purpose of use are completely different. The only commonality is that they both start off as sticky materials which when cured form a structural material. I would really prefer that composite materials (fibre-composites) and composite construction (bonded structures) were treated completely separately.
Now to answer the question I think you are asking: Does hydration occur in bonds between adhesives and fibre composites? The answer is that I have no evidence to support the proposition, but equally I have some suspicions that it may. The mechanism may not be hydration of oxide layers, but it may well be hydration of polymeric bonds, but this is pure supposition.
Regards
Blakmax
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Repair procedures
Sorry vfr440 I missed the comment in the last sentence. If you really want to start a steamy discussion, ask me about "approved repair procedures". Let's start here.
http://www.adhesionassociates.com/pa...ver%201995.pdf
or this
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/artn0657.pdf
Maybe it is too far off the thread topic. If you want to start another thread I am happy to participate. Maybe we can get rid of stupid repairs such as injection repairs for disbonds, get surface preparation procedures for repairs which actually address hydration issues, address temperature measurement and control procedures which actually produce cure of the adhesive without overheat damage of the structure instead of the stupid one heater blanket, one thermocouple approach adopted by a MAJOR manufacturer who sold a number of aircraft to the Australian Defence Forces.
Oh, we also need to get rid of meaningless fasteners in bonded repairs.
OK, off the soap box...
Regards
Blakmax
http://www.adhesionassociates.com/pa...ver%201995.pdf
or this
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/artn0657.pdf
Maybe it is too far off the thread topic. If you want to start another thread I am happy to participate. Maybe we can get rid of stupid repairs such as injection repairs for disbonds, get surface preparation procedures for repairs which actually address hydration issues, address temperature measurement and control procedures which actually produce cure of the adhesive without overheat damage of the structure instead of the stupid one heater blanket, one thermocouple approach adopted by a MAJOR manufacturer who sold a number of aircraft to the Australian Defence Forces.
Oh, we also need to get rid of meaningless fasteners in bonded repairs.
OK, off the soap box...
Regards
Blakmax
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
I'm going against my promise to not post again, but this time will truly be the final:
Ask ANY aircraft manufacturer how much revenue that are forced to set aside for their liability insurance, potential lawsuit judgements and the laboriously detailed testing their country's aviation authority demands. The number will be staggering, I guarantee you.
THAT is why the same part that costs $10 for an auto will cost $100 for a helicopter. It's simply a matter of economics.
Over and out.
PS
Do I think Robby makes a bad rotor blade? Yes. Should they give us an even better price break that what they're offering? Yes.
I'm going against my promise to not post again, but this time will truly be the final:
Ask ANY aircraft manufacturer how much revenue that are forced to set aside for their liability insurance, potential lawsuit judgements and the laboriously detailed testing their country's aviation authority demands. The number will be staggering, I guarantee you.
THAT is why the same part that costs $10 for an auto will cost $100 for a helicopter. It's simply a matter of economics.
Over and out.
PS
Do I think Robby makes a bad rotor blade? Yes. Should they give us an even better price break that what they're offering? Yes.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've mentioned previously on here that an aftermarket composite blade would very likely to a commercial success given the potential market.
You've got to wonder why it hasn't happened already.....
You've got to wonder why it hasn't happened already.....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Snoop,
I really enjoyed the endearment of the" Petey" thingy, but being a hard nosed Lancastrian sticks and stone break ya bones, names just make ya larf if you think further on what you "posted after your "Final Post"
I hope you are keeping up
using your $10 for car compared with $100 for Helicopter,.. its still only a direct maths problem for the premium, you cannot be serious to say and have us all believe that out of every sale beit Helicopter or Boeing 777 the greatest portion of funding recovered from the customer is put into a box somewhere waiting for the day when the manure hits the fan..
Its purely got to be an Insurance premium on the companies ability to manufacture and produce a traceable item/component whether it be a screw on the windscreen frame or the Hydraulic seal on the Flap jacks, all the suppliers of such items will also have a Product Liability Insurance and a premium also, so you cannot be correct in suggesting people like RHC have some box stuffed with Greenbacks, waiting for Armageddon.
I am not a Robby Basher, I got my ticket on one, but I am certain I will never, ever open a Robby door again.
Petey masquerading as
Peter R-B
I really enjoyed the endearment of the" Petey" thingy, but being a hard nosed Lancastrian sticks and stone break ya bones, names just make ya larf if you think further on what you "posted after your "Final Post"
I hope you are keeping up
using your $10 for car compared with $100 for Helicopter,.. its still only a direct maths problem for the premium, you cannot be serious to say and have us all believe that out of every sale beit Helicopter or Boeing 777 the greatest portion of funding recovered from the customer is put into a box somewhere waiting for the day when the manure hits the fan..
Its purely got to be an Insurance premium on the companies ability to manufacture and produce a traceable item/component whether it be a screw on the windscreen frame or the Hydraulic seal on the Flap jacks, all the suppliers of such items will also have a Product Liability Insurance and a premium also, so you cannot be correct in suggesting people like RHC have some box stuffed with Greenbacks, waiting for Armageddon.
I am not a Robby Basher, I got my ticket on one, but I am certain I will never, ever open a Robby door again.
Petey masquerading as
Peter R-B
We inquired price for
Line MFG P/N Manufacturer Condition Pckging RoHS Pb F D/C Sell Qty Sell Price Line Total Description 1 369H8131
Supp: AE1187B0104-000
... U U NEW UNUSED SURPLUS / HOSE ASSEMBLY,NONMETALLIC / PN:AE1187B0104-000 / NSN:4720-01-549-2264 / CERT PROVIDED: WBPARTS COC / EST 7-10 DAYS TO SHIP 1 $1,607.14
This is a price for 10" SS pipe (original fitment) or hose with 2 nuts & 1\8 bore all measurements approx.
The same component from MD $2500
All the manufacturers are driving the private & small operators out of the market, I can only presume this is their intention.
Line MFG P/N Manufacturer Condition Pckging RoHS Pb F D/C Sell Qty Sell Price Line Total Description 1 369H8131
Supp: AE1187B0104-000
... U U NEW UNUSED SURPLUS / HOSE ASSEMBLY,NONMETALLIC / PN:AE1187B0104-000 / NSN:4720-01-549-2264 / CERT PROVIDED: WBPARTS COC / EST 7-10 DAYS TO SHIP 1 $1,607.14
This is a price for 10" SS pipe (original fitment) or hose with 2 nuts & 1\8 bore all measurements approx.
The same component from MD $2500
All the manufacturers are driving the private & small operators out of the market, I can only presume this is their intention.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now what?
CAA NZ has grounded all R44s because of concerns about the blades following the apparent failure of a -7 blade, yes -7.
Choppers grounded following fatal crash | Stuff.co.nz
Blakmax
The Civil Aviation Authority is grounding Robinson R44 series helicopters following a fatal chopper crash this week.
All Robinson R44 series helicopters fitted with main rotor blades P/N CO16-7, otherwise known as dash 7 blades, have been banned from flying as of today, the CAA said in a statement.
The directive was issued in response to an investigation into an R44 accident near Queenstown on Thursday
All Robinson R44 series helicopters fitted with main rotor blades P/N CO16-7, otherwise known as dash 7 blades, have been banned from flying as of today, the CAA said in a statement.
The directive was issued in response to an investigation into an R44 accident near Queenstown on Thursday
Blakmax
More CRAP made by Robinson
With the never ending deaths from Robinson failures......when will people learn & reject them till all of Frank's garbage is burying at the local dump where they belong
Happy Landings
Happy Landings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may also be of interest. It is also a -7 blade also in NZ.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...86475890,d.dGc
This report is not from the Queenstown crash reported elsewhere on this site.
Blakmax
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...86475890,d.dGc
This report is not from the Queenstown crash reported elsewhere on this site.
Blakmax
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R44 C106-7 blades
You might like to keep a close eye on the accident investigations in NZ.
FAA are mandating a blade that has caused two accidents due to in flight break up of the blades, and sadly it caused the death of two people in the most recent crash on Thursday. NZ CAA has grounded all R44's with these blades till further notice.
FAA are mandating a blade that has caused two accidents due to in flight break up of the blades, and sadly it caused the death of two people in the most recent crash on Thursday. NZ CAA has grounded all R44's with these blades till further notice.