Robinson helicopters added to safety watchlist
I have some knowledge of Washington State and the levels of turbulence One can encounter there particularly in the Mountains.
One particular flight during a Frontal Passage which took me east of Seattle in the vicinity of the Snoqualamie Pass where the Interstate Highway crosses the Cascade Mountains....was a genuine experience.
Fortunately I was in a Hughes 500E....and it made for a very uncomfortable ride....one I did not wish to take but did so as a teaching point to my Corporate Passengers. I had told them it would be very rough but within the capabilities of the aircraft and mine as a Pilot but I felt it would not be advisable to go. That was a "No!" but as they had gotten into the old game of trying to argue about such a decision I felt it was time for a lesson on why Pilots sometimes utter that horrible word to them.
They insisted they just had to go by air notwithstanding my explanation for why that was not a wise thing to do....and we set out to cross the mountains.
We did not succeed and only after they realized I in fact knew what I was talking about....agreed to land at a Truck Stop and have their meeting at that location instead of the Saw Mill to which we were headed.
They never challenged a "NO!" after that.
A Robbie would never have survived that level of Turbulence.
Every aircraft has its limitation as does the Pilot flying it.
I would not have considered doing that same flight in a Jet Ranger either....and probably not even a Huey.
I have a lot more faith in Articulated or Rigid Rotor type Rotor Systems than I do the Two bladed Mast type systems used by Robinson and Bell when it comes to Turbulence. It is one thing to hear Droop Stops pounding in flight as compared to Mast Bumping.
One particular flight during a Frontal Passage which took me east of Seattle in the vicinity of the Snoqualamie Pass where the Interstate Highway crosses the Cascade Mountains....was a genuine experience.
Fortunately I was in a Hughes 500E....and it made for a very uncomfortable ride....one I did not wish to take but did so as a teaching point to my Corporate Passengers. I had told them it would be very rough but within the capabilities of the aircraft and mine as a Pilot but I felt it would not be advisable to go. That was a "No!" but as they had gotten into the old game of trying to argue about such a decision I felt it was time for a lesson on why Pilots sometimes utter that horrible word to them.
They insisted they just had to go by air notwithstanding my explanation for why that was not a wise thing to do....and we set out to cross the mountains.
We did not succeed and only after they realized I in fact knew what I was talking about....agreed to land at a Truck Stop and have their meeting at that location instead of the Saw Mill to which we were headed.
They never challenged a "NO!" after that.
A Robbie would never have survived that level of Turbulence.
Every aircraft has its limitation as does the Pilot flying it.
I would not have considered doing that same flight in a Jet Ranger either....and probably not even a Huey.
I have a lot more faith in Articulated or Rigid Rotor type Rotor Systems than I do the Two bladed Mast type systems used by Robinson and Bell when it comes to Turbulence. It is one thing to hear Droop Stops pounding in flight as compared to Mast Bumping.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: St Johns, Newfoundland,Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely spot on SAS, I've flown in some nasty turbulence up here in The Great White North in 500D,E, 520N and AS350. The kind of stuff I wouldn't go near in a 206/L, 205,212 let alone a R22/44/66. Called it earlier this year on a drill camp due to severe winds and turbulence flying an LR 3 model, apart from that was it was a nice day. No one on camp had a problem, I certainly didn't, nor the Boss.:
I will add to SASless and Newfie's comments.
All my staff are required to complete a point based "Flight Risk Assessment", (FRaT), as I am sure are most of you.
When saying "No", wee pull out the FRaT and explain the basic concept of SMS and FRaT to our passengers. We have NEVER been questioned once we started this process.
All my staff are required to complete a point based "Flight Risk Assessment", (FRaT), as I am sure are most of you.
When saying "No", wee pull out the FRaT and explain the basic concept of SMS and FRaT to our passengers. We have NEVER been questioned once we started this process.
I would say now that the R44/R66 makes up the majority of the piston engine fleet in NZ. It gets used for everything, from flight training, to ag work, to utility work etc, and even a few machines still doing venison so if something is going to happen in our industry then more often than not its prob going to involved a Robbie of some description. Not sure of the actual stats but wouldn't be surprised if Robbie products accounted for close to 50% of our industry.
HOW FREQUENTLY RESPONDENTS THOUGHT THESE HAPPENED
Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Performance limitations are exceeded 13% (76) 49% (289) 29% (170) 9% (51)
Operators cut corners and take shortcuts 8% (48) 42% (242) 38% (220) 11% (63)
Safety considerations come second 8% (47) 26% (153) 35% (203) 30% (175)
Pilots are susceptible to peer pressure 10% (57) 43% (247) 35% (201) 13% (75)
Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
Performance limitations are exceeded 13% (76) 49% (289) 29% (170) 9% (51)
Operators cut corners and take shortcuts 8% (48) 42% (242) 38% (220) 11% (63)
Safety considerations come second 8% (47) 26% (153) 35% (203) 30% (175)
Pilots are susceptible to peer pressure 10% (57) 43% (247) 35% (201) 13% (75)
Crab - But with these answers are the respondents admitting that this is what they do, or is the answer to the question their thoughts about the rest of the industry doing that ?
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw one routinely thrashed by a chief pilot, I walked out the door of the shambolic outfit and reported what was going on, they did nothing of course but at least my conscience would be clear if something happened/happens
Last edited by Thewasp; 3rd Nov 2016 at 08:27.
I think that's your answer Ned.
Generally people are a little conservative when admitting wrongdoing so the real figure may be much higher.
Generally people are a little conservative when admitting wrongdoing so the real figure may be much higher.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will add to SASless and Newfie's comments.
All my staff are required to complete a point based "Flight Risk Assessment", (FRaT), as I am sure are most of you.
When saying "No", wee pull out the FRaT and explain the basic concept of SMS and FRaT to our passengers. We have NEVER been questioned once we started this process.
All my staff are required to complete a point based "Flight Risk Assessment", (FRaT), as I am sure are most of you.
When saying "No", wee pull out the FRaT and explain the basic concept of SMS and FRaT to our passengers. We have NEVER been questioned once we started this process.
Here's the guide to the HAI one - the online version requires membership to register for, but this guide shows the questions and scores, so lends itself to creating a personal spreadsheet:
https://www.rotor.org/fox/mission/hai_mra.pdf
Comprehensive excel version here from EASA/EHEST, with tabs for different types of operations (HEMS, CAT, SP vs MP etc)
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...rbLUyzGdNJyWww
Two New Zealand organizations suspend use of Robinson helicopters
DoC (Department of Conservation) would be a large part of a lot of commercial operators work in NZ.
Looks like they have made a conscience decision and it may seriously curtail the viability of Robinson products there. As they say a lot of people will be "squealing" with this decision and some maybe not.
Legality should never be confused with safety. Good call - finally.
DoC (Department of Conservation) would be a large part of a lot of commercial operators work in NZ.
Looks like they have made a conscience decision and it may seriously curtail the viability of Robinson products there. As they say a lot of people will be "squealing" with this decision and some maybe not.
Legality should never be confused with safety. Good call - finally.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Norfolk
Age: 84
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem in NZ is more to do with the operating culture as the Robinsons. Two instances observed while we were flying around NZ. Pilot pushed R22 onto the pan, stuck his head into the cockpit, started the engine engaged the rotor then wandered off leaving the Robbie to wind itself up. Returned a few minutes later with his coffee, climbed in and took off. Second. Two large gentleman, one with a rifle, took off in an R22 carrying a net. Asking what was going on, it was explained that this was a deer culling job. Shooter kills the deer, puts deer in net, then R22 lifts crew, plus deer to clear area. A quick sum means that this would be so far in excess of max AUW to be ridiculous.
Not exactly a professional approach to aviation in those two situations - would be interesting to know just how common that sort of thing is and it puts the 49% of 'sometimes' performance exceedences into sharp focus.
A quick sum means that this would be so far in excess of max AUW to be ridiculous
Megan
WTF Well if it doesn't hover with the load that is telling you something. While we all try and move forward to break the inertia of a load that technique is going to snatch on the airframe and send a shock through the drive system, great for longterm survivability !
WTF Well if it doesn't hover with the load that is telling you something. While we all try and move forward to break the inertia of a load that technique is going to snatch on the airframe and send a shock through the drive system, great for longterm survivability !
The prosecution has no further questions.
Megan
WTF Well if it doesn't hover with the load that is telling you something. While we all try and move forward to break the inertia of a load that technique is going to snatch on the airframe and send a shock through the drive system, great for longterm survivability !
WTF Well if it doesn't hover with the load that is telling you something. While we all try and move forward to break the inertia of a load that technique is going to snatch on the airframe and send a shock through the drive system, great for longterm survivability !
Sounds like a version of the venerable ( ? ) Wenatchee Snatch from western US logging has migrated to NZ. That sort of technique and the associated structural/fatigue loads is of course not reflected in the manufacturers original flight load survey test conditions, therefore those flight loads and the associated load usage spectrum used to compute component replacement times goes out the window.