"Why Robinson helicopters seem to have a bad habit of crashing"
The best selling vehicle in the world is (was?) the Honda super cub scooter.
While that is a wonderful accolade I wouldn't want to be on one bolting down the local highway.
Best is a rather variable moniker.
While that is a wonderful accolade I wouldn't want to be on one bolting down the local highway.
Best is a rather variable moniker.
I just looked on Controller for Jet Box's and R-44's....twice as many Robinsons for sale as Bells.....and the prices for a newer Robinson is not far off from that for a upper middle priced Jet Box.
That answers any question I might have had on which would be spending my money upon.....beginning with Piston versus Turbiine and overall robustness.
If you are all about cheap then I suppose you would see it differently than I do.
That answers any question I might have had on which would be spending my money upon.....beginning with Piston versus Turbiine and overall robustness.
If you are all about cheap then I suppose you would see it differently than I do.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't do your homework assignment exactly as requested SAS because I simply don't have the time. I do understand, I think, that you are trying to make a point that the work the Bell fleet is doing is far more dangerous, complex and risky than the Robinson fleet. I don't agree with that assessment. Carrying low-time/part-time pilots is a risky business all by itself, as is instruction. Nevertheless, thanks to the highly organized NTSB database I was willing to peel the onion a little bit. As you can see from the table, many of the NTSB categories are comparable. The ones that are not I highlighted. Draw whatever conclusions you like. I've drawn mine, as noted above, and have not had my mind changed yet.
And, to touch on your other post, the capital cost of the helicopter is NOT the issue. It is the OPERATING cost that drives the business, or personal business, model. Hell, I thought about going in with one or two others on a used 206 or R66. But it just doesn't make economic sense. I put my own 44 to work about 150 hours last year (lease to a local school) and that paid for my insurance which substantially reduced the cost of my personal flying. There is NO way I could do that with a 206 or R66. Nobody would rent it or lease it for enough hours to matter. That market is flooded with way too many machines already and being worked by larger concerns who would have no interest in adding my machine to the stable. And since I can't afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot" but still want to fly, I MUST accept the Robinson as a solution or simply not fly at all. As for the lot of you who CAN afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot", or are full-time turbine helicopter pilots, I don't begrudge you your success. But I do think you are wrong about intrinsic Robinson safety, and clearly the FAA agrees or they would have grounded them all long ago.
And, to touch on your other post, the capital cost of the helicopter is NOT the issue. It is the OPERATING cost that drives the business, or personal business, model. Hell, I thought about going in with one or two others on a used 206 or R66. But it just doesn't make economic sense. I put my own 44 to work about 150 hours last year (lease to a local school) and that paid for my insurance which substantially reduced the cost of my personal flying. There is NO way I could do that with a 206 or R66. Nobody would rent it or lease it for enough hours to matter. That market is flooded with way too many machines already and being worked by larger concerns who would have no interest in adding my machine to the stable. And since I can't afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot" but still want to fly, I MUST accept the Robinson as a solution or simply not fly at all. As for the lot of you who CAN afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot", or are full-time turbine helicopter pilots, I don't begrudge you your success. But I do think you are wrong about intrinsic Robinson safety, and clearly the FAA agrees or they would have grounded them all long ago.
But I do think you are wrong about intrinsic Robinson safety, and clearly the FAA agrees or they would have grounded them all long ago.
You can't ban guns in the US because of the economic drivers (and apparent assault on rights) even though they are inherently dangerous, especially in the wrong hands, and kill thousands of people a year.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Robbi isn't much of a problem to an experienced handler, the only concern with it due to its less robust design is what did the previous pilot who flew it do with it.
Although this is true with all machines, an overstressed Robbi will invariably bite back harder than slowly exhibit a problem.
I got into one last year after a long absence and was surprised to find it hovered right skid low. Should have written that up in the maintenance release.
Although this is true with all machines, an overstressed Robbi will invariably bite back harder than slowly exhibit a problem.
Since I am even thinking about Robbies....I shall go have a couple of double Cheeseburgers with a large order Fries (Chips) and a large Chocolate Milkshake.....to ensure I cannot fit through the door of a Robbie.
Airbus encountered a small problem with the 225 and yet it still is operated in a few countries.
The 350 has non-crashworthy fuel cells as does the Robbie and they continue to operate.
Do not think for a second the "authorities" care to permanently ground any aircraft that was properly "certified" in the past.
The FAA did ground the Robbie over some blade delaminations and also required special training for the R-22 which some 16,000+ pilots have undergone since the FAA Ruling.
The 350 has non-crashworthy fuel cells as does the Robbie and they continue to operate.
Do not think for a second the "authorities" care to permanently ground any aircraft that was properly "certified" in the past.
The FAA did ground the Robbie over some blade delaminations and also required special training for the R-22 which some 16,000+ pilots have undergone since the FAA Ruling.
a7&8, you keep raising this as means of a justification, and like I have pointed out previously, when those Robbies are flying HEMS, fire, police, agriculture and many of the other high risk activities then you may have a point.
Until then, Joe Soap flying from A to B and some occasional news coptering won't account for the similar fatalties, not withstanding the vast difference in seating capacity of the types.
Until then, Joe Soap flying from A to B and some occasional news coptering won't account for the similar fatalties, not withstanding the vast difference in seating capacity of the types.
If anything, the opposite must be true: Commercial operations, benefitting by default from more qualified pilots, organisational and regulatory oversight, SOP's and SMS's, are expected to be by an order of magnitude safer than hitching a ride with a low time, un-current private pilot.
There is a number of videos on the 'net showing unprofessional pilots loading their new toy to the rim with friends and then going on to show them what a hell-of-a guy they are. It often is in a Robbie, and often ends in disaster. But that hardly is proof of a causal link between the two.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
You can't ban guns in the US because of the economic drivers (and apparent assault on rights) even though they are inherently dangerous, especially in the wrong hands, and kill thousands of people a year.
This is the most absurd perversion of common sense I have seen in a long time: That commercial work is inherently more dangerous than private piloting and that one therefore most expect a significantly higher rate of fatalities in commercial work - all other things, like type of helicopter, being equal - than in private flying.
If anything, the opposite must be true: Commercial operations, benefitting by default from more qualified pilots, organisational and regulatory oversight, SOP's and SMS's, are expected to be by an order of magnitude safer than hitching a ride with a low time, un-current private pilot.
If anything, the opposite must be true: Commercial operations, benefitting by default from more qualified pilots, organisational and regulatory oversight, SOP's and SMS's, are expected to be by an order of magnitude safer than hitching a ride with a low time, un-current private pilot.
If you spend your time mustering, the probability of you hitting a tree is far greater than flying from A to B.
These discussions are all pointless without knowing how many hours are being flown.
Commercial work is no doubt safer per hour than some alternatives but there will be far more operations and hours being done than recreational robbying.
If you take the example stated above that the fatalities are almost the same, the usage profile is very different and will almost certainly represent far more hours being flown.
It is also far easier to have a larger number of fatalities in a Huey than a 22, so the comparison being drawn was grossly over simplified to manipulate statistics.
You have the wrong end of the stick.
If you spend your time mustering, the probability of you hitting a tree is far greater than flying from A to B.
These discussions are all pointless without knowing how many hours are being flown.
Commercial work is no doubt safer per hour than some alternatives but there will be far more operations and hours being done than recreational robbying.
If you take the example stated above that the fatalities are almost the same, the usage profile is very different and will almost certainly represent far more hours being flown.
It is also far easier to have a larger number of fatalities in a Huey than a 22, so the comparison being drawn was grossly over simplified to manipulate statistics.
If you spend your time mustering, the probability of you hitting a tree is far greater than flying from A to B.
These discussions are all pointless without knowing how many hours are being flown.
Commercial work is no doubt safer per hour than some alternatives but there will be far more operations and hours being done than recreational robbying.
If you take the example stated above that the fatalities are almost the same, the usage profile is very different and will almost certainly represent far more hours being flown.
It is also far easier to have a larger number of fatalities in a Huey than a 22, so the comparison being drawn was grossly over simplified to manipulate statistics.
In the right hands, a Robbo is as safe as any other cheap end chopper.
But because Frank made them so accessible, every tom dick and harry who thought flying helicopters was a childhood dream, now realises that by taking out a medium sized mortgage, they too, can fly 3 dimensionally.
Robbo's are flimsy, sensitive, unforgiving in turbulence and cheap cheap cheap. You get what you pay for. A lada or a mondeo?
But because Frank made them so accessible, every tom dick and harry who thought flying helicopters was a childhood dream, now realises that by taking out a medium sized mortgage, they too, can fly 3 dimensionally.
Robbo's are flimsy, sensitive, unforgiving in turbulence and cheap cheap cheap. You get what you pay for. A lada or a mondeo?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, someone show us all the hours from a reasonably unimpeachable source. If the Bell fleet is significantly more hours than the Robinson fleet, I will gladly bow to that statistic. Still not seeing the data, though. I did find one news article that showed some fleet hours, but every other fact check I did on that article showed it to be badly wrong, so I don't trust the hours quoted in that article.
The topic drifted to accidents and hours PER YEAR.
So let's assume that there are aircraft that are accident free with over 20k hours, over what period did that happen?
Rudimentary maths would indicate that would be roughly 10 rebuilds and would equate to the better part of 30 months on the ground, not including the standard maintenance to get that far.
This would seem to indicate a rather signifiant amount of time would be required to achieve those stats.
Getting back to your question, the NTSB database shows 5 accidents on different 22's at that school (training related as you'd expect). The database doesn't provide the age of the aircraft but looking up the serial numbers they appear to be between 2000 and 2003 (apart from the new one that broke in 2014).
So let's assume that there are aircraft that are accident free with over 20k hours, over what period did that happen?
Rudimentary maths would indicate that would be roughly 10 rebuilds and would equate to the better part of 30 months on the ground, not including the standard maintenance to get that far.
This would seem to indicate a rather signifiant amount of time would be required to achieve those stats.
Getting back to your question, the NTSB database shows 5 accidents on different 22's at that school (training related as you'd expect). The database doesn't provide the age of the aircraft but looking up the serial numbers they appear to be between 2000 and 2003 (apart from the new one that broke in 2014).
In the right hands, a Robbo is as safe as any other cheap end chopper.
But because Frank made them so accessible, every tom dick and harry who thought flying helicopters was a childhood dream, now realises that by taking out a medium sized mortgage, they too, can fly 3 dimensionally.
Robbo's are flimsy, sensitive, unforgiving in turbulence and cheap cheap cheap. You get what you pay for. A lada or a mondeo?
But because Frank made them so accessible, every tom dick and harry who thought flying helicopters was a childhood dream, now realises that by taking out a medium sized mortgage, they too, can fly 3 dimensionally.
Robbo's are flimsy, sensitive, unforgiving in turbulence and cheap cheap cheap. You get what you pay for. A lada or a mondeo?
I suspect that most who make condescending remarks about those cheap, cheap, cheap Corollas are themselves lowly paid bus drivers, and would never have the money to buy their own car. I have yet to see a true oligarch who owns a twin for his private transport making mocking remarks about the masses who can only afford to drive around in a small sedan.
On a different note: While a proper turbine single might be four times the price of a R44, at USD 500k a Robbie is far from accessible to the masses. Maybe the last time you checked the RHC pricelist was in the eighties? In most countries, given the income structures and the cost of borrowing, only top level executive managers, or a few successful enterpreneurs, can afford to buy and maintain their own piston helicopter next to running their family.
a different note: While a proper turbine single might be four times the price of a R44, at USD 500k a Robbie is far from accessible to the masses. Maybe the last time you checked the RHC pricelist was in the eighties? In most countries, given the income structures and the cost of borrowing, only top level executive managers, or a few successful enterpreneurs, can afford to buy and maintain their own piston helicopter next to running their family.
Fractional ownership is also fairly common.
You can pick up an older Jetbanger for a bit of a premium relative to a fresh out of rebuild 44, but the gap isn't huge.
In any case, no one is disputing that a Robinson can't be flown or operated safely but like any safety discussion the whole landscape must be considered.
They are a victim of their own success, becoming popular with people and operations that will be more prone to accidents.
The robbie faithful don't seem to share the philosophy that the aircraft is what it is, they seem to hold it in very high regard, blaming problems on those that fly them and never at what the factory could have done better.
In some respects discussing the merits of a Robinson with a robbie driver is like discussing US politics with a Republican from the deep south - amusing but futile
