Chop tail off in the hover??

[capngrog]

Possibly not pilot error?

Although I have many hours of flying IN helicopters, I have never flown one. My flight experience is limited to fixed wing only. A tail rotor failure is just another possibility.

On 22 May, 2020, FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) Number 2020-08-10 became effective and applied to certain Robinson R-44 series helicopters. This AD concerned possible tail rotor failure and required inspection for cracks.

Attached is a link to the AD; however, you may prefer to copy and paste to your browser the inactive link below.

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/b1400c9f67bf3f828625854d0042cd8e/$FILE/2020-08-10.pdf

I would imagine that the loss of a tail rotor blade would cause loss of tail rotor effectiveness and could cause pitch oscillations and eventual separation of parts of the tail boom due to excessive vibration. Of course vibration due to loss of a tail rotor blade should have been immediately noticed by the pilot; however, he apparently made no mention of excess vibration in his statement to authorities.

Regards,
Grog

[Mutley1013]

It was 11hrs for me post GFT before I took my first passenger. It was my father, so at least it would have been a family matter if it went pear shaped! I also did the R22 safety course before taking him up. Considering that course was in 1998, I still remember aspects of it vivedly! Great course. The first 100hrs post GFT were taken up with 94 flights (I kept the heli off-field for some months whilst hour building and had to do some little hops to the local airfield to refuel) and 19 of them involved passengers and 28 confined area.

This accident highlights the 'pilot's attitude to flying as much as anything and maybe the instruction and initiation into the responsibilities of flying were lacking.

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by aa777888

The solution I chose was to immediately press on and obtain a commercial cert. I felt pretty comfortable with a fixed wing private in my hot little hands, but the helicopter private certificate felt more like a "license to get killed"

Of course everyone's mileage will vary quite a bit on this one. But that's how I felt, FWIW.

I didn't persue my commercial until I had over 200 hours of simply enjoying the freedom of flying, as I viewed my private as a "license to fly". I mean, no offense, but all that "license to learn"/"license to get killed" type of crap always erked me a bit.

,...but then, all the stupid things I've done as a pilot have all been in pursuit of commercial aviation not joyriding, so maybe I'm a bit biased?

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by Mutley1013

It was 11hrs for me post GFT before I took my first passenger. It was my father, so at least it would have been a family matter if it went pear shaped! I also did the R22 safety course before taking him up. Considering that course was in 1998, I still remember aspects of it vivedly! Great course. The first 100hrs post GFT were taken up with 94 flights (I kept the heli off-field for some months whilst hour building and had to do some little hops to the local airfield to refuel) and 19 of them involed passengers and 28 confined area.

This accident highlights the 'pilot's attitude to flying as much as anything and maybe the instruction and initiation into the responsibilities of flying were lacking.

I've been through that course six times in the eighteen years I've been a pilot.

[[email protected]]

Capn Grog - the loss of a TR blade or the loss of TR drive or the complete TR would have been immediately obvious to the investigation team.

[capngrog]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Capn Grog - the loss of a TR blade or the loss of TR drive or the complete TR would have been immediately obvious to the investigation team.

You're absolutely right! I somehow skimmed over this sentence under the "Aircraft Information" section of the report: "Wreckage examination did not identify any pre-existing system malfunctions that would have played a role in the loss of control in this occurrence." My only defense is that perhaps I've become too used to FAA/NTSB reports wherein they routinely state words to the effect: "Control continuity was established from the (elevator, aileron, swashplate etc.)". Well, that's my excuse and I'm stickin' to it ... for now.

Cheers,
Grog