Yeah - the amount of material I gathered in those few days is enough to keep me chuckling for years!
But the serious outweighed the humourous. Apparently FR is coming to Helitech next week.
Wonder what the Robinson world thinks of the new Pathfinder Insurance requirements in the USA told to us by FR : For R22, any pilot/owner who has an accident after 15th July this year will have a 50% uplift on the premium. No dual controls allowed on demo flights - and no duals at all unless the left seat occupant is rated.

And the owner of Pathfinder Insurance is.........

We're not thru pathfinder, they can scam anyone they please.

Just a bit of FYI...
 

Pathfinder is owned by Frank Robinson's brother-in-law (Robert Cordes). In fact, Pathfinder Indemnity Company, Ltd. is a British Virgin Islands corporation. It's located in Freeport, Bahamas.

They don't have a website.....the only way to communicate with them is through the mail, fax, or email (so there is always a paper trail.) They only insure Robinson Helicopters, and they are not affiliated with the other Pathfinder (rental car) insurance company.

hours requirement for R22 Pax / Instruction
 

I attended this course in Torrance at the same time as headsethair and agree with most all of his comments (that R44 video is a real frightener since the guy has several opportunities to avoid disaster but just doesn't).

Only thing I have to add is that the rules (US at least) concerning passengers and instructing in the R22 are stated in SFAR 73 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; the figures quoted by Headsethair were shown on the course, but I believe these were presented as insurance company requirements, not legal requirements (in the US at least)?

Flug
:ok:

Seen a video of it and several of the accident videos when doing the SFAR73 training.

Finally got around to booking a course and I m on the Dec 2003 one..

Its worth the money for the flight time if you manage to learn nothing!

PW

headsethair,
Does the Robinson safety course discuss the cause of past rotor loss accidents? Specifically the one case where the female student had a pocket voice recorder that proved the main rotor rpm was normal at the instant of separation. What was determined to be the cause?
I may take the course if they thoroughly cover the cause and methods of prevention.

Who or is it what is to blame?
 

To: slowrotor

No matter what the cause is the blame is always assigned to the pilot.

:E

slowrotor : "Does the Robinson safety course discuss the cause of past rotor loss accidents?"

There's loads of accident stuff - and there was a discussion about the recent rotor loss in Australia. Are you referring to the hub coming off or blade break up ? Mast bumping ?
Pat Cox talks at length about mast bumping - and shows examples of masts that are fractured. There is also a lecture on Hubs - the early hub bearings on R44 have to be changed at 1000 hrs, but the latest go all the way to 2200 hrs. His tip - look for brown dust around the thrust washers on the hub, indicating a bearing problem.
He also discussed R22 blades which need special care in salt air with a barrier of WD40 (or similar) laid down the underside join between the leading edge and the main part of the blade - this will stop corrosion to the aluminium skin. This should be done after each day's flying. (He said they are testing stainless steel skinned blades for R22 - similar to R44 construction - and that they will offer them as a retro fit when they are happy.)

By the way, you can always email Pat Cox at [email protected].

Use of WD-40
 

I would strongly warn against using WD-40 on rotor blades. For two reasons:

1) The WD-40 film will attract sand and dust which will result in an enhanced environment for corrosion and possibly effect the blade aerodynamics.
2) The petroleum distillates in the WD-40 can enter faying surfaces and effect the bonding agent causing the bond to break down.

WD-40 is and was developed as a means of displacing water or moisture but in certain applications it is counter productive and can cause problems.

:E

Are the Robinsons' blades all aluminum construction or are they a combination of aluminum and composite components?

The reason for asking is that Kevlar is used in many aerospace composite parts and the fibers absorb moisture, particularly the cut ends.

headsethair,
The accident I referred to above was a complete separation of everthing above the transmission. The entire rotor was found some distance from the hull.
Reading this report shook me up enough to suspend my helo training.
I would have less concern if all the complete rotorhead separations were pilot error, either low G loss of control or low rpm rotor stall.
But this accident was not likely pilot error, so I want to know what the final determination of cause was in this case.

The local R22 instructors have no knowledge of this case and I don't know a good way to get the facts. I thought of contacting Robinson but figured they would be biased.

My guess as to cause would be a freak gust, since an airworthiness directive was issued limiting flight in moderate turbulence.

Slowrotor:

I participated in the NTSB investigation of the accident to which you refer. To my knowledge no cause has been determined. There is no evidence to support a theory of pilot error as the cause.

Robinson Blades and WD40
 

Mr Zuckerman: The process using WD40 is recommended by Robinson for use only on the R22 blade and only in the manner they proscribe. I would suggest that you don't post on this subject unless you have RHC approval - and I'm sure the manufacturers of WD40 would love to have a word with you.

To answer the Robinson blade construction question - the R22 is aluminum honeycomb with an aluminum skin. There are no composites in an R22 blade.

The 44 is aluminum honeycomb with a stainless steel skin. In the R44 tail rotor there is a small section of composite.

Both types have stainless steel leading edges.

As stated before, they are testing SS blades for R22 and they are also hopeful that the new Raven II blade will eventually become a retro fit for all 44s.

Other than the above, which I gleaned on the course, I'd rather not get drawn in to deeper technical discussions for which I am not qualified. And it is nigh on impossible to get into the deeper issues on a Forum such as this.

Maybe one day we'll all get to meet!

PS: For followers of true English, please read ALUMINIUM! But, now that Bill Gates has convinced the world that Favourites is spelt Favorites, we're losing the plot chaps.

WD-40
 

To: headsethair

Sometimes manufacturers recommend products without fully testing them with their minimal research being based on what they do on their car or in the machine shop.

WD-40 was developed by Convair Astronautics to displace water on the skins of Atlas missiles that were exposed to a severe salt-water environment at Vandenberg AFB. I know because at the time I was a techrep on the Atlas based at Vandenberg. The process engineer that developed the product got manufacturing rights and set up Rocket Chemical Company based in San Diego, CA. From the time that WD-40 was placed on the commercial market new uses were found for it other than dispersing moisture. Many people used it as a penetrant while others used it as a lubricant. Very few people used it for what it was designed for. It is the penetrating capability that I was addressing as it really does this very well. While it is penetrating the petroleum distillates will act on any bonding material that is present and cause the chemical bond to fail.

As far as the manufacturers of WD-40 taking exception to my comments I would suggest that they be contacted by Robinson and they should fully explain their application of the product and give them engineering documentation showing where the product is to be used. If they do or did this and WD-40 usage for the specified purpose is approved then I will shut up. As far as my getting approval from Robinson prior to posting I would never have come on this forum if that was the case.

To sum it up I add this WD = Water Dispersal


:E

Use of WD-40 on rotorblades.
 

To: headsethair

I contacted the WD-40 company and asked the following question: I have a few questions regarding WD-40. Can it be sprayed on helicopter rotorblades? Will the penetrating capabilities combined with the petroleum distillates cause problems on chemically bonded surfaces? Does WD-40 have approval from the FAA for any applications?

Here is their response: the FAA has not approved WD-40 for any use and we don't recommend WD-40 on the rotor blades due to the unknown effects.

I would strongly suggest that Pat Cox reconsider his instructions at the safety school and make it known to his past students to not use WD-40 on the blades or any other part of the helicopter.

If anything happened Robinson could be held liable and if the WD-40 Company were brought into the lawsuit they could also sue Robinson.

:E

Slowrotor:
I think the accident you and Rich Lee are referring to was the Japanese lady student, am I right? Frank Robinson discussed that one at the course I was on in the mid-90s. They spent thousands of man-hours analysing the tape and the rest of the evidence and never did come up with an answer.
I think you'll find that if you ask questions, they'll give you a straight answer. Worth emailing Cox or Tim Tucker.

Lu (hey - this is getting personal) : I don't see the point in you taking the time to ask the manufacturer of WD40 "Is it safe to use on rotor blades?"

What type of blades ? What construction ? What materials ? etc. etc.

From your other postings on pprune I'm guessing that you are either an engineer or think you are an engineer.

So why ask such a wide-ranging, non-specific, non-engineering question ?

If you think there's a problem - email your concerns to Pat Cox. But for hell's sake please don't post suppositions and half-truths. Who are you trying to impress ?

If Robinson's engineer can stand in front of a professional pilots' class and recommend a procedure, then we have to accept that he knows what he is saying is correct.

You should get a job.

WD-40 argument continues.
 

To: headsethair

This says it all. The WD-40 Company indicates that the FAA has not approved the use of WD-40 on any aircraft and the WD-40 Company specifically states that they would not want it to be used on rotorblades specifically because of the unknown effects.

I indicated previously that if Robinson were approved to use it as Pat Cox specified then I would shut up. It seems that from what the WD-40 Company indicated Robinson never contacted them for approval to use WD-40 in the manner in which was indicated in the safety course and if they were they would answer in the negative to the request.

Regarding my contacting the WD-40 Company I do this a lot in my work. I am a Reliability, Maintainability, and Systems Safety engineer and I have worked on many major helicopter programs and on commercial and military aircraft as well. If something doesn't look right I will contact the manufacturer which is what I did in this case.

I don't have to contact Robinson to tell them of my findings. I tried that in 1995 and they told me to piss off. You on the other hand as a dedicated user of Robinson products CAN contact them.

:E

safety course
 

Rich Lee,
Thanks for your reply. Seems incredible to me that people continue to fly a helicopter that has experienced multiple rotor failures of undetermined cause. I checked on the Robinson website and found that I cannot attend the safety course without a heli pilot certificate. That doesn't make much sense to me. I intend to discover all the neccessary special pilot operating requirements specific to the R22 before I resume flight training in the Robinson.

More likely, I will drive several hours to the Schweizer flight center. The R22 requires 20 hrs before solo by USA regulation and I feel that many hours would not be needed.

Sure would be nice to feel comfortable flying the responsive R22 but the more I read on this site the less likely that becomes.... (recent reports of six out of six blades tested by Australian aviation authority found to have disbonds)

Headsethair,,,, A small hint Learn to breathe though your nose

Slowrotor
I'd be very interested in hearing more about those six out of six rotor blades on R22s being found to be debonded. Have to say I haven't heard anything about that.

You aren't getting it mixed up with the R44 which had two blades debond earlier this year are you?

There has not been any mention of any R22 blades debonding here that I know about.


Headsethair

Mr. Zuckerman needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. This debate about WD-40 reared its head in discussion about those above-mentioned R44 blades when they debonded.

Someone mentioned WD-40 and Mr. Z had the stuff hung, drawn and quartered even before I had time to state that I knew the owner and the machine and the pilot and all swore that WD-40 had never been near the machine. The blades were fairly new and hadn't had the paint worn off enough to need corrosion prevention.

Further he stated categorically that RHC had list of forbidden chemicals that were not allowed near the blades and WD-40 was on that list.

I wrote to RHC (cos I was very worried now because I use it on my blades because we have a high humidity and and are next to the ocean - high salt etc environment) and I voluntarily grounded my machine till I got an answer). Pat Cox wrote back to me stating the RHC did not and never did have such a list but said they were happy for me to keep using WD-40 so long as it was not sprayed near the non metal parts of the head.
He stated that other waxes etc could also be used but could affect re-paint causing fish-eye in paint if not cleaned off properly. Then he he mentioned not using power sanding tools to sand back paint - due to heat above 175 degrees (I think that was the temp) causing problems with the bond.

I posted Mr. Cox's email to me on the discussion.
In another mind-boggling episode of conclusion jumping Mr. Z. stated he once (in Iran) measured the surface temp of a plane wing in the sun and it was 160 degrees therefore as it gets hot in northern australia this was obviously the cause of the blades de-bonding. No doubt about it!
Too bad the facts would spoil a good story.
We never get the temps he was talking about in this part of the world.
This all happened on the one R44 and all the other R22s and R44s in this part of the world, in all that same heat, have not debonded blades.

All the above stuff (including my post of Pat Cox's reply to me on WD-40) is on previous postings if you want to find it.

Mr. Z. caused me a lot personal worry and anguish with his ill-informed comments hidden behind a blustering of qualifications. Take what is said as worthy of consideration but ask people who actually know to detirmne the truth. RHC are very approachable and always have answered my emails with useful information.

And one more tirade :hmm:

Quote L.Z.:
"Here is their response: the FAA has not approved WD-40 for any use"

I don't know how to interpret this response.

Here in OZ CASA (our version of FAA) don't actually approve or disapprove of such things, they open end their statements by saying such things as "in a manner approved by the Authority" which when you delve deeper means in a "manner the manufacturer dictates".

Do the FAA approve or not approve things for use on aircraft or is it up to the manufacturers of the "thing" and the aircraft to approve it's use?

Is the lack of FAA approval because they have tested it and found it a risk or is it because they don't actually get involved in the business of approving such things?

Slings and errors.
 

To: RobboRider

QUOTE: Mr. Zuckerman needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. This debate about WD-40 reared its head in discussion about those above-mentioned R44 blades when they debonded.

RESPONSE: If you read the thread completely I was responding to headsethair when he quoted Pat Cox as saying it was OK to use WD-40 on the underside of the blades. My comment had nothing to do with the other thread on debonding of R-44 blades. My comments and ultimate contacting the WD-40 Company was to get clarification of the use of WD-40 in this application. Please re read the comment by the WD-40 Company about the FAA not approving the use of WD-40 on ANY aircraft and that includes the Robinson helicopters. If Pat Cox made these statements internal tests and verification that the WD-40 does not cause problems on the blades must back him up. Pat Cox said do not get it on the rotorhead so he knows that if it does it could cause problems and the tests must be submitted to the FAA for their approval. The question begs asking, did they perform the tests and did they submit the tests and did they contact the WD-40 Company to get their approval. The answer to at least one of these question is no and I believe the other answer is no.

In either case Pat Cox is placing Robinson in a bad light if something goes wrong as a result of using a non approved product.


QUOTE: In another mind-boggling episode of conclusion jumping Mr. Z. stated he once (in Iran) measured the surface temp of a plane wing in the sun and it was 160 degrees therefore as it gets hot in northern Australia this was obviously the cause of the blades de-bonding. No doubt about it!

RESPONSE: I don’t remember exactly what I said in the post and I’m too lazy to check it out. However I will try to reconstruct what I said relative to temperatures. In Iran we measured the air temperature at 113-degrees F. The ground temperature was 168-degrees F and the internal temperature of our helicopters topped out on the thermometer at 180-degrees F and it was killing our avionics.

Here is another tidbit from the Lord Company that makes Elastomeric Bearings ©. They indicated that the total exposure to temperatures of 160-degrees F was 1 hour in the life of the bearing. Exposure to in excess of one hour total at 160-degrees F would cut the life of the bearing by 50%.

You don’t have to have an air temperature at 160-degrees F to reach that temperature on a blade or any other part of the aircraft. What does the dirty work is solar radiation. The air temp can be 70-degrees F and the skin temperature can be far in excess of that. If I mentioned solar radiation temperatures and applied it to the R-44 blades then I was talking about the temperature cycling from static at very high blade skin temperatures to flight when the blades cooled down and then back to static and so on. This temperature cycling can have an effect on the bond line and possibly cause a bond separation.




The manufacturer in order to expand their sales base will perform all types of tests that show that their product will not harm any metals or chemicals or paints and many other things. This testing is done by an independent laboratory in accordance within specific guidelines. If the product passes all of the tests then and only then can the FAA approve it for general use on aircraft. The manufacturing company can then show in their advertising that it is FAA approved. Boeing did this for a preservative as did Corrosion X. Based on what WD-40 stated this testing and subsequent approval was never done.

Did I really state that Robinson had a list of secret chemicals and WD-40 was or was not on that list?

I personally believe that your product loyalty is clouding your vision when you read my posts.

:E

Slowrotor

I just found that ATSB report about the six out of six blades having some debonding.

******.. I'm back to being worried again:ugh:

Slowrotor
Forgot to add. I don't think there have been many rotorhead failures of undetirmined cause. There have been rotorhead failures of detirmined (or at least fairly reasoned out causes) and perhaps a couple of unknown cause. The causes seem to be known for most and they are pretty much all avoidable, provided the pilot knows how to avoid them.

That isn't to say the problems don't exist but that there are thousands of pilots flying thousands of hours every week who are quite sucessfully avoiding those problems.

You have to keep it all in perspective.

One other comment about minimums of 20 hours for solo on R22s. I suspect most people aren't ready for solo before then anyway, legislation or not. I don't know that flying another brand of wirlygig would lower that time either.:uhoh:

Slowrotor
Forgot to add. I don't think there have been many rotorhead failures of undetirmined cause. There have been rotorhead failures of detirmined (or at least fairly reasoned out causes) and perhaps a couple of unknown cause. The causes seem to be known for most and they are pretty much all avoidable, provided the pilot knows how to avoid them.

That isn't to say the problems don't exist but that there are thousands of pilots flying thousands of hours every week who are quite sucessfully avoiding those problems.

You have to keep it all in perspective.

One other comment about minimums of 20 hours for solo on R22s. I suspect most people aren't ready for solo before then anyway, legislation or not. I don't know that flying another brand of wirlygig would lower that time either.:uhoh:

Slowrotor:
Be careful with that 300. There have been at least nine catastrophic in-flight failures caused by a design fault which has still not been corrected in most of the first 550 aircraft built. For full details contact Dennis Kenyon.

Slowrotor,

You write:
<I cannot attend the safety course without a heli pilot certificate. That doesn't make much sense to me.>

I can assure you that it makes a lot of sense to the vast majority of people who attend the course and to the Robinson company who produce it.

Listen to your instructors who have attended the course, and learn. After around 150 hours on the Robinson type, go on the pilgrimage to Torrance. Your time will be wasted if you go before you can sensibly answer the questions that may be posed.

I went at 120 hours R22 time and only just managed to avoid looking inadequate. Then again I have been flying planks for 40 years.

Robinson Factory Course 8th Dec
 

Anyone else going to be there?

No, but thanks for volunteering to be the unofficial PPRuNe Spy! Of course, you should realize that we all expect you to snoop around and see what engine they have on the dynamo. Is the next ship diesel or turbine?

Last rumor I've heard is that the main project is to develop an air conditioning system for the R44 in-house. There is a company in Florida that just got FAA approval for an add-on kit, and that probably puts a burr in Frank's bonnett. They don't like ANY modifications after leaving RHC. I've also heard Frank mention that any "new" ship is at least 3-5 years away. I'm assuming that is because they are focusing on the R44 air conditioning system?

Anyone know the dates of the Feb 2004 course in Sydney Bankstown? My two years is nearly up.

RD: R44 a/c was being tested inflight at the factory in September. I don't think they are far off releasing it. (Of course here in the UK it'll be an age before certification - the CAA will want to prove that it can float... :-) )

How do they manage to get 60 odd pilots through the flying part of this course in 2 and a half days. I am guessing that they must each fly 1.5 hours, that would be 90 flying hours.

Does the factory have a large training fleet?

Marc

At the factory, only four company helicopters, 2 R44s and 2 R22s. Customer ships are also used for the course. Pilot wise, we use a variety of excellent instructors from the area that only teach the course plus some pilots from production flight test.

Customer's machines are also used for training.
 

Copter Driver

I assume you work for the factory by the phrasing of your response. Tell me you are joking when you say customer's machines are used for training. You dont mean new machines do you?

Marc

When I went to the RHC Safety Course, I got about 1.5 hours flying time in the course. Each new machine must be run through the paces by a Test Pilot. Often, students in the Safety Course will ride one of these new machines during training with said Test Pilot / Instructor.

It's not a big deal, and we don't beat up the aircraft... everything is done within the POH. In fact, when I flew with Tim, we discovered the CAT gage was a little loose (black cardboard background rattled inside the instrument gage). He said, "that's why we do a test flight with every aircraft."

Before everyone jumps on the safety issue about students being "test pilots," bare in mind that each ship goes through an extensive QA process before it even gets to that point. Also, both the Instructor and student pre-flight the aircraft. I'm sure Copter Driver can describe more details.

Customer machines are used, but like RD said, flown within all limtations and it is good because you do find squaks that need to be tended to, nothing major just little issues. The aircraft are not abused whatsoever, the instructors know this is someone ship

But rest assured that the helicopters go through a complete five hours of flight testing by flight test. This includes an extensive seven page checklist plus many many thorough inspections before and after the aircraft comes through flight test before it is placed in the delivery center. These things arent put together like tractors on an assembly line, every helicopter is different and everything on the aircraft has certain tolerances that must be met, from how far the fresh air vent knob pulls in and out to the force it takes to pull the mixture out.

It would be good to hear from someone who has been on the course, exactly what sort of testing is being done while "student pilots" are at the helm of Mr Expecting's new machine.

Quite honestly its laughable if not dishonest. Do they tell their customers about this? I hope so.

Marc

No testing is being done, all flight tests have been completed and the aircraft has obtained its Airworthiness cert. But if you happened to come across a bad gauge or burnt out light then its fixed.

If somone has not payed for a helicopter yet, then they do not own it. If they have, then the aircraft is not flown in the course.

Giro, my thoughts exactly... I went to do the RHC safety course just after i had ordered a new raven 2 and was completely gobsmacked that new machines just out of the 5 hours flight testing were being used for the courses.....Franks attitude to this is that these are his machines until they are handed over to the new owners- its very much a one way conversation!

however my machine arrived safely and i cant get too excited about it now....the instructors are highly experienced and responsible people. so no harm done i guess...

cest La Vie:O

Copter Driver
 

OK, now you are saying no testing is being done, fair enough. Then persumably you are getting value by selling time to someone else (ie the student) using someone else's machine without their approval.

Let me put another point to you. If they are registered, and an airworthiness certificate is issued, then persumably they are no longer new. Are you selling them as new aircraft or used?

Marc

Theres not much one can do about it. Frank has been doing this forever, and with over 5000 ships out the door, there has not been a problem.

The ships are still registered to RHC, and if not payed for then RHC is the owner and can use the helicopters. If they are payed for in full then they are not used. When an owner comes to cut a check, he or she should thoroughly examine their aircraft, ask questions and if it was used for a flight or two and they dont like it, no one is forcing them to buy it. I am not selling these aircraft, nor have anything to do with the sale of them.

Crazy discussion. How "new" do you think your new car, cellphone, laptop is ?? If you think that product comes off a production line, gets polished and sold straight to you, think again.
My "new" car has more than likely spent a couple of months sitting in the open air on a disused airfield in the UK, alongside several thousand others. Then it gets taken to a dealer who gets the lowly-paid apprentice to do a PDI. Then the next person who gets to drive it is me! Hmmmmmm - safe.
I am delighted with RHC's approach. Every machine gets a complete 5-hour check by their team before being delivered to customers. And when the majority of RHC customers are in different parts of the globe, it makes good sense that all shakedowns are carried out at Torrance.
I have a machine on order - and I do not care if it does get used for some RHC Safety Course work. Having done the course, I can assure you that there is no grief given to the machine. No to-the-ground autos, no wild flying.
I'll leave that to the certification pilot :-)