By chance any CASA rep on this threat?

Comments?

Maybe we are bashing, but if it is not as we say, come out and correct us! Proof please!

3top

Stress will find a way.
 

Failures such as the one addressed on this thread in most cases manifest themselves from the inside out. That is not to say all failures manifest themselves in that way and in those cases a close visual check using high powered magnification and/or dye penetrant type testing will be sufficient. But in the cases of the failure generating from the inside out the visual check will not find it.

I have worked on other helicopter programs where blades or other highly stressed parts were failing and in those cases the manufacturer would send a rep or reps out to perform the necessary checks and they carried the necessary tools to do the job. Based on the comments from Oz the eddy current testing devices are few and far between. If that is the case Robinson should perform the field test and if necessary teach the mechanics how to remove and replace the subject bolt.

It’s your ass so you should insist on it.

:sad:

captain lai hai,

i'll stick to to history of this machine that i listed previously.

in fact one of the previous owners was recently interviewed by the atsb with regard to its working life.

we can only wait and see.

?
 

To: imabel

If I remember correctly you indicated that the helicopter was not operated as a mustering helicopter but was actually shipped in as a used helicopter from the United States. If this is the case were the blades actually operated in excess of the allowable 2200 hours? If this is not true, then the blade failed in less than 2200 hours and if this is the case then there really is a problem.

I stand to be corrected.


:confused:

lu,

the r22 in question was operated as a mustering machine for over a year in the northern territory of australia i believe.

it was sold to the current owner about 1998. i'm not saying which mustering company owned it as that would be unfair.

at the last 100 hourly it had in the n.t. in november 1988 it had accumulated 1930 hours approximately, five years later i am told it still had quite a few left to run. i know how many.

another machine that i am well aquainted with from central queensland, (i did a mustering endorsement for the owner nearly 10 years ago) has still not had a 2200 hourly. 19 months ago it had a rare 100 hourly. even thought the maintenance release has now expired for over 7 months the machine has still been flying. the owner wants a hundred hourly done. it has only 30 hours entered on the expired m.r.

i got to see this machine a couple of years ago when it was temporarily repossessed. the perspex was broken one door was missing the interior was a disaster area and the paint was peeling off, i'll bet it's worse today.

yet another machine that is still operating on cape york peninsular, a machine that only had 14 hours left to its full life after its last 100 hourly, is now, at this very moment still being operated, one and a half years later.

8000 hours before legitimate overhall is not out of the question, this is a saving of over $600,000 australian per machine that frank will never see. and these operators still have their backsides hanging out of their r.m. williams moleskins.

where are the regulators you ask. i'll bet they are sitting on their collective arses in airconditioned comfort picking up a big mob of money, doing audits on the operators that they can get a cup of coffe and a bit of cake off that are within 100 kms of the city. hands over eyes, hands over ears, hands over mouth and somehow a finger up bum. they know what's going on, some of them have actually worked in the industry. their bosses want to deregulate the mustering industry so the problem will go away from them.

to be a little bit fair to our c.a.s.a. it is true that there are not many of them left after the purge by little dickie.

c.a.s.a. is the brotherhood of the ex mlitary pilot and we know that they are trained to fight to the death and that helicopters are expendable, top gun stuff. (you could drink rum all night with most of them). covering my backside there. they just can't change their mindset to civilian flying. and they don't know where to start.

you don't believe me do you??? you don't think that it it possible do you??? you want to know more??? watch this space.

I believe you.
 

To: imabel

You are describing the FAA. Based on my past experience with the DGCA, the CAA and the LBA you are describing them as well.

:sad:

Hi Lu,

go to the "Bridge Pilot Thread" . I ranted about the CAA a little there and was sternly corrected. If the gentleman speaks the truth, rightfully so. There were no more responses in favor of the CAA after that.
However if it is not the CAA, then some other institution is responsible and they are in for the wrath. It is just a little dificult to find the correct party for certain responsibilities.

3top

PS: In my place it is the same. Mostly it is a "favor"-job. No questions about qualification asked....

www.daam.com.au
Data Aquisition and Alarm Monitor
Check this site out. This is the answer to all questions over helicopters crashing and people fudging the books.

www.daam.com.au

that link takes you to perkins technology, larry perkins is a v8 supercar team owner and an australian champion on the track and on the dirt.

his monitoring system derived from supercar racing takes many readings from all over the a/c and stores the "incidents", overspeeds, temps and pressures etc. etc. for later downloading. it does a great job. i have flown the machine with one of the first ones installed at airwork at caboolture.

monash university group have also built a monitor that incorporates the same features and also an inbuilt gps. if the system is disconnected the time and place is recorded and the time and place of reconnection is also recorded.

you can have the sensors do a variety of tasks depending on your operation, eg. over torque on a sling job.

the costs rise with the ammount of software that you use with the monash system i am not sure with larry's system. it'g great to see someone take as much interest as he has. (he flies a 47).

Another blade problem
 

NTSB Identification: SEA03FA148
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, July 22, 2003 in Tulalip, WA
Aircraft: Robinson R22 Beta, registration: N7190K
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On July 22, 2003, approximately 1115 Pacific daylight time, a Robinson R22 Beta helicopter, N7190K, registered to and being flown by a private pilot, was destroyed during a loss of control and collision with terrain at Tulalip, Washington. The pilot was fatally injured and a post-crash fire destroyed the helicopter and an adjacent recreational building. Visual meteorological conditions existed and no flight plan had been filed. The flight, which was personal, was operated under 14 CFR 91, and was originating from the accident site. Its destination was in the Everett, Washington, local area.

A witness, who was an acquaintance of the pilot, reported the pilot landed his helicopter at the construction site of a nearly completed wood structure he was having built on a bluff overlooking Puget Sound. He walked down from the bluff and spoke with an acquaintance briefly and then returned to the helicopter. Shortly thereafter witnesses heard a loud crack and observed smoke and fire on the bluff. There were no known eyewitnesses who observed the crash sequence.

The helicopter was extensively fragmented with the inboard half of one rotor blade remaining attached to the main rotor hub. The outboard half of the blade had separated and the remains of this blade section were subsequently found in an area of burned wood nearby. The opposing blade had separated at the hub assembly and both the bolt head end and retaining nut end of the blade retention bolt was separated with a noticeable shear lip present.
Index for Jul2003 | Index of months

:sad:

24xray.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......some lucky 20 hour students have soloed in turbines with low entretia............:confused:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I thought b206's and the like had high enertia blades ?:ok:


rotor1

RHC Safety Notices 38 & 39...
 

For those that don't subscribe the RHC POH update service, two new safety notices were issued in July (I received copies of both today). SN-38 addresses training accidents during autorotations by outlining decision making criteria and ways to minimize student fatigue. SN-39 addresses unusual vibrations that may indicate a main rotor blade crack. This last Safety Notice is almost an exact copy of an R22 Safety Alert letter, issued 25 Jun 2002. Please refer to the RHC Safety Notice for details.

In my opinion, I believe SN-39 is the precipitated by the recent R22 crash in Oz. Hopefully, a formal Safety Notice (now included in the POH) will raise awareness. Of course, that doesn't do much for the poor chap that happens to fly a ship with blades that are far beyond their replacement time. Again, this last paragraph is personal speculation (first paragraph is fact).

More unhappy news from the AD.

I heard today from my LAME.

CASA still has 14th August as the dedline for the eddy current testing on all blades with more than 1500 hours.

Still no word from RHC on the protocol for actually doing the test. Apparently they are unlikely to have any protocols done till after the 14th deadline has passed.

I was booked to have it done on coming Monday, the LAME doing the tests was expecting some word on how RHC required the bolt removal and replacement and re-epoxying up the countersink for the bolt head. But no word so testing cancelled. And I was planning to travel half-way round Oz the following week.
Anyone heard anything to the contrary that might brighten up my day?
:{

Latest Info I have is "Yes but maybe no...."

I emailled CASA today and got back a very quick reply from David Villiers the head of the Airframes section.
Basically he confirmed that the AD requires removal and replacement of the bolt but that RHC hasn't given an approved method for doing it.
The factory is closed for summer holidays and he has been unable to get onto anyone who can advise them about it.

CASA are going to bring out a further ammendment to the AD in a day or two but he says he doesn't know (or can't say ) what it will say. He did say they are aware of all the effects it will have on the industry and that the new AD will be a temporary measure to keep things safe until RHC can advise CASA about the problem.

"Watch this space!" is all I can say.

G'Day Robborider and Mr Selfish

AD/R22/31 amendment 6 has just been released (Fri 8/8 in the pm)
The long and the short of it is that it states that any R22 that has conducted more than 50 hours mustering must have it's MR blades retired before 1500 hours time in service. It states that the eddy current inspection has been removed on the advice of the manufacturer.
It also goes on to say that any blades that are retired at 1500 hours should be retained "as future developments may enable them to be placed back into service"
Full details are on the web site www.casa.gov.au

Yes, I got the AD sent to me by CASA when they promulgated it.

Its going to ground half the fleet in because there aren't enough new blades available to cover the replacements needed and I'm told there's a waiting time of about three months. I haven't made my own enquiries yet but if it's true there's going to be lots of claims for compensation flying round.

They claim in the AD that the mustering puts more stress on the blades therefore the life is being decreased to 1500 hours....but all the reports of the 3 crashes have said the blade lives were far in excess of 2200 hours for two machines and enough suggestions exist to say that probably the third was the same.

So now operators have to buy non-existant new blades (just like we had to do non-existant tests in the first 5 of 6 ammendments) to prevent a problem not known to exist in blades used in accordance with manufacturers specs.

The operator who is not complying will continue and the rest will suffer.

But given the fact that CASA can't work out what they are doing (6 ammendments to an AD in less than 3 months makes you wonder about competence) there'll be more ammendments as they knee jerk to the likely outcomes of their previous knee jerks.

RobboRider: I agree.

I wonder sometimes at the mentality of the authority. They are writing up more directives/amendments when a few operators/owners are apparently ignoring the directives in the first place. These same ‘few’ will obviously adjust the "recorded" mustering hours accordingly to remain within the requirements of the AD and unless they can be caught, someone else will usually suffer the consequences.

How the hell can that fix the problem?
It’s the same as trying to put out spot fires without extinguishing the source.

CASA is in between a rock and a hard place when it comes to issues like these and the toothless tiger syndrome becomes the norm.

Blades don't have to be abused to break.
 

In a previous post on this thread I posted a NTSB report on an R-22 that suffered a possible blade separation. This helicopter was privately owned, it was most likely not abused and the blades were most likely well within their specified operating life. It could be chalked off as an infant mortality failure, a possible manufacturing defect or any of several other causes. Whatever the reason it shows that blades can fail when least expected. (Murphy’s law).

:sad:

That may be true Lu, and several manufacturers can testify to that.
But the situation (at least in Oz at the moment) is that if the blade life of an R22 is exceeded, you can expect it to break. It seems to be a trend and is not a random act of suprises.

....having said that: :\

1. Can anyone confirm/deny that this blade cracking has occurred in blades that are within their lfe limit?

2. Does lowering the mandatory life of a blade, stop people from exceeding it?

With all the rumours blaming the mustering industry, is this a general broad description of the industry, or are there specific operators in question.

Just seems we are tarring them all with the same brush, when there seems to be quite a few honest and above board operators out there.

In NZ we had problems with an operator selling bogus parts, he was jailed but it just amazed me that an operator of helicopters was caught doing it. Could understand parts supplier but someone who put his own people into machines that had U/S parts on it

:E