R44 fatal accident - tail boom failure?
 

Rather strange and tragic report on the NTSB site, abbreviated here:

"On May 1, 2006, about 1430 Pacific daylight time, a Robinson R44 Raven II, Canadian registration C-FICL, impacted desert terrain near Desert Center, California. The Canadian certificated commercial pilot and the passenger were fatally injured; the helicopter was destroyed. The cross-country ferry flight departed Zamperini Field Airport (TOA), Torrance, California, at 1305

The accident pilot had taken delivery of the new helicopter from the Robinson Helicopter Company factory in Torrance on the day of the accident. The pilot and passenger, who were employed by Zimmer Air Service, Inc., departed from Torrance with an intended final destination of Blenheim, Ontario, Canada.

Two ground witnesses saw the helicopter just before it impacted the ground. They observed that the tail boom had separated from the fuselage.

The helicopter was a Robinson R44 Raven II, and had a total airframe time of 4.0 hours when it left the factory the day of the accident. The tachometer read 5.2 hours at the accident scene.

The on-scene examination revealed that the helicopter and separated components came to rest about 200 yards south of interstate 10. The accident site was 16 nm east of Desert Center, and 18 nm west of Blythe.

The tail boom was located 100 feet west of the main wreckage. The tail boom had separated just aft of the main fuselage attach point. The tail rotor blades and tail rotor transmission were attached to the tail boom with minor impact damage."

Where the tail boom separated doesn't sound quite like a failure following mast bumping/MR blade hitting tail boom scenario, but it is hard to think of any other cause. Any views/knowledge?

One would assume that it would be Mast bumping/MR connection with tail boom. .but you would also state a commercial pilot knows of these dangers, unless inflicted by other means. . . or maybe it's as simple as a maintenance fault from the factory...and the tail boom just held in for the 4 hours..then seperated..who knows... condolences to the families. sad.
I'm interested to know the investigation result or other ppruners comments ?

Wonder wh they were down that way if they were going Canada as its the complete opposite direction.?
I flew from Blythe to Palm Spings at this time last year and I can remember it being extremly windy and very bummpy around that area, getting much worse as you approached Palm Springs and Banning pass. We had to lay-over for 2 days before we could get through the Banning pass due to the strong/turbulence. I wonder if they got into Turbulence and the Low G environment. Going to be interesting to see the weather reports and PIREP's for the day. Not many people fly around there unless quite high (Fixed wingers).
Thoughts to families.

Flash

"An aviation routine weather report (METAR) for BLH was issued at 1453. It stated: winds from 170 degrees at 8 knots; visibility 10 miles; skies clear; temperature 38 degrees Celsius"

Not particularly windy. Where do tail booms tend to fail after R44 mast bumping? "Just aft of the main fuselage attach point" or further back?

You'd expect the sever point to be much further back in the case of a boom chop from mast bumping. I don't see how the main rotor blade could flex far enough to sever the boom so far forward.

Besides, the report said "separated" rather than "severed", and there would have been clear impact damage from the main rotor, with corresponding damage on the rotor blade.

Very sad accident either way :(

Once the blades have seperated from the mast they are free to go anywhere. My only direct experience of mast bumping was observation of a Huey that sufferred same and tail boom was chopped off about six inches aft of the tail boom attatchment - and as if it had been a hot knife through butter it was such a clean "cut". And with 17 on board at 1000 - 1500 feet. Result of a zoom climb I might add.

Has there been any further news on this accident? has the Report come out?
 

Do any of you know any more about this accident? The thread went quiet soon after, has there been any further investigation or results?
Flash

I tried a few days ago to find out more but could find nothing . For a student or low hours pilot it makes you think hard . For two experienced pilots in a brand new ship and this accident occurs :confused:

I've been watching for the NTSB to update this accident report. I ferried an R44 from Robinson two weeks after this one and was informed that Robinson had added an additional requirement to their ferry flight rules. They now require that the flight controls be removed from the passenger side if that person is not rated. They may have reason to believe that the non-rated passenger was flying the aircraft at the time of the accident.

Other thoughts:

The preliminary report says that approx 1.2 hours had elapsed between departing KTOA and the accident site 16nm east of Desert Center, 18 nm west of Blythe KBLH, that's a distance of 165 nm.
Hobbs said 5.2 hours, and the ship left Robinson with 4.0. Blythe Metar said the winds were from the south at 8 knots (no tail wind to speak of at the time) with an OAT of 38 C. In the absence of a good tail wind, these guys were traveling at quite an average indicated airspeed, 165/1.2 = 137.5 knots. Published VNE is 123kts @ 40 C correcting for temperature.

I believe that the route though this area is the one Robinson prefers due to lack of high mountains, the destination was eastern Canada if I'm not mistaken.

I have heard (and take it for what it's worth) that POSSIBLY one of the pilots (not sure which one was actually flying the ship) possibly had a faint/stroke/heart attack and this caused him to slump forward against the cyclic, resulting in an obvious low-g pushover scenario from which the other pilot simply couldn't recover in time before the rotor chopped off the tail boom.
Again, it's pure speculation at this point but I have heard this from numerous sources here in the U.S.

:confused: This has always been a requirement, hasn't it ???

Sorry to hijack for a moment...
Thats one heavy and very crowded Huey Brian A. We talking 214?
Must have been a difficult sight to see the loss of so many. Where was it?

Here is a video and the corresponding CAA Incident Report clearly showing why the dual controls should always be removed if an unrated passenger is to occupy the front seat next to the pilot of the helicopter (and this would apply not only to Robinson R22 or R44 Helicopters, but any other make and model of helicopter too).
Luckily, in this case, the aborted landing remained an incident and didn't turn into an accident. Nevertheless, it remains a very hair-raising video to watch.

sorry to be a typical ppruner - but it says his right knee pushed the centre column...

even removing the dual controls would not have prevented this? :confused:

True. Maybe a short passenger briefing before the flight could have helped prevent what we saw in the video. Who knows?
All I know is, I always do a quick passenger briefing with all my passengers, once the dual controls have been removed. Sure, it isn't a 100% guarantee either, but if the passengers at least are aware of where the crucial controls are and what they should try not to bump into, well then maybe it might just help prevent something like what we saw in the video from re-occurring.

A/S seems a tad high, I wouldn't discount the turbulence in an area that it's suggested is known for it, with the newbie owner flying along - encounters some clear air tubulence - dust devil or whatever, they can go higher than 6000 and be violent up there in the desert here in oz- he panics - mate wakes up just a bit too late - ?????
certainly IF they encountered such scenario at a high power setting it would not help.

BA, I got to hear about your story from a friend, now deceased, who happened to be flying a mirage on finals when the good old aussies - after some head scratching and some time later - sent up a second machine to test fly the same scenario.

The test pilot was a friend of my mate, result was - ahem! well - predictable in hindsight - maybe foresight too - not the best thing that my mate reckoned he had seen.

Typical flight plan
 

Typically for Northeast destinations in Canada, Robinson will assign you a flight plan taking you south of the Rockies and then northeast to your destination.

In Frank Robinson's "Requirements for Pilots Ferrying Helicopters from RHC Factory" letter, it is stated "RHC reserves the right to delay the departure due to weather and to specify the flight route in the event the intended route submitted by the PIC is deemed to be unsafe by RHC."

If you look at the destination in the report, Blenheim, Ontario Canada, the closest airport is Leamington, Ontario (CLM2).

A direct course from Torrance to Leamington would take you straight through the Rockies. I am pretty confident Robinson probably instructed them to fly Easterly past Blythe, through the southwest, and then probably northeast after crossing through Texas.

Big Bucks Bernie, That video reminds me of an accident involving an R44 and a tow platform connected to a lawn tractor. The pilot touched down with the skids off the rear, bumped the stinger and over corrected pushing forward cyclic, the MR blades cut through the "A" frame hitch. No injuries, not even to the person seated on the tractor at the time.:eek:

Helicopter Crash In Desert May 1 2006
 

I HAVE DETAILS ABOUT THE ACCIDENT, BUT I WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY HOURS RHC HAS TO TEST FLY THEIR SHIP BEFORE THEY GIVE IT TO THEIR CUSTOMER. I HEARD IT WAS UP TO 20 HOURS BUT INITIALLY 5HRS, BUT THIS HELICOPTER ONLY HAD 4 HRS ON IT BEFORE IT LEFT TORRENCE, CA. PUTTING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WITH WARMUP TIME THE SHIP WAS NOT EVEN IN THE AIR AN HOUR. IF THEY HAD DONE 1 MORE HOUR OF TESTING THE MACHINE WOULD HAVE BLOWN UP AT THE FACTORY NOT AT IN THE AIR KILLING 2 GOOD MEN.
THE NTSB HAS CLOSED THE CASE BUT THE FAA HAS REOPENED IT, SITING DIFFERENCES. THE CYCLIC CONTROL WAS NOT TOUCHED BY THE PASSENGER.
THE SHIP WAS STOPPED IN AIR AND FELL OUT OF THE SKY THE TAILBOOM WAS SEPARATED BY THE FORCE OF THE BLADES COMING AROUND AND ENTERING THE COCKPIT. DEADSTOP.
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT HAPPENED?
ROBINSON ALSO PUT UP AN SERVICE BULLETIN ON HIS WEBSITE ASKING TO INSPECT YOUR BLADES EVERY 100 HOURS. DATED JUNE 6,2006 HUH:uhoh:
THE MEN FLYING TO CANADA PASSED THE AUTOSPY REPORT NO HEALTH PROBLEMS. THE PILOT ALSO HAD OVER 7500 HRS EXPERIENCE IN HELICOPTERS. AND HAD BEEN FLYING ALL HIS LIFE.
YOU TELL ME WHAT WENT WRONG!!!!!

At the risk of continuing a sham, who told you that the NTSB "closed the case"??????? That is absurd and a lie. The investigation has barely "opened" and no data or results have been announced yet. Stop telling or repeating falsehoods. The NTSB has not closed the case. It takes sometimes a year or more for the NTSB to end their investigation and report their final verdicts.
I'd say you're a Robbie hater and nothing more.:=

Helicopter Crash May 1,2006
 

Exactly, It Should Be A Year Before The Case Is Solved I Was Shocked Myself To Hear That The Ntsb Had Closed The Case. I HAVE A PERSONAL STAKE IN THIS I WAS TOLD DIRECTLY. That Only Means They Have Found What Their Are Looking For, Or Botched The Investigation. As For The Robi Hater I Feel You Have No Idea What Your Talking About. Robinson Has A Great Helicopter It Just Needs Some Work To Make It Safer For All Pilots. (snoopy) I Don't Know Where You Get Your Info From But You Got I Heck Of An Imagination.
Does Anyone Have Any Worthy Theories With The Information I Gave Above What Happened To This Ship!!

I have been watching this as well. I was out at the factory a week after this happened. I am concerned about some of your comments especially the one above.

The hobbs on the R44 is activated by the collective. Therefore, the ground runs do not count towards the hobbs. Some operators add a oil pressure hobbs for billing, but they de not come from the factory that way. So all of the time on the ship was in the air.

I hope you are sincere in your pursuit of the truth of this horrible accident and that you are not just stirring up trouble. My thoughts go out to those that have lost loved ones in accidents like this.

Rumours, whispers, angry chants and more rumours......

My thoughts go out to the families effected by this loss of life - this is seriously tragic stuff...

Look forward to receiving some info from official sources so that we can all learn from this..

:(

Flyinhy, if you know something why don't you share it with us. This is an area where we discuss aviation related matters and learn from them. There's no point or meaning in saying that you know something but you don't share it.
Can you back it up? I find the rumours worrying but there are just that, rumours, until you explain or substantiate them
HS

How bad are the Rockies for turbulance?
It seems strange to me that a manafacturer would not allow its product to be flown in certain areas. Any aircraft which is airworthy should be able to be flown in most conditions, for which is was designed for.
It would be like a car company saying that it's product is fine, but we strongly advise not to use it on a motorway as at top speed the flux-capacitor will fail.
Is Robinson the only company to stipulate which way a machine departs it factory?

Sympathy to friends, collegues and family of the deceased

Hughesy

I have made the ferry trip one time. I agree that the ferry route (I-10), is the best way to go. This is the southern most route. It keeps your highest point of the route aroud 5500' and the highest airport around 5000.

Any further north puts you into the jet steam where the winds are VERY strong. Anywhere from 40 to sometimes aproaching 100 at altitude.

I did it in Jan in a R22. Even as far down as the I-10 route takes you I still had a leg where I had 50kt tailwinds. It was a real windy trip!

It got real rough for me coming out of Texas.

For my last 600 mile leg, all the way Alabama to the east coast there was not a single general avaition aircraft that I ever heard on the radio. The people looked at me like I was nuts at my fuel stops for flying in those conditions. I had a new found respect for the 22 after that trip.

It was a long day at 65kts

Heli_Sticktime- I can't say on this forum what is going on because i don't know who anybody is you could be working for Robinson for all i know. the investigation as I said is still ongoing throught the FAA. Its not as simply as you might think. This was a Brand NEW HELICOPTER that BROKE up in flight. cruising home to Canada. the flight plan was made by Robinson and followed. this is the same flight plan the same pilot had made 5 times before picking up other Robinson helicopters in the past years. He was very experienced pilot, and did crop dusting as well. The helicopter stopped in air I don't know if i should tell you this. but eventually this is going to be common knowledge. i looking for information, you people are helicopter pilots or mechanics or just for the love of it you know what to look for. why did this helicopter fall out of the sky? question: if the pitch link was broken and found mile from site.(what would cause pitch link to break) one revolution of the blade to the cockpit. one blade showed upward and downward coning, the other downward.what would cause that . read above, no medical, no interference. just cruising.
still does anyone know how long the helicopter has to be tested at Robinson before they let it go to the owner?
i would like answers and also inform others of safety issues i'm not a robinson hater or helicopter hater in general. i just want people to be safe in the air so nobody dies.
http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/awb/62/002.pdf

induced drag- could you explain yourself more to me. because i have a report from the FAA . FAA Advisor Circular 20-95 that assumes 10.5% of operating time will be in autorotation, run-up ,or shut-down.
tell me if the heli was 5.2 hrs total engine time. 4 hrs on engine before take off. leaving 1.2 hrs flight. calculate the distance. they crashed approx. 3 mins before blythe airport. flight time. 18nm w of blythe.

Most common for new A/C to have between 4 and 8 hours on the Datcon when they are 'new'. Very rarely have I seen one that has more than 10 hours when recieved (except for ENG ships).

FLYINHY thanks for the post, it does seem very strange from what you explain, and worrying. I don't work for RH or the CASA or FAA, I'm in South Africa. The link you posted doesn't seem to work, any chance you can see if you can update it. I'd like to read what they have to say. What has RH had to say about the accident?

what is the protocol, testing procedure of these "new" helicopters?
has anyone been able to go through Robinson factory and see how the ships are made? What safety inspections are in place?

site is update. even more trouble some

by the way RH never an apology, condolences, has become a little snake in a hen house, quiet but sneaky. ready for the kill, but the hen is ready to attack, with help. thanks.

I think you are missing my point or I may have misunderstood you. I thought you only felt the 44 had 1 hour of flight testing at Robinson with the rest of the hobbs time (3 hrs) being ground runs.

What I meant was that if it have 4 hrs on the ship, then it had 4 hrs of flight testing. Usually I hear the number of hours testing is around 5 hrs..


The Hobbs on the R44 is NOT an engine hobbs. It is activated by a switch on the collective. It only runs when the collective is off the stop. Therefore you could run at 100% on the ground for hours and not click a 10th on the hobbs. This is how the ship was certified.

I have been to the Robinson factory at least 5 times. I have had two full tours of the facility and I have ferried two new Robinsons away from the factory to Canada.
The first new ship had 5.2 hours on it and my memory is the second was around the same. As stated above; that is 5.2 hours of testing in the air. During the Robinson Safety course I flew for 1.1 hours with a Robinson test pilot. We actually used Frank Robinsons own ship as the course was full and a one hour flight was part of the deal and they were short of helicopters. It was the same as all the rest.
After touring the factory I have even more confidence in the Robinson product. The pace is state of the art or better, clean and organized. If you have not seen a 500,000 square foot CNC precision factory before it is worth the trip alone.
I have no idea what brought down that R-44, if you have the knowledge you say you do then just tell the story.

Pardon me for bringing this up, but was there another US accident with a Robinson in the last week?

I have never been fortunate enough to train to fly a helicopter, but have worked with guys who have and wish that I had the money for such training. One is a reserve Instructor on the Bell Jet Ranger with the US Navy VT in Pensacola. Another guy flies part-time in Louisiana and reportedly earns a very good salary.

R44 went down Aug 13,2006
 

NTSB reported SEA06FA159
R44, destroyed after colliding with ocean waters aprox. 1mile west of Camp Rilea, Warrenton, Oregon. The refueled in Astoria, Oregon heading towards Long Beach. Just another example of a well made piece of machinery. can't wait too hear this one too. i'd guess oh pilot error, no wait the weather.http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...17X01202&key=1

The Hobbs on the R44 is NOT an engine hobbs. It is activated by a switch on the colle
 

induced drag- So, correct me if i'm wrong but what your saying is that when they test these hobbs they test with the collective on 100% and do not leave the ground. so this is just engine time of 4 hours. because the 1.2hrs was when the pilot was in control of the new ship. that what the records indicate. also, again tell me if i've been misinformed on this too, but i also was told this was an unreliable source that the new ship are tested in flight by the pilots that come for training. can anyone expand on this?
what ships do they use?

Hate seeing pilot error finger pointing.
 

I am saddened to see any loss of life, always sympathies to all those affected.
Also Saddened to see helo's down but worse to see another Robinson involved.
Is it just that we are getting tunnel visioned and focused on the Robinson that we are not seeing or taking notice of other small helo's like the Schweizer or are they simply just not crashing as often.
I am not seeing it. I am not seeing student involved crashes or experienced pilot crashes in the S300, not 47.

What am I missing?

I have tried to be silent with this issue but I cant hold back from commenting anymore & for that I applogise ahead of time.

Where can stats like comparisons or even reports showing say ( this is gonna open up the can ) the ammount of Schweizers crashed since in service & numbers in service.
Then compare to the Robinson, I dont know about anyone else but they seem to be increasing in frequncy at an alarming rate.
I am having a serious issue trying to at least keep some sort open mind towards this a/c.

Well it would be nice to see the outcome of the report but 30 mins after the metar stated overcast at 400 ft, they crashed in to water.:(
Why would you not put down ASAP and wait it out? Could this not be possible , can the overcast just swallow you instantly like that?

Could have been a mech failure Numerous smaller pieces of helicopter wreckage were recovered from the water, however a majority of the wreckage has not been located would make one think it was all very sudden ( not forced landing due to no vis ).
But also a high speed indicates the pilots either were going for a window in the cloud or simply hit the water ( lost depth reference )...gauges... altimeter, airspeed etc?
Totally disoreintated?
I am just assuming ( yeah I know, making an ass of u and me ) that the little peices is an indication of a high airspeed/groundspeed not a slow one.

If you were in the soup would'nt the airspeed be very low?
Would there still be Numerous small pieces found if forced to settle in water & survival rate be better?

Also...why No flight plan was filed for the cross-country flight?
Should'nt there always be a flight plan filed or was it not required.

I really am looking for some comments/answering not insults.
There was an light fixed that crashed here in the similar circumstances not so long ago, and I am just trying to understand how and why.
Thanks.

:sad: HF

Heliport/moderators, if this post is inappropriate no offense willl be taken if you remove it.

I think you are misunderstanding me. This is a small point and really not important in the big picture.

What I am saying is simply:

The Hobbs meter in the ship only operates when the ship is flying as it is activated by a switch on the collective.....period

So all 4 hours were airbourne and not ground running....Not that this matters....

I think it is just a function of pure numbers.... This is a quote off of schweizers website:


So including all the 269's 300 AND 333's almost 3000 have been produced.

Now this is going back to the 60's. Of those ships, some smaller fraction are still flying.

Now take Robinson. Off thier website, on 1/9/06 the 5000th R22 was sold. I would say that a greater portion of the 22's are still flying then the 269 series due to the 12yr overhaul and the fact that the fleet is much younger. Less ships written off or fallen in to dis-repair

the R22 alone has in 20years outsold 2 to 1 a ship that has been around for 40years.

Now add the R44 in the mix and you are talking about aproaching 7000 helicopters produced.!! That is alot of ships.

Just plain statistics that these ships are involved in more accidents....

Compare that to the Jet Ranger and since the mid sixties, 4400 206's have been produced. (Not including OH58's)

In 2000 and 2001 the company delivered a whopping 14 ships, and in 2002 it jumped to 20.

So long story short....with the numbers of ships Robinson is putting out.....they are simply more likely to be involved.

This condition is ever increasing as Robinson continues to dominate and gain even more market share.

hmm now if a scale was applied to even it out ( number of ships produced over time ) would the number of ships per production over time be even or at a higher/lower rate?

[quote=FLYINHY]

THE SHIP WAS STOPPED IN AIR AND FELL OUT OF THE SKY THE TAILBOOM WAS SEPARATED BY THE FORCE OF THE BLADES COMING AROUND AND ENTERING THE COCKPIT.

All of the accidents I have heard of in which MR blades have departed their normal plane of rotation and contacted the cockpit were due to a Low-G situation. Wouldn't a MR hub, blade or linkage failure more likely result in parts traveling out and away from the airframe?

How does one know for certain that the non-rated passenger was not on the controls?