We don't yet have an ATSB final report to work with. How do we "question" ...:confused:






.

For starters, we can read the preliminary report where it states:

There is nothing in that statement that can be implied to support many of the theories being expounded here, such as overpitching, LTE ( :rolleyes: ) or orographic lifting. Yes, I have operated there and from a landing to the hover should not be influenced by any local conditions.

Photo's page eight...

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3899970...-016_final.pdf

Flying Binghi
 

Its with interest and sadness that I note the date of the report showing that in fact fuel bladders do work is 30/4/12. Sad because its only now; 3/4/2013, that a Airworthiness Bulletin ( still not an AD) is released stating in effect that the Service Bulletin and the date for tanks to be fitted with bladders is to be adhered to and in effect its not legal to fly after 30 April 2013. I know that reminders have been sent out but there are a lot of commercial operators and others who resist or lag behind on SB and only act on AD's. I've been offered for sale and in fact bought machines that haven't had all SB's up to date. Great to see though that fuel bladders seem to work. Service Bulletin below refers:

http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/airworth/awb/02/044.pdf

I'd point out that CASA have been proactive:

and

and the reminder that CAR41 and CAR47 require compliance with SB dates. I would suggest that the finger should be firmly pointed back at Robinson, but then we have the luxury of a compliant R44 and are not facing a grounding as are so many other owners.

G'day John,

In no particular defence of Robinson, they did issue a SB on the 20th December 2010, and did offer many owners, including me, a cost reduction (USD1,000 I think ?) for actioning the SB.

http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sb78.pdf

There has been plenty of time for users to act on this, it is after all April 2013.

That said, and I have said this prior, whilst there have been now 3 horrendous accidents involving fires with crashed R44's (in Aus), there were also 2 others, the AS350 B3 at Bankstown and the Twin Squirrel at Lake Eyre...even with "safe" fuel storage systems, both of these aircraft burned to the ground.

Arrrj

John Eacott
 

Fair enough John, maybe I don't understand how the Sb/AD system works but in my mind "proactive" would mean CASA mandating the tanks well before this. But I am happy to be corrected and bow to your superior knowledge.

I think John SB's should be regarded as one would a very stern long haired friend, disregard at your peril.

I think Robinson could have been more proactive and advised each countries regulatory bodies; a) how many R44's there are, and b) when the parts will all be avbl.

Just procedural for CASA I think, unless they were proactive and hounded the factory and or FAA, nothing stopping them doing that I guess and maybe they did.

I don't have any problems with the grounding order, plenty other aircraft types been grounded for various reasons over the years.

Convincing photos Binjhi.

I am interested if the pilot who chartered the R44 new of the potential problem.

I don't fly R44s but new of the risk as I had followed news reports of the other accidents.

If I was going to charter such a helicopter model I would ask if the mod had been done and then make my decision based on the level of risk I was prepared to accept. It's called being responsible for ones own actions.

As to the passengers- there was a CASA safety brochure which explained clearly how passengers flying with private pilots should make their safety decisions .

If CASA has to make all safety decisions on behalf of individuals there would probably be a lot less flying taking place.

I guess from my point of view it would to assess whether the flight could be had over terrain open enough to always be able to put it down without tree strikes.
This could lead to some interesting duty of care situations maybe, as how would the common private passenger, indeed any passenger be aware of such?

Cheers tet.

What is going to happen after the first post accident fire that occurs in an R44 that has been fitted with Bladder tanks ?

Hey Ag-Rotor with these Flimsy types, it's a given that more will continue to fall-apart in-flight :yuk:

Land Happy always
VF

lets hope its not a given in the future...we can only continue to grumble that the comparably poor crash worthiness of light helicopter airframes is unacceptable.


Mickjoebill

I hope you do not include the H500 type in that statement.

Fair point, the H500 is proof that helicopters can be designed so they do not crumple like tin foil.

mickjoebill