Romeopapa

You said - Arrogance "Often found in non commissioned ex army wallah's."

I know nothing of Dr Who but Agatha Christie once said, 'I often wonder why the whole world is so prone to generalise. Generalisations are seldom, if ever true and are usually utterly inaccurate'.

Well she got that right, you pretentious prat and yes many years ago I was; one of the many non-commissioned ex Army wallah's, I even had a hand in SS's pilots course and now with close to 12,000hrs and not a single minute of it in any form of Robinson - I would suspect I've started more powerful APU's in my time. But that isn't your fault albeit, some on here, me included, do take umbrage to somebody, you; who likes to castigate those of us who started out as............. 'Non Commissioned ex Army wallah's.

RP: What on God's earth made you comment like that?
Do you genuinely believe what you print?
(and I thought I was bad!)
I would suggest a gentle reverse manouevre out of this position, perhaps with a nervous laugh or joke or even a mild apology. You never know - others may restore their faith in what you have to say in future....................You don't want everybody thinking your number of posts (56) is actually your IQ, do you. Silly Billy :rolleyes:

Ah! I've just remembered why I don't post on this forum very often. Too many people with WAY too much time on their hands.

I'll add to that Jock: Foxtrot Oscar then :)

Sorry TC..i thought you'd be at after school club or something at this time of day.

Mummy won't let me go tonite.

Surely not the WHOLE world..... far too much of a generalisation. :p

Quite surprising how some folk have so much of a grudge to bear against those who were successful in passing the military selection process.

Keep it up, chaps, I'm beginning to enjoy this.

AnFI - perhaps if you looked at how many thousands of training hours were flown just by the British armed forces (we had 3 training bases, one for each Service all using the Gaz for many years) let alone many more thousands flown by foreign mil - you might understand how few training mishaps there have been and even fewer fatalities.

That is because it is a well designed helicopter with few vices and is capable of being mishandled (accidentally or deliberately) without turning itself into scrap - not a description you could level at the Robinson family of helos.

Romeopapa - if you had ever flown with a 'non-commisioned Army wallah' you would know that they are very often excellent pilots - something that can't be said for the majority of self-funded Robinson owners!

If you look at the last page of the Service Inquiry into the last Gazelle crash https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...936_SI_-_2.pdf

You'll see a summary of Gazelle incidents/accidents in EOL training which was compiled about 6 months before the ETPS one so I'm not sure if they included it in the final figures. In total 67 including 4 Cat 4/5 over several decades and 1.1 Million hours of UK military operation. Oh and 12 actual uses of the technique in anger for whatever reason.

I don't know how that compares to the R-22 but I suspect quite well.

Peter-RB. I knew what you meant, it's just the way it sounded in my head. :ok:

As a former Army NCO pilot trained at someone else's expense in a gas-turbine powered helicopter, the closest I came to getting a ride in one was a surprise invitation during a practice diversion on a check-ride. My companion may have held other ideas, since he was looking at a career in civil aviation, but as we left Sherburn in our Lynx, I turned to Mario and asked if he was serious about driving a cattle-frightening leaf-blower for fun.

Little did he know when the warning light came on and he put his Propeller Blades into Autorotation what an international slanging match he would start on Pprune !


Hilarious !


E.

Am I really alone in wondering how this crash is being accepted as a well executed eol? How can that be?

If this fella is recognised as a highly experienced helo pilot as quoted above shouldn't he be expected to manage an eol without wrecking the aircraft - and then getting praised for it??? Aren't mere students supposed to be able to cope with an engine failure? Even/especially in a low inertia type like the Crapinson?

SS

I am sorry I didn't get back to your post sooner.
Just to clarify I have great respect for your careful posts and perceptive level thoughts.

It is a shame that Pulp Fiction would be required to get you in a Robby, not sure you're being objective.

The reason I say you appear to be 'anti Robbo' is that you are posting many Robbo related poor examples. Of course there are many examples but then there are many of them around. The HeliHub extract is propogandist since if you do a type unspecified data pull you see that there is a heavy input from other types. Appearing to be at least proportionate to their numbers.

It would not be surprising if highly trained two crew helicopters flying simple A-B routes were to outperform private pilots. They OUGHT TO. I think private pilots (or Robby pilots) do a pretty good job on balance. Of course I would not deny that there are a few (really) daft examples, but then there have been cringleworthy examples in the commercial twins too, haven't there? (AJ, Paul McCartney, Haughey, NS Instrument App (several times), EPTS Gazelle, Chelsea Execs x2 etc)

We have just witnessed the most extaordinary set of sophisticated twins crashing mostly through appauling flying practices by (apparently) experienced highly qualified non-amateurs. AW139, A109x2, S76(outrageous near miss), AS332 etc etc

It's a bit rich to hit the private Robby pilots. Especially if you wont even go in one!

4 embarassing Robbos recently reflect that training occurs in them and that 'handling skills' are being phased out by the 'authorities' and all 4 have been without serious injury. We have a consensus here that 'handling skills' are missing, but that is a direct result of policy, it is less important than how to fill out a form apparently. (Agree SS you finger handling, but it is wider than the Robbo fleet, as in the examples above)

VF is admired for his beautiful pictures, and his excellent result after engine failure (AS350) in the mountains, but I doubt if I am alone in finding that his 'Crapinson' remarks reflect badly on him. I believe a friend of his was killed in one, I don't know the cause, but presume it must have been a(n extremely rare) mechanical failure? What were the circumstances VF?

The helicopter is exceptionally well designed, efficient, reliable, simple and accessible. It has revolutionised and revitalised the helicopter industry.

(and those spreading the myth that there aren't any mil accidents should be ashamed, YOU know that there are countless cockups often, they don't seem to be reported as often as they occur though, i wonder why that is? Think back, be honest. Having watched an afternoon of EOLs at Strawberry I can say a strong tailboom looks like a useful thing!)

bumblbum
'they' don't insist on perfect EOLs anymore.

Nigelh's classic arguement is in play here, he says (and he's right to a point) more helis are damaged from practice EOL than from engine failures so that result would count as ok from that perspective.

Personally I think that a pilot should be able to perform an EOL without damage, since it reflects a level of handling competence. It's a rare event and it should be a non-event. That said in a sticky field you'd have to arrive stationary to guarantee not falling over.

Handling is the key. Go to someone who knows how to fly well and get them to help you improve your handling skills. A 'Prof Check will not do that, 'done right' it assures a uselessly poor standard, possibly wasting everybodies time? It was conceived as a training opportunity and has been hi-jacked into a 'test'.

I say again, " I have not at any time critisised the pilot", and I have flown one!

All this talk about NCO pilots on this thread, yet nobody has picked up my observation about the baseball cap, and the badge that is on it :suspect:

SS
Fair, but still Robbi bashing.
What does the badge say? (i don't have the screen quality i guess, is it Red Bull?)
Mind you flying with a hat does seem to correlate with poor handling.

AnFI, the accidents and incidents you quoted occurred on twin engined helicopters and not on singles simply because singles are not allowed to carry out the type of work involved. Trying to use such examples to show that singles are therefore safer is totally flawed, false logic. All it can prove is that staying on the ground is safer than flying.

Btw, at least one of the recent tragic accidents you quoted involved pilots who initially trained almost exclusively on Robinson helicopters and most of their flying experience was gained on that type.