"Why Robinson helicopters seem to have a bad habit of crashing"
 

Interesting recent article from New Zealand.

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/so...abit-crashing/

All two bladed, teetering designs are susceptible to mast bumping. UH-1, 206, R44, R22, makes no difference. Get into low or negative G's with these machines and those like them at your peril.

People like such machines because they are economical to build and operate, and require less storage space.

Clearly, being the smallest and lightest helicopters of this type, the R22 and R44 are going to be more susceptible to external conditions that could cause unwanted low-G conditions, i.e. it takes less turbulence to cause a problem in an R22 than in a 206 or UH-1. Similarly, the R22 and R44 will be more susceptible to ham handed pilots.

Robbie bashing in 3-2-1 here we go again :ugh:

Innocent question from fixed wing PPL who has had the odd pole around in an R-22 and even made a miserable attempt or two at hovering.
Is it possible to have a non-teetering two bladed main rotor?
If so, if Robinson wanted to change to that kind of rotor - would it require a fundamental re-design of the aircraft?
Rather than them simply being ****e - I thought the high rate of crashes in Robbies was due to a machine that was originally designed pretty much for point to point commuter type flying - being used by pilots in quite aggressive flight regimes - like hunting or stock herding at low level - which it's not suited to.
Low G flight, hard sharp turns or rapid reversals of direction etc.

Its the Indian, not the arrow.

Not as far as I know. See also this explanation.
People have often postulated a three-bladed, fully articulated Robinson rotor head. It would be a major redesign.
Only the low-g stuff is a problem. Other than that the machine is quite agile and really very fun to fly without ever putting it into a low-g state. Again, it's an issue of someone putting the machine into a situation that allows it to be in a low-g state. Don't do it advertently. As the article cited above said, use the right tool for the job. When it's 30 gust 50 out a two-bladed machine is probably not the best tool, and a lightweight two-bladed machine is an even worse choice. It's the inadvertent scenario which is the nightmare, say a sudden penetration into unexpected severe turbulence at speeds around max. cruise. Such scenarios are more likely in mountainous, windy conditions. Under such circumstances one must fly conservatively, with a good understanding of mountain winds, and be ready to slow down instantly in the event of turbulence.

Yes. The Robinsons were built to a price point, originally intended to cost $22,000.

The teetering head is hugely successful in the Robinsons and Bells. It can be sturdy, and is the simplest way to get a rotor head onto a helicopter. If you wanted to make it non-teetering, the price will rise considerably, mainly for the complexity and testing. It cannot have any movement in the lead/lag plane or the imbalance would tear it apart. It can have flapping freedom, and of course feathering. But in the decades of rotorhead development, nobody has made one successfully. Stick with the teeter and the wee-waa and the desire to stay alive with positive g.

This thread is named for the propensity for low-time pilots to take the R22 and others out of their design envelope, with resultant tears and gnashing of teeth.

When it comes to 2-bladed helicopters, there is only one that continues to blame pilots for in-flight breakups, especially inexperienced pilots, yet many accidents have included people that don't fit the profile.
There is only one that puts notes in flight manuals to significantly reduce speed in turbulence.
One that publishes safety notices to remove controls so pax can't bump them and to shift blame to the pilot.
One that requires extra training to deal with the safety nuances.

They can be flown safely but the ability to leave the safe zone seems far too easy and doesn't end well.
When you build to a price you can't engineer out problems and the target market seem willing to accept the compromises mainly because they believe that accidents only happen to other people.
Will take an old JetBanger any day ahead of the alternative.

What? Even with it's dangerous mast-bumping teetering head...?

Methinks there is more to Robbo accidents than the head design, somehow.

Lets put an end to this "Mast Bumping" is a Mortal Sin thing.....it is an issue for sure but then so is any number of other issues for other designs.

Take one look at the number of flight hours for the Bell 47, 204, 205, 212,214, including Military models all. using that style Rotor Head system....and I would suggest Mast Bumping is one of the least notable causes of accidents.

Yes...you can do yourself in if you allow the factors that cause Mast Bumping to occur....but there lies the central issue....the PILOT!

Robbies do the Mast Bumping thing because the tolerances are so much smaller than that on a Huey....and the same is true for the Bell 47 compared to the 212 or 214.

That tells me that one has to be far more judicious in choosing the conditions and manner one flies the Robbie than the larger better built aircraft.



Note: The US Army fleet of UH-1's accumulated almost Eight Million Flight Hours during the Vietnam War....and many of those same Huey's are still flying today in the Civilian Market.

Add the other militaries in the USA and around the world, and civilian operators and the total fleet hours are well beyond Ten Million Hours and counting.



That is not Robbie Bashing....that is just the plain ol' truth.

Since I am even thinking about Robbies....I shall go have a couple of double Cheeseburgers with a large order Fries (Chips) and a large Chocolate Milkshake.....to ensure I cannot fit through the door of a Robbie.


https://vtol.org/files/dmfile/50-52H...rdinkSO162.pdf

And wasn't the 206 the safest single-engined aircraft in the world at one time?

It was....and that included airplanes as well as helicopters.

And although other helicopters can experience mast-bumping, only the Robbie has pitch horns that break under the strains of the flapping - that's if the blades haven't impacted the tail boom or the cockpit before that happens.

Adding the coning hinge for a little extra flapability was also a stroke of genius :}

From 2006 to 2016, looking at US data only, the NTSB records 67 fatals in Bells of all types, 66 fatals in Robinsons of all types. And we know that the fleet sizes are nearly equal in the US between the two makes. We don't know exactly how many hours each fleet does each year (but I would like to). So absent any reliable fleet hour data, if you are flying in the US it really doesn't matter if the name on the side starts with a "B" or an "R", except that it costs twice as much per hour to operate even the least expensive turbine machine, R66's included, and much more than that to operate something with at least four seats and at least three main rotor blades. At that level of cost differential, whether it's wholesale or retail, people will happily accept more risk to get in the sky in a helicopter. Except that the stat's say there really isn't any more risk one way or the other.

Now if you are flying in a country with a name that starts with "N" or "B", all bets are off! ;)

a7&8, you keep raising this as means of a justification, and like I have pointed out previously, when those Robbies are flying HEMS, fire, police, agriculture and many of the other high risk activities then you may have a point.
Until then, Joe Soap flying from A to B and some occasional news coptering won't account for the similar fatalties, not withstanding the vast difference in seating capacity of the types.
Just waive the white flag and admit it is what it is - tin foil and some rivets held together with duct tape and bubblegum :E

Not giving in, BR. The same points could be made about the high risks of primary training and high risks of carrying around low time pilots, both primary missions for Robinsons. The case can be made that both fleets are engaged in higher risk activities, each unique to themselves.

And I still want to see some trustworthy fleet hour data. I'm beginning to suspect those numbers are either closely guarded secrets or just nobody is bothering to track them. If someone can show in a verifiable way that the Bell fleet is flying twice the hours of the Robinson fleet, then I'll go slink home with my tailboom between my legs. But not until then.

A simple quote of a factoid is of zero value in any analysis or discussion.

Let me ask a few questions then you get back with us.

How many Robinson crashes occurred while doing EMS flights at night?

How many Robinson crashes occurred at Night doing Air Taxi flights?

How many Robinson crashes were pilot error in daylight operations within sight of the home airport (like training, etc.).

How many Robinson crashes occurred while carrying underslung loads to include Fire Fighting?

If you are going to throw out a simple number....that will not buttress your argument much at all.

The R44 is the best selling helicopter in the world, why? Because its more affordable (and has a back seat) to more people. Why is it more affordable? Because its light. The lighter the aircraft the more delicate you must handle it. Either accept this limitation, or go fly something else,...but stop your bitching! :ugh:

I just looked on Controller for Jet Box's and R-44's....twice as many Robinsons for sale as Bells.....and the prices for a newer Robinson is not far off from that for a upper middle priced Jet Box.

That answers any question I might have had on which would be spending my money upon.....beginning with Piston versus Turbiine and overall robustness.

If you are all about cheap then I suppose you would see it differently than I do.

I didn't do your homework assignment exactly as requested SAS because I simply don't have the time. I do understand, I think, that you are trying to make a point that the work the Bell fleet is doing is far more dangerous, complex and risky than the Robinson fleet. I don't agree with that assessment. Carrying low-time/part-time pilots is a risky business all by itself, as is instruction. Nevertheless, thanks to the highly organized NTSB database I was willing to peel the onion a little bit. As you can see from the table, many of the NTSB categories are comparable. The ones that are not I highlighted. Draw whatever conclusions you like. I've drawn mine, as noted above, and have not had my mind changed yet.

And, to touch on your other post, the capital cost of the helicopter is NOT the issue. It is the OPERATING cost that drives the business, or personal business, model. Hell, I thought about going in with one or two others on a used 206 or R66. But it just doesn't make economic sense. I put my own 44 to work about 150 hours last year (lease to a local school) and that paid for my insurance which substantially reduced the cost of my personal flying. There is NO way I could do that with a 206 or R66. Nobody would rent it or lease it for enough hours to matter. That market is flooded with way too many machines already and being worked by larger concerns who would have no interest in adding my machine to the stable. And since I can't afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot" but still want to fly, I MUST accept the Robinson as a solution or simply not fly at all. As for the lot of you who CAN afford to be a "gentleman turbine pilot", or are full-time turbine helicopter pilots, I don't begrudge you your success. But I do think you are wrong about intrinsic Robinson safety, and clearly the FAA agrees or they would have grounded them all long ago.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5189e5e1e8.jpg

But expecting the authorities to do something when there is a clear economic benefit from jobs and the supporting industry is naive - even if there is s clear proble.

You can't ban guns in the US because of the economic drivers (and apparent assault on rights) even though they are inherently dangerous, especially in the wrong hands, and kill thousands of people a year.

Typically all the accidents not caused by pilot input, are lack of power.

A Robbi isn't much of a problem to an experienced handler, the only concern with it due to its less robust design is what did the previous pilot who flew it do with it.

Although this is true with all machines, an overstressed Robbi will invariably bite back harder than slowly exhibit a problem.

I got into one last year after a long absence and was surprised to find it hovered right skid low. Should have written that up in the maintenance release.

Airbus encountered a small problem with the 225 and yet it still is operated in a few countries.

The 350 has non-crashworthy fuel cells as does the Robbie and they continue to operate.

Do not think for a second the "authorities" care to permanently ground any aircraft that was properly "certified" in the past.

The FAA did ground the Robbie over some blade delaminations and also required special training for the R-22 which some 16,000+ pilots have undergone since the FAA Ruling.

This is the most absurd perversion of common sense I have seen in a long time: That commercial work is inherently more dangerous than private piloting and that one therefore most expect a significantly higher rate of fatalities in commercial work - all other things, like type of helicopter, being equal - than in private flying. :ugh:

If anything, the opposite must be true: Commercial operations, benefitting by default from more qualified pilots, organisational and regulatory oversight, SOP's and SMS's, are expected to be by an order of magnitude safer than hitching a ride with a low time, un-current private pilot.

There is a number of videos on the 'net showing unprofessional pilots loading their new toy to the rim with friends and then going on to show them what a hell-of-a guy they are. It often is in a Robbie, and often ends in disaster. But that hardly is proof of a causal link between the two.

So are cars, and cigarettes,...and bacon double cheeseburgers:rolleyes:

You have the wrong end of the stick.
If you spend your time mustering, the probability of you hitting a tree is far greater than flying from A to B.

These discussions are all pointless without knowing how many hours are being flown.
Commercial work is no doubt safer per hour than some alternatives but there will be far more operations and hours being done than recreational robbying.

If you take the example stated above that the fatalities are almost the same, the usage profile is very different and will almost certainly represent far more hours being flown.
It is also far easier to have a larger number of fatalities in a Huey than a 22, so the comparison being drawn was grossly over simplified to manipulate statistics.

There is a school in Arizona (Quantum Helicopters I believe) that has three 22's each with over 20,000 hours on them. Why don't you call them and ask how many times those three have had accidents?

In the right hands, a Robbo is as safe as any other cheap end chopper.
But because Frank made them so accessible, every tom dick and harry who thought flying helicopters was a childhood dream, now realises that by taking out a medium sized mortgage, they too, can fly 3 dimensionally.
Robbo's are flimsy, sensitive, unforgiving in turbulence and cheap cheap cheap. You get what you pay for. A lada or a mondeo?

Yes, new things can break too. The question was in the ones who have been flying for 20,000 hours how many accidents did they have?

Actually, SFAR 73 applies to both the R22 and R44. Interestingly, it does not apply to the R66, which is a) a bit odd and perhaps a bad oversight because it has the same basic flying qualities as the R44, b) or the FAA figures that the problem is mostly associated with training of which there is little in the R66, c) or the FAA figures that anyone getting into an R66 will already be more experienced and therefore not require the additional training associated with SFAR 73.

This latter point is untrue. You simply assumed that was the case. However, to clarify: the stat's I posted above represent the total number of events with fatalities, not the total number of fatalities. I.e., the 66 Robinson events with fatalities actually resulted in more than 66 fatalities, and, as you point out, that is not a good way of looking at things.

Again, someone show us all the hours from a reasonably unimpeachable source. If the Bell fleet is significantly more hours than the Robinson fleet, I will gladly bow to that statistic. Still not seeing the data, though. I did find one news article that showed some fleet hours, but every other fact check I did on that article showed it to be badly wrong, so I don't trust the hours quoted in that article.

:ugh::ugh:

The topic drifted to accidents and hours PER YEAR.
So let's assume that there are aircraft that are accident free with over 20k hours, over what period did that happen?
Rudimentary maths would indicate that would be roughly 10 rebuilds and would equate to the better part of 30 months on the ground, not including the standard maintenance to get that far.
This would seem to indicate a rather signifiant amount of time would be required to achieve those stats.

Getting back to your question, the NTSB database shows 5 accidents on different 22's at that school (training related as you'd expect). The database doesn't provide the age of the aircraft but looking up the serial numbers they appear to be between 2000 and 2003 (apart from the new one that broke in 2014).

I think the flaw of the whole debate is that you guys compare a civilian, consumer product against military hardware. It should come at no surprise that a Sherman tank has better off-road capabilities than a Corolla, and also would provide better survivability if you run into a tree. You are not stating more than the obvious.

I suspect that most who make condescending remarks about those cheap, cheap, cheap Corollas are themselves lowly paid bus drivers, and would never have the money to buy their own car. I have yet to see a true oligarch who owns a twin for his private transport making mocking remarks about the masses who can only afford to drive around in a small sedan.

On a different note: While a proper turbine single might be four times the price of a R44, at USD 500k a Robbie is far from accessible to the masses. Maybe the last time you checked the RHC pricelist was in the eighties? In most countries, given the income structures and the cost of borrowing, only top level executive managers, or a few successful enterpreneurs, can afford to buy and maintain their own piston helicopter next to running their family.

Freshly rebuilt aircraft, or those with fewer hours remaining, are far less than that and quite affordable, relatively speaking.
Fractional ownership is also fairly common.
You can pick up an older Jetbanger for a bit of a premium relative to a fresh out of rebuild 44, but the gap isn't huge.

In any case, no one is disputing that a Robinson can't be flown or operated safely but like any safety discussion the whole landscape must be considered.
They are a victim of their own success, becoming popular with people and operations that will be more prone to accidents.
The robbie faithful don't seem to share the philosophy that the aircraft is what it is, they seem to hold it in very high regard, blaming problems on those that fly them and never at what the factory could have done better.
In some respects discussing the merits of a Robinson with a robbie driver is like discussing US politics with a Republican from the deep south - amusing but futile :}