On a minor point, do not manufacturers of all brands help out in investigations ? Boeing spring to mind. I think the rationale is something like "the guys who built it should know the answers to the questions we may have".

If so, I think it's a tad unfair to criticise FR on this one point if ALL aircraft manufacturers are doing it.

To: The Nr Fairy

Participation of the manufacturers in an accident investigation is a normal thing however it has been determined that they may have a conflict of interest in providing reasons for failure. If you haven't already done so please read the newspaper article in my post to Vfrpilotpb dated 18, May 2001 above.

------------------
The Cat

I don't want to get into an argument which owes as much to elitism as it does to elucidation, but nobody can claim that Robinson enjoys a cosy relationship with the NTSB. He hates them like poison and they despise him equally, largely because they've never been able to find a single sane and reasonable excuse to ground him, despite best efforts.

[This message has been edited by t'aint natural (edited 21 May 2001).]

To: T'aint natural

I don’t know how someone living in London could be so sure of the “Hate-Hate” relationship between Robinson and the NTSB but let’s assume you are correct. In every loss of control accident the NTSB calls in Frank Robinson as their technical advisor and the final conclusion relative to the accident is that it is pilot error, and if it involves a training aircraft, Frank Robinson will invariably state that the R22 was not designed to be used as a trainer. Any attempt to steer the investigation to a design fault is strongly resisted by Frank Robinson or, one of his associates.

There was only one crash that was related to a manufacturing process and that is mentioned in the newspaper article that appears above. Every other accident was attributed to pilot error or, an inconclusive reason. The Robinson Helicopter is very reliable but it is my feeling that there is a design flaw in the rotorhead that allows these accidents to happen.

The safety reg that mandates the training of Robinson operators will soon be lifted and when that happens there will be a lot of poorly trained pilots ending up in a body bag because of not adhering to the FAA’s suggestion about flying out of trim and sideslipping and or, recovering from a zero G incident in accordance with the POH instructions.


------------------
The Cat

Frank Robinson has never made a secret of his hatred of the NTSB. To quote from a published interview with Robinson: "There are things you have to understand about the NTSB that go over most people's heads. James Hall (NTSB chairman appointed by Clinton) is appointed, paid off for his work for a political party. He helped run Al Gore's election campaign and in return he got a $120,000 job. He's a lawyer, in real estate I think, and he's got no background in aviation.
"When Hall was appointed he started changing a lot of policies, making a lot of noise and getting his face on television, obviously trying to make a name for himself politically. He attacked the ATR, the commuter airlines, the Boeing 737, and he's attacked me.
"Most of the NTSB investigators do a pretty good job, which is to establish the observed facts concerning the accident. So they make a wreckage distribution diagram, they document the pilot's credentials, the weather, all these kind of things. And then this is where it gets ridiculous. The Board is the one that then determines the probable cause. If you had professionals on the Board, that would make some sense. But the people on the Board have no background in aviation, no background in investigation, they're pure political hacks.
"So the people making the decisions have less knowledge of the business than the meanest private pilot. But they have the political power and they demand that the FAA follow their recommendations. If ever there was a tail wagging a dog it's the NTSB dictating policy to the FAA."
Robinson went on to detail at length the links between Hall and other figures in the Clinton administration and the Trial Lawyers' Association, which had for some years been pressing for full access to investigation material, and which Hall allowed them. Robinson went on: "He was not a member of the Trial Lawyers' Association and he was not an ambulance chaser or a tort lawyer. Most of his career has been spent working on various Congressmen's staff. What business does he have running the NTSB?"
All the accidents which the NTSB listed at that time as "unexplained" were the result of low RRPM, low-g manoeuvres or other known causes. In the same article, the pilot who formerly ran the Australian Army's helicopter training programme, and who is now a commercial operator, said: "There's nothing at all wrong with the R22, nil, nix, zero. People get killed flying Robinsons because they do dumb things, but because of the low standard of instruction, half the time they die not knowing why what they did was so dumb."
Alan Boswell, at the time a Bristows instructor, said: "The R22 is a fine aircraft and there is no mysterious problem. We have 18,000 hours' experience with the R22 at Bristows and it's given us fewer problems than the Bell 47 ever did."

To: T'aint natural

Frank Robinson may never have made a secret of his hatred of the NTSB but he does not let that stand in the way of participating in major accident investigations involving Robinson Helicopters. Whatever Jim Hall did to assist in Clintons' or Gores' campaign has absolutely nothing to do with his running the NTSB. Relative to his making changes so what. Every time a new person is appointed to a top management position he/she will try to make his/her mark on the organization. Hall left the organization several months ago and a woman who was the former assistant administrator is now running the NTSB. For your information if you are not already aware of it the NTSB is not just aviation specific. The NTSB monitors Highway Safety, Marine Safety, Aviation Safety and pipeline Safety as well as railroad safety. No one person can be knowledgeable in all of these areas. The director can have any type background and have no experience whatever in the work performed by the agency but he / she must be a good manager. When Jim Hall made most of his television presentations he was representing the agency in explaining the outcome of a major accident investigation.

He attacked the ATR, which crashed due to inadequate testing for ice accretion. He attacked the commuter airlines because of a very poor safety record and, he attacked the 737 because of a fault in the rudder control system that may have led to three crashes. I have no way of knowing why he attacked you unless you want to identify yourself and explain why you were attacked.

Regarding professionals on the accident investigation teams I would say you were wrong on that point as well. I know two individuals that investigate helicopter and aircraft accidents. One is an ex Marine CH-53 and CH-46 pilot who was also a squadron safety officer. He also worked on the Apache Program directing the office of safety. The other man is still flying in the National Guard and he has twenty years flying just about everything the US Army has in their inventory.

The FAA and the NTSB work for the same boss so naturally there is some difficulty in reaching a decision in an accident investigation. In the case of the Robinson accidents the NTSB wanted to ground them but the FAA who has the actual authority must admit they were in error in granting certification. Another point to consider is when the FAA granted certification it was not the helicopter directorate of the FAA that granted certification. It was the large aircraft certification branch, which is based in Seattle and has an office in Los Angeles. These people knew absolutely nothing about helicopters and were led by the Designated Engineering Rep who although he denies it was Frank Robinson or his agent.

What is wrong with the trial lawyers having access to accident investigations? This is a part of criminal and tort law in the USA and has been since the constitution was written. All lawyers have access to whatever evidence the prosecution has and when they don’t get it and this oversight is detected the defense or tort lawyers can request a mistrial or get the judge to seriously admonish the prosecution and possibly grant a new trial. If you haven’t read about it this is now happening in the Tim McVeigh death sentence.

It seems that you have determined that the unexplained accidents involving loss of control were attributed to low G, Low rotor RPM and/ or other known causes. This is not borne out in the NTSBs accident report. In any case, this translates into pilot error and not a basic design defect that allows these types of accidents to happen to both dumb and smart pilots.

Regarding the Australian pilots comment about low quality of instruction it would appear that the training programs in OZ don’t reflect the requirements specified by the FAA. That is not to say that pilots that have undergone this more stringent training are not capable of getting into trouble resulting in a rotor incursion or a mast bumping incident.

One final thought, do not confuse safety with reliability. Of the 35 or 36 loss of control accidents none related to reliability. There was only one crash that was reliability and quality related.


------------------
The Cat

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 May 2001).]

Oh. You’ve changed feet then. I merely addressed the point you disputed, which is that Frank Robinson detests the NTSB. Your contention that Jim Hall was a good man is a non sequitur. I would reiterate that the NTSB is not and never was in Frank Robinson’s pocket.
I suggest you read my posting again. I do not say he attacked me. Virtually all of my posting was quoting Frank Robinson in a published article. It is Frank Robinson saying Jim Hall attacked him.
Incidentally, at the same time that Hall was trying to ground Robinson he was also trying to ground the 737, but the FAA managed to sit on him there, too.
If you think there’s nothing wrong with criminal lawyers having full access to investigation material, you must ponder what they do with the information. I’m sure you’re aware of the specious and nonsensical lawsuits which have been filed and won, often based on a small piece of evidence taken out of context and used to bamboozle a lay jury. That’s how Cessna and Piper production was halted, and who did that help? But that’s not a Robinson issue.
The Australian pilot was not talking about Australian training but US training. Most of the low RRPM/low-g accidents happened in the US. Three times over four years Frank Robinson petitioned the FAA to end the 50-hour rule, which meant that if a US fixed-wing instructor flew 50 hours in helicopters, he automatically became a helicopter instructor. It was only pressure from Robinson which changed that horrendous situation. This and other action, almost all of it initiated by Frank Robinson, have slashed the number and rate of Robinson accidents.

A question for you, Lu;

You say that the FAA have a vested interest in the R22 because they approved its certification in the first place -
how could any helicopter get through this process without being approved to fly with some degree of sideslip / out of balance condition?

My understanding of this kind of thing is that test pilots and engineers set up their test schedules to explore the safe boundaries of flight in particular aircraft, and make allowances for the 'average' pilot to give a safe margin for error when they lay down limits.

I find it very hard to believe that a machine that has been through this process would not have been trialled in such situations.

Are you saying that the FAA didn't do its job, and is now trying to cover up?

Perhaps we should call in Mulder and Scully.

To: T’aint natural

I made reference to your comment about the NTSB and Frank Robinson hating each other. I simply stated that even if this were true the NTSB and Frank Robinson never let this mutual hatred get in the way of participation in an accident investigation. This hatred as you called it placed the two participants into different corners. One participant was trying to find the cause and the other was steering the investigation away from investigating a fault that was common to all of the loss of control accidents and that thing was the rotorhead.


I never said that the NTSB was in Frank Robinson’s’ pocket. I stated and the newspaper article stated that he would exert undue influence in the investigation so that the ultimate finding was pilot error.

Regarding the FAA countering the findings of the NTSB on the 737 problem it is well known that the findings of the FAA fall on the side of the airlines. To ground the 737 would have been catastrophic to the airlines. The FAA would have performed a cost benefit analysis to determine the cost to the airlines against the cost of the airlines paying out insurance claims in the event of another 737 loss of control accident stemming from a defective rudder control system. In other words, it was cheaper to let another 737 crash than it was to ground the fleet.

Regarding your comment about what lawyers do with the evidentiary material provided by the prosecution my comment is that is what lawyers do and the law allows it. Regarding how they manipulate the evidence in presenting it to the jury that too is what lawyers do. In some cases murderers get off Scot-free and aircraft must be taken out of production because of higher insurance rates. That is a problem but it is a lawyers sworn duty to give his client the best defense possible even if he has to manipulate the evidence presented to the jury.

Whether Frank Robinson petitioned the FAA to change the 50-hour rule or not the findings of the Georgia Tech report was the ultimate device that changed the training of Robinson Pilots. It also placed restrictions on the flying of Robinson Helicopters. You stated that Frank Robinson’s’ involvement has reduced the rate of accidents. In the last year there have been four loss of control accidents and quite possibly a fifth and the NTSB is investigating all four or five of them to find a common cause. I think it is the rotor design and I have told the NTSB of my thoughts and in 1996 I composed a report and sent it to them.

Here is another point that you may not be aware of. Robinson Helicopters has been sued on many occasions stemming from crashes of their helicopters. In many cases the jury found on the side of the plaintiff and a substantial award was made. The plaintiffs’ lawyers never collected a cent. It seems that everything inside the Robinson factory is leased and I was told that he sold the building to his wife. Frank Robinson is a millionaire many times over but he keeps his money in offshore banks and it is therefore untouchable. On paper in the United States Frank Robinson is a pauper.

Me thinks thou doth protest too much (possible grammatical and spelling error). Either you like to argue which is not a bad characteristic or, you have a vested interest in Robinson Helicopters.


To: Arm out the window

My answer to the first paragraph in your post is “YES”

In answer to your second question, all helicopters must be tested for sideslip and out of trim flight.

The out of trim and sideslip is not dictated by the test pilots and engineers it is a requirement of Advisory Circular 27-1 CERTIFICATION OF NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT. The helicopter manufacturer is required to demonstrate these requirements in order to gain certification.

The question that I have is if the R22 was certified as being able to demonstrate sideslip and out of trim flight why didn’t the test pilots discover that these maneuvers caused severe flapping loads that could lead to mast bumping and /or rotor incursion. The basis for my question is that in January of 1995 the FAA mandated that the R22 and R44 be restricted from flying out of trim at any time and that the pilot should avoid sideslip during flight. The reason was to avoid high flapping loads that would result in mast bumping and / or fuselage incursion.

Nothing in the design was changed but after 1995 the helicopters were restricted from flying under the same conditions under which they were certificated.


------------------
The Cat

Don’t be paranoid, Lu. I have no vested interest beyond hanging my butt on them. Do you have a vested interest in doing him down?
Every manufacturer is invited to participate in accident investigations. Frank Robinson’s establishment of the factory safety course and his in-house insurance programme (which offered discounts on condition of training in certain areas) were established before Georgia Tech, before the promulgation of any FARs. It was these, plus the change in the 50-hour rule, which reduced the accident rate (from 6 per 1000,000 in 1990 to 1.2 per 100,000 in 1995). He has always gone “naked,” ie has carried no liability insurance and has fought every lawsuit. If you produce aircraft you’re going to get lawsuits, full stop. And you’re going to lose them, guilty or not.
It’s about time this airy notion that you can be flying along happily in an Robinson and all of a sudden the rotor takes off and flies through the tail boom was put to rest. The NTSB certainly have given up on it. I have seen correspondence between the Board and Robinson congratulating him on being “off our radar screen.” The rotor blade will remove the tail boom for you if the RRPM falls below a certain value, by which time the jig’s up and you have no further use for a tail boom anyway. It will also whip the boom off if you respond wrongly in a low-g situation. It’s a characteristics of a two-bladed rotor. The US military produced information films on it for Vietnam pilots in the 60s. Robinson didn’t invent it. Thanks to Robinson, helicopters were introduced to a massive audience of low-time pilots, and that’s where the problem is, not in the head.
There are good sound reasons why Robinsons are the most popular helicopters in the world, outselling all other civilian helicopters put together. It’s not because we’re all stupid, or venal, or careless. It’s because they are sound machines which do the job cost-effectively and safely, if you don’t take a lend of them. They’ve become established despite the best efforts of other manufacturers to foster doubt and uncertainty, and despite the efforts of snobbish pilots flying larger machines, usually paid for by someone else, to denigrate them.

Hmmm.

I see where you're coming from, Lu, but I'm also skeptical that an aircraft can get through the certification process without being subjected to amounts of out-of-balance flying and sideslip which would have to have shown up any untoward characteristics long before the machine was allowed to be sold commercially.

Surely in sidewards flight the sideways airflow component must have been at least 20 kts or so (I don't know what the flight manual limit is, having not flown the R22, but I'm guessing it must be in that order of magnitude?).

If that's the case, the amount and direction of flapping associated with that must brought the aircraft into the 'danger zone', for want of better words.

To: Arm out the window

You said,

“Hmmm.

I see where you're coming from, Lou, but I'm also skeptical that an aircraft can get through the certification process without being subjected to amounts of out-of-balance flying and sideslip which would have to have shown up any untoward characteristics long before the machine was allowed to be sold commercially.
Surely in sideward flight the sideways airflow component must have been at least 20 kts or so (I don't know what the flight manual limit is, having not flown the R22, but I'm guessing it must be in that order of magnitude?).
If that's the case, the amount and direction of flapping associated with that must brought the aircraft into the 'danger zone', for want of better words”.

That is exactly my point. In order to certificate, the helicopter had to comply with the requirements of FAA Advisory Circular 27-1 which state that the helicopter had to demonstrate a sideslip of 90-degrees left and right at .6VNE and 10-degrees left and right out of trim at the same speed. Assuming these tests were demonstrated they should have realized that the flapping loads were excessive and made note of it in the test reports handed over to the FAA. You must also understand that the FAA does not oversee all of these tests. The tests are conducted and documented by what is known as a DER (Designated Engineering Representative). These individuals are employees of Robinson Helicopters and in some cases are officers of the company who have a vested interest in getting the helicopter certified. Frank Robinson was a DER for some time on the R22 and R44 certification programs. How is that for a conflict of interest?

During the timeframe of certification to the issuance of the FAA restrictions there were 31 rotor incursion / mast separation accidents. After the issuance of the restrictions and the implementation of the higher training standards there were no rotor incursion/mast separation accidents until last year where there were four and this year possibly one.

The Georgia Tech investigation pointed out that sideslip and out of trim flight could induce these high flapping excursions and result in mast bumping or rotor incursions. This was mainly a computer analysis and it pointed out the problem. Why did they discover this fact and the actual certification tests did not?

I pointed out the following on another post. The design of the Robinson head incorporates an internal droop stop, which is called a tusk. The tusk contacts a bolt in the rotorhead, which prevents the blade from drooping when at rest. Upon spin-up and the introduction of collective the blades cone up and the tusk moves away from the limit stop (bolt) thus allowing the blade to flap. During normal maneuvering the blade will always be in the flapping zone. However when the rotor head is placed in conditions of violent maneuvering or the flapping excursion exceeds the normal range the tusk will contact the stop bolt. When this happens the flapping energy of the blade is mechanically coupled to the rotorhead and it causes an instantaneous teeter taking the rotor system out of its’ rotational plane. If the kinetic energy of the opposite blade is strong enough then the blade will bend and most likely hit the tail boom or the fuselage in the cabin area. This can’t happen on a bell blade because it can’t flap.

Another point to consider is that when the blades flap they want to lead and lag. This tendency to lead and lag is partially absorbed in the inplane bending of the blades but the primary lead lag loads are reacted by the cone hinges and in part by the teeter hinge. With the introduction of the high flapping excursions, the energy of the lead lag increases plus and minus (inplane) and this may cause the blades to twist and aerodynamically fly out of plane. Also, this can exert higher than normal twisting loads on the rotor mast, all of which can cause mast bumping, mast separation or rotor incursion.

Again I say this can’t happen on a Bell system because the blades don’t flap.

The requirements of FAA AC 27-1 state that when a new and unusual design is proposed for certification that design must undergo a high degree of scrutiny and it must be proven to the FAA that this new design is both safe and reliable. The Robinson rotorhead meets these criteria but the question begs asking did they comply with this requirement of 27-1?



------------------
The Cat

Lu, are you "guessing" that droop stop contact in flight is a cause of unexplained accidents, or is this documented somewhere?

To: Imlanphere

On a flexrotor system such as that on large Sikorsky helicopters the rotorhead had a droop stop and a cone stop for each blade. These stops are centrifugally operated. When the head spins up the first stop that comes out is the cone stop. This allows the blade to cone when collective is added. When the weight of the blade comes off of the droop stop it will also be moved outward due to centrifugal force and this allows the blade to flap downward below the pure radial or stopped condition. If one of the droop stops fails to come out of the static position one of the blades will have restricted flapping range. If in the process of maneuvering that blade contacts the droop stop the kinetic energy in the blade will be expended in the bending mode. The first thing the pilot will feel is a very hard series of bumps and the next thing he is talking to St. Peter because the blade entered the cabin or it hit the tail boom.

On the Robinson the rotorhead is free to both pivot on the teeter hinge and the blades are free to flap on the cone hinges. On the Sikorsky head the blades can flap up (over the radial position) and flap down (below) the radial position. On the Robinson the blades can not flap below the radial position without contacting the tusk (droop stop). On the Sikorsky the energy of the blade will cause it to bend when hitting the droop stop. On the Robinson the rotorhead is free to teeter but when a blade is flapping violently the tusk will contact the stop and force the rotorhead to teeter taking it out of the plane of rotation. If this does not happen the blade will bend most likely resulting in a fuselage strike.

I don’t know if this phenomenon has ever been investigated but if you look at a drawing of the Robinson Rotorhead it becomes a simple matter of mechanics and physics.


------------------
The Cat

I see exactly what you are saying Lu, having worked on the R22 it is easy to visualise.

If anyone has ever pushed the forward blade of an R22 up, all the way, the slightest wind, and the aft blade will contact the tailboom. So will the momentum and the rotation, I can see exactly how this could occur.

Deviating from the point slightly, Lu do you ever visit the U.K?

To: HeliEng

Strange that you ask. I will be in the UK this Sunday morning but I will only be there for 1-½ hours waiting for a connecting flight to Munich. I will be on a short term consulting job with Fairchild Dornier working on the hydraulic system of the FD 728. On my return there is another 1-½ hour layover on my way back to Canada.

------------------
The Cat

Lu, on the R22 the teetering hinge facilitates downward flapping of the blades - the limit of this flapping is the rotor hub to mast clearance. I can't envision why a blade would be prone to flapping violently downward on its coning hinge. Some coning should be present in all flight regimes - thus maintaining clearance at the droop stop.

Just a wild guess.

The Robinson has five 'hinges' that will accommodate vertical motion of the two blade tips.
There is one teetering hinge.
There are two coning hinges.
The two blades can structurally bend in a vertical direction.

This is more flapping/teetering 'hinges' than any other helicopter has.

The degree of teetering rotation is probable comparable to other 2-bladed helicopters.
The coning hinge will allow an additional 3-degrees of downward movement over that of fixed pre-coned hubs.
What is left is the flexure of the blades and the clearance between the horizontal rotor disk and the boom.

Might it be that, during an unusual situation, there is a self-excitation that takes place amongst all these five 'hinges' and this causes one of the tips to drop excessively low for a portion of one revolution?

Just a wild guess.

Lu,

You ever here for more time, I think it would be interesting for us to meet you! I know 3 people who would love to be able to sit and actually talk to you, who find your threads very interesting and informative.

Let me know

To: HeliEng

If my company gets the contract (90% sure) for the A-380 I will be spending a lot of time in France and England. On this trip the ticket was booked for me and I have to keep to the schedule. On the A-380 program I will set my own schedule which will give us the opportunity to get together. Send me your Email address.

------------------
The Cat

Lu, you defend lawyers by saying the manipulation of the facts is legal therefore it is right. What a load of B***S***T!

This is exactly why there is no more justice in the justice system. The truth is no longer the issue in a court, it is just another incidental fact to be trampled under a mountain of paper and procedure.

This is not how I am approaching our discussions of the R22 and R44 characteristics, but I see that it is how you approach it and explains why so many people refuting your assertions seems to have no effect.

I've seen the results of an idiot killing himself in a 2-seat ultralight (USA) with a passenger while stunting at an airport. His family sues, the jury gets sympathetic, the lawyers twist and corrupt the facts of the case, and a huge cash award is handed out. The Idiot was wrong, nothing should have been awarded. I sympathize with their loss but it is his fault, suck it up and let people take responsibility for their own actions.

I too was in an accident in aviation. The leeches that call themselves reporters and lawyers pursued me. When I wouldn't talk to the reporters they made stuff up. Great entertainment to see the latest load of cr@p in the paper each morning while I was in hospital. The lawyers were all set to sue for $X.XX. This kind of ambulance chasing accomplishes nothing. It is better to uncover the truth and fix the way we do business and carry on from there.

I'm about to go training in the R44 in a few minutes, and I'll try to find evidence of anything dangerous in the aircraft, which is something I always do. As a training pilot I also get the machines fresh out of maintenance and we work out the bugs here before they go out to the field to work. I will refuse to fly in it if I find a reason to doubt it's safety.

Rant over, time to go fly...

[This message has been edited by HeloTeacher (edited 26 May 2001).]

To: Helo Teacher

First of all, I wasn’t defending lawyers. I simply stated that they work within the system. Many have tried to change the system and in most cases these are the firms that are effected when an aircraft or automobile or whatever crashes. I admit that there are cases that not only should have not been won by the plaintiff they should never have been brought before a court. Case in point. An owner of a Piper Cub had been requested to remove his aircraft from an airfield because it was so poorly maintained. He was in process of installing a metal framework where the front seat would normally be and he was going to use this framework to support movie and TV cameras.

After he installed the cameras and framework he took the aircraft up for a flight test without establishing if he were still within CG limits. He wasn’t and he crashed while taking off. His surviving family members sued Piper because the seat belts were inadequate and that there were no shoulder harnesses in the aircraft. It was pointed out in the trial that shoulder harnesses were never mandated for that aircraft and that the seat belts were long overdue for a pull test. Piper lost. There are many others that ended in the same way. Possibly the lawyer manipulated the evidence and possibly the jury was stupid but until the system can be modified this will keep on happening. But on the other hand when an airliner goes down the manufacturer and operator will do every thing in their power to conceal the evidence.

There is a law firm that is based in Seattle and they are on retainer from every major manufacturer of aircraft. They are not only representatives of the firms in lawsuits they also provide the following service. Representatives of the law firm make periodic trips to their clients and teach a class on how to respond when one of their aircraft is involved in an accident. They teach that the records should be destroyed and if that is not possible the records would be concealed and if that wasn’t possible the records should be changed or obfuscated. These records should by law be made available to both the defense and the plaintiffs’ lawyers. If the records have been destroyed, lost or covered up by alteration then the plaintiffs lawyers have to resort to their own form of subterfuge to win their respective cases. This too is a part of the system that should be changed but as long as the lobbyists for the lawyer and the aircraft/automobile companies are hounding congress the system will never change.

Being an American living in Canada I quite often am told that the Americans are a litigious society and that the Canadians are not. I would think that there are just as many layers per capita in Canada as there are in the US. As of 1998 there were thirteen lawyers specializing in aviation law based in Ontario alone.

I am sorry to hear that you had been involved in an accident and from what you said you did not attempt to recover any monies as a result of the accident. In the States the Lawyers are restricted from contacting prospective clients for thirty days. When they do, the take the case on contingency which means that under normal conditions they get 30% of winnings and as a result will look to maximize the award. They make money and the families of the decedent also win big. They are still trying the Korea 007 flight as well as The Lockerbie 747. Did the owner of the accident aircraft collect on his hull insurance or did he just write it off?

As far as being classified as a witch hunter I am not. My job involves aircraft safety and as such I have an interest in that aspect of aircraft operation. If my theories about the Robinson Helicopters are totally disproved then my interests will go elsewhere. In either case I will sit back and watch them fall out of the air and wonder when the NTSB and FAA will take action.


------------------
The Cat

Sorry for the name-calling Lu, just got a little hot under the collar about the defence of lawyers. For a profession that claims to defend our rights they sure trample justice into the dirt in too many cases. While I am aware that all lawyers aren't bad, I will never be comfortable with our justice system, not until truth becomes more than just an unnecesary incidental item.

Back to the R44, I tried very hard on this flight to assess precisely the amount of right cyclic deflection throuhgout the flight in all speed regimes. I did NOT try to seperate each input by aerodynamic requirement, because that is not how one flies. One flies by responding to the sum of the forces on the helicopter. A well designed system will make this total response seem very natural and intuitive.

Throughout the flight from hover to 95 knots (bubble window installed so 100 knot VNE) the right cyclic displacement was uniform. The slight right displacement in the hover was consistent and the cyclic moved steadily forward with increased speed. The amount of cyclic travel is also very small and while there easily could have been a small amount of lateral displacement, it is not easily detected.

While performing simulated stuck pedals we flew up to 45 degrees out of trim in cruise and up to 90 degrees out of trim as translational lift was lost. Pedal authority is great and the only adverse characteristic is increased pitch sensitivity (instability?) resulting in a tendency to pilot induced oscillation (PIO) while the student is flying. Being more familiar with the feeling of looking out the side window to fly I was able to stop the oscillations very easily. Increased forward cyclic was required to overcome the increased drag but otherwise control placement was normal.

I also got a chance to fly the R44 a few days ago in winds 30G40-45 knts. The turbulence in the low levels started to approach moderate so I stayed up out of it. When landing through the turbulence to end the flight, control response was good but becuase of the high control authority it was easy to overcontrol in response to gusts and I had to remind myself a couple times to ride the bumps rather than trying to fight them.

Overall I have found that from careful attention to flight characteristics there is no reason to doubt the safety of the aircraft. Disc flapping in flight, as observed from the cockpit has never been violent enough to cause concern (I do occasionally observe the disc as I follow the students control actions). My concerns are with regard to carb-ice, throttle correlation, and overcontrolling.

Carb-ice: turbine pilot don't have the automatic instinct to apply carb heat consistently and appropriately. It's easy to forget. It's dangerous to forget.

Throttle correlation: it's almost too good in that at times under manual throttle control an apparently opposite to normal throttle movement is required (ie. reduced throttle as collective is raised). A good design for reducing governor and cruise workload but at times anti-intuitive.

Overcontrolling: at no time should you be using full control deflection unless something is going wrong, and then it is still probably too much. It is easy to get into trouble flying hamfisted or very tense on the controls. The is purely a matter of learning and applying good pilot technique.

I await your response anyone else who cares to make an observation.

[This message has been edited by HeloTeacher (edited 20 June 2001).]

Ht,
Lawyer's, Solicitor's and the like, are just like you and I, however they are paid a fee to explain your story, or your side of a story, the fact is that some are better at it than others, and win cases, when common sense say otherwise, this is the area where most people tend to then say that the Lawyer is an abject lier, it is part of life's rich( for the lawyer that is)tapestry.

Lu, thank you for the answers thus far to my original, plus all the input from the other ppruners which has been very well put, I think you are brilliant to be able to answer most people's questions with quite clear and concise expanations, with well argued points.
You have my Regards

[This message has been edited by Vfrpilotpb (edited 29 May 2001).]

To the top for Lu.

Now that this thread has been brought out of retirement what is it that you want to talk about.

------------------
The Cat

I see Robinsons manufactured 76 percent of all helicopters made in the USA in the first quarter of 2001. Way to go.

Good Morning TN,
Are you saying quantity equals quality?

No, but there isn't usually that demand for a product that consumers don't like. There are other options, and no-one seems to want them.

Make no mistake, vfr, the Robinsons are quality products. The reason they are ubiquitous in the market is not because helicopters pilots, owners and operators are suicidal dunderheads looking for the cheapest option, but because the Robinsons do the job efficiently and safely. Over the past 22 years they have expanded the helicopter market, and the number of people engaged in helicopter flying, by a factor of five. Because of the fact that they brought so many new pilots to rotary wing flying, and because of glaring deficiencies in the US training system like the 50-hour rule, their accident rate was initially high, but it has been brought down by an increased understanding of rotary flight which has been fostered largely by Frank Robinson, with his factory safety courses and his insurance scheme.
Because of the inroads which were being made into the businesses of other manufacturers by the R22, denigration of the Robinson has always been there. It reached a crecendo after the R44 was introduced, as it began to compete directly with Bell and other products. I have heard bloodcurdling stories about the deficiencies of the R44 from the lips of a McDonnell Douglas (as was) representative, none of which were true. The matter has been helped along by long-time turbine pilots who looked down their noses at Robinsons, and by lawyers in the USA (and their expert witnesses, watch out for them) who saw a chance to make a killing, but Robinson continues to sell because he produces honest helicopters which do the job that's asked of them.
With Robinson shipping more helicopters than the rest of the industry in North America put together, it is obvious that his machines will more frequently be involved in accidents than others, especially given the uses to which they are put. But the accident rate does not match the percentage penetration of the market. If you look at he accident figures in the UK over the past ten years you'll see that the Robinsons are under-represented by a significant margin.

Hi TN,
I agree with you on the increase of pilots who have come into RW flying and have been taught in the R22( I myself was) I have flown R44's and B206's, and I cannot help but feel inherantly more comforted in the B206,than the R44 which most people say are similar, I am new in my length of experience of flying, but to me the difference between the R44 and the Bell 206 can be compared to the difference found between a Ford Escort and BMW 750 Saloon, The Robinson product is very popular, but as Mr Robinson tells everone the R22 is not produced as a training vehicle, so why then do all the schools buy them and sell training flights in them, it has to be purely down to costs and low capital outlay compared with other forms of RW A/C.

Vfr: The 206 is an extraordinarily good helicopter. It's been around for 35 years and it has dominated the civil helicopter market despite having been rejected for the military contract for which it was designed.
There is nothing to choose between 206 and the 44 in terms of accidents. The 206 edges the 44 marginally on autorotational performance but the 44 is faster, goes further, and is more comfortable for back seat passengers.
Today's piston engines are as reliable or more reliable than small turbines, and much, much cheaper to buy, run and maintain. If you feel more at ease in a 206, fine, just don't get complacent. Owners and pilots are just like you - they regard cost as being secondary to safety, and if there was a solid foundation to much of the criticism directed at the R44, Robinson would be out of business in a week.
It is true that Frank Robinson says he didn't envisage that the R22 would be ubiquitously used for training. At the time the machine was taking shape in his mind, there were tens of thousands of helicopter pilots in the US, and the number was growing at a phenomenal rate. I was working in New York in the 1970s when the New York Police Department bought a dozen UH1s from the US military for $150 each, and sought to find out how many helicopter pilots they had on their books. They came up with more than 100, some of them working as beat cops. This was the market Robinson had his eye on, and the presumption was that most people buying a small personal helicopter would be damned good pilots who'd been trained by the military for Vietnam. Perhaps he's being a little disingenuous. I'm sure that while Robinson hoped he'd sell lots of helicopters, he didn't think he'd revolutionise the market and turn it on its head, as he has done.
Incidentally, if you go on the Robinson Safety Course in Torrance you'll be shown a US Army training film from the Vietnam era which warns against getting into low-g manoeuvres in helicopters with a two-bladed rotor, specifically the UH1. The Robinsons react quickly to low-g manoeuvres, so don't go there and know how to get back if you do.
As to training, there are plenty of choices. Several flying schools in the London area use the Hughes, and I think one tried to stay in business for a while using Enstroms. But I'm happy to hang my butt on Robinson's work. He makes good machines, just don't take a lend of them.

i got to fly the first commercial robbie at pacific wing and rotor's facility at long beach all those years ago. hi tim!

i was in australia when the first one arrived at bankstown.

i have flown thousands of hours in them in training and cattle mustering.

believe me i've seen them take a pounding.
frank should take note of the machines ability to take abuse and double the time between overhaul, after all they are doing that, plus, anyway.

i have noted nearly all of the accidents involving this type since then.

main rotor divergence and all these other sideslipping problems that i read about on this forum don't seem to occur over here.
why is that? do we know something the rest of the world doesn't?

the main cause of robbie accidents in australia is unfortunately attributable to the pilot. this fact is readily available in our crash comics.

there have been however a few unexplained and/or unprosecuted accidents with the machine on ferry flights.

departure of the main rotor head and blades from the helicopter. pilot deceased. a/c hours unknown. :mad:

aircraft breaking up in the air. pilot deceased. a/c hours less than 2000. eight year old mustering machine :mad:

in the case of one in flight accident that i have been able to investigate point to one main rotor blade stiking the tail boom in a flat position not a severing motion as if the blade had a normal pitch angle.

i believe that the pitch change links on all aicraft involved in these types of accidents should be tested as i think that there could be a connection.

over a third of the fleet in australia are robbies and they do a massive amount of hours.

the average robbie out mustering will do about 1200 hours per season, some of these machines have been years without a 2000 hourly. they are not crashing due to an aerodynamic problem or mechanical failure.

according to frank the machine was never meant to work hard so why is it certificated in that category. money.


------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow

And one robbie in Oz that was operated under the older 2000 hour TBO lost a main rotor blade, because the owner wanted to save some money.

Killed him AND a mate - although people are operating R22s in extreme conditions, they're putting their neck on the line when they fly it, and if the machine gets sold, someone else's. Personally I don't think either way of killing someone is acceptable.

I found the web page - http://www.casa.gov.au/airsafe/fsa/d...9nov/FSA45.pdf - but there appears to be no official accident report.

[Edited to include link to article]

[This message has been edited by The Nr Fairy (edited 27 June 2001).]

Anyone who gets into a helicopter is putting his life on the line. It's simply a matter of degree.
But unless there is evidence, don't condemn the machine. I see that yesterday Bell lost a $40 million lawsuit over a 407 crash which killed two people. If blame attaches to a machine, believe me the law will find it out. The rumour mill won't.

I'm not condemning the machine - I fly R22s, and am well aware of the risks ( that would be true hopefully of any helicopter I eventually get to fly ).

What gets my goat when I see stories of the like related by imabell is the fact that other people are willing to take such huge risks ( not imabell, he's just relating them as told to him ). The time-expired blade in the accident mentioned in the CASA article arguably wouldn't have killed anyone if it had been replaced on time.

Having said that, if other people want to do that, then they had better make sure the only person they kill is themselves, or their post-mortem assets will be going elsewhere.

NR: Australia and New Zealand are notorious for dodgy dealings on parts. I don't know whether this reputation is well-earned, but apart from the incident you mention, the only successful prosecution for manslaughter in this field involved a New Zealand-based company which sold on a scrap tail rotor which subsequently failed. And yes, the machine was an R22. I've heard other stories, too libellous to set down here.

australia is not notorious for dodgy dealing in bogus parts nor is new zealand. if that is a widely held view then that is totally wrong, and should be rectified.

a blade came off a robbie years ago and the pilot was killed, the machine had flown a minimum of 3800 hours without having a 2000 service. the machine had probably done a lot more than that. all the parts on the machine were ex factory.

the robbie that lost a blade and killed the pilot and severely injured the passenger had flown more hours than we will ever know.

the machine had developed a severe vibration in flight and was landed and inspected, the low time pilot/owner got back in and took off, the machine continued to vibrate so badly that even communication was pretty much impossible.

one of the blades had been replaced after an earlier blade strike, which blade failed has not been released. both blades were robbie blades.

there was a case of an automotive bearing being put in a robbie drive train and failing but the robbie had been mustering for a long time before it failed and there are other factors involved in that story and it's very interesting.

the part that was put on the nz machine was a genuine part that was unservicable not bogus. never the less this company was making their own bogus tail rotor blades. the non engineer boss had a history in australia prior to going to nz. he was jailed for his part in the crime.

bogus parts are parts that are made illegally by someone other than the legitimate manufacturer.

there was an article printed years ago in the aviation safety digest (now defunct),
an austalian world leader in accident investigation that had photographs of bogus bits made in india. they were mint even down to the rubber stamp i.d., they didn't get passed square one.

what instance is there of any light or heavy turbine helicopter crashing or having an emergency due to a bogus part. none that i know of.

i have been in this industry a long time and have had the pleasure of flying for some of the best in australia and the displeasure of flying for some of the not as good and have not seen nor heard of application of bogus parts to machines. the nz case is the only major case for years (and he was an australian).

i'm not stupid enough to think that it couldn't happen but doubt that is prevalent enough to be "well known" or has notoriety.

if you have been made aware of this type of problem do something about it. if you want to be part of an industry that holds a certain ammount of respect in the community do something about it. don't get too upset though that if you were to speak out that nothing will happen.

as for mentioning any of these accidents and incidents i believe that we have a right to find out what we can so that we can be better prepared to identify the problems in the future. the atsb is underfunded and undermanned and in the case of helicopters has little to no expertise. they will print the pilots faxed view of things, (ran out of power), as most helicopter accidents are not formally investigated.

if we thought that the unreliability of helicopters or bogus parts was the root cause of accidents i doubt if most of us would get in one. i know that my only concession to any religion is devout cowardice when it comes to pain.

anyway if we keep talking and keep thinking we might keep improving.






------------------
your too high,your too low, your too fast your too slow

I heard that the problem with thr R22 t/r blade that failed in NZ was, aside from coming off a previously crashed airframe ( I'm not sure if the blades were damaged in that accident ) was that the repaint covered the drain holes clearly visible in pukka R22 t/r blades at the tip. Problem is they cater for expansion and contraction of the air in the blades and that contributed to the failure.

I can't verify that, was told by someone well versed with R22s while in Oz. Anyone care to confirm / deny ?

This small question could possibley need a thread of its own, but lets see.

In the harsh realities of helicopter work,( ie Life and safety) is it acceptable to buy and use spare parts from scrapped machines or timex airframes or machines that have no obvious history known to the buyer of the said spare parts, even nuts and bolts have a finite life in service, and if parts are being used which have already possibly been harshly treated( even accidentaly) how would you know until the brown stuff hits the fan?