Mmmmm.... looks lke a couple of 47J doors in the background.

I can remember a story about JW getting ejected through the bubble of a "J" (still attached to the drivers seat) after it hit a dry river bank. He was so pissed off with the machine, he took to it with his crash axe! :D
I bet its remains are in there somewhere.

UHHH HELLLOOOOOOOOOOO
 

To RobboRider,

After viewing your last post i could not help but respond!

You stated that

1) there was no evidence that the crashed R22 even left the ground!
2) that there is no evidence of blade separation!

What planet are you from, ????

Fraser was a friend of mine and i take personal insult to your uneducated posting!

The facts are whether you like it or not are that the aircraft suffered a blade separation approx 30mins into a dual instruction training session resulting in two needless deaths.

The wreckage was strewn over a 500metre line leading to the main airframe, indicitive of a break up in flight, wittness's described the noise and that bits were seen to fall away from the aircraft,,, Hello!!!!!!!!!!
what part of this are you not understanding????

It would appear on face value that the a/c had more time on the blades than was reported on the Maint Release..
That being the case whose fault was this Accident,?
Robbo Rider you really must be some sort of idiot to even think of slandering the pilots good name and reputation by your post, how dare you.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

r22's grounded
 

the following link will take you to the casa website relating to the blade problems of the r22 in australia.

http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/NEW/urgent.htm

one of the reasons given for the a.d. being directed at mustering machines, (not the under writing of hours) is that the r22 was not designed for the forces experienced during mustering operations.

it's amazing that everytime there is a problem with the r22 we are told that it was never designed to do that job, or words to that effect. what then was it actually designed to do???.

are we to believe that mustering pilots put too much stress on the airframe and blades of the robbie and it cannot handle it. what a load of absolute rubbish. most of the pilots i know, and there are plenty, are amongst the best handlers of the machine in the world. they get the best out of the robbie not the worst. mustering is not hard work most of the time just long hours in the sky. it is straight forward and common sense flying.
you don't see too many blokes throwing their machines around unless a blonde with a camera is around. it's just another flying job. a very satisfying and adventuresome one i must admit, and lots of money too.

these are not an idle comments frank. come over here and see for yourself, or tim when he is over next.

as of yesterday it is estimated that one third of the r22 fleet in australia will be on the ground with a massive wait for replacement blades.

this will ground a lot of honest operators but you can bet your bottom dollar that the main offenders (under recorders, the main problem), will not miss a beat and no one will check.

i have flown these machines since 1979 and if they are operated within the legal time limits they will not let you down.

so what are we to do with the other users of the machine, ag operators, flying schools, some students are pretty dramatic helicopter handlers, or even the private owners, how does casa know that they are not subjecting their robbies to these supposedly dangerous stresses, why don't they have to comply.

unfortunately robinsons have had more than their share of blade problems from the very beginning and we know about the problems of underrecording of hours in this country but please don't insult us by by telling us we don't know how to fly properly. most aussie musterers fly in excess of a thousand hours a season in a very hostile environment, very hot, very low level, everyday, yet the accident rate in the mustering industry is far less than the general helicopter population suffers.

one of the problems endemic to our mustering industry is that a percentage of our pilots did not become pilots to become part of the aviation industry (shock, horror), they became pilots to put cattle in the yards because it is efficient. these thinkers don't care about helicopters per se, they treat them like motor bikes or toyotas. they do it at unsustainable prices with no thought of the end costs. simple mathematics will show that that if your not making money you can't buy the bits that wear out. so don't write the time down and the bits wont wear out. simple thinking for a simple mind. then sell it with some hours left to you mate down the road, he won't care. the abuse of the robbie in australia has proven that the machine is very robust in fact.

i digress, if the robinson r22 helicopter cannot handle flight in conditions applied by high time professional pilots who don't have a death wish then maybe there is a larger picture, maybe they should all be grounded until the picture is clearer.

Imabell,

you are right on!

Personally I believe, if flown correctly as you suggest, mustering will do not a lot of damage to any Helicopter, less so to the R-22.
I think primary flight training will take a way higher toll on the R-22 than Ag-flying or mustering.
Question: Except for checkouts or training, there is only one person on board when mustering or not (observer or so...)?
If so you must be incredible rough to hurt a R-22, even with full fuel you should have plenty of power in any situation.
In this case you should not fly one, or anything for that matter...

3top

Rotaryman,

I suggest you cool off a bit. Your tone indicates that you might still be on the edge over the Sydney crash, and if it turns out that it was overtimed parts, rightfully so.
But (pending his own statement...) I don´t think RobboRider refered to the Sydney R-22 but the Tulalip, WA R-22 accident, and there he is right, no one saw the actual disintegration of the R-22 when it happened. For all the report (according to Lu´s post...) says it may never have left the ground!

I guess Frank R. would be very interested to analyse some of the 8000 hr blades mentioned on this thread! ....if someone just could proof that they have the time!

I hope they get the responsible people and lock them up for good AND make it well known in the industry!

3top

My two peenies in the pot.
 

This may seem strange coming from me but I would like to make a statement. About eight months ago I watched a Discovery show about mustering. I was absolutely amazed at the agility of the R-22. I saw no evidence of rough handling or abusing of the airframe or dynamic systems. What I did see was a lot of cyclic input in order to muster the cattle into the “Pen”. Cyclic input means blade flapping and blade flapping means lead and lag. Since the R-22 is incapable of leading and lagging due to the lack of a vertical hinge the lead lag action is reacted by the blade root, the cone hinges, the teeter hinge and then the mast. This lead lag action places the blades under a great deal of stress, which can lead to blade loss. Of course over running the allotted time will result in fatigue with the same results.

Some of the posters on these threads have stated that they knew of operators that put thousands of hours over the life limits on the blades without any major problems. So, who is right and who is wrong?

The CASA edict to change blades will cause a major impact on the mustering community as well as other operators in Australia but as they say, it is better to err on the side of safety.

I do agree about the comment about Frank Robinson saying that the R-22 was not designed for mustering. Hell, he says the same thing about training whenever there is a fatal accident.


:sad:

Report reading 101
 

To: RobboRider

Go back and re read the NTSB report.

This implies that the helicopter was in controlled flight and it was not a dynamic rollover.

:uhoh:

Imabell,

You are correct. But the same problem comes up with TBO times all over.

If the hours recorded are ok and legal but the component looks like it has done twice as much as logged then it must be down to what it is used for....

Put another way - a 5000 hour component returned for overhaul that should have gone back at 2000 hours. Paperwork says 2000 hours. Actually done 5000 hours. Folks at the factory look at this component and say "2000 hours and its trashed. No way we can extend the TBO on these things. May even have to shorten the TBO judging by the wear " (yes people, that is how the TBO is adjusted after initial testing)

That is why an IO-520 in an Agwagon has a 1200 hr TBO and the same engine in a C206 has an 1800 hr (I think) TBO. Bring it in trashed with only the "legal" hours logged then it must be down to what it is used for....

Makes me :yuk: . Endemic fudging of hours has prevented the manufacturers from extending the TBO on these things. Imagine how high the legal TBO would be now if hours were logged properly.

I'm with you Imabell - simple thinking for a simple mind has got us to this situation.

As I've never flown mustering, and I don't claim to understand the interpersonal and political angles regarding CASA and the mustering industry. However, Frank was quoted as saying that 90% of the accidents occur in Oz, and Oz only accounts for 10% of Robinson sales. Lu brings up some good points about constant cyclic adjustments; that may be a factor and it is most likely the main difference between flying characteristics in mustering and other endeavors (training, private flights, etc). Seems like mustering would have a much higher percentage of hovering and air-taxi operations than most.

Design limitations?
Documentation discrepancies?
Policy management?
Pilot education and training?

It sucks that the honest folks are getting the brunt of this discrimination.

Lu - out of curiosity, do you remember the name of the show you saw? I'd be interested to see if I can dig it up.

Imabell - Have to agree with your comments re the way mustering guys fly the machines. I said in another post I spent a week out with Heli Muster at VRD and was out with them every day. Most of the time it was with John Armstrong and we flew both the R-22 and for a trip back in time, the last 47 they had there.

Now I got photos of the old and the new ways of mustering and they are like chalk and cheese. In the old days it used to be flying around rip !!!! bust but now, after the majority of pilots attended a course from some US cowboy about low stress mustering techniques, they are flown in a cool calm and collected manner. When I first got there I thought I would see machines being stood on their nose and tail and on 45% angles through trees, how wrong could I have been. With the introduction of the new techniques its a softly softly approach and only when cattle were being stubborn or hiding under the trees would they go in and encourage them to move. Most of the time they stand off and the noise of the helicopter keeps the animals on the move.

In my opinion the reason they crashed so many Robbies, and even John A said it, was the lack of situational awareness. Getting into downwind situations, not watching where your tail rotor is when working down amongst the trees etc. I think if it was all Bell 47s or 300Cs being used the stats would be the same for them and people would be bagging them, but in reality it wouldnt matter what machine was being used in 99% of the accidents.

If Lu or anyone else goes back and looks at the stats I am sure you will find that it was one of the above mentioned causes that resulted in the accident, and nothing to do with the blades or the actual design of the R-22. Anyway to sum up my thoughts on that I would say that the R-22 is being unfairly blamed in this case. Now I am not a big fan of them and not an avid supporter. If they do the job, and do it properly then use them, if they dont get rid of them. Same goes for 300, Enstrom, whatever. Does mustering cause undue stress on the Robbies - nope. Do uneducated stock hands who learn to fly a helicopter and as Imabell said, treat it like a motorbike, cause problems - yep.

Again in my opinion I think the mustering industry created that problem for themselves, but out of necessity. They needed people who knew how to handle cattle and the fresh faced CPL didnt have a clue, so they had to do the next best thing, get someone from the bush who had an interest in wanting to fly. Problem solved but also problem created.

Now if you want to talk about Robbies being pushed beyond their limits, lets look at the guys here in Kiwiland that use them for venison recovery. Ever seen a R-22 with two heavy animals slung underneath dragging them to the side of a 2000ft drop and then hoping to hell that the machine will fly. Then when it gets off the edge the blades look like they are going to clap hands. NOW that is overstressing the machine.

Anyway thats my three cents worth.

:E

Nulian - if it's the same program I saw in the UK on Christmas Eve, I think it's called Dead Man's Curve. Obviously the producers named it after that spot in the graph where 'most' of the mustering flying is done.

Mr Zuckerman has a point about the control movements. From (very very limited) experience, I know that if I can see the movement then I'm overdoing it, but the in-cockpit footage shows the collective being whanged up and down and the cyclic leaving weals on the pilot's legs.

As usual with Discovery, it keeps coming round.

On a slightly different note, Frank (well the factory) has just written to me, only to remind owners of a few things:

1) Fuel stavation can be fatal:rolleyes:
2) Practise auto's can also be fatal:rolleyes:
3) Vibration in the rotorhead can lead to a catastophic failure:confused:

In fact - Just about everything according to Robinson - Can be fatal!

Marriage, Sex, Boiling the kettle....

Talk about covering his Ass:mad:

Discovery program about mustering.
 

To: nulian

The program was shown on Canadian Discovery and most likely was not shown in the US. Sorry.

:ok:

Autorotate
 

In the old days it used to be flying around rip !!!! bust but now, after the majority of pilots attended a course from some US cowboy about low stress mustering techniques, they are flown in a cool calm and collected manner. ---what? i didnt think they mustered in the us? but i spose he'd be an expert anyway:ok:

Robinson tailrotor
 

It appears to me that the tailrotor blades on a Robinson 22 lean a digree or two foreward in the in plane direction. Can anyone give a reason for this.

How do you think they round up the Mexicans sneaking across the border

Disturbing as it is the actions taken by CASA can say only one thing, " they are incapable of regulating the Mustering Industry", why, well answer that for yourself.

Being unable to corectly regulate mustering is a load of toss, for commercial operations it is very simple, audit the company take a copy of all invoices and cross reference to the maintenance release and the trip logs ( as required in the industry exemption for mustering flight and duties), any glaring discrepancies, well we all know what happens then.

There is no way a commercial operator will muster 130 hours for jo farmer and only bill him 90 hours, ...so he can under write his hours.

I also feel for the CASA guys and girls at the cutting edge who have to deal with the now irrate operators.

how to regulate the private operators, well i have no idea.

Having done one heck of a lot of structural flying, I can assure you that if you take a helicopter and often make banked turns, even smooth ones, you will be building fatigue cycles on the machine. Depending on the assumed usage spectrum, you should expect the rotating components to need replacement/ovrhaul earlier than planned. For most Sikorsky aircraft, we strive to make it so that the components see no fatigue damage while in level flight, but virtually all accrue fatigue damage while in turns, decels and accels.

This is a fact of the physics of how the rotor experiences progressive blade stall.

Those of us who are in relatively constant maneuvering flight, even when flown smoothly and well, should expect that their components must be inspected more often, and replaced sooner than the Chapter 4 maintenance manual recommendations.

Here is a web site that describes the typical times spent in each maneuver state, according to the FAA Advisory Circular. Note that they allow only 6% of the total flight time for turns, which is 3.6 minutes per hour. I will bet dollars to donuts that mustering cattle takes a few more turns than that, unless they are wonderfully obedient cows!

http://www.s-92heliport.com/fatigue.htm

I a few days, I will try to post some data on how the rotor develops the stresses in maneuvers.

pre-cone, or maybe to resist a little flapback in flight?