R44 accidents: Is there a pattern?
 

I know of FIVE similar accidents in the UK this year in R44s. Either on landing or taking off.

All by low-houred pilots.

None of them has hurt the occupants, but one sadly injured a by-stander.

But we shouldn't be relying on luck -- an accident like this in France killed all four occupants when the aircraft burst into flames.

Big Ls

Bigls

I make it 6 possibly 7 G reg R44 accidents all with similar circumstances this year.

Something clearly isn't working, whether that's training , testing or general ability is another matter.

GS

If the instructor / flying school owned the aircraft they would probably be double sure the student was completely ready for the solo flight both mentally and practical ability on the the day.

Most machines have a minimum £5k excess on the insurance I would make the instructor responsible. This would reduce accidents / improve training.

Some idiot send me solo a 11 hours and it would of been less weather permitting. My machine your not going solo until 25 hours ready or not

I would be interested to hear of any other early solo's and how you got on (looking back now knowing what you know now)

I agree with you VeeAny, something seems to be lacking somewhere :ugh: or maybe it's just bad judgement or common sense
can't stop visualising the video of the guy trying to take-off in a R44 beside a hanger, then clipping the over hanging door
haven't got the link to hand but I'm sure you've all seen it


regards

Pv

You are right Gary.

How about this for a theory:

Chap does training with same instructor, same aircraft, roughly same amount of fuel, and roughly 1 hour flight duration.

Gets his licence.

Chap is either light or heavy: it doesn't matter.

Chap goes for long flight, without instructor, comes back and is spooked by the difference in the angle of the skids to the ground on first contact compared to what he's used to and what it was like on take-off.

Then the over/under controlling starts to happen, and the rest is history.

The same is also true on take-off, or with passengers sitting in the back, or just on one side.

It's all within limits, but it just "feels different". If you are in-experienced, this may well "feel wrong". Hence the ensuing over/under-control.

It's only a theory, I'm not an instructor and I'll be delighted if my theory is utter rubbish.

But as sure as eggs is eggs, there's a commonality in all these accidents, and it is just a matter of time before someone is killed. And it doesn't have to happen if we can work out what is going wrong.

Big Ls

more should be made of weight and balance when solo in the r44 its a real handful.... minimum solo pilot weight 150lbs according to poh. i remember my first solo was half tanks and despite weighing 190lbs it felt so back heavy...

my suspicion is that while the r44 training is excellent... the weight and balance implications are just an after thought.

It may sound ridiculous but what I really wanted on my first R22 solo (and on the little 'into the hover down to the ground' lifts prior) was a dummy sat in the left seat. Same height/bulk/weight as a regular instructor.

The dummy height was to keep the restricted viz real, the dummy weight for obvious reasons and the dummy bulk to retain the restricted elbow movement.

Without such a dummy I had seemingly limitless power, limitless viz and the freedom to do weird things with my left arm all with the sensation of the machine being tilted by 30 degrees.

Without the instructor/dummy a lot more light reflected from the instrument glass (I was trained to inspect the T's and P's regularly and, because I spent to much time on MS sim, I always wanted to look more inside than outside).

On the vast 30 hours I accrued post solo the feeling never left me and I asked regularly if I could take up a passenger to replace the instructor bulk.

The answer was always a sensible 'NO' from a 30,000 hours man who said 'we expect a period of consolidation'.

He was right of course as he was right in the pre-solo brief which covered most of the above except the psychological angle of not having something in the LHS.

Regards

Cron

why did your instructor not suggest some ballast??? its not a big ask!!! in the adrenaline mist of your first solo the last thing you want is an unfamiliar feeling aircraft.

discussing the feel of a solo aircraft should take place hours before the actual solo i feel, and ballast option should be thoroughly briefed.

I remember asking for ballast in my student days in the R22 but my flight instructor quite rightly refused it, making me more reliant on my own judgement for things like hovering and landing.

I once flew an R44 and couldn't help noticing the rubber grip on the cyclic had been torn to shreds by nervous students, many of them whom had transitioned from the R22 and were not used to flying a larger machine. The vertical movement in the T-cyclic doesn't help as it affects the sensitivity in lateral control and (depending on your knee height) the cyclic grip is presented to students at different angles (not ergonomically efficient).

I'm not sure what the "similar accidents" or "similar circumstances" are that the previous posts refer to - please enlighten me! Unless you guys know something I don't, the PIC could have been a very experienced SFH'er?! Have i missed something :confused:

TTB

R44
 

ReverseFlight - I remember my instructor (who weighed all of 150lbs) putting ballast under the left hand seat in my R22 in prep for my first solo. Thinking back, the ballast can't have weighed more than 20lbs, so the difference wouldn't have been that noticeable, even with such a light instructor. Maybe the placebo effect gave me more confidence (not necessarily a good thing!)? Providing the stude can lift nice and slowly into the hover, surely the difference in a/c attitude due to weight & balance is no worse than compensating for the effects of a stiff breeze?!

I remember being 'surprised' by the change in attitude of the 44 after I did my type rating with Geoff Day when he got out. :eek: (how is he these days? - not seen him for years)
I had about 100 hours at the time. I should imagine the first solo in a 44 would be a bit of a handful. The 44 doesnt strike me as an ideal trainer. Just my opinion. It was an Astro but I dont think the W&B implications are different are they?

I'll never forget how different the R22 was on my first solo. 15 stone of instructor gets out and you lift for the first time and it took me a couple seconds to get it stable in the hover. After that it was ok.

I guess its what happens in those couple of seconds that either results in a take off or a bent chopper.

TTB

The simlar circumstances I refer to are the 6 or 7 R44 seemingly dynamic rollover accidents that have occured this year to G registration R44 helicopters.

The AAIB are not investigating all of them (they may not be investigating any for all I know) and some will be dealt with by a form submitted to them by the pilot / operator.

I know for a fact that several of the pilots concerned are inexperienced, some of them were solo students and even if they were very experienced SFHers something has still gone wrong when accidents are happening just because the aircraft was landing or taking off, if there are no technical defects with the aircraft.

How many organisations stop their SFHers flying when they do not meet the limits of the AD set in the limitiations section of the R22 (not R44 anymore) POH ?

Unrelated to the R44 accidents but relevant nonetheless
Pilots make mistakes, but so do instructors, examiners and the system in which we operate, these accidents are not just happening and a shrug of the shoulders won't make them stop, I have suggested to the CAA a couple of times that they should start to look for patterns in where training is carried out and by whom the pilots who go on to have accidents are trained and tested by to see if there is any commonality, there may not be, but I doubt it.

There are examiners out there who will sign off LSTs and LPCs because they are being paid, they surely must shoulder some of the responsibility when some of the accidents that subsequently occur happen.

Is it right for examiners to fly over MAUW rather than split LSTs in two because they would need to refuel ? I suggest not, but it is happening. What message is that sending to the new pilots ?

Sometimes people fly outside their own abilites, sometimes they are taught badly and sometimes they are tested badly. The repsonsibility does not always lie with the guy at the controls, if he knows no better because the training and testing system has failed him.

Veeany - again I have to agree with you.

We have to look at the training and other factors.

As Veeany says, we cannot simply blame the pilots. The training, the schools, the instructors, the syllabus, the ethos, are all contributing factors that lead up to a pile of bits on the floor.

If the stats exist relating to accidents and incidents per school per pilot trained, it would be very, very interesting to see whether some schools were better or worse than others.

It would be a great marketing tool too -- a league table of safe training establishments would help a new pilot make his/her choice.


BigLs

Re training and organisations paying lip service to LPC standards and the AD limits in a 22's POH, i'm quite sure it happens, but maybe not as much as it did (paradoxically, if incidents are on the increase, but maybe that's your point). I've seen many a low time, naively optimistic SFH'er turned away when the Wx has been marginal, particularly on gusty days, much to their dismay.

If a pilot is a familiar face and 'known' to the testing org as an experienced/competent pilot, then inevitably the LPC is more likely to be a formality than if the pilot is either unknown, or known to be inexperienced/incompetent. If complacency is creeping in across the board regardless, then that definitely is a worry.

This sounds horribly like the Macclesfield incident recently posted; an experienced plank pilot getting into trouble soon after moving to rotary. Is this a pattern emerging?!
TTB

Doesn't part of the problem lie with the fact that Mr. Robinson didn't design his helicopters with training in mind. I admit to being a fixed wing pilot who has only flown a few hours on Robinson's but I found them desparately twitchy to fly whereas the C150/152 and PA38 were designed with training in mind and were made as idiot proof as possible.

SammyPilot

We're in grave danger of resurrecting an age old debate about Robinsons and their suitability for training here, but for the record I don't believe Robinsons are 'twitchy'. However, being a lightweight machine, the R22 is particularly susceptible to gusty wind conditions and very sensitive to W&B/control inputs. Remember, all helicopters are inherantly unstable and coming from a C150/152 or PA38, a plank driver will initially find any helicopter a handful by comparison.

I think the issue in this thread is more about the quality of rotary training and subsequent testing. The suggestion here is that if these were not delivered thoroughly and effectively, could this have been a contributory factor in this and the 6 or 7 other similar R44 incidents?

TTB

Although to my mind, the R22 is the "twitchiest" of all helicopters, the R44 isn't. However, even if you were flying a Jet Ranger, a Cessna would, in comparison, feel as stable as the Rock of Gibralter!!!

One thing that cross my mind is the geography of hangars and aprons. Maybe operators need to consider where they position their landing spots and how they will be approached.

Cheers

Whirls

TTB

The Macclesfield pilot did his conversion "a few years back" (ref. Float Test's post) so he may not be part of that pattern. But the Harrogate accident certainly was.

Think the points being raised with regard to ensuring quality in training are bang on-the-money but it's hard to see where change is going to come from if not from training providers and their customers. The general problems with the UK training market are well-known: poor conditions of employment, high turnover, poor prospects for development as instructors for most involved. If that doesn't change, we can't really expect anything other than patchy quality. Few companies have anything like the resources, experience and philosophy needed to deliver a consistently good training product.

TT

I don't think that the emphasis is right in the UK civilian training/testing regime. It's all about filling in the paperwork correctly and flying to a pre-defined set of parameters in a known environment (ie; licensed aerodrome). There's insufficient emphasis placed upon decision-making and good old-fashioned captaincy. Being able to manipulate the controls to put the aircraft where you want doesn't make you a pilot. (However, in these recent R44 roll-overs it seems the 'pilots' couldn't even do that).

I think that the CAA, rather than audit FTOs/TRTOs (and maybe soon RTFs too) in a pre-arranged manner should consider random spot-checks. Furthermore, not only the paperwork should be auditted. How about 'mystery shopper' type checks? The industry is quite small, but it's big enough to have 'anonymous' individuals turn up at a school for a trial lesson or ask for an LPC. By flying with the people imparting the training, or conducting the tests, in a covert manner, they'll soon be able to assess accurately who's doing the job properly and responsibly. The school / examiner would get paid their normal fee so nobody has anything to lose; except maybe the dodgy operators.

Could it work?

JJ

JJ

Couldn't agree more.

The mystery shopper idea was suggested a short while ago by one of the good guys, I don't know if it got anywhere but if it could be made to work it might sort some of them out.

From a safety and standards point of view Auditing RTFs is almost a no brainer, the financials may make it a non starter but I for one hope it goes ahead.

There is a preponderance of teaching students how to manipulate controls using a script someone else wrote that doesn't always fit the helicopter in question without teaching them how to be pilots.

GS

JJ
Given how [over-]regulated most areas of the UK's GA industry is, I was gob smacked when I read in the 'Harrogate gazelle' AAIB report that RTFs need do nothing more than fill some forms in to qualify :} The controls around qualifying as a FTO/TRTO seem weak anyway, but why not apply what little there is to RTF's as well :ugh:

"To become an RTF no approval needs to be granted; organisations are only required to register with the CAA and certify that they comply with certain required conditions. No inspections are carried out and no training or operations manuals are required. Registration remains valid until either the CAA is informed that PPL training is to cease or the CAA establishes that training is not being carried out safely or is not in compliance with JAR-FCL. In these instances the registration may be revoked."

Currently, for FTO/TRTOs, an initial CAA inspection is made after one year, then it's another three years before anyone's troubled with having to prove standards are being maintained - that's ridiculous.

As Gary says, auditing not just the paperwork, but the quality of training/testing, would seem to be a no brainer. I think the mystery shopper idea would work really well; the only organisations that are likely to object are those that are not up to scratch.

TTB

The R44 has a big change in attitude with varying pilot/passenger weights and fuel states, much bigger than the Jetranger.

Solo with full fuel slightly nose up, four up with low fuel very pronounced nose down attitude.

Normally dressed I exceed the minimum pilot weight by only only ten pounds and whilst this conforms with the POH I always carry ballast in the form of six standard house bricks in a canvas holdall under the left seat. My bricks weigh seven pounds each.

chalmondleigh - that's a very expensive wheel barrow :}

I agree with VeeAny, who concluded with
"Sometimes people fly outside their own abilites, sometimes they are taught badly and sometimes they are tested badly. The repsonsibility does not always lie with the guy at the controls, if he knows no better because the training and testing system has failed him."
Does one further conclude that the system i.e. the CAA are thus completely to blame?

Everything in the R44 is easy, provided you positively land it, otherwise hello PIO.....

I wonder if this is the issue?

The first 7 landings were rubbish, but the 8th was a doodie, now, go and repair the tarmac!

Sorry thought this was about an incident
 

Right, so we have slated the R44, Flying Schools, Instructors, Pilots, CAA.

I thought this forum was not a forum for a bunch of old women moaning.

:p:p

Very true Keepitup, but we need to understand why these accidents happen and how to prevent them happening again. So is it the training, the helicopter, or something else that is at fault. Maybe its just bad luck but we should try to find out.

Agreed, but it still comes down to speculating !!! :ok:

When I soloed students in the R22 we would calculate a weight and balance with about 30 pounds of lead shot in the at the base of the left seat. I would explain in as much detail as I could what the aircraft would feel like and that the initial pick up should be done very, very slowly as it is the first time that the student has to work things out in the machine on their own. As the solo flights progressed we would reduce the balast, thereby weaning them and eventually everyone flew with no ballast.

Some may view this as overkill, but I didn't want anyone to experience my first solo adventure when my instructor simply got out and told me to have at it. The first pick up was one of the scariest moments of my career as I launched off sideways.............

I always teach that a pick up to a hover should be very slow and controlled. Anyone who rushes it is told to land and do it again. If this taught from the first flight then you can pick any helicopter up to a hover regardless of experience.

Out of interest, how many pilots are being taught to hover using the 2 o'clock daisy technique instead of using hover attitude? Students quickly learn that they can stop wandering so much in the hover if they use the daisy but it does them no good in the long run and is absolutely hopeless for lifting to the hover and landing.

2 o'clock daisy? Please explain...

It's an old girlfriend of Crab's (so to speak).

Can anyone tell me what does it mean SFH? :confused:

Using a daisy(or something) in the 2 o'clock position as a hover reference instead of the normal looking ahead in the distance reference?? :rolleyes:

Self Fly Hire. ie. a person who has a PPL hires a helicopter to fly himself.

Hi guys, I'm a relatively low hours PPL holder and I learned to fly at Scotia Helicopters in Cumbernauld who gave me, in my opinion, excellent training (I've had a bit of instruction at other schools in England). Everything was clearly explained and each exercise thoroughly taught until I and the instructor was satisfied that it had sank in.

I believe that these rollovers, in most cases, can be avoided if people start to exercise a bit of 'self preservation'. I heard of one incident ( not at Scotia!!!) that had a student at the controls waiting on his instructor and he decided to get the machine (R44) wound up for action. When he was checking the Low RRPM buzzer he had one hand on the collective and one holding the checklist, he pulled the collective as the RRPM was at 97% up about 6 inches or so and, as he was not holding the cyclic, ended up on his ribs in a scrapyard. :ugh:

MG has it right - despite the best efforts of instructors to get the student to look ahead for hover references, especially the hover attitude, many believe they can hold a better hover by looking down in the 2 o'clock position at a close ground reference. Whilst it can be a good place to scan to pick up fore and aft drift, it is no use as a primary hover reference and certainly no good for assessing pitch, roll and yaw changes during take off and landing.