I never received any help and the Canadian TSB website isn't helping either so I will try again.

Does anyone have or know how to find accident statistics for the R22 / R44 types specific to Canada? I do not want statistics cluttered with American accidents.

Any help appreciated.

To: Helo Teacher

Tell me exactly what points you want me to respond to and I will respond. All of the sarcastic comments I get start to blur. Are you angry with me because you don’t agree with me or, because I don’t agree with you? I used the lynx illustration because like the Robinson the cyclic pitch settings are made with the blades offset from the respective axes of the aircraft just like the Robinson. You speak of me going off thread when you added your comments about flying a 212 and an S 76 with the autopilot/ASE switched off. This had nothing to do with the subject at hand except that I had mentioned what happens when you switch off the electronics on the Lynx. Because you had mentioned it, I simply filled in the gaps by stating that it was irrelevant to the subject at hand.

It is totally true that my theories about the Robinson are just that and I have stated that on other threads. My theories will be proven or disproved only when a test is performed and, I am presently working at that. If I am eventually proven wrong I will simply chalk it up to time well spent and I got to debate with a lot of highly professional individuals. Besides, at my age I need to keep my mind active and me personally involved in helicopters.


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

The bold type quote...

Sorry guys (and girls), you have missed the boat..
The Job Shop has had a rush on "Lives" and they are completely out of stock:-)

HeloTeach,

I've tried my own search engines, and had no luck with a apecific site for you either.
Best I could say is doing the TSB reports page, the a "find" command (browser) to filter for robinson. Sorry, but I'll keep looking for you.

>It is totally true that my theories about the Robinson are just that and I have stated that on other threads. My theories will be proven or disproved only when a test is performed and, I am presently working at that. If I am eventually proven wrong I will simply chalk it up to time well spent and I got to debate with a lot of highly professional individuals.<<

You are the only one who believes this to be a debate.

This forum isn't for debating your theories, it is for pilots to discuss flying. As others have suggested, take your debate to the engineers forum. Personally, they either know you and won't answer, or you'll only last 3 days or so with it, whereupon they'll boot you.

Again, I say even if someone did "prove" you wrong, you wouldn't accept it for it would mean the end of your ranting on this board, annoying 3/4 of the "highly professional individuals," you should be glad you are not a pilot, for you would find no one wanting to hire you once word got around.

EESDL, nice.




[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 31 January 2001).]

To: RW 1

"Again, I say even if someone did "prove" you wrong, you wouldn't accept it for it would mean the end of your ranting on this board, annoying 3/4 of the "highly professional individuals," you should be glad you are not a pilot, for you would find no one wanting to hire you once word got around".

I don't mind being proven wrong but I dislike being told that I am wrong by someone that refuses to admit there might be a problem.

Speaking about the purpose of the forum being for pilots to discuss flying, there are at least ten threads that have nothing to do with pilots discussing flying and one of them is yours.

Just what will you say if I am proven right?



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

LU,

You are probably correct in saying that in a low "G" recovery, the application of aft cyclic (straight back)will cause a slight rolling moment to the right. But it does not matter!

Once positive "G" is restored (which happens very quickly) then you are simply in a banked turn to the right. This is neither a dangerous nor abnormal situation.

You seem to be under the impression that "inflow roll/transverse flow" ceases to exist once the A/C passes through translation.This is not the case. In fact it is hardly noticable at low speed and compensation is only neccesary in cruise. Please re-read that section in your blue book.

Your proposed tests are not possible to perform for a number of reasons. One being that the required stick movement to make the machine move is so small that it is barely apparent. One only needs to think the input and apply a small amount of pressure. If you were to displace the cyclic enough to be able to actually observe the stick movment/direction from a hover you would place yourself in a very dangerous situation.

I have reported to you previously (about 8 weeks ago before you devised the proposed test)both in private email and on this forum, that the cyclic position in cruise with full fuel and pilot only on board is very slightly to the right.It is so slight that it is only noticable If you look very carefully. This position will differ with CofG, small pedal inputs (ie searching for an exact balance) and speed.

There is not a helicopter in existence that will fly to your strict principles. ie fly in a straight line with the stick fwd and exactly central.

Has our illustrious Moderator resigned again, this time without telling us?
Is he on holiday?
Do we have a Moderator any more?
Or, is he just ignoring requests to do something to salvage this forum before it's too late?

Why is it that every thread Lu touches turns into a Robinson debate?

I should start a topic on 'Night/IMC Ops to an Offshore Platform'. I don't think even Lu could introduce a Robinson spinoof into that topic!

Cheers, OffshoreIgor http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Offshore,

You are correct, what will be needed is either a pure flying technique topic that he cannot comment on except to provide 6 year old jabs (Example: Night approaches) or like the one you listed.

You have been told you are wrong by:

Pilots with vastly more practical experince than you.

Again, no one cares about yourr paper wannabee engineering degrees and theories when you have failed to provide PURE HARD FACTS to back them up as helo teacher, offshore, myself, and numerous others have stated.

You can dislike being told all you want, that you are wrong still remains.

>>Just what will you say if I am proven right?<<

Let's end this. Isn't going to happen.

I'll place money on it!
And I already outlined why several times in prior posts.

No one has listened to you.
Not the FAA, not the NTSB, certainly the public. Your response to this is there must be a covert cover up in the midst, because yet again you cannot accept YOU ARE WRONG.
Well get used to it and move on. Grow up.

>>There is not a helicopter in existence that will fly to your strict principles. <<

Why? Because you are not a flyer but an engineer, and guess what, that just doesn't cover all of it sparky.

You will not convince those who do the flying just by use of "But this book says .. and that law says ..." We see the results every time we are in the machine.

You're done. You were done in heli's only, and they had to throw you out because you are too clueless to leave while you have some bit of credibility left.

You only have the ranting and raving to do here because our illustrious moderator made a large mistake in letting you in. Just how much have you made out the check to be ???

There has yet to be ANY topic posted here that you add to that doesn't become a "Lu knows all, Lu is right" bantering sweltering load of crap.

You have yet (other than personal 6 year old responses to me to try to push my buttons) to keep a post under 50 words, believing that you can baffle with long torrid strweams of failed theories.

Do yourself a favor and just leave. Or stay, but quit being such a distraction, no one here cares to hear about your Robinson theories any more. It's apparent to everyone but you.

To: RW 1

I noticed you pulled your post from the Engineer forum. Did my email light a fire?

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

OffShoreIgor
D'you wanna bet?
Lu Zuckerman can turn ANY topic into a Robinson debate.
Look at the JoePilot's first post which started THIS thread.
Who'd have thought this topic, which was very interesting at first, could possibly be turned into a Robinson debate?
Lu managed it, and the actual topic put up for discussion has long been forgotten.

I suspect Frank Robinson rejected Lu's "helpful advice" :rolleyes:
And we all know how Lu reacts when someone doesn't agree with his ideas. I'm used to it - I've got a 10 year old who's often exactly the same. But, he is only 10 so he'll grow out of it, we hope!
Lu's obviously in his second childhood. There's no hope of change.
The guy is totally selfish and doesn't give a toss about anyone else.

Unfortunately, our Moderator is either absent, or totally ineffectual.

I haven't got involved here and agree that Lu can be very tedious, but I will pose one question suppose he is right ?? After all NASA launched a space shuttle dispite being told by engineers ( not pilots)that the boosters had not been tested and look what happened with billions of people watching. Any one who reckones they know everthing about flying is a fool - listen learn debate it might save yours or someone else's life.
I do agree with most that this forum should principally be about flying but if it possibly affects peoples safety I sure would like to know.

Just for you Lu I won't get in an R22 having been to the UK AAIB's hanger and seen lots of R22 wrecks most having had rotor incursions into the cockpit or taking off the tailboom.

Hughes500
Nobody has suggested they know all about flying.
The only one who seems to think he knows everything better than anybody else, is Lu Z who never admits he's wrong about anything.
Of course we should listen to debate, and learn from others. Everyone except Lu does.
But: What have Robinsons got to do with the interesting topic which JoePilot started on THIS thread?
As usual, Lu's selfishly spoilt the discussion with his anti-Robinson obsession, just as he does many others.
BTW:
Do you by any chance own/operate a flying school which uses (or is changing to) Hughes 300's for training?
Or do you allow your customers to train in R22's which you regard as too dangerous to fly in yourself?

Apologies in advance if I'm being too cynical. I just wondered whether you have an "interest" here?!

We americans have a word, one that describes LZ in perfect detail:

Loser.

Onward we go:

Someone else pulled the thread. I certainly didn't, nor would I have to. I stand by my statements.

You still cannot read the english language, Send me email, it gets deleted and and auto responder sends you whetever message I decide that day. I do not see the message, it is killed by the server. Do not bother me (and for that matter others who also told you) with your dribble by email, you may end up sorry.


Solari:

You are incorrect, he is 6. And you are not being cynical.

A 10 year old can figure out simple concepts such as when he is no longer wanted. We have stated it is no longer necessary for you to post your robinson "rigging lag of death" quest crap here, for you repeatedly fail to post FACTS like any REAL engineer, whereas we don't need facts; the aircraft itself continues to "prove that theory wrong every time the cyclic is moved."

Ok, for the rest I need not even mention the 22:

You are a tiring, failed engineer who thought with limited knowledge that you had a holy grail, that FR and the industry would welcome you with open arms like the second coming. Pilots would bow towards you.

When did FR or someone else fire you, or fail to hire you, or tell you that you were full of it, not accept your advice, tell you likely "no facts to support this" ? Hmm?

So ... burn't and not getting the attention (like a 6 year old) you feel you deserve, you are reduced to being here, only by the grace of the moderator (Just how much is the check made out for to stay?)

Not even the other engineers here will respond to the crap, Your post is still unanswered.

You are a wannabee believing you are "Debating highly professional pilots" that you:

Anger.
Tell them they don't know what they are talking about, (when you still have no FACTS for your theories, whereas the high time professional pilots already have Factual evidence; you only need to get in it and fly.)

LZ: you are not a real engineer. You are a person with enough knowledge to be dangerous, and we know the addage.

You have insulted all those involved who bring facts that disporve your theories, something that any REAL engineer would simply acknowledge.

Why not bring all your consulting clients here so thay may see you acting like the burnt 6 year old you really are?

Hughes500:

Nasa engineers either said they shouldn't have launched, or didn't know as it had not been done that cold before.

However the difference between them and LZ is LZ will never even approach the "don't know" neutral confession. He either:

He has to be right.
Or
He has to be right.
(to the point of imagining cover ups in the FAA, NTSB, CAA, White House, Robinson heli conmpany, you name it.)

He cannot admit failure for his psyche cannnot handle it. He would have so much egg on his face it's likely he would need to be placed on suicide watch.

There is the real reason he insists we prove him right, the expectation is already there we will say he's wrong (and why hot, he is. tough luck Lu, I just said you were wrong again, joining countless others here on PPRUNE) so he can then move to the "You must not have performed the test correctly, or failed to duplicate >insert condition here<"
If he did it himself, that would be the end of the crusade, and he would have to go feed pigeons in a park or something similar.

Pity him for this, it really isn't his fault.

The hole grows ever deeper Lu ....

(Have you asked yourself, even when you post crap like the line at top, why no one really has counterpoints to my observations of you?
Because they are correct, and not attacks, but statements of fact, with the history to support them given by you yourself).

You are a selfish person who just wants to hear himself both sound important, preach, not teach.

I doubt you are actually employed (And no one cares to see the evidence you will no doubt try to foist on the forum in response - another 6 year old reaction) You fit the classic image of someone who has nothing else to do but cause ill will, you would have been removed several weeeks ago if I were moderator, and believe it or not it wouldn't have been due to your posts and crap directed towards me.

Either post towards the topics presented, or leave. no one here cares to hear any more about your robinson theories

Gee, that was plain english enough for you to understand?

You really should stop trying to goad me, you only reinforce everything that has been stated above, while failing to weaken my position or observations of you.

[This message has been edited by RW-1 (edited 01 February 2001).]

To all:
Though I have no idea if Helidrvr is MIA, he has in various threads repeated his intention to allow things to flow naturally, and not kick anyone off. I agree that it is unfortunate that everything seems to turn into a (Robinson) debate, but maybe if those who are frustrated just tried to hold their response, it wouldn't continue...

I personally think the involvement of engineers and other non-pilots is not detrimental to this forum. I'm personally a low-time heli and fixed-wing pilot, and an engineer (grad student at the moment). I seem to recall various pilots on this forum stating their appreciation for such contributions in the past. I don't know if those opinions have changed recently or whether these people are just not as vocal as before. I hope the former is not the case.


To Lu:
I've followed your 'theories' for quite some time. I think I understand your contention, but I think you are wrong. I'm working on a little webpage that I should have up in a couple days. My hope is that I'll be able to better explain my understanding of rotor phase lag and flap-lag coupling through pictures, text and formulas as I tried in earlier posts here (in your original certification thread).

It is natural with experience to believe strongly in whatever you understand to be true. You have continued to repeat your assertions as though you are telling someone new, but you must realize that most people reading the current threads are all too familiar with the older ones and all of your points of view. It is this repetition of your views that I think angers others so much--they've heard your argument before and disagree. When you keep telling everyone again that the R-22 shouldn't be flown sideways, the stick response is off by 18°, slight left stick must be applied in a zero-g condition, FR is a bad guy b/c he keeps his assets out of reach of distraught families, etc, etc, people tend to get frustrated. They don't want to keep repeating their arguments in contradiction of yours. We've heard your theories, and as you say, you would have to be convinced before changing your views. The same holds for everyone else. I too believe that your flight test would be difficult to administer. Looking at the rotor disk near liftoff on the ground would be the simples in my opinion, but hopefully I can convince you shortly with a pictorial and textual description.

Cheers,
- Kyrilian