Robinson Helicopters
 

Nearly everyday on Aviation Safety Network there is a Robinson Helicopter crash usually with Fatalities.
How are these choppers given a permit to fly,what are the CAA,FAA,manufacturers doing about it?
There must be something radically wrong in the design and/or engine.
What does it take to stop this slaughter?:confused::hmm::sad:

Well, there are a lot of them about, they are relatively cheap and so built like an eggbox. They are more unforgiving of mistakes than many, if not most helicopters but none of that comes into the certification standards which deem them safe. So nothing needs to be done.
You volunteer to get into a Crapinson Flimsycopter, no one makes you do it.

Its up to you. If others choose to use them and you don't, get over it. It isn't your problem.

Ok I can understand your point of view that they are toy choppers.this still does not answer my valid question of why so many accidents,surely there is something inherently wrong with the type.:hmm:
It becomes my problem when they fly near my home quite frequently.:=

On this 265th day of the year there are 59 entries, is that nearly every day? Of those 59 entries 13 have fatalities, does that make is usually?

With some 10,000 built they are bound to show up in the statistics.

Correct me if i'm wrong,but your figures don't add up to all the Robinson types ie R22,R44,R22 alone has 504 occurences.
I did not state a particular type I stated Robinson Helicopters:=
And I did not state this year figures!

Yes, 830 R22/R44 occurrences on ASN over the 32 years that Robinsons have been flying, of which around 45% have been fatal.

That's one occurrence roughly every 14 days, and slightly less than one fatal accident per month.

Ok duly corrected in the figures:ouch:, but they seem to be falling out the sky like Sycamore leaves:eek:

Autorotation. :)

My figures add up very nicely as I said they were of the year. Consider yourself corrected.
So did I. What's with the finger?
Correct, in fact you did not state any figures at all just some wildly exaggerated claims.

KBPsen Suggest you spend your time on ASN and take a look yourself!!:=:=:D

So... your issue is that you're afraid one will fall on you?

fustall - there is nothing "inherently wrong with the type", merely that this particular type is favoured by flying schools as both a trainer and SFH aircraft. As one who gained their PPL on the R22 I can tell you now a helicopter is a tricky beast at the best of times, but such a basic model as this is a challenge as it is raw flying at its best.

I was always told "fly the helicopter defensively as it is not a forgiving aircraft", and this is particularly pertinant with the Robinson brand as it is somewhat basic. However, because it is cheap to fly and lease it must be accepted that there will appear to be a higher than average number of incidents because it is quite likely there will be an inexperienced pilot involved.

But please don't be too judgemental on Robinson as, whilst they may appear almost comical to look at, they are a joy to fly, and I for one I relished my time on the R22. ;)

G-UNYT
Thank you for a meaningful response to my concern of the number of incidents with this make of helicopter,been rather short in coming from others:hmm:
Simple question asked and all you get is quote...quote...quote!:bored:
Maybe they did not know the answer so ranted and raved:rolleyes:
Then you came along with experience of the chopper:}appropriate name:)
and hey presto an answer.
Thanks again G-UNYT

NB: not aimed at ALL the other posters,just some!:oh:

Would anyone like one to fall on their head!!:ouch:

I wouldn't want anything falling on my head, but it isn't wrapped in aluminum foil, either.

So do you feel you have enough information now to go back and edit the "nearly every day, usually fatal" and "radically wrong in the design and/or engine" assertions in your original post, in the interests of accuracy ?

Brilliant!

You have asked four different questions, although you appear to think you have only asked one. Which simple question is it you want answered?

Okay, then...

Define "nearly everyday (sic)" and then we can talk. Chalk this up as gross exaggeration.

Apparently they exhibited satisfactory adherence to the regulations in force at each of the certifying bureaus. Additionally, they are inspected just like every other aircraft.

My guess? Continuing to inspect, gather information and enforce the rules and regs as they normally do. Additionally, Frank Robinson lobbied for additional training requirements for all of his designs. What more would you like the relevant bodies to do, exactly?

Design? Not really. It's quirky, but it's a flying machine just like any other. Engines? Same engines as in many fixed wing aircraft, and they're (gasp) certified as well.

Same as usual: pilots need to fly the aircraft within its limitations.

Quite simple, really.

Any other hyperbolic questions?

I can understand people having concerns regarding the Robinson (especially when one is probably located not too far from Sywell aerodrome, home of the UK’s mainRobinson distributor), but having read through the ASN reports for Robinson incidents for the past couple of years it would appear that it is not so much the manufacturer at fault, but rather the pilots.


For example, since the beginning of 2010 the ASN lists 80 incidents involving the R22, but 27 of these occurrences happened during a training flight. A majority of the other incidents occurred on or en route to private sites and involved elements of pilot error during manoeuvring such as striking of power lines, hitting ground or trees when mustering livestock, operating in adverse weather conditions, or incorrect application of the flight controls which lead to mechanical failure (e.g. mast bumping,sheared main or tail rotor etc). Indeed, only 14 of these incidents state technical reasons as being the primary cause for forced landings, but this could as easily be attributed to poor maintenance of an aircraft as much as a manufacturing or design fault.


Very few of these occurrences list the PIC as a CPL holder, so one can assume that pretty much all of these incidents, aside from those where an individual was under training, involved PPL rated pilots. It is unfortunate therefore for Robinson that the reputation of their brand has been tarnished by those individuals who had insufficient experience for the conditions and circumstances in which they chose to operate.

Other posters have pointed out that, as they're so cheap and widely available, Robinsons are so widely used, and often by relatively lower-hours pilots.

I don't know much about helicopters but I do know lots about statistics...and that's why a Lamborghini or Ferrari is unlikely to kill an 18-year old male driver - it might be powerful and tricky to drive, but most young men will simply never get near one. Check the grisly roll call of Citroen and Peugeot hatchbacks - they're not dangerous, just lots of them on the roads. Same with aircraft.

I'd chill about the Robinsons and panic about the millions of sometimes incompetent, poorly trained and almost entirely unregulated idiots driving within feet of you every day. After all, it'll be a while before PPL(H) holders kill / injure 3000 people in the UK every year....