Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

Message
Author
User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#21 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:46 am

Boac wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:24 am
TGG - your interpretation on the stats? (Feel free to use PN's 'Serpentine' abacus, of course), but:
R66: 100% fatality rate
R44: 73%
R22: 27%

Define 'safe'?
That last question is a moot one I guess and would require an agreement in definition but to arrive at a decent basis for comparison by types I would suggest we score those stats by passenger flight hours thus taking account of the different numbers of people the R22, R44 and R66 might hold and the different numbers of hours flown in total for each type over a specific period.. This would be a good start but still wouldn't tell the whole story as we would need to categorise the risk associated with the type of hours flown e.g. training, recreational flying, commercial low level, commercial high level etc. etc.

You see where I am going with this! :)

If four R22's had crashed over 2000 hours of flight time killing 4 people as opposed to one R44 crash over the same flight time with no fatalities, which aircraft is safer?

So, yes, let's wrangle over definitions! ;)))
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
CharlieOneSix
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5004
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:58 pm
Location: NE Scotland
Gender:
Age: 79

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#22 Post by CharlieOneSix » Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:08 am

TheGreenGoblin wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 3:28 am
......Please post the video C16. If we can't use a well chosen music video to make our respective points then what has the world come to! ;))) ....
Here we go then.....
The helicopter pilots' mantra: If it hasn't gone wrong then it's just about to...
https://www.glenbervie-weather.org

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#23 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:11 am

CharlieOneSix wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:08 am
TheGreenGoblin wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 3:28 am
......Please post the video C16. If we can't use a well chosen music video to make our respective points then what has the world come to! ;))) ....
Here we go then.....
=))

I am flying again on Saturday. At this rate I will be a gibbering wreck before I even get into the aircraft! ;)))
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17205
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#24 Post by Boac » Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:03 am

TGG wrote:You see where I am going with this!
Not really! My original post was a little light-hearted and provocative but serves to prove that there are 'lies, damned lies....'.

The figures (if accurate) however, should appeal to your under-writer's genes as they show that the chances of a 'fatal' in an R22 are the lowest.

The oft quoted 'shock horror' story is the number of DC3 crashes.

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#25 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:09 am

Boac wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:03 am
TGG wrote:You see where I am going with this!
Not really! My original post was a little light-hearted and provocative but serves to prove that there are 'lies, damned lies....'.

The figures (if accurate) however, should appeal to your under-writer's genes as they show that the chances of a 'fatal' in an R22 are the lowest.

The oft quoted 'shock horror' story is the number of DC3 crashes.

As you say, damned lies and statistics. We are, as I suspected, basically ad idem Boac, and if I came over as confrontational, then I apologise. Did I use the wrong emoticon somewhere (looks back to find his snail trail...) ;)))
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

Boac
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17205
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:12 pm
Location: Here

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#26 Post by Boac » Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:19 am

No need for any apols - merely challenging sometimes incomplete assumptions. I'm not sure whether my absolute 'safety' bar is no accidents or no fatals :))

AtomKraft
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Planet Claire
Gender:
Age: 63

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#27 Post by AtomKraft » Tue Jan 04, 2022 7:57 pm

I've never flown a helicopter as a pilot, but I think most would agree that the Robbies are rather marginal compared to something like a Jet Ranger.
I'm sure they have their place as trainers, or for herding cattle but personally, in my uninformed opinion, I've just read too many accident reports which ended with the chopper falling to the ground with the rotors stationary.

I might get into one once or twice, but certainly wouldn't make a habit of it.

User avatar
Ex-Ascot
Test Pilot
Test Pilot
Posts: 13096
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:16 am
Location: Botswana but sometimes Greece
Gender:
Age: 68

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#28 Post by Ex-Ascot » Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:23 pm

I have got a few hours chopper time under strict supervision but you still would not get me into a Robinson even with the very best instructor.
'Yes, Madam, I am drunk, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly.' Sir Winston Churchill.

User avatar
G~Man
Capt
Capt
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:16 pm
Location: California on a fire or a sailboat somewhere.
Gender:
Age: 60

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#29 Post by G~Man » Wed Jan 05, 2022 6:04 pm

So, I can prolly give some insight here to the Robinson Helicopter. In no particular order, and bullet pointed as it is easy for me in my older age to keep track.....
  • 1. The Robinson was NEVER designed as a training aircraft---the concept was as a private owner aircraft.
    2. The safety flight envelope is really small compared to other aircraft--for example, the Schweizer 300 you have about 4 seconds from rolling off the throttle to simulate an engine failure to get the collective down before you cannot recover the RRPM, in the R-22 you have 0.9 seconds.
    3. Because of # 2, it is NOT the best training aircraft.
    4. However, due to its cheap cost of acquisition and operation, it became a favorite f flight schools.
    5. The NTSB did a special investigation which was adopted in 96, on Robinson Helicopters, (I was interviewed for comment at that time) The report is here: NTSB Robinson Report
    6. One of the 31 accidents cited was an instructor of mine
    7. Read the findings beginning page 29
    8. Based upon the report and the "threat" by NTSB in 93 that they would ground the Robinson helicopters, I was part of a school that was instrumental in resurrecting the Hughes 300 production line into the Schweizer 300CB
    9. We worked with Schweizer to get rid of the third seat, fuel injected engine, increase the TBO on the tail boom, and call it a "C-model Basic" hence "CB".
    10. The Schweizer had a proven track record as a solid training aircraft. As an example, we were working with certain "Asian" students who typically did not solo till about 70 hours, this was reduced to 15-20 hours
    11. The Acquisition/operating cost of a Schweizer 300CB flying 600 hours per year over a 5 year period is CHEAPER than a Robinson. (This was back in 93--I am sure they are compatible still).
    12. The FAA still has "special rules" (SFAR 73) fr anyone wishing to fly a Robinson product---for example, I have over 17,000 helicopter hours, of which, almost 4,000 are in Robinsons, however I would be required to do training and check ride in one to fly one.
    13. I flew serial # 7 R-44, and have certificate # 11 from the factory school. Back then, the factory instructor would sign you off and specify how many passengers you could carry---either 1 or 4 based upon your competence.
    14. #13 is because the factory did not carry liability insurance and wanted to reduce their exposure.
    15. Then came the "Venti" crash---the first R-44 to crash
Lets just say that I believe the aircraft can be operated safely in the hands of a "competent" and "trained" pilot. New students are NOT competent or trained yet. It is NOT the best aircraft for low time pilots due to its small safety envelope. I have not flown one since 1997 and will not fly in one again.
B-) Life may not be the party you hoped for, but while you're here, you may as well dance. B-)

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#30 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Wed Jan 05, 2022 6:54 pm

Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
G~Man
Capt
Capt
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:16 pm
Location: California on a fire or a sailboat somewhere.
Gender:
Age: 60

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#31 Post by G~Man » Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:35 pm

While I somewhat agree, it is not necessarily the aircrafts fault, he did cheery pick his years. Here is the complete list for the R-44:

R-44 Accident data base

A comment to provoke thought:

What if Mercedes came out with a car that had some "unfavorable" characteristics, and had similar accident rates, do you think there would be a recall and redesign?

And take a look at the very first R-44 accident on the NTSB page: NTSB - Venti Crash

The pilot was the son of Frank Venti, who was a financial backer of the R-44 program and agreed to purchase the very first available one off the production line, serial # 4 or 5 I believe. I operated serial # 7.

It was "rumored" at the time that the pilot had "parker penned" his logbook. Even if not true, it shows the aircraft is not really suited to low time pilots.
Safety Board investigators attempted to validate and reconstruct the pilot's experience. On November 11, 1992, the pilot attended a three day Robinson R22 Safety Course, conducted by Robinson Helicopters. At that time, the pilot indicated that he had accrued 425 hours of flight time. Robinson Helicopters required 500 hours of total time to act as pilot-in-command of an R44. On May 28, 1993, the pilot attended a one day R44 Pilot Check-Out training course at Robinson Helicopters. As verification that the pilot that accrued 500 hours of flight time, the pilot sent a facsimile of two pages of a logbook to Robinson Helicopters that reflected a total time of 525.2 hours. The logbook pages were not dated.

At the conclusion of the R44 training, the instructor pilot from Robinson Helicopters issued the pilot a certificate of training after finding that the pilot's performance was satisfactory to fly the R44 as a 2-place helicopter for at least 50 initial hours. To qualify to carry more than 1 passenger, the pilot needed to return for another flight check after gaining the required R44 flight time. On July 22, 1993, the pilot returned to Robinson Helicopters for his second flight check in the R44. The instructor pilot did not require the pilot to produce any verification that the pilot had accrued an additional 50 hours of R44 flight time. The instructor pilot verbally acknowledged that the pilot was authorized to carry more than one passenger; however, he did not issue a new certificate of training at that time.
B-) Life may not be the party you hoped for, but while you're here, you may as well dance. B-)

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#32 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:45 pm

I was never much of a fan of the Mercedes, I must admit. The Porsche 917 in its early incarnation was a death trap but what a successful car in the end! :)

The R44 is fit for my purpose at least! ;)))
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
TheGreenGoblin
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 17596
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:02 pm
Location: With the Water People near Trappist-1

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#33 Post by TheGreenGoblin » Wed Mar 02, 2022 8:39 am

An interesting article in the Heliops Magazine about the home of the mighty Robinson Helicopter family...

Robinson.JPG
Robinson1.JPG
https://www.heliopsmag.com/robinson-the ... the-people
The company’s piston-engine four-seat model, the R44 is the company’s most popular. In fact, the R44 is so popular that since 1999 it has been the world’s best-selling general-aviation helicopter and is also the most produced general aviation aircraft of the 21st century, with over 5800 R44s being delivered between 2000 and 2017.
R441.JPG
Though you remain
Convinced
"To be alive
You must have somewhere
To go
Your destination remains
Elusive."

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#34 Post by FD2 » Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:41 pm

And so the Robinson saga continues. I can't see much point in fitting them with orange 'black boxes' as I can't see what parameters they would record. If the teetering head is the problem causing mast strikes under certain conditions then what can be recorded to help the crash investigators?

CVR records sudden exclamations of horror. FDR records immediate engine RPM off the scale and rapid descent. The Robinson isn't exactly a complex machine and there would be no trends apparent before calamity struck.

Better perhaps to put restrictions on the weather limits - turbulence etc and handling in rough weather. I'm sure TGA will come back on this!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/129450 ... o--coroner

TheGreenAnger
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3286
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:40 pm
Location: Unfashionable end of the Western Spiral

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#35 Post by TheGreenAnger » Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:35 am

FD2 wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:41 pm
And so the Robinson saga continues. I can't see much point in fitting them with orange 'black boxes' as I can't see what parameters they would record. If the teetering head is the problem causing mast strikes under certain conditions then what can be recorded to help the crash investigators?

CVR records sudden exclamations of horror. FDR records immediate engine RPM off the scale and rapid descent. The Robinson isn't exactly a complex machine and there would be no trends apparent before calamity struck.

Better perhaps to put restrictions on the weather limits - turbulence etc and handling in rough weather. I'm sure TGA will come back on this!

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/129450 ... o--coroner
Flying the R44 light in a mountainous area like the one around Queenstown, where turbulence is likely, at speeds above 70 - 80 knots is a bad idea and is a recipe for mast bumping. It makes no sense to push the limits which appears to have occurred in this case. If the aircraft experiences negative G and the situation is mishandled, a clang and a precipitous final descent might ensue.

I was in conversation with an ex school mate recently who used to own two light fixed wing aircraft at Queenstown airport, which he leased to the local flight school there. He lost a good Kiwi friend and world renowned fixed wing mountain pilot in that area. The fixed wing pilot, who was seduced by helicopters and who learned to fly the R22 was killed in similar circumstances to the case noted above, running late, one afternoon on route back to Queenstown in the R22 at speed, when a local farmer looked up saw the helicopter, heard a bang, saw the aircraft descend and found the wreckage. Same scenario, same dismal outcome although reversion to fixed wing muscle memory in extremis might have been a factor there too.

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/queenstow ... rash-named

Jennifer (aka Julian) was a high hour, well regarded mountain pilot and flying instructor.

I agree with FD2 that it would be far more useful to limit speeds and focus on handling, rather than put an expensive piece of kit in every Robinson helicopter which will only tell us what we already know. Flown within limits the Robinson R44 can be a safe helicopter.
My necessaries are embark'd: farewell. Adieu! I have too grieved a heart to take a tedious leave.

TheGreenAnger
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 3286
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:40 pm
Location: Unfashionable end of the Western Spiral

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#36 Post by TheGreenAnger » Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:43 am

TheGreenAnger wrote:
Mon Aug 08, 2022 4:35 am
FD2 wrote:
Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:41 pm


Jennifer (aka Julian) was a high hour, well regarded mountain pilot and flying instructor.
Julianne, not Jennifer... 8-|
My necessaries are embark'd: farewell. Adieu! I have too grieved a heart to take a tedious leave.

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#37 Post by FD2 » Mon Aug 08, 2022 10:19 am

I was wondering... /:)

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#38 Post by FD2 » Sun Aug 14, 2022 10:59 am

This programme tonight makes it appear as though New Zealand is the only country which is trying to impose limits on Robinsons, in this case through the Coroner. It is just a video camera they are talking about rather than an FDR, but I suspect it would only show what we already know. Turbulence or strong control input - bang! The NZ CAA seems to be rather shy about getting involved in a subject they must have known about for many years, which I find very disturbing. The minister, then his doggie just pass the buck on to the CAA, whose boss refuses to comment and issues a 'statement' saying he refuses to comment.

Is New Zealand the only country in the world taking Robinson to task over this, or have other countries imposed sensible limitations on the machines?




User avatar
G~Man
Capt
Capt
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:16 pm
Location: California on a fire or a sailboat somewhere.
Gender:
Age: 60

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#39 Post by G~Man » Sun Aug 14, 2022 3:43 pm

FD2 wrote:
Sun Aug 14, 2022 10:59 am
Is New Zealand the only country in the world taking Robinson to task over this, or have other countries imposed sensible limitations on the machines?
The US NTSB tried to ground them all back in 1993. Frank Robinson fought that and so they settled on additional rules which are still in place today. These requirements are for Robinson products ONLY:

https://www.rhctraining.com/sfar-73/
B-) Life may not be the party you hoped for, but while you're here, you may as well dance. B-)

User avatar
FD2
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:11 pm
Location: New Zealand
Gender:
Age: 76

Re: Robinsons - do they deserve their place?

#40 Post by FD2 » Sun Aug 14, 2022 8:00 pm

Thanks G~Man - not exactly tight regulation, though I doubt anyone operating out in the bush would be too worried about any restrictions. Perhaps one of the national pastimes of yoofs 'hooning' around in souped up cars, which has been happening here for 90 or more years, has influenced some of the local Robbo owners! Kiwis are some of the worst car drivers I've come across!

And someone using his R22 for sheep or cattle mustering in the 'wopwops' here would be too worried about whether the wind was a tad too strong for flying or if he was flying a few knots too fast. The serious aspect for me lies in the lack of supervision from the CAA here which was also apparent after the 350 Fox Glacier crash.

Post Reply