Robinson R44

[Lu Zuckerman]

I received the following email from Jim Hall, Chairman of the NTSB:Dear Mr. Zuckerman:
The page from the R44 Pilot's Operating Handbook that you are referring to resulted from Safety Board recommendations A-94-143 and A-95-1 through -7 to the Federal Aviation Administration. As a result, the FAA issued Priority Letter Airworthiness Directive 95-02-03. This AD required operators to insert an update page in the end of the Normal Procedures section of the POH. This update page contained information intended to prevent loss of main rotor control. The AD was sent to all owners, operators, and pilots for compliance. The Robinson Helicopter Company did not publish the page, so it would not have a page number in the Robinson Helicopter Company POH.
Since the issuance of the recommendations, there have been two additional Robinson Helicopter accidents in the U.S. involving main rotor loss of control. On October 26, 1998, an R22 crashed in Littlerock, California, and on August 18, 2000, another R22 crashed in Watsonville, California. In addition, there have been four similar accidents outside the U.S. and the possibility that a recent accident in Denmark that may be related. The Safety Board will send a representative to assist in that investigation later this month.
In light of these events, we will be reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective action taken by the FAA and other airworthiness authorities. Additional recommendations may be forthcoming.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. The following message prompted Mr. Halls' reply. -----Original Message-----
From: Lu Zuckerman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 10:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Follow up to email regarding page from Robinson Helicopters POH
Dear Mr. Hall,
About a month age I sent you a copy of a report I had submitted to the NTSB in 1996. This was several days after a Robinson helicopter lost its' rotor in an accident in California. A day or so later you sent me an email telling me that you had turned the report over to four of your investigators whom I assume were assigned to the California accident.
The page I sent in the email preceding this one comes from a Robinson R44 Pilots' Operating Handbook. Contrary to FAA procedures the page is unnumbered and there is no indication of it being a part of the book as indicated in the LOG OF PAGES APPROVED BY FAA TYPE CERTIFICATE NO. H10WE. This is mandatory as it indicates what the FAA has signed off as the operating instructions for the helicopter. The same situation exists in the R22 POH.
I have been participating in a forum called Pprune or, Professional Pilots Rumour Network which has a subset called Rotorheads.
In the Rotorhead forum I have offered the report to interested helicopter pilots. About 60 of them requested the report and after an appropriate period I started getting feed back. Most of the pilots told me that the page I sent you was not in their POHs for the R22 and the R44.
A lot of them indicated that they quite often flew outside of the restricted envelope referenced in the unnumbered page and some from Australia stated that in mustering cattle they almost always flew outside of the restricted envelope.
Now I am getting feedback that the restrictions are only suggestions and have no weight because they are not indicated as a warning. Not following the specific instructions can lead to high flapping loads resulting in mast separation . This is especially true for flying out of trim and sideslipping the helicopter. The wording is such that the pilots that do have the page don't pay any attention and those that do not have the page just keep on trucking until the have an accident.
I would think that the FAA should take the necessary action to have the page properly registered as an approved page and that the page be numbered and included in the Normal Procedures section (4) of the two POHs. As it stands now, the page is unnumbered and is placed as the last page of section 4 of the POH.
The UK CAA has requested the report and have indicated that they are checking why this page is not included in the POHs of UK registered Robinson Helicopters. One of the respondents to my postings in the forum indicated that he specifically asked the Robinson Pilot who was instructing a safety seminar in the UK about the restrictions relative to side slip and out of trim flight and the Robinson pilot told the student that there were no such restrictions.
I honestly think the NTSB is missing the boat on the Robinson problems. The highway safety board is having a field day because of defective tires. There have been 32 Robinson helicopters lost due to rotor separation and many more lost for unexplained reasons. Both types of failures are covered in my report.
Speaking about the report, I have made several additions to include a diagram that will help explain several points made in the body of the report. I have added two comments/notes and they are easy to recognize as they are in bold type. I am sending you a copy of the amended report.
With warm regards,
S L Zuckerman
RMS EngineeringIn Responce to Mr. Halls' email I sent the following:Dear Mr. Hall,
Thank you for your recent email regarding the unnumbered page in the R22 and R44 Pilots Operating Handbook. Robinson did in fact publish the contents of the FAA Priority Letter dated 13, January 95. In doing so, it became a permanent entry into the handbook and as such (per FAA regs) should have a number and be noted in The LOG OF PAGES APPROVED BY FAA TYPE CERTIFICATE NO XXXXX (R22 AND R44). Even if it was not a requirement to number the page the problem still exists that this information was not promulgated very well outside of the United States. I had email contacts with around fifty pilots in the UK and Australia that indicated that they had never seen the page nor, were they aware of the FAA Priority Letter that set the operational restrictions in place. When I made reference to the restrictions I was told that they operated the helicopters outside of the restrictions on just about every flight.
The page was published on the internet and the pilots were advised to check it out. They then argued that since the wording did not specifically state that sideslip and out of trim flight were forbidden that they said there was no weight behind the recommendations.
I contacted the UK CAA safety office and they stated that they were looking into why the page was not included in all POHs for the R22 and R44 helicopters registered in the UK. The CAA is also presently investigating the large number of small helicopter accidents including those involving R22s and R44s and I assume they will see if there is any relation of these accidents to the material covered in my report.
I can't emphasize this point too much. There is a problem with the Robinson rotorhead design that can cause these accidents. There is also a major problem with the rigging procedure of the R22 and R44 that can lead to blade stall and mechanical binding in the flight control system.
The above attached report is the same one I sent to you but I have added a diagram and two passages in BOLD TYPE.
Finally, if your investigators do not consider the points I made in my report I will guarantee that they will never get to the bottom of the problem. In saying that, I will make you an offer. I normally get paid for my services but if your organization will bring me down to your facilities in Washington and pay the transportation and living expenses for two days I will explain to your investigators exactly what they should be looking for. At the same time I will go through my report and explain why the R22 and R44 should have never been certificated.
With warm regards,
S L Zuckerman
RMS EngineeringNote: On a previous post someone asked me why I kept pushing my point when so many people said I was wrong. I don't know how to answer that, other than to say, maybe some day the people that make the final decisions will think I am right. If "they" tell me I'm wrong, I, like a good dog, will drop the bone I have had in my mouth since 1996 and start digging for another bone.

------------------

The Cat


[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).]


See also ..... Robinson Technical Questions (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=126350)

[eurocopter]

Keep up the good work - You do have some supporters!

[Lu Zuckerman]

I received this message via email:

Posted Oct 15th, 2,ooo
A helicopter plunged 50 feet and crashed onto busy
Pines Boulevard in Pembroke Pines on Saturday, killing
the two people aboard and terrifying dozens of
motorists.

The pilot, 46-year-old Barbara McKinley of Pembroke
Pines, died en route to a hospital, and a passenger in
the helicopter, 50-year-old Brian Auerbach, also of
Pembroke Pines, died on impact.

McKinley was an experienced pilot who had flown
corporate planes for Burdines, said her fiancé, Ken
Michaelis. He said she took Auerbach, a neighbor, up
for his first helicopter flight Saturday.

Michaelis said she called right before taking off and
told him to stay home because she was going to fly
over his home in Southwest Ranches.

Michaelis went outside with his two daughters a little
later and waved to McKinley as she circled.

"She buzzed about four or five times, waving at us,
and then headed to Miami,'' Michaelis said. "We were
going to get together later in the day.''

Witnesses said the chopper, a Robinson R22 Beta,
swayed back and forth minutes before dropping onto
Pines Boulevard about noon, narrowly missing
motorists.

"I could tell it was in trouble by the way it
sounded. It didn't seem like he had any power -- he
was definitely having some kind of mechanical
problems,'' said David Mayer, who was jogging along
Pines Boulevard when the crash occurred.

"I was sitting at the intersection on the phone and
heard a helicopter really low,'' said Kristi Krueger,
an anchor with WPLG-ABC 10 who lives in Pines. "I saw
it listing from side to side and said to my mom, `Oh,
my God, I'm going to get hit! ' then it swerved down
south on Pines Boulevard and crashed.''

The red and white two-seater helicopter took off from
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport at about 11:30 p.m.,
said Corky Smith, senior investigator with the
National Transportation Safety Board, who was at the
scene Saturday. The helicopter is owned by Volar
Helicopters at the airport.

Smith said the pilot was a certified instructor and it
was a "routine flight.''

FLYING LOW

Witnesses told Smith the chopper approached Pines
Boulevard, flying south at a low altitude. The chopper
was swaying back and forth and, at the intersection of
Pines Boulevard and Northwest 155th Avenue, yawed to
the left and headed east, Smith said. Seconds later,
the helicopter dropped from the sky and crashed.

"I saw the helicopter coming and it looked like it
was in trouble. It was swerving all over the place and
it seemed like the tail flipped,'' said Andy Gonzalez,
owner of an Exxon gas station at the intersection.
"He was really flying low and it looked like she was
trying to veer to the left and land in the lake but
she couldn't make it. It's amazing no one was killed
and that she missed the traffic lights.''

The chopper hit the road with a resounding boom,
sending pieces of the tail across several lanes. Some
were found up to 50 feet away.

The windshield shattered and the blades of the rotor
were bent and twisted underneath the mangled frame.
Fuel began leaking across the highway.

According to the R22 Pilot and Owners Association, the
Robinson R22 is one of the most popular training
helicopters in the world. In 1995, the NTSB
recommended that R22s be grounded because of 26 fatal
accidents in which the main rotor hit the airframe
during flight. Those were the total fatal accidents
involving the R22 since its inception in 1979. (NOTE: This statement is misleading as it addresses only rotor loss and rotor incursion accidents and even then the figure is wrong. The correct figure at last count is 32). (LuZ)
As a result of the NTSB recommendations, the Federal
Aviation Administration issued revised airworthiness
directives for the R22. Those directives are the
operating procedures required by the FAA. Among other
things, the FAA required R22 pilots to avoid high and
low air speeds and maintain maximum power on RPM.

`STEEP DESCENT'

"It had to have been a steep descent because it went
under the traffic lines,'' said Armando Orraca, a
commercial pilot who lives in the Towngate subdivision
on the north side of Pines Boulevard. "It's amazing
it didn't burst into flames, really amazing.''

Cars headed east minutes after the wreck swerved off
the road to avoid hitting the debris. Passersby jumped
from their vehicles and ran to try to help the two
people strapped inside.

Auerbach was dead. The pilot, McKinley, was moving and
breathing, witnesses said. They unstrapped her, pulled
her out and Mayer began administering CPR until medics
arrived. She was rushed to Memorial Hospital West but
was pronounced dead on arrival.

"It flew over my head at about 50 feet and then
crashed,'' said Mayer, a lieutenant colonel with the
Southern Command in Miami. "I ran over there and both
passengers were still strapped inside.''

The westbound lanes of Pines Boulevard from Interstate
75 to Northwest 155th Avenue were closed for more than
four hours while NTSB investigators inspected the
wreckage and questioned witnesses. At about 5 p.m.,
the aircraft was hauled away and the road opened.

"All of us who work around here call this
intersection the `intersection of death,' '' Gonzalez
said. "There's always wrecks at this corner and
someone dying. We've never had a helicopter crash
before, though.''

I read this news on sunday miami herald..

__________________________________________________


[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 20 October 2000).]

[huntsman]

as a total helo novice, what is the R44 like as a machine
i believe they are supposed to be cheap and reliable
any comments and a price in aussie dollars (or otherwise)is appreciated

also if many people have dual fixed/rotary licenses and their opinion on the differences

i'm one of those fixed wing chappies

[piloteddy]

hi huntsman,

If you want lots of info on the R44 go to www.robinsonheli.com (http://www.robinsonheli.com) . There you'll find everything you want to know.

I must say though, i got a flight in a new R44 Raven today, and (as everyone else says) the hydraulics make such a difference. im not too sure about the price but it should tell you on the website.

Hope this helps a little bit http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

*Update*: I've just checked and the basic price for an R44 Raven is US$294,000


[This message has been edited by piloteddy (edited 21 October 2000).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

Sure the R44 Raven feels better with hydraulic boost. Now you don't get the vibratory feedback, However, the feedback forces are still there but they are prevented from getting into the control system by the servos. If in redesigning the flight control system to incorporate the boost cylinders, they did not compensate for the trapped vibratory (push-pull loads) by beefing up the upper controls, that will be their next set of problems. At the least, wear on the push pull bearings and on the pitch link bearings will be accelerated and at the worst, one of the linkage elements can fail. It can also effect the monoball in the swash plate by accelerating wear and cause it to fail or at least have to be replaced due to excessive wear.

Here is a suggestion for those of you that fly or work on the R44 Raven. Check the part numbers of all of the elements above the servos. Swashplate,Pitch links and pitch horns. If they are different from those on the R44 Basic then I stand corrected. If they are the same then look for problems down the line. Also, check to see if the attaching structure for the bottom end of the servos has been modified to take the pounding loads transmitted through the fixed servo. They had similar problems when they put servos on the Bell 47 and replaced the irreversibles in the flight control system.
:rolleyes:

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

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]

[piloteddy]

Dont let Lu put you off. Robbo's are great machines. Unfortunately he has a grudge against them, and i think that he is trying to get everyone else on his bandwagon too.
:mad:

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: PilotEddy

32 years as a senior Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety Engineer and an involvement with helicopters since 1949 when your father was a small boy allow me to make comments like those above. I don't have a grudge against Robinson Helicopters, I am a supporter of flight safety. If you had ever logged onto the Just Helicopters website you would know that I have made some really bad comments about Bell, Boeing and Hughes Helicopters (AH-64). All of those comments were made from having worked on those programs and for most of the major builders of helicopters. I have never worked on or flown in a Robinson Helicopter but my technical background gives me the authority to make the statements that I have made in this forum and in the Just Helicopters forum. From where I sit you are defending the Robinson Line out of some sort of loyalty and not from an understanding of what I said in my above posting.

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

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]

[tiltrotor]

Well, I may not have flown R22/ R44s in 1949, but after flying both types quite extensively, I have to say that not once did I have trouble (well, that's not quite true, I had a flat battery once).

Lu, there is one question I already wanted to ask you previously. It seems that you are very much after Robinson and the FAA for certifying the aircraft- you consider it a huge mistake.

How come that other contries, incl. Canada, the UK, etc. etc. have certified the same basic design without any significant differences in the flight envelope?

Just curious. According to you they all should be corrected then.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Dear Tilt,

Read my posting titled The missing page, R22 and R44, A view from the top. As I type this posting the problem as to why the page did not appear in POHs in the UK and OZ is being investigated by the CAA and the NTSB.

According to the message to me from Jim Hall chairman of the NTSB, the FAA and Robinson were required to notify all owners and operators of the material on the so called "missing page" and the information was to be entered into the POHs for the R22 and the R44.

As far as the certification by Canada, The UK and Australia is concerned If the helicopter is certified by the FAA the other certification authorities will in most cases rubber stamp the certification for use in their respective countries. If they don't rubber stamp it they may run a few performance tests to verify operational limits or performance characteristics but not much more.

The real problem is why the information about the restrictions in the performance characteristics was never widely circulated when the FAA required Robinson to do it.


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

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

Unless someone acknowledges reading this post I'll never know if anyone is reading it or for that matter is even interested in the contents of the post.

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

[Skycop]

Lu,

I have been quietly following your threads.

There is undoubtedly more than a little truth in what you say with regard to the safety of these machines. Like I said before, I flew one (just once) in the mid-1980's when I was asked to help set up a small flying school. I decided not to continue as I did not feel that the aircraft was suitable as a training aircraft. Frank Robinson himself later said the same. Looks like I made a good decision. Many of the pilots lost to these aircraft have been very experienced.

I am not really surprised by the loyalty to the R-22 shown by some pilots on this forum. It's quite normal for a pilot to consider the aircraft he flies to be the best thing in the skies, especially if he has little experience of anything else, more so if it hasn't bitten him yet.

[PurplePitot]

Lu

Keep up the postings, I rejected a flight in an R22 many years ago out of a gut feeling that it just doesn't look right! and I have never felt the need to get in one since.

Keep at it...

[tiltrotor]

Lu, I disagree, I would rather say that the real question here also is that if the design really is so terrible wrong, I say again, WHY WAS THE AIRCRAFT CERTIFIED IN MANY COUNTRIES WITHOUT QUESTIONS ASK?

I know the rubber stamping procedures, but according to all your details it just doesn't sound right.

[Lu Zuckerman]

Dear tilt,

Check the POH on page ii and you will see that the certification signoff for the R22 and by definition the R44 was granted by the Manager, Flight Test Branch of the Transport Airplane Directorate which is based in Seattle. I ask you, what the hell do these people know about helicopters? The helicopter certification branch is in Fort Worth, Texas. Most certification Authorities have a lot of tallented people that are technically qualified to do their jobs. On the other hand they have a lot of technical dim bulbs that are not qualified for their positions but governments being what they are these people stay on. First of all, Frank Robinson was the DER for some time during certification. This is against FAA regs and both the FAA and NTSB were aware of it. Could it be that he, being the great persuader, convinced the FAA that all of the tests were done and in doing so proved to the FAA that his design was certifiable. Nobody knows and nobody is talking. All of the players have a vested interest in keeping quiet. The FAA can't admit that there are problems in the design as to do so they would have to admit to making a major error in granting certification. And Robinson Helicopters certainly not going to admit anything. This in legal terms is called conflict of interest and would make the participants legally culpable.

Now I want to give you a practical illustration of the calibre of the technical capabilities of members of the CAA, DGCA and the LBA. The following took place in the eighties. The following was a post I made on the Tech Log thread


I was visiting the IASA web site and read several articles dealing with the incompetence of FAA personnel and how they didn’t let that incompetence stop them from forcing an airline out of business. I had an experience with similar incompetence when I worked on the Airbus program. As senior RMS engineer for a German company that was the lead contractor on the flap / slat drive system design I had to attend a design review meeting at the home facility of our English design partner.

The purpose of the meeting was to make a final determination about the run of the hydraulic lines that powered the wing tip brakes. Another part of the design review was to determine if it was necessary to incorporate anti flail guards on the slat drive system. The Integration contractor from Germany and the English wing designer were in favor of running the lines along the front spar as this would simplify the tubing run and it would be cheaper. To prove their design philosophy they had the English partner of the German firm conduct a test.

The test consisted of an electrical drive motor connected to a Hook’s joint that was attached to a short section of the slat drive shaft. This short shaft was supported by a live center to allow shaft rotation and the live center could also be disconnected to allow the shaft to fall as if it suffered a mechanical disconnect. They filmed the entire test and presented it to the meeting attendees. In attendance were representatives of the CAA, the LBA and the DGCA.

In the film, the shaft was brought up to design speed of about 1400 RPM. When the shaft was disconnected the shaft fell to an angle of about 20 to 30 degrees off of the drive line center. The shaft continued to rotate and it did not flail. They showed several tests filmed from different angles and each time the shaft fell and continued to rotate with out flailing. With that the certification authorities along with the wing designer and the integration contractor stated that it was not necessary to provide anti flail guards and that the hydraulic lines could be routed along the front spar. Case closed. Or, was it.

After the presentation I asked my English counterpart to step out side. I asked him if he thought there was something wrong with the test and he agreed with me that the shaft should have started to flail after dropping several degrees off drive center due to lock –up of the hooks joint.

We went back into the meeting room and every one was congratulating each other. We asked the test engineer to come outside with us. In the hall, we asked him about the test and why the Hooks joint didn’t lock up. He stated that he didn’t use a Hooks joint because the German design firm would not provide one due to a shortage and that they were behind in their delivery schedule to the integration contractor. We asked him what he had used in place of the Hooks joint and he told us that he had used a shaft and coupling from (If I remember correctly) a BAC 111 which used constant velocity joints. If my counterpart and I were not in that meeting the A310 would have the hydraulic lines routed along the front spar and there would be no anti flail guards. If in that configuration a shaft had separated the A310 would lose all three hydraulic systems which would make the aircraft a bit difficult to control.

The test was rerun using the correct Hooks joint and shaft resulting in the lines being run in front of the front spar and behind the rear spar and anti flail devices were incorporated.

The integration contractor and the wing designer in their zeal to be proven correct didn’t catch it and the certification authorities didn’t have a clue.

There is one person that could shed a great deal of light on this subject but to do so would jeopardize his position. That person is Tim Tucker who performed all of the flight testing for certification.

This is how it works the other way:

I was aware of several severe design deficiencies on the A310 wing and I made these facts known to my supervisors. It was their contention that if they were to bring the problems up to Airbus they (the German firm) would have to absorb the cost of the change. I jacked it up one level to the Integration contractor. They said the same thing. I then went to the top which was BAe
who designed the wing. They told me that they were sympathetic to my problem but they couldn't help me. It should be noted that problems that effect reliability, maintainability or safety must immediately be brought to the attention of Airbus Industrie. It was never done. When the A310 was certified in the United States the FAA took the word of the JAA and only performed a few tests to verify operating costs and block times. Later I notified the FAA about the problems and when they contacted the DGCA they stated that the problems were solved. I contacted a good friend and he told me that the design was not changed. I again notified the FAA and this time they acted. As a result the VP and the program manager at the German firm were fired. The design however was never changed. I aasume because of a cost benefit analysis performed by the FAA and the using airlines.

The whole process sucks and people like you are flying in aircraft certificated by people like them. Your only salvation is people like me.



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

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 22 October 2000).]

[tiltrotor]

Lu, good listing there. It was quite interesting to read some of the newspaper articles. However, with the information gathered out of the witness statements and the rotor blades bent underneath the aircraft it very much sounds like a rotor stall rather then mast bumping. But that's only a suggestion based on similar occurences. It will be very interesting to see any further progress you are making. Just out of curiosity, have you ever been threatened with a lawsuit?

To SkyCop:

What machines are you flying then?

Keep in mind that there are people out there that are very experienced in all kind of types of helicopters. E.g. I am currently flying as a Capt. on 412s offshore, have flown most of the Bell single and twin range and other types like 500s/ 520s, etc. but I still love to have a go in the R22/ R44 and play.

Keep in mind that nowadays many commerical pilots are not so fortunate to be military trained and when you have to pay for your own training- well, the whole thing looks different.

[tiltrotor]

Lu,

Thanks for filling me in, quite interesting story. I suppose that like in any other government branch paperwork takes over from actual practice- so do you think you will be successful in achieving your goal?

I personally always loved flying the R22/ R44 but if it is your goal to get the design changed, I wish you good luck and hope that you will come to your destination.

[huntsman]

interesting points made and just the info a novice looks for before spending $$$$.

Lu,
amend the system or can the Robbos outright.

as i said before i heard the R22/44 are okay to fly but you don't want to get dead doing it.

are they a good scenic helo?

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Tiltrotor:

Dear Tilt,

Regarding your question on another thread about being sued. Not yet.

Regarding my being successful in achieving my goals I don't know. Will I give up? Probably not. What the hell, I'll be 70 years old in December and aside from an occasional consulting job what else do I have to do. My one big joy in life is that I sell models when I'm not on assignment. Check out Model Masters, Inc on the internet

If they would put a rotorhead similar to that used on the Schweizer 300C on the R22 and R44 and adjusted the rigging procedures to acommodate that new rotor system I would close up shop and look for other mountains to conquer. With those modifications the two helicopters would be fantastic machines and 99% of their problems would go away.

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

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 October 2000).]

[helidrvr]

Mais non !!

Do I finally detect a 'raprochement' between you two hotheads?

Cheers http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

[hover lover]

Lu,
Regarding your 10/23 message that you have only the occasional consulting job to keep you occupied, have you given any thought to contacting Bill the owner of Just Helicopters,and finding out if his web site is still for sale?
Hover Lover

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Hover Lover,

Thanks but no thanks. If you have followed my postings on Just Helicopters under the name Poonette you would know that I was torn to pieces. Bill had to come to my aid on several occasions. When Bill first closed the site prior to entering the hospital he severely chastized the individuals that spouted so much venom towards me and many other participants. I don't think I have the patience to try to monitor and control that environment. It was Helidriver that suggested that I start my own forum which I did. However, I had to purge my computer of the love bug and in the process of uploading Windows 98 I lost the web address for that forum. It was then that I came over to PPruNe. Helidriver stated I would be treated much better here. He was right in spades. True there have been a lot of disagreements but that is expected but there were no attacks or name calling. Now after that confession I'll tell you the real reason I don't want to buy Just Helicopters. My wife would shoot me. She is constantly on my case for spending so much time on the computer. What with writing technical reports and running my model business most of my time is spent doing exactly what I am doing right now.

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

[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 23 October 2000).]

[212man]

I think Lu's efforts are entirely laudable and he is obviously devoting a lot of time and effort in his quest. I do feel though, that he is arguing more than one point at a time which is clouding his original intention. What does the crash mentioned above have to do with his report? Why splah the names of two dead people all over the internet? Generally, wazzing around at very low level when inexperienced, is a bad thing. They may very well have had the same outcome whilst flying a Schweizer or Enstrom.

Another thread deals with low Nr in autorotation, which many respondents have suggested may be due to excessive flat pitch and may need checking. That's pretty nomal stuff which applies equally to the 212 (all types of course), so why does Lu need to imply that those who made that suggestion are being hypocritical after responding to his other thread about the design 'flaws'? What is the problem he is espousing? the 18 degrees of right cyclic in the cruise, the excessive flapping that results from sideslip, the collective rigging procedures, mixing flapping hinges with a teetering head or the mast bumping that can happen (hardly uniquely) under low g?

I agree that the R22 is less than forgiving but hope this is not a crusade driven by obsession. How many Cessnas and Pipers crash every month with broken nose wheel struts after heavy/bounced landings? A hell of a lot, does that mean they have a design flaw?

Anyway, full marks for perserverance and I hope you get a satisfactory answer from the NTSB.

------------------
Another day in paradise

[Skycop]

Tiltrotor,

Nothing driven by rubber bands - and preferably a twin these days. Each to his own, eh?

Sorry you think your day job is so boring.

:)

[This message has been edited by Skycop (edited 23 October 2000).]

[tiltrotor]

Skycop-

Gotta give you credit you got the boring side right, but then again don't we all do whatever pays?

Keep it up a bit of stir on these forums doesn't hurt.

Safe flying

[Eagles66]

Does anybody know why the mag. drop on the R44 is done @ only 75 % RPM ?

Tally o

[Grisoni]

The springs in the clutchactuator get into a little "frenzy" at flight idle on the ground and breaks the little microswitches (that can only be replaced at you guessed it RHC. So to aviod having people sit on the ground at 102% for long periods the check should be done at 75%.

PS: I would much rather fly a R22\44 than the AS 365 I'm stuck in now. when it comes down (to it) small things selfdestruct with much less ferocity.

[rotorque]

I actually havn't flown an R44, but on discussion with fellow R22 drivers a few years back, a comment came out about the cooling fan cracking at full RPM if there is any decent vibration involved with the mag check. It was not uncommon to find cracks in the fans and the comment seemed to have some merrit to.

Having said all that I don't know how true it all was.

P.S. I like the springy idea above. Sounds like he actually knows what he is talking about - where as everything I have learnt usualy involves a lot of alcohol and tall stories.

Cheers

[Helicat]

Has anyone ever experienced this? A friend flew over a nest of high - power RF transmission antennas recently, and, the way he describes it, heard "organ - like sounds" over the headset. He then had an immediate low rrpm warning, lowered the collective and the discovered that he had a lot of throttle movement available - the governor had disengaged. He was told that there has been mention of this happening before. Very interesting. Any comments?
(I don't have precise details of the type of transmission energy of the antennas)

------------------

[baranfin]

The robinson POH has a safety notice for flying near broadcast towers.

It says that early indications of a high power radio field include strong interference with the intercom system and radio receivers. Then it says that increasing field strength can cause random illumination of warning lights and erratic governor and tachometer operation.

This sounds exactly like what your friend flew into. The POH also warns that many pilots are caught tuning the radios trying to get rid of the interference when the governor goes nuts.

[This message has been edited by baranfin (edited 01 July 2001).]

[Lu Zuckerman]

How many Robbies are used in power line patrol?

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

[Vfrpilotpb]

Helicat,Good Morning to you
Here in the UK we are taught never to fly near or over HT.VHF,RT mast,s . beside that Radio waves are totally NO NO for your Testiculare's, not to mention the old grey stuff!!

Lu, as far as I can see most line checks here in UK are by B206 and Squirrel's.

My Regrads

[Rotor Nut]

Lu and all,

Slight confusion here - the original post refered to high power RF antenna, whereas high voltage power lines are something completely different. Although, there will be a reasonable magnetic field around power lines and some low power RF interference, generally power lines are not much of a problem (except if you run into them!!!). RF transmitting antenna on the other hand, do emit substantial amounts of radio energy that can easily overwhelm sensitive electronics. A couple of years ago in an R22 I flew within sight of but not near a load of aerials on the way to Carlisle from Leeds in the UK and some strange broadcasts were picked up very clearly by my radio (over powering anything else). Nothing else was affected. I have also routed past Emley Moor UHF TV transmitter (which is at least a 1MegaWatt) in R22 and R44 but nothing affected - it very much depends on what frequencies are being transmitted, how and what power output, but the general advice to stay well clear is very good advice.

PS I find the clutch motor on the R22 interfers (whines) like mad on the radio

[Vfrpilotpb]

Rotor Nut,
On a little flight into Leeds from Egnh, whilst passing over the outskirts of Keighly leading into Baildon two of us each in a R22 I was acting as radio man and leading when something happened to both my radio and at the same time the compass went walkabout and left me guessing for the direction( not good viz) after about 2 mins everything was back to normal but left me feeling a little twitchy flying into Leeds airspace. Tech chaps did not know why and could not find anything wrong with the equipment on the R22, I also have heard the clutch on the Rad.
Safe Landings

[headsethair]

Look, I love it. Best Robinson ever and an astoundingly great machine in its class. One point : there is no type conversion. Yet there are some major differences between the Astro and the Raven. For instance, the Raven has a hydraulics on/off switch above the pistol grip, adjacent to the frequency changer. Not easy to see - and very easy to move without realising it. Also, the hydraulic circuit-breaker doesn't actually operate the hydraulics. It provides power to the system which controls the hydraulics. This gave me an interesting wake-up call recently. The controls (cyclic and collective) went stiff.

I suspected hydraulic failure and reached for the cb. Pulled it - and the hydraulics came back on! Pushed it back and the hydraulics went off again. Then I noticed that the hyd switch was off...... no warning light to tell me that. All this would be solved witha simple type conversion. In the meantime - be aware as you jump from a "manual" Robinson to a "God that's the smoothest thing I ever flew" one.
Do car manufacturers provide switches for turning off power-assist steering? No. But if they did, there'd be a warning light. Why does a Robinson need a hydraulic on/off switch and why, when you have warning lights for everything, is there no hydraulic warning light ?
Can you fly it with hydraulics off ? The answer is yes - I did - close to the ground. But you'd enjoy arm-wrestling a JCB more :D

[Helinut]

Don't even whisper an idea like that near the CAA!

The Raven is regarded as part of the R44 type. I believe that JAR-FCL does not regard it as a variant so formal difference training is not required. Do go and get some familiarisation training though.
Having said that most of what you need to know is in the POH/Flight Manual.

What you need is a ground review of the changes in the Raven, and a short training flight including simulated hydraulic failures. It would be worth getting your instructor to annotate the flight entry in your log book to confirm you had received the training. Many schools will want to see this, before hiring to you.

It does fly much better than the Astro.

[t'aint natural]

At my school we do "differences training" for the Raven. Takes about an hour on the ground and about half an hour in the air.
I believe the CAA originally announced their intention of demanding that the helicopter be modified to include a hydraulics-off warning light, but were talked out of it. Let's not go back there.

[Grainger]

t'aint: yeah, same thing here - I did an hour's differences training followed by a checkride and we did enough hydraulics off to make you sure you want to check it each time !

Hovering is quite tricky at first: the time constant is much slower so you end up chasing until you get used to it. Still think that if I had a real hydraulics failure I'd prefer to run it on.

I always assumed such training was mandatory, but sounds as though it's school-dependent. :eek:

As for the light: well, if the hydraulics go off, you'll know about it anyway, so not sure what extra benefit there would be. A hydraulic pressure gauge would be more useful: might give some warning of an impending problem.

[the coyote]

The need for a hydraulics off switch is presumably for pending hydraulics failure where you may have intermittent hydraulics (maybe during fluid loss), and the last thing you want is to be putting some juice on the stick making an input and have the servos kick in on you. Better none than some here and some there. I found hydraulics off no real drama, similar to the 206, and if you don't get too tense and fight it you can land it with no real difficulty in the hover or more easily with a gentle run on. Because a loss of electrical power fails to hydraulics on (like the 206) I find it makes it easy to diagnose any hydraulics malfunction quickly between an electrical switching problem or an actual hydraulics failure.

If they are going to mod anything on it, I reckon it should be an external power plug so you don't have to jump it with the panel folded over. I just hope Mr Robinson has to jump start his a few times to realise its a bit of a pain!!! Otherwise I reckon they are beut to fly.

[Buitenzorg]

headsethair,

The reason for the hydraulic switch is that it’s more common for one servo to fail than all of them at once; then it’ll be silky smooth in pitch and a gorilla in roll or something like that. Turn the hydraulics off and at least all controls act the same way in all axes!

You’d need to be a 17-stone weightlifter of the non-sensitive type not to notice your hydraulics had gone south, so a warning light would just be something else to go wrong. During the transition training for my first a/c with hydraulic controls (B206) we were told that the first step in a hydraulic failure was to slow down to recommended speed, then check the hydraulics switch, then do the CB-pulling thing. Most hydraulic problems in the 206 are caused by pilots putting clipboards etc. on the switch. This, BTW, is exactly the procedure for hydraulic failure in the R44.

[sprocket]

With the hydraulics defaulting to on when electrical power is off could make for an even more interesting flight, should you have a servo fail at the same time as an electrical failure.
[This is just an observation as I realise the odds of that happening are very low.]

Normally, a hydraulic warning light on a Raven would have the same effect as having an engine out warning light. It will tell the pilot what he already knows.
In helo's that use dual hydraulic systems, the warning light for each system does serve a purpose.

A lot of aircraft systems have an electrical auxillary pump installed which act as a backup in case of main pump failure or for activating systems when the aircraft is not operating.
Can anybody enlighten me as to why helicopters dont use aux hyd. pumps? :confused:

[The Nr Fairy]

My understanding - and this comes from the one trip I did in an R44, with an instructor - is that the CB is pulled to isolate the switch, should it fail, and therefore restore hydraulics. The inference for me is that switch failure is more likely than complete hyd. failure.

Any comments ?

[Rotor Nut]

The Raven is silky smooth with hyrdraulics - I love it...

I do the hydraulics off bit on the annual check - hate it! Hovering is like stirring treacle and lots of sideways pressure at 75knots.

Totally agree, warning light not needed - you would know!

[Helinut]

The hydraulic system is functionally similar to the B206 system for example, which also does not have a light or a gauge (similar to many light single engine helicopters that use hydraulic power-assistance controls, as distinct from hydraulic power control). The hydraulic system is powered from a pump mechanically driven from the MGB transmission and is controlled electrically, because it is not practical to route the hydraulic system direct to the cockpit. The electrical control system is "fail safe" in that if anything shuts off the wigglies to the valve that dumps the hydraulic pressure, it fails so that hydraulic pressure remains ON.

When a helicopter has only one hydraulic system, failure of that single system is foreseeable and it must be possible to cope with such a failure in flight. That's why the aircraft can be flown without hydraulics and we practice hydraulic failures in types that have such single systems. If not, you would need at least 2 entirely redundant systems.

The light or gauge would not really help you much - you notice almost immediately if you lose hydraulics in flight!

[buttline]

Just done my B206 TR and taught as follows:

- Check the hyd switch is on

- If it is, check the CB - pull it out to try the fail safe

- If hydraulics do not come back on, you must reset the hyd
switch to off in case the hydraulics come back on when you're not expecting it and applying a lot of effort on the controls

- Do a hydraulics off landing

[ShyTorque]

On an aircraft with switchable hydraulics I would recommend the following actions, some of them already covered by other contributors:

1. Move the switch!

If it's OFF you want it ON; if it's ON you need it OFF. Simple. If nothing happens (hydraulic assistance not restored) confirm which way it is now selected.

2. Check the pressure if a gauge is fitted. Check the CB.

3. Before resetting the CB ensure the switch is OFF. You do NOT want to restore hydraulic assistance by the CB with the controls not covered.

4. Switch the hydraulics back ON if appropriate. Expect the controls to jump and expect to overcontrol for a few seconds. Think about what stage of flight you are in before re-selecting the hydraulics ON.

5. A running landing should be planned for.

Final caution. Hydraulic fluid is flammable, especially when in aerosol form so think about the possible further consequences. (Minor consideration: It also melts tarmac so concrete is a better surface to avoid later embarrassment)!

[SFIM]

hi there,

someone was telling me the other day about a Raven 2 that is coming out with fuel injected engine and a higher AUW,
does anyone know if this is true and if so what the spec is or is it just horse***t.

standing by

[nikki]

SFIM,

I have heard that before too. I would bet it's in the works to happen. It's the next logical step.

:)

[ppheli]

SFIM
I've also heard this and that it will be an option (ie the existing model will continue). Look for a price differential of $25-30K and 100lb more in mtow.

[Hone22]

What ever happened to the R66 (turbine jobbie)??????


Or was that just a vicious rumour?:D :D :D


I read it on this web site ..........so it musta been true:p

[CRAN]

The was a joint HeliAIR/Sloane Robinson conference at Helitech 2001 at which Frank Robinson was scheduled to speak & answer questions. However due to 9/11 he could not attend because of difficulties at the factory due to the flight restrictions opposed on US airspace at the time.

In his place one of his senior engineers provided a telephone conference to the audience. I believe his name was Pat Cox. During this one of the features that he commented on was that Robinson was currently flight testing an R44 with a fuel injected engine. So its true. That of course assumes that no other technical difficulties arised in the testing program!

I quizzed him about a turbocharged version instead (more power) but although a turbocharged engine has been tried, it cannot be used because it gets too hot. It is only cooled by the same squirrel cage fan.

There were some articles in the aviation press about a Lycomming 580 model, if you look at the Lycomming web page you'll see this engine is available so this might also be being considered - though i've heard no follow up on this.

As to the R66 I heard rumours about this machine back in 99 when I was in LA but it is unlikely to materialise in my opinion. The 22 and 44 slot directly into gaps in the market and provide very cost effect solutions due to the cost savings made by FR in his airframe design. In small piston engined helicopters this is a significant proportion of the cost due to the relatively small cost of piston engines for aircraft. If you try and apply the same technique to a turbine helicopter the saving wouldn't be as significant. There are no 'cheap' light turboshaft engines available for helicopters, and for light turbine helicopters the cost of the engine is very significant in terms of the overall cost of the aircraft therefore the cost saving approach Robinson has adopted for the 22 and 44 will be ineffective for a R66. Hence he will end up with an aircraft that costs roughly the same as the competition and doesn't do anything 'specific' better than the competition - Jetranger, EC120 etc etc. Since he wouldn't be able to make them any cheaper, he would get his volume and hence couldn't make his margin - it's not really worth his while pursuing the program. :( He would also have to consider aesthetics a little more carefully too with a bigger turbine machine if he were to dent the competition! :eek:

Hope this helps ;)
CRAN

[moosp]

On the May 2002 Robinson Flight Safety course, Frank as usual gave the first 45 minutes briefing. Ref the improved power version of the '44, he seemed pretty confident that it would fly.

The requirement came out of some hot and high operators of the R44 that were asking for more power. Their engineers looked at many ways of providing same and seem to have firmed up on a positive maybe of valve changes and fuel injection which adds 30-35 bhp. Unfortunately it will be around 55 lbs heavier to give an AUW of 2500lbs, but the power excess is worthwhile. Fuel burn looks about the same.

When pressed on costs, Frank was cautious and simply suggested that it would cost more. He said that the standard R44 will still be produced for those of us that do not need the extra performance.

My two cents...

[Rotorbike]

This new model will be produced alongside the existing Raven, and features:

Fuel injected Lycoming IO-540 engine
Increased power
Max take-off weight increased from 2400 lb to 2500 lb
28 volt system
Larger main rotor blades

This option will be priced at no more than $30,000 over the standard Raven list price.

Copied from the UK importer of Robinson products website.

[t'aint natural]

Frank Robinson once told me (1995) that his whole approach was predicated on the fact that pistons were much more cost-effective that turbines and that he would never produce a turbine helicopter. So fat so true.
CRAN: 7/11? Frank got stuck in a convenience store?

[Gaseous]

Enstrom manage to get a turbocharged O360 to cool OK and produce 225 BHP - The same as the 5 minute rating for the R44 540.

It can be done.

And the Enstrom is fuel injected -no carb heat, max UAW 2600 lb
The Enstrom design is 27 years old - and reliable - and cheap(ish)
Price comparisons not valid as only 3 pax.

Its about time Robinson stopped fobbing us off with carburettor equipped lycomings and dragged themselves into 1970s technology.

I would still rather have an R44 - even an Astro, though!

[Lu Zuckerman]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 26, 1999, the FAA issued Priority Letter AD 99-07-18, applicable to RHC Model R44 helicopters, which requires, before further flight, inserting a Special Pilot Caution into the Normal Procedures section of the RFM. That action was prompted by several reports of sprag clutch assemblies, including one from wreckage of an accident that occurred within the past year, with cracked or fractured sprag ends. The sprag clutch failures, determined to be due to a change in the manufacturing process, could result in loss of main rotor RPM during autorotations. The intent of that priority letter AD is to alert pilots of the potential for the sprag clutch failing to overrun during autorotation, loss of main rotor RPM, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The FAA has reviewed Robinson Helicopter Company R44 Service Bulletin SB-32, dated March 22, 1999, which describes procedures for checking whether sprag clutches with certain serial numbers are installed and replacing certain serial numbered sprag clutches, and inserting a Special Pilot Caution in the Normal Procedures section of the RFM.

Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop on other RHC Model R44 helicopters of the same type design, the FAA issued Priority Letter AD 99-07-18 to alert pilots of the potential for the sprag clutch failing to overrun during autorotation due to the failure of the sprags within the sprag clutch assembly and loss of main rotor RPM. The AD requires, before further flight, inserting a Special Pilot Caution into the Normal Procedures section of the RFM which primarily addresses autorotation maneuvers and a before every flight sprag clutch (split tach needles) check for proper function of the sprag clutch. Inserting the Special Pilot Caution is an interim action. The FAA will issue an AD to supersede this AD and require replacing the clutch assembly when parts become available from the manufacturer. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the structural integrity of the helicopter. Therefore, inserting a Special Pilot Caution into the Normal Procedures section of the RFM is required before further flight, and this AD must be issued immediately.

Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required, notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual letters issued on March 26, 1999, to all known U.S. owners and operators of RHC Model R44 helicopters. These conditions still exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons.

The FAA estimates that 200 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 0.5 work hour per helicopter to insert the caution into the RFM, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures,

[Rotor Nut]

Lu, this is old news as Robinson authorised service agents were some of the first to hear about this and all our Robinson helos had the modified sprags fitted yonks ago....


:rolleyes:

[Grainger]

Yeah, we had a copy of this bulletin up on our notice board shortly after it was issued and we've all seen it.

Sprag clutch needle split check is part of the standard preflight anyway.

It was a long time ago - why raise it now ? :confused:

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Rotor Nut

My reason for posting the above was as a result of some communications I have had with the CAA AIB relative to their communications with the FAA in respect to the R-22 and R-44 POHs.

It seems that the FAA had taken a different approach to elements of the two POHs as opposed to what the CAA Safety Regulation Group had indicated what they were going to do regarding the same material. The Safety Data Unit advised me that they were going to issue a GASIL making the material mandatory as opposed to the FAA making it a recommendation. That was in November of 2000 and to my knowledge that action is yet to be taken. The Safety office was supposed to notify me by letter when that action was taken. Nothing to date. So when I saw the above AD I thought I would post it just in case it was not disseminated within Oz and the UK. There was no malice intended.

:o

[Rotor Nut]

There's not much point putting the information in the handbook because all Robbos in the UK will have been modified. It was a maintenance issue anyway. I don't see the need for a page in the handbook - its history, been and gone...

You say there's been no action - sorry, I think there has - the really relevant action (to fix the problem) has been done. Give the CAA and Robinson some credit - the information was clearly disseminated and acted upon.

And as Grainger said, we check the sprag clutch every startup - a SOP.

Lu, you may have safety at heart but by being so pedantic you just become irritating, out of date, and spoil any valid point you might have had to make.....

In contrast, when Dick Sanford imparts something Robbo related, I get elephant style ears and take in every word he has to say and it gets fixed in the memory bank.... its not the number of words... its the way they are delivered!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Rotor Nut

Once again my words were either misunderstood or you did not follow the line of my post.

Firstly I explained why I placed the post. I knew it was promulgated several years ago but because of an experience I had working between the FAA and the CAA I found that there was in certain cases miscommunication between those two agencies. That miscommunication had nothing to do with the freewheeling unit problem covered in the AD. What it did deal with was the intent of the CAA to make certain information that the FAA considered as a recommendation as being mandatory. That information had to do with the causes of mast bumping and how to prevent it. If you are interested please E-mail me and I will send a copy of the document. Once received you could compare it to the same material contained in the POHs of CAA certified Robinson helicopters. This offer is available to anyone that wants a copy. The material covers about 20% of the posts I made on the previous Robinson threads.

Yes I am interested in safety (yours and every one else’s) and yes I am pedantic having four teaching credentials in the State of California and if I come across as being overbearing it is because of having 47 years in the aerospace industry watching educated people make mistakes

:eek:

[Rotorbike]

Lu

I believe you think a GASIL is something that it isn't.

This is what the GASIL is:

GASIL - General Aviation Safety Information Leaflet. Monthly safety and accident prevention bulletin for pilots and engineers published by the CAA.

If thats what you think it is then I'll head back behind the stone.

;)

[Rob_L]

FAA AD's are mandatory in the UK for aircraft and equipment of American manufacture.

[HeliEng]

Good evening to you all,

I am hoping that some of you Robinson pilots/engineers/enthusiasts/haters :D out there will be able to help me.

I am looking for as many line diagrams of R44's as possible I have the two off of the Robinson website, but if anyone knows of anymore, I would be grateful if you could let me know.

Aslo, if anyone would happen to have an R44 picture/diagram in .3DS format, that would be fantastic.


Thanks for all your help





"Some days you are the pigeon, some days you are the statue!"

[Helo]

Does anyone know if there are any R44 training matierals on the market, in the form of books, videos, CD Roms, ... addressing the sort of areas that, I imagine, the Factory Safety Course, covers.

I've looked all across the Internet, and have only found a few R22 products, but nothing on the '44 - seems strange given it's now the best selling helicopter in the world. Is it a deliberate decision by RHC not to sell any of the safety course or similar videos, books, etc to persuade people to attend the course?

Am needing to hand out suggestions for Christmas presents and my family can't afford a helicopter, so I though the training material would be the next best thing :D

Cheers

Helo

[The Pitched Link]

Try helicopters.com, I know they have some R44 things.

[Helo]

I've checked out helicopter.com but still haven't found anything - anyone else?

[quidam]

No links/loyalties to them but as they're fairly near to me......

Have you tried contacting Heliair at Denham? They're a Robbo distributor. They might have some ideas or other suggestions about where to try.

Good luck.

[Helo]

Thanks.

I checked with Heliair this morning and they're scratching their heads on this one - no immediate answers, so if any other PPRuNers can suggest information sources I'd be grateful. Possibly even a safer pilot as well :-)

Helo

[nikki]

Has anyone heard anything about ,good, bad or otherwise, Robinson Raven II. I heard that is was having some problems getting released for service but didn't get any details, was wondering if anyone know anything.

thanks.
nik.

[ppheli]

A little bit early I guess. The first three are due in the UK in the next 7-10 days, to which you can add a few days for them to get them from crate to apron. Ships #5 and #11 at Wellesbourne and #7 at Sywell - and those numbers suggest to me not many are yet flying worldwide.

Having kept the same MSN sequence for all models of the R.22 (now around 3400), RHC have oddly started a new sequence at 10001 for the Raven II.

[misterbonkers]

I believe one is bound for Sherburn Airfield, Yorkshire.

Have also heard that there are a few teething problems with the injection system causing a somewhat lumpy ride. Anyone else heard about it?

[ShyTorque]

The injection system causing a lumpy ride? :eek:

Don't they have a proper seat? Or is that an injection seat? :D

[misterbonkers]

i think i was being metaphoric, but had better check with my english tutor on that one.

[Helo]

Hi there - still no joy from Heliair on sources of R44 training material/books/Roms/etc.

Is it just me, or does this strike you as a little strange that the no-one has decided to support the world's best selling helicopter in this way?

Maybe this is a gap in the market that can get me out of my day job and retiring early ...

Helo

[misterbonkers]

try Dick Sanford, he's the Robinson UK bloke. Runs the safety course (which is EXCELLANT) and is their accident investigator over this side of the pond.

Otherwise, just slip an experienced instructor some notes to give you a thorough day with the machine, or an engineer. Take the notes and produce something for the rest of us!

I thinks in this weather there will be lots of instructors willing to help you out!

[nikki]

thanks for the replys.

does anyone know what type of problem there having with the fuel-injection?

nik.

[Grainger]

What I've heard is that the injected engine can quit instead of idling, turning a practice auto into a real one :eek:

[Helinut]

That's Progress ??!:( :eek:

[handyandyuk]

That's not progress..... that's worrying!:eek:

[t'aint natural]

Grainger: Where did you hear this? Have you been able to check it out? Is it true?

[nikki]

I just got any email from a dealer for RHC that talks about the delay in releasing the Raven II.

" With regards to problems with the Raven II, the only area of concern lay with the fuel servo which is a component of the fuel injection system. Evidently during testing, RHC discovered some inconsistant problems with the smaller unit that Lycoming had installed & certifiied on their engine. These problems were solved by installing a larger servo. Even though RHC had obtained the type certificate for the Raven II, the engine's type certificate was obtained by Lycoming. Lycoming received certification from the FAA recently to install this larger servo and now deliveries of the Raven II are getting started. "

If anyone has heard anything else, please post.

nik.

[misterbonkers]

Wahey! I was right!!!!

But still looking forward to flying the things!

an extra 50lb to the AUW. Hmm, champagne & strawberries, prawn sarnies, blanket...

[Grainger]

t'aint: Where did you hear this? Have you been able to check it out? Is it true?
I'm very pleased to report that I have not had the opportunity to check this out first-hand :eek: - but, yes this was in connection with the injector servo problems.

[Helo]

Misterbonkers ....

Do you have Dick Sanford's contact details?

Thanks

Helo

[Huwey]

I heard that the injection system was causing problems as it was setup for hot and high......so much closer to sea level it was coughing & spluttering...just a rumour though!:)

[James Roc]

Hi there,

Here's some info I got from the RHC in relation to the new Raven II.

The FAA Type Certificate has been completed and received for the R44 II. After FAA certification was received our engineering department decided they were not completely happy with the fuel control servo and the part was replaced with another type servo. The new servo had to be certified hence the delay. Deliveries began last month and so far every one seems to be very happy with their R44 Raven II.

Regarding the Raven II striping scheme it is similar to the Raven but a tad different. Pictures and a flyer for the Raven II should be available to Robinson authorized dealers by the end of the year. Should you have a real keen interest, you might try contacting one or both of the Robinson authorized R44 dealers below, they have each already taken delivery of a new R44 Raven II helicopter.

Best regards,
Robinson Helicopter Company
Milly Donahue, Sales Manager

Quantum Helicopters, Inc.
Contact : Mr. Neil Jones
Chandler, Arizona
Tel: 480-814-8118

Hampton Roads Charter Service
Contact: Mr. David "Andy" Gibbs
Chesapeake, Virginia
Tel: 757-593-6111

[James Roc]

Got a chance to see the new Raven II after assembly but with the avionics not yet installed,black with gold trim (new styling) and it looks great! New inclusions are starter buttons on the cyclic and the collective so as to simplify mid flight engine restart in the eventuality of a cutout,also there is a new carbon monoxide detector light along with the other warning lights.The startup sequence is slightly different due to the new fuel injection system (only pushing the mixture full rich after starting) but should take about the same time as the Raven.The guys I spoke to said that it had a different sound in flight and was noticably quieter,fuel burn is about the same...hmmm,now where's my cheque book!!!:)

[Barannfin]

Did they make any other modifications besides the electronic injection? Im a little confused as to how this would make it quieter.... anyone, anyone. Oh well I've got nowhere to be.;)

[cyclic_fondler]

I gather that the ends of the main rotor and the tail rotor blades have been rounded. This not only reduces the noise level of the blades but also affects the sound envelope it creates around the aircraft.
I've got no idea how it works as I'm not a sound boffin !

[CRAN]

The strength of the vorticity that is trailed into the wake from a rotor blade is largely dependant of the lift distribution across the span of the blade. At the tip (and the root in some cases) there is a large discontinuity in the lift distribution therefore a strong vortex is trailed.

We have shown recently using Computational Fluid Dynamics techniques that even the addition of a cap that is a simple revolution of the aerofoil shape will significantly reduce the strength of the vortex that is created. This in turn means that the blade vortex interactions that occur in the wake, will also be less severe and so the noise produced by the aircraft will be reduced.

It's exciting stuff really!

As to the effect of fuel injection on the engine.....well i'm not an engine person really, but I would guess that by using electronic fuel injection the nature of the combustion process in the cyclinder and the reacting fluid dynamics are significantly altered. I would expect that less fuel is injected into the cylinder for a given power output than would be required for the carb'd version of the engine by virtue of the well known improvements in combustion effeciency obtained using a good fuel injection system. Therefore this implies that less energy is available to create noise, vibration etc etc. More specifically, I would expect the pressure pulse created as the burning gas mixture expands to be smoother with fuel injection by virtue of a better atomised fuel spray. This is due to a smoother propagation of the flame front and may therefore be expected to have a reduced excitation effect on the engine struictural dynamics. Again a signicant noise source.

Hope this helps......right, back to work.
CRAN
:cool:

[t'aint natural]

Heli-Air's got one in - Q says he's flown it and it's got 'bags more power.'
It says here: 'The R44 Raven II features the new Lycoming IO-540 Fuel Injected, Angled-Valve, Tuned Induction engine, designed by Lycoming in co-operation with Robinson exclusively for the Raven II. The new engine is derated to 245hp for five minutes, and 205 hp max continuous rating. This allows a 100 lb increase in the R44's gross weight and increased IGE and OGE hover ceilings, while eliminating the carburetor and the need for carburetor heat.
'Both sets of rotors are fitted with noise attenuating blade caps that decrease flyover noise by 1db. The main rotor blades also have more surface area for increased lifting capability at altitude.'
I don't want to be a wet blanket but I suspect it's still going to be subject to induction icing in UK weather. You've still got atomisation of fuel, you've still got a butterfly. Only thing you haven't got now is carb heat.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: CRAN

In a conventionally aspirated engine (with a carburetor) the fuel air mixture passes into the induction system. This mixture must change flow direction in order to pass through the headers leading to the individual cylinders. During this change in direction you get a condition called “Centrifugal slinging” which causes some of the fuel to separate from the airflow. This separated fuel will end up in the cylinder(s) closest to the carburetor and the difference in fuel air charge will cause the closest cylinder(s) to run rich and the furthest cylinders will run lean. This difference will cause a difference in the exhaust note for the various cylinders and possibly result in a harmonic amplification of the noise emitted by the exhaust.

Fuel injection solves this problem by injecting the same amount of fuel directly at the intake valve.

As far as icing is concerned it should not happen even though there is a butterfly valve. Icing is caused by the expansion of the fuel air mixture as it comes out of the jet and passes through the carburetor. Any time you have expansion you have cooling which cools the carburetor body. Flying through moisture laden air at a specified temperature assists in this cooling and the moisture accretes out on the carburetor body, building up to the point of causing engine stoppage.

This should not happen on an injected engine.

Many moons ago the Holly Carburetor company designed a carburetor that would not Ice-up. The US Navy had some problems on the carbs. on R-2800 engines. They installed this carburetor on many R-2800s used on PBMs. They lost several PBM due to engine failure (both engines at the same time) because the Holly anti icing carburetor generated ice faster than an ice machine in a restaurant.

:D

[handyandyuk]

Oooo... another 44 to avoid at HeliAir. If they get any more I'll have nowhere to park next time I take CD for a spin.

Still, if Q's in a good mood maybe he'll show this humble 22 driver around the new toy:D

Anyone taking bets how long before some form of inlet heating arrives??

[nucleus33]

I don't know if it is for icing reasons, but every modern fuel injected car I have ever seen has coolant passages to warm the intake manifold.

Hans

[Gaseous]

The experience of injected helicopter lycomings is already out here as Enstrom use them. Cutting out during autos is not just a Robinson problem. From my 1998 Enstrom POH " Sudden power cuts to idle are not recommended since the fuel injector is sensitive to improper adjustment of idle mixture, idle RPM and sudden momentary leaning of mixture caused by sudden power reduction". "Autorotation practice should be carried out over suitable terrain". At least it makes you get good at them!

Is Robinson's injection the same mechanical Bendix system used on the Enstrom? The start procedure is the same.

Induction icing is not an issue.

Why do Robinson need a 540 for 205 BHP?

My normally aspirated Lycoming 360 produces 205BHP and only uses 11 Gallons per hour. How much does the R44 use?

The Enstrom Turbocharged 360 can produce 225BHP continuously.

Will Robinson allow leaning the mixture in flight as Enstrom do?

[t'aint natural]

Gaseous:
The Robinsons are derated, while your Enstrom turns at full chat.

[Gaseous]

T'aint
I am aware Robinson derates its engines in both 22 & 44. the question is why?? Is Robinsons cooling fan inadequate? Will the airframe or power train not take it? When Frank did the design, was it the only engine he had in stock?! It seems slightly pointless to use a big expensive engine and strangle it when a smaller one could do the same job and use less fuel and be cheaper to overhaul.

And while we are on the subject of limits, how come Enstrom can turn an O360 at 3050 RPM without it falling apart? If you did that to a Beta 2 engine for 10 seconds you would be facing a large bill for an overspeed. Ask Nr Fairy.

Now there's a thought, An Enstrom HIO360C1A engine in a R22, Should be a pretty easy conversion. It should more or less bolt straight in. Fuel injection, no carb heat, 205BHP. Loads of power. Could be a Beta 2/2. How about it Frank.

I have a spare Enstrom engine if anyone wants to try it.

[bigruss]

In australian mustering operations i have rarely seen a Hughes 300 engine (O360) or a Bell 47 engine (VO435) which scream their little hearts out at 3200rpm get through their full lives without some sort of major work while R22's which run at 2700rpm go to full life year after year. Frank's derating works fine.

[t'aint natural]

Gaseous
I don't know how long you've had your Enstrom or what your bills look like, but I do know why some engineering companies won't have Enstroms in the hangar - because they're tired of explaining the bills to customers.
The Robinsons are derated to reduce engine wear, increase life and reduce maintenance bills.
As a side-effect, the derating improves safety because when a Robinson is operating at nominal maximum power it still has two or three inches of MAP and 30hp in the locker, which will get you out of trouble if you're prepared to scream the engine up to the level that Enstroms operate at all the time.
PS: Don't be in a hurry to give that spare engine away. You're gonna need it.

[Dave Jackson]

Companies that manufacture certified helicopters, such as Robinson, install expensive reliable 4-stroke engines and then derate them. This is in total contrast to the manufactures of uncertified helicopters, such as the Mini 500 and the Helicycle. They use low-cost less reliable 2-stroke engines and then force additional power out of them by adding tuned exhausts.

Stay tuned to this page for an upcoming announcement on the new totally reliable and cheap helicopter; the OXYMORON.
Named after its inventor; Mr. Oxy Moron.
:D :D

[misterbonkers]

Sounds like a right moron!

[Gaseous]

T'aint
Dont get me wrong. I like Robinsons and have considerable time in both 22s and 44s. I'm sure that fuel injection will make the 44 a brilliant machine. The R22 needs it too- and a bit less de-rating.

The reason I have an Enstrom is because the bills are way, way lower than a 44, 3 seats are what I need so a 22 would be useless and I like the way the Enstrom flies. It also looks like a real helicopter without its arse hanging out. ( My dad calls R22s Heath Robinsons!).I also like fully articulated heavy rotors.

The extra 30 BHP may be there, but to get it is outside the POH limitations. On the odd occasion I have seen the manifold pressure in the red, the rotor horn comes on. So to get usable extra power the revs would have to be increased above 102% first. See if you pass a GFT doing that.
With the Enstrom, I usually see 21-23 inches in the cruise- not dissimilar to Robinsons. 30 inches is there if I need it. 7-9 inches is better to have in reserve than 2 or 3 (!!) I know which I prefer.

[t'aint natural]

If you like it, good luck mate.
There are good reasons why the Robinsons outsell the Enstroms by sixty to one.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: t'aint natural

There are good reasons why the Robinsons outsell the Enstroms by sixty to one.

Yes, the same reason Fords' outsell Mercedes.

:)

[Dave Jackson]

Lu,

Are you suggesting that the Ford Explorer is a dangerous craft? :D

[t'aint natural]

Lu: Don't start indulging your blind prejudices again. I don't want to be too pedantic, but the reason Fords outsell Mercedes is because they are cheaper. Look at the market for second-hand Enstroms and you'll see that it is they that are the cheaper item. In short, don't talk codswallop.

[James Roc]

...now ladies?!Well I'm taking delivery of a new R44 II late January so will keep you posted as to the +/- of the loverly craft...soooo looking forward to it!

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: t'aint natural

Lu: Don't start indulging your blind prejudices again. I don't want to be too pedantic, but the reason Fords outsell Mercedes is because they are cheaper.

This is the only point I was making. I was not implying that one was better than the other.

:D

[Hover Bovver]

Taint Natural,

Please enlighten us of the good reasons why Robinsons outsell Enstrom.

Regards

Hover Bovver

[Dave Jackson]

Is the Brantly B-2B (http://www.brantly.com) acceptable for use as a training helicopter?

[t'aint natural]

Hovver Bovver: Buy one and find out.
You'll get a fine hangar ornament and a million bucks worth of experience.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: t'aint natural

Don't start indulging your blind prejudices again.......

Aren't you taking the same stand about Enstrom Helicopters as I had taken against Robinson Helicopters?

Stand back and take a deep breath. The exhaust from the Enstrom and the Robbie smells the same.

There are people that think the Baby Bell and the Rotorway Exec are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Taste in whatever is subjective and should not be criticized.


:cool:

[James Roc]

Spoke with Q who got a chance to fly the R44 II and he gave it a very good going over.In his opinion the Robinson helicopter has "come of age".The additional power is noticable close to the ground as well as at high altitude.He tried everything to make the engine falter or cut out but without success,pulling max power then down to idle repeatedly.He succeded in the past in doing this in the non-injected models.He flew it with the guy who did the C of A the other day who was also very impressed which is something as Robinson's didn't figure highly in his estimation until this.The distinction has blurred even further between it and it's turbine cousins.Given that seemingly the 44 has proven to be more reliable than the 206 and so much cheaper to buy/maintain I'm left wondering what's the point except for the extra seat (which is unusable with full fuel),the sound and a little extra cargo room!...opinions anybody?

[SASless]

James....

Please explain what you mean by the "Power is more noticeable even on the ground".....my alcohol ravaged brain is struggling with that concept for some reason!

[James Roc]

SAS

...what I meant and should have said was-close to the ground and not just at high altitude!

Herts

Congrats on owning the first in the UK.I take delivery the beginning of Feb.What avionics did you go for?

[James Roc]

Nice one Herts,

R44 Raven II thread on justhelicopters.com forum 114 responses but looks like they were emailed direct to the thread starter instead of posting them all :confused: :confused: :confused:

[misterbonkers]

Flew in a new Raven II today, picked it up from Sywell to deliver to Sherburn.

Awesome!

Even nicer than when the Raven I turned up to replace the Astro.

[Happy Landing !]

Been using mine now for 3 weeks !

30 hours so far and no hitch.

No oil used up to the 25 hour. Smooth, Fast and powerful.

Look out for G-CEEE when your next in Sywell and say Hi

[t'aint natural]

Happy: Have you figured out what fuel consumption you're getting yet?

[LordGrumpy]

It's got to be an improvement on inefficiant immobile motorways.
Horseless carriage of the sky's, care feed stable vet and dont take liberties.

[Happy Landing !]

Not sure yet !

Keep forgetting to put the upload into the log !!

I'm expecting an improvement overall but I don't think it's going to be that substancial.;)

[sprocket]

A new AD has come out from the CASA website.

Click Here (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/adfiles/rotor/r44/r44-018.pdf)


Although it is not specified on the AD, rumour has it that an R44 may have suffered M/R blade skin debonding (near the tips) in flight.

1. Has anyone else noticed this occurung on R44 blades?

2. If debonding happened in flight with skin peeling back to the extent of causing moderate to severe vibration, would a "power off" autorotation be a safe option?

[Old Man Rotor]

But an Auto in any "R" Series is not a safe option.....:confused:

[Grainger]

Robbo bashing OMR ?

Hardly the wittiest or most original move; can't you come up with something a bit more imaginative ?

[HeliGaz]

oh dear, old man rotor strikes again!

i dont mean to moan about any other rotary pilots but the quote 'an auto in any R heli'.......isnt safe , what utter tosh!

from previous posts i assume you are an ' old bold pilot' on large twins, well news for you, not everyone wants or can afford to fly twins- twice the trouble and as the pilot of G-SAEW found out having 2 donkeys on top doesnt stop you having an accident(no disrespect to the guy, i think he did an exellent job in the circumstances, just using it as an illustration)

also as most are filled with fuel from the same filler neck, get bad fuel and both engines stop-how many eols have you performed recently in your flashy twin?

yes the r22 can be difficult to get it right but any problems are mostly down to pilot inexperience or lack of currency than a bad design, and as for the r44 it autos almost exactly like a 206-regarded by most as the safest single engine helo

if people in the industry can be so blinkered how are we to beat the likes of the mirror in thier latest campaign?

[Dantruck]

Old Man R
Oh dear...oh dear! Do you also believe no-one out of uniform should be allowed near a helicopter? Shame on you.
Now, come and play nicely.:p

[Lu Zuckerman]

Debonding of the blade skin may be a manufacturing anomaly or it could be caused by the use of unapproved cleaning or protective materials. Check the Robinson forum on Vertical Reference under “Corrosion”. It is apparent that Robinson operators and by extension all operators are using unapproved materials to protect their helicopters from corrosion. One Robinson pilot from Australia indicated that they used a product called Nutcreaker, which he said far out performs WD-40 which most certainly would result in debonding. Check it out.

:eek:

[Winnie]

Just wanted to get back to the original topic, I personnaly don't think entering an auto would help the matter, since the NR would likely remain the same, or higher at some stages. The debonding of the Blades would cause vibrations, and if I experienced severe low-frequency vibrations I would land ASAP no matter what machine I was in.
ABout the Robbo and auto's, they glide a lot better than the "greased anvil" i currently fly, my only gripe is that you have to be a bit more on the ball should the donkey decide to go on strike

Well, those words were my opinion anyways...:cool:

[sprocket]

I have heard that the Robbos can be tricky in auto, more so the R22, and good training is important.

Winnie: I was thinking that if the blade skins debonded in flight, then the disturbance in the airflow would act a bit like a speed brake in a wing, particularly if some of the skin were protruding outwards.
Entering an auto with reduced or no power (IMHO), could allow the rotor RPM to slow down below the minimum limit.
All opinions are welcome!

Lu: Yes I agree that unapproved materials being used for these sorts of things happens a lot.
WD40 has a lot of competition in the commercial market and operators will generally use what they consider a cheap alternative if WD40 is scarce.
I’ve also heard that the scrim used in bonding can act as a wick, which draws moisture and chemicals into the bond line when the sealing surfaces erode .
Are there alternatives to the use of scrim?

[Lu Zuckerman]

Not sure what scrim is? If it is a sealant then yes petroleum and caustic detergent materials can wick into the bonding material and cause the fracture or deterioration of the bond. We washed our Sikorsky blades with castile soap and DI water or bottled water, which had minimal mineral content. We used to wax our helicopters because we spent a lot of time aboard ship. I tried the wax on the blades and the mineral spirits in the wax caused a debond on the blade pockets. That stopped very soon thereafter.

I can't say this LOUD enough. Don't use WD-40 for anything on an aircraft unless the manufacturer of the aircraft for that particular function approves it. I believe Allison approves it for long term storage of an engine on aircraft and the WD-40 is not used as a preservative. WD in WD-40 stands for Water Dispersant. Also the fumes from WD-40 can cause some serious medical problems if it is ingested into the lungs or into the stomach for whatever reason. Read the label. I assume that other similar products can cause the same problems.

:(

[sprocket]

It is the word I use for the gauze/fabric that is used in between two bonded surfaces (sometimes).
I think it maintains a constant thickness between joints and helps retain the adhesive while it is still curing during the bonding process.

[RobboRider]

The recent debonding event happened about 20 miles from here and was one of my friends machines. The scenario was the pilot was on approach to the airport, felt vibrations and lost rotor RPM.

Entered an auto, but found still had some power and did a low powered "auto". Bad news was that the clear spot he picked short of the airfield was actually a nest of power lines (The airport is right next to major electricity sub station with both high tension and 240 volt lines every where. Not a bright place for them but the airport was there first;)

Anyway, clipped a lone wire just above the ground and probably took out the tail rotor. At some point the aircraft started rotating and settled on the skids while rotating and proceded to thrash itself to bits. Both pilot and passenger walked away, though the pilot had some squashed vertebrae, I'm told.

As for the use of WD 40 etc. It's use is ubiquitous here. Mostly its used on the leading of blades to prevent corrosion because of the high salt content and very high humidity in the air. If you use nothing the blades rapidly develop corrosion on the D Spar or on the skin where the paint has worn off.

Now whether or not the operator used WD 40, one has to bear in mind that there are at least 6 R44s (and several have been through rebuilds so are on second or third sets of blades)operating in this area and several R22s. Most use WD 40 (so do the local Bell operators as well) and of the 10,000s of hours the local sets of blades have had up on them over the last say ten years there has been one blade debond here (I don't know where the other blade mentioned in the CASA report was) That blade was getting close to its 2200 hours I think. They were put new on that machine only about two years ago so they have seen plenty of use in a short time.

I would have to say that with all due respect to Mr. Zuckerman, recalling events that happened in 1952 and using them as evidence for or against current practice is a bit of a long bow to draw. The bonding agents were probably not even invented then. Similarly putting your ideas on one forum and then quoting that forum as a source of evidence against a practice is also a pretty rude trick. Your negative comments on the Vertical Reference forum merely echo your statements here and yours were the only ones backing your statements.

I'm not trying to be smart or nasty just trying to keep an even keel on the debate. You may after all be right. But your evidence is not yet that convincing.

Anyway, the obvious answer is to contact Robinson and get their word on it. I have written to them and will post the answer when they write back.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: RobboRider

I made a point about what can happen and used a personal experience to illustrate the point. Granted it happened in 1952 but you seemed to have missed the point.

What I suggested was that WD-40 is not a preservative. Its' sole purpose is to displace water. WD-40 was developed to protect the stainless steel skin of the Atlas Missile and it was not called WD-40 at that time. WD-40 like liquid Wrench and other similar products is capable of weeping into very tiny crevasses on metal surfaces and in the process it displaces water where Liquid wrench penetrates rusted surfaces. All of these products contain petroleum distillates that can react with the bonding material.

My second point is that you can not use a product in the maintenance and servicing of an aircraft if that product is not approved for that function. The aircraft manufacturer will run tests or they will have the product manufacturer submit the product to an approved laboratory for testing for the intended function. If the product is not in the approved materials list in the maintenance handbook then it can't be used. Also, if WD-40 is approved you must only use it for the approved purpose.

Also, if you use WD-40 on the blades as a preservative the film of WD-40 will attract sand and other entrained particles and upset the delicate aerodynamics of the blades.


I have worked as a Reliability, Maintainability and Systems Safety Consultant since 1968 and problems like this are constantly being raised.

[OFBSLF]

WD40 as a preservative:eek:

No, don't do that. Most any light oil is a better preservative than WD40.

[RobboRider]

I spoke to the LAME who looks after the R44 that debonded the blade and he told me categorically that those blades have not been treated with WD 40. As I trust him implicitly (he does my machine as well, I am prepared to say "That answers the question" - in relation to the blade which did debond. They wash them with standard detergent and that's it. Unauthorised cleaning agents had nothing to do with it.

Also found out the blades had 700 hours to run and were 4 years old (not the two I thought - time flies. I remember when they were installed and didn't realise it was that long ago. :O No wonder I'm feeling old. Time is speeding up!)

I also got back a reply from Robinson which despite a specific question about WD 40 was only a very general answer. They advise using automotive wax.

I'll post their reply on my website (If it fails try again later It might take me a while to get around to it.)

Go to http://helipics.homestead.com

[Old Man Rotor]

Perhaps I should add the R22 in my Profile.........as I do have instructional time on them............:p

[sandy helmet]

Any of you out there use or have used the Helipod for the R44?
Are they worth the investment, in terms of ease of use and functionality?
How do they affect the aircraft's performance, and what, if any, drawbacks are there? Can they hold for example, a standard airline-allowed rollaboard case?

Thx in advance.....

[vorticey]

would the lame know if WD40 had been used by the pilot?
i wonder if the debonding happend on the top or bottom of the blade first (i think i should buy a ladder) and i wonder if flying in the rain after the paint at the tips has been worn off, has anything to do with it?

just thinking out loud.:confused:

[Lu Zuckerman]

I also got back a reply from Robinson which despite a specific question about WD 40 was only a very general answer. They advise using automotive wax.

I was chastised in a post above for recounting my experience way back in 1952 when I stated that I waxed the blades on a Sikorsky helicopter and the pockets debonded because of the petroleum distillates in the wax. Robinson approves the use of car wax on the blades. I would strongly suggest that you look at the list of contents in their approved wax or possibly they just said car wax and not a specific brand as they can vary around the world and they can contain many different elements. It most likely contains petroleum distillates or something similar that can react with the bonding agent.

It was stated that their operator used plain household detergent to clean the blades. Detergents in some countries can contain Sodium Meta silicate penta hydrate, which is highly alkaline or possibly monobutyl ether, which is a solvent. I would suggest that you return to the dark ages of 1952 and use Castile soap and deionized water to wash the blades and go back to Robinson and ask them which car wax and detergent they recommend. That way, you are protected if you experience debonding or any other problem and it is traced to the use of the recommended products. .


Run Henney Penney the sky is falling or, is it Wolf, Wolf!

:eek:

[Lu Zuckerman]

Alkaline detergents come in two forms. Ionic and non-ionic. Ionic detergents contain free Hydroxyl (free Hydrogen) ions and Non ionic detergents do not have free Hydrogen. 99.5% or thereabouts alkaline detergents are ionic.

The free hydrogen can be absorbed by heat treated steel. The entrained hydrogen will migrate to the point of highest stress causing the item to fracture under high stress. This is called Hydrogen Embrittlement.

Alkaline detergents can also cause stress fracture on parts made of PolyCarbonate plastic. These alkaline detergents are wicked so, choose wisely.

That is why the US Military has banned them from use on aircraft.

Has the sky fallen yet? Better yet, have you seen any wolves?


:eek:

[Lu Zuckerman]

This is aimed at the use of WD-40 on Robinson helicopters as well as the maintenance of the helicopters painted surfaces.

Robinson does not approve WD-40 however Corrosion X aircraft grade is approved for corrosion protection. It is available in spray cans and in bulk. You can purchase an application kit and several gallons of Corrosion X for several hundred dollars.

The US Army used corrosion X in a test. Two companies of UH-60s were sent to Somalia. One group of UH-60s was aggressively treated with Corrosion X and the other group had no protection. When the two groups of helicopters were returned they were put into refurbishment. The maintenance cost on the treated helicopters was $192,000 less than the untreated ships.

Robinson also approved another Corrosion X product. The name of the product is REJEX which is used to protect the painted surfaces that get contaminated by engine exhaust and bugs.

Check out their website WWW.corrosionx.com or call them at 1-800-638-7361

Here is a partial lis of those aviation organizations using corrosion X

The Ages Group
AMR Combs
Eurocopter (Aerospatiale)
Chalks International Airways
Comair Air Academy
Confederate Air Force
Erickson Air Crane Co.
Gulfstream Aerospace Technologies
Learjet Corp.
McDonnell Douglas Helicopters
NOAA Aircraft Operations
Northrop Grumman Aircraft
Petroleum Helicopters
Raytheon Aircraft
Rockwell Collins
Saberliner Corp.
Textron Flight Service


:cool:

[Barannfin]

Wow, quite a post Lu, thanks.
Anybody familiar with CarbonX? We use it (diluted) at our flight school to clean the aircraft. Corrosion is not really a problem, and the blades are just cleaned with water. Im pretty sure this stuff is made for aircraft, it would seem that this stuff is made by the same company but I didnt see anything on the website.

Just want to make sure nobody has had bad experiences caused by CarbonX.

[Lu Zuckerman]

That should have read $192,000 per helicopter.

:cool:

[pohm1]

I have fitted a set of helipods to a 44, they are not particularly user friendly as they don't just clip on/off. The load is useful but won't accept anything as large as a roll on case, more like a weekend bag. It does effect cruise speed but I don't remember the exact figures.
The build quality of the pods wasn't great, they were literally just a spray tank converted with a cut-out door, but it does give you a bit more flexibility for small bags or boxes. Check out www.helipod.co.nz

[RobboRider]

Could I ask the same questions as asked in the first post - but for R22's.

I've been thinking of buying a set for my 22.

My specific questions are:
1. How much calculating, weighing of baggage etc do you have to do to check your C of G when they are loaded.

2. From the web site they look like they might interfere with using the ground handling wheels. Do they or is it just the angle of the photos?

3. Do they decrease your cruise speed or increase your fuel usage to compensate and if so by how much.

4. Anyone know any names or phone numbers of users I could talk to about the above questions before I outlay the $$?

Thanks:D

[RobboRider]

Vorticey

I didn't ask about which surface was debonded, I'll ask the owner when I see him on Friday.
I do know that I'm buying a longer ladder so I can check the top surface as well.
The problem occurred in R44s and the AD was only for the 44 series but I think it would be prudent to be vigilant with R22 blades as well. The blades are different though (apart from their size) The R22 has alloy D spar and the R44 stainless. I don't know if they use different bonding agent but the fact that one side of the bond is different metal might make a difference. I couldn't be that lucky though ;)

The owner keeps all the local machines at his rural property (he has a fleet of them) and he is fastidious about his machines and does most of the cleaning, washing etc himself. He's the chief pilot so he's with them all the time and the LAME is doing something with one of the machines pretty frequently.

Beyond that who could say. As far as is known they don't use it.

I hope having bare metal leading edges isn't the cause because every Robbo I've seen with over about 500 hours on the blades has no paint on the outer leading edges. Again I think it would be a case of, if that were the cause every blade here would have delaminated.


Mr. Zuckerman

Unfortunately as I said Robinson gave a very general answer to a specific question. Their reply was a page from a manual which just said automotive wax. No type or quality specified. Not much help.

Where did you get the information that Robinson do not approve the use of WD-40? I haven't been able to find that sort of specific information but if its available, officially, I would like to get it. Though they didn't say so, I got the impression from their brief reply and attachment that they weren't too keen to actually name names. Maybe again for fear that an apparent endorsment might prove to run against them if a problem ensued.
But they also did't say what you could NOT use either.

My LAME rang around operators and distributors here in OZ and came up with carnuba automotive wax. If I recall carnuba is some sort of organic oi l /wax from a tree or plant (though I am delving back into the dark recesses of my memory there.

CorrosionX doesn't seem to be available here in this part of OZ.

Now, Mr. Zuckerman, you wouldn't be trying to baffle and impress us with lots of big words would you?
;)

Something something Meta Silicate penta hydrate - sounds a bit glassy to me.
Alkaline agents having free hydrogen :confused: Don't you mean acids have free hydrogens and alkalines accept hydrogens.
Free hydroxyl (Free Hydrogen) ;)
MonoButyl Ether in a detergent (mmm, maybe, though the ether linkage would would render it very insoluble in ionic solution like detergent and probably defeat its purpose. If one end of the chain were a butyl what's on the opposite end of the ether bond? :O
Whoops, just remembered you are right...some of the short chain aromates are included in engine degreaser types to help dispersion into water when you wash off the stuff.

I take that bit back.

Ah well doesn't matter its all one up-manship isn't it.
Some of us Robbie drivers have more letters after our names than in them:)

Now with regard the falling sky. I do recall - I checked the posts -and that it was your good self who first saw the waxy shadow of debonding and cried that it proved the sky was falling on all users of such evil unauthorised stuff. And it was your own post which revelled in the call that WD-40 in sheeps clothing caused the problems (of course - self protected by the little insertion at the start it could be a "manufacturing anomoly" but.......)
If I recall I mentioned a few lines indicating perhaps there might be more to it, as lots of blades gets lots of WD 40 and lots of blades (in fact all except 2) don't debond every time they turn.

Now I DO agree with you that if the manufacturer doesn't endorse then we shouldn't use it. I have written back to Robinson for a more specific answer and again I'll post it when I get an answer.

Till then I'm off to buy a bigger ladder and some maybe some carnuba wax
:rolleyes:

[sandy helmet]

Apparently they do affect the ground handling wheels, but if its as easy as advertised - 30 seconds whip on and off.............

[Lu Zuckerman]

The bit about the sky is falling and crying wolf was placed there for you the reader to exclaim and at the same time saying to yourself, ”Oh no, not again”.

The lesson in detergent chemistry was included because if I said don’t use detergents or car wax on your helicopter or on the blades you might wonder why not.

As for the helicopter manufacturer endorsing one product over another that is not the case. It is required that both military and civil airframe manufacturers test or have tested every product that is to be used on or in their respective aircraft. If it happens that two different manufacturers submit competing products and both pass the test procedures then both products can be used. In any case the manufacturer is required to include the names and / or specs of the products and publish these product names in the maintenance manual or the parts catalog for the helicopter or aircraft.

In some cases the manufacturer will assign their own spec number for a given product and not identify the product by name forcing the operator to purchase the product from them more than likely at an inflated price.

:O

[sprocket]

RobboRider: Corrosion X has been available through Aviall, in spray paks or 5 litre containers.

[OFBSLF]

My LAME rang around operators and distributors here in OZ and came up with carnuba automotive wax. Be careful. Very few automotive waxes these days are primarily carnuba. Most of those with some carnuba also have cleaners of some sort in the wax. It is my impression that real carnuba wax tends to be very stiff as well and may need some heat to soften to wear it is workable.

You can get the real carnuba wax, but you have to look for it. Best bet would probably be an outfit that sells to the high-end collector or detailer.

[RobboRider]

Sprocket

I'll go to Aviall myself tomorrow then. I ran them one morning this week but the guy I spoke to said he hadn't heard of it. But you get plenty of times where you strike the wrong guy who hasn't heard of something but if you'd got one of the others the answer would have been more favourable. He tried to tell me Innox was the bee's knees but I've used that on a boat motor and I reckon it never lasted as long as the WD 40.


Speaking of answers; Try this

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Dear Mr. Martin:

RHC is not aware of any debonding problems associated with any waxes or corrosion inhibitors.

With respect to waxes, use a carnuba-type wax if you ever intend to repaint your blades. Silicon-type waxes, while not prohibited, have an annoying tendency to cause "fish-eyeing" in subsequent paint applications. I do not know if the same holds true for the "modern polymeric substances" you mentioned. Also, to preclude the possibility of frictional heat buildup, do not use power tools on blades.

Regarding corrosion inhibitors, we have for may years recommended either ACF-50 or Corrosion-X, mainly because of their superior corrosion protection properties over the omnipresent WD-40. We have no objection to your continued use of WD-40, but do not spray it on Teflon-based hinges such as MR hub hinges, rod ends, tail rotor drive shaft damper pivots, governor or carb heat assist friction clutches, etc, or any rubber belts.

We are aware of debonding problems due to excessive heat from either direct (flame, or heat gun) or indirect (power tools) sources, which is why our Maintenance Manuals (MM) contain warnings to avoid heating blades above 175 degrees F. We also prohibit the use of chemical paint strippers on blades.

Presently, there is no published list of specifically approved corrosion inhibitors for our aircraft; we will incorporate such a list in a future MM revision. I am not familiar with RP-7; is the CRC product you refer to actually CRC-3.36?

Sincerely,
Patrick Cox
RHC Tech Support

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Direct from the horses mouth.:rolleyes:

Cheers

[Lu Zuckerman]

Pat stated that they recommended that the blades never be exposed to temperatures over 175-degrees F. When I worked in Iran we had air temperatures of 113-degrees F and the ground temperature was 168-degrees F and inside the helicopters it was over 180-degrees F and it fried most of the avionics. Solar radiation is a killer and mechanical devices can soak the heat up so the local temperature (of the mechanical item) was far in excess of the local air temperature. I would assume that the two Oz Robinson’s that exhibited debonding operated in similar temperature extremes.

Lord the manufacturer of elastomeric elements on helicopters stated that if an elastomeric element were exposed to temperatures of 160-degrees F for a total period of one hour in the parts lifetime the part life expectancy (MTBF) would be cut in half.

If solar radiation was the cause of the debonding then the killer has claimed two lives (blades)


:eek:

[Shawn Coyle]

We regularly put temperature sensing tape on bearings, does this mean putting them on the blades would be a good idea???

[RobboRider]

It never gets that hot here.

We get the occasional 40 - 42 degree day (by this I mean once or twice on a bad year. ) Further west they get lots of 40 - 44 degree days in summer but never get any air temps as high as those which Lu experienced in Iran. That machine spent a lot of its time operating along the coast and closer areas so I doubt the temps it was exposed to were very high or high for very long.

The blades are out in the sun - so on those bad days the actual temp on the blades probably is very high - as high as 175 degrees? I don't know. Maybe, but as far as I know no one has measured it and published the data. Maybe thats a good little project for some engineering student. I suppose putting telatemp strips on the blades would be the easiest way find out.
But I'd be worried about one coming off in flight and unbalancing the blades.

I suspect the high temps would only apply to blades not in flight so you could probably get by without even leaving them on permanently - and having to do track and balances when they were put on. Just have to remember to take them off before starting up.

I guess again the case is - why only two blades suffering - and especially why the blade on a machine that spent most of its time at far lower temperatures down here along the coast. Why not the dozens of machines that permanently live and work in the hot climate?

I still haven't had a chance to ask the owner about which surface debonded. He didn't turn up at the aero club last night. I'll ask him when I see him.

[Lu Zuckerman]

To: Shawn Coyle


I don’t believe it would stick. However there are handheld infra red sensors similar to what a doctor sticks in your ear to take your temperature that could be used for this purpose.

My intro reads How hot is hot and here is an example. We landed our aircraft at Corey Field an outlying field at Pensacola during the summer. Our aircraft was on the ground for about five minutes when I was approached. I was told that the base order was that on a three blade prop one blade must be up and the other two down. I climbed up and onto the wing and the skin was already over 160-degrees F and getting hotter. My feet and skin were burning and in trying to hand move the prop a gas pocket caused the prop to rotate. I almost fell off the wing and by the time I got down my butt, my feet and my hands were burnt. I told the guy to screw the base order or to do it himself. Anyone that has pulled maintenance under similar conditions will know what I am talking about..


:rolleyes:

[vorticey]

what are you going to carrie in them, foam?

i wonder do the skids need reinforcing, the manual states nothing can be attached to them.:confused:

[RobboRider]

The distributer told me they are approved for 46 lbs if you are using one or 100 lbs each if you are using both.

I think their actual attachment point is on the bottom frame rather than the skid, but I may be wrong there cos I haven't actually seen a set in the flesh.

Obviously that weight is part of your all up max weight so it is just redistributing what you are going to carry.
But then I do a lot of trips where: me plus son plus camping gear is below max weight but above the volume that is comfortable in the cabin.

But if the Vne is dropped I'm not that keen cos on our Secret Mens Business (see http://secretmensbusiness.homestead.com )trips I'm trying to keep up with a squadron of fixed wingers who are TAS-ing about 100 - 105 kts. While I'm TAS-ing at 90 the separation is good but if it dropped me down to say 80 kts it starts making me too far behind.

[imabell]

i have heard from a reliable source that both the blades had
delaminated, how bizarre is that.
one blade was a very small section but the blade that failed the most had delaminated from the tip and in one metre. the laminate had peeled back.

it is not known yet where the delamination started.
the main delamination occured at the spar in front of the trim tab.

i also heard that the pilot had full throttle with the collective fully down and only just maintaining rpm because of the drag.

i am sure that the pilot would not have been able to see properly with the huge ammount of vibration present. he was extremely lucky to get it near the ground but unfortunately they hit a wire. the pilot suffered minor spinal injuries but is ok and the passenger is back at work.

the blades have gone back to the usa, to franks. :eek: :rolleyes:

[sprocket]

Imabell: It sounds like these guys were lucky to survive. I did hear last week that the wire may have slowed their descent but that was probably only rumour.

Obviously a full auto was out of the question.

RobboRider: Corrosion X (MIL-C-81309E) part number for aerosol cans is 80102 and 84004 for gallon container.
Sometimes you get a better response from the suppliers when you give them a part number.
:)

[Red Wine]

I realise this thread has past its use by date.......

However do you know if this problem[s] occurred in Australia.........and if so in what section of the industry???

I could guess..........but I won't!!!

Any other details would also be nice...time in service extra!!!

[sprocket]

Red Wine: I have been wondering that also. The only other major incidents (to do with main rotors) that I am aware of, are to do with the R22 in the mustering industry.

I'm fairly sure the operator with the R44 in question is purely in the charter catagory and does not muster, but does fly coastal in the tropics. Hence the corrosion theories.

I was thinking somebody else would add similar experiences either from Oz or around the world but it seems that this may be the first incident in a R44.

[RobboRider]

He has either four or five R44s - can't recall which. Some based in the Cairns area and some at Horn Island in Torres Straits.
Pretty busy operation mostly doing contract work with Telstra, and other telecommunications companiestaking technicians to service repeater stations etc.
Also stringing power lines with Ergon and survey work (crocodile counting and the like ) with National parks and wildlife etc.

Also runs helifishing trips taking anglers out into the wilds of Nth. Qld. But doesn't do as much of that any more.

Doesn't do any mustering and most of the work is cruisy sort of stuff. Not the sort of wild and machine stressing sort of action that musterers get up to.

[sprocket]

This is an extract from the ATSB accident report .....

At about 1 NM to the south of Mareeba township, at a cruise altitude of 1,000 ft and an indicated airspeed of about 95 kts, the pilot heard an unusual noise associated with the main rotor blades. The pilot reported that the noise sounded as though a potato chip packet had been caught in the blades and a violent vibration occurred in conjunction with the unusual noise.

The pilot was unable to identify or read the aircraft instruments because of the vibration and was unable to adequately control main rotor RPM after the onset of that vibration.

The violent vibration necessitated a landing. The pilot entered autorotation and selected a paddock for the forced landing. He reported that the helicopter was difficult to control during the descent. In particular, he was unable to turn the helicopter with left and right cyclic inputs. In particular, while cyclic inputs altered the attitude of the helicopter left and right it would not turn in the selected direction. The pilot also reported that it was difficult to control main rotor RPM during the autorotative descent and he relied upon the low rotor RPM horn and light as an indication of rotor RPM. The horn and light activated intermittently during the descent.

During the descent, the helicopter struck powerlines and was substantially damaged. The pilot reported that he was unable to avoid the powerlines because of the ineffective cyclic inputs. The pilot and passenger, the only occupants, suffered minor injuries.

A report from the accident site indicated significant main rotor blade skin disbonding 60 mm from the tip and extending 1070 mm inboard on one blade and the beginning of skin disbonding on the other blade. The ATSB conducted a preliminary investigation and it was apparent that the problem was a continuing airworthiness matter. ATSB released the main rotor blades to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for further examination as part of an airworthiness investigation.



The full report is in this link ....

ATSB Report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=534)

[murdock]

I am currently at Robinson for a few days and I will ask one of the guys what they think of the situation. Will keep you informed.

[James Roc]

Come on all you Raven II owners out there,give us your opinions on this in my opinion wonderful machine!

I took delivery of one about 2 weeks ago and it has lived up to all my expectations and then some...!It's very smooth even at close to Vne and the power is a joy even with 4 POB and full fuel.It looks striking in metalic black with gold trim.I'm confident I made the right choice,as a second hand Jetranger was a consideration.There's a very interesting article in this months Rotor&Wing about piston versus turbine which some of you hopefully will get a chance to read and ponder...

Onwards and upwards...

[Dantruck]

Tiz a grand machine, but I doubt you're getting your full monies worth on the east coast of Ireland. Bring it down here to Spain where you can get hot and high. Then I think you'll feel the real advantage over the standard Raven.
Good luck with it.
Dantruck

[Rigsby]

James,
I've been sitting on the sidelines waiting to see how the Raven 2 was received before buying one myself....I,m 99% convinced at the moment and will decide this week,. a
Any other pointers you could give would be appreciated..

any chance you could post a picture of the machine in Mettallic Black as that is my choice colour and would be nice to see the beast in its glory..

Cheers,

[Shawn Coyle]

I just flew it a month or so ago for an article in Defence and Public Service Helicopter (article coming out soon), and it was superb.
I have probably less than 2 hours total in any of Frank Robinson's wonderful machines, and this was amazing. Piston engine? If you couldn't hear the noise, and just concerned yourself with handling the machine, the combination of fuel injection and governor makes this just about like a turbine.
Now if it only had an AFCS at a low price... (and I know someone - (not Robinson - so don't bother them) who is working on one....)
Shawn

[CRAN]

Shawn,

ooooo..... c'mon don't leave it there...

I'm sure you can't tell us who it is, but would you be prepared to tell us how big the machine is? How many passengers?

Cheers
CRAN

[t'aint natural]

...that old siren call... let's make it more complex... damned right it's not Robinson.

[James Roc]

...well I couldn't recommend it higher,not sure whether you're in the UK but Heliair do a great interior fitout with the extra leather trim and a master avionics switch as a useful addition,In my opinion the only colours to go for are metalic black or racing green and I've seen it in lots of different colours including black and bright yellow combo,not to sure about that though it may make one more visable in the sky...I would like to post a picture of mine but not quite sure how to do it.I'm running Windows XP,help appreciated.

[Happy Landing !]

Hi James,

Glad you like it. You copied my colour scheme (Royalties being accepted)

Mine is in for it's 100 hour next week !

It just gets better and better now it's "Worn in a tad"

I've just had a Special Service letter from Robinsons regarding the governor though. In light conditions the governer has noticable oscillations particually on machines S/N 10001 thru 10047 (except 10016).

It requires changing the D278-1 controller. Cost: $800 deposit, refundable on exchange unit being returned.

See you soon....

Graham

[James Roc]

Hi Graham,

Thanks for pointing that out,just sent an email 2 John Mik about it to see if I need the mod as well.

Happy Flyin...J

[James Roc]

My machine post re-assembly at Heliair...

http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PPRuNe/jamescorrR44.JPG

[Rigsby]

Cheers James,

excellent choice of colour... thanks for the posting,

regards, :D

[Happy Landing !]

Mine's for sale now......(Honest it is) - Sorry Heliport

[Dantruck]

That didn't take long!

[Rigsby]

Happy,

check your private mail....

regards,

[t'aint natural]

From Rotorhub:

Torrance, CA – Robinson Helicopter Company deliveries of R22 and R44 helicopters during the first quarter of 2003 were 58% higher than during the first quarter of 2002. Leading the increase was the R44 with 57 deliveries followed by the R22 with 30, making a total of 87 new helicopters produced by Robinson during the first three months of 2003.

To accommodate the increased demand, Robinson added 100 more production workers, raising its total workforce from 600 to 700. Even with the additional workers, R44 Raven II production is sold out nearly five months in advance. The popularity of the new Raven II has surprised everyone. With its higher airspeed and altitude performance, plus additional payload, the Raven II found an eager market and has already become the top selling helicopter in the world by a substantial margin.

[whatsarunway]

James ,
Whats the cruise speed ?, I hear you have to give a jet ranger a good head start . Either that or put the kettle on while you are waiting for him to arrive!;)

[moosp]

I've just received by sea-snail mail the April 2003 POH changes. Please allow me some slack here in case you 44 instructors have already handled this one.

There is an operations change as to when to switch on the governor and to leave it on when shutting down.

I have a feeling that starting and performing the start procedures with the governor on might allow a student to let the RPM's creep up to 80% at which point the governor will kick in and give him the "flying" RPM. This could be a big surprise.

The shutting down procedure that I had been taught, different from the original POH was, on stable touchdown, with the collective down, switch off the governor and wind off the throttle to cool down RPM. Then apply the frictions. That was on the basis that if you get the RPM's below 80% then the aircraft will not fly and you are unlikely to move it around as you reach forward to wind on the cyclic friction. (Think slippery surfaces here; ice, mud, whatever).

As to leaving the governor on during start and shut down, I just wonder if a pilot might not notice the RPM's creeping up during the warm up and cool down. It does happen. If the governor kicks in at 80% it could spoil the entire day.

The new procedures are obviously safe, but does anyone know the philosophy behind the change in the procedures?

[Happy Landing !]

Why do Robinsons have a Guvnor switch anyway? It sure does'nt need one!

If Frank got rid of the switch and put it on a breaker instead,
bye bye over-speeds. For training purposes, the breaker could be pulled to simulate a guvnor failure.

I've asked the factory this question on several occasions. :mad:

[Helinut]

I don't fly any of Frank's products these days, but if you did not have a switch easily operable on the lever, how would you deal with a governor runaway failure? The governor on the Robbos seem to be pretty reliable, but any well-engineered system needs to enable the pilot to cope with failures.

You could always grab the twist grip, but you would then need a third hand to pull the CB to make things "safe".

If I understand the original question, then I see what you are getting at. It would be very easy for an inattentive pilot to let the RPM rise to 80% and then suddenly get flying RPM without warning - there have been a number of accidents involving early/inadvertent take-off of students/low-time pilots as it is. This would seem to me to make the problem worse.

I don't have easy access to the RHC paperwork - can anyone who does explain the reason behind the change?

[The Nr Fairy]

I don't know why the changes have happened, but I'm terriffically sensitive to checking the governor after a minor distraction cost me £1000 insurance excess.

My understanding why RHC want governor on below 80% is to check for full and correct operation throughout the whole governed range. The checklists in the aircraft I fly have been amended - with CAA approval - to "increase to 100% RPM, governor on" and there's an optional throttle wiggle to test operation from about 97 to 105%.

As for leaving the governor on at shutdown - why ? Makes no sense to me. Is there any parallel with the turbine world ?

[Whirlybird]

I'm guessing, but the only reason I can think of for leaving rthe governor on is so that you can't forget to put it on before flight and end up with an overspeed. Well-intentioned perhaps...but definitely not a good idea. Robbo drivers, how often have you pulled full carb heat to check it during start-up, and had the RPM go over 80% because you've got carb ice? I have, loads of times. And as a student, it's something you don't think about, until it happens. And you're doing most of your checks at 75% RPM, which makes it really easy to just wind up the throttle that little but too much; and maybe you close the throttle to check the needles separate, aren't sure that they really did, so what do you do...wind on a bit more throttle and start from slightly higher RPM....

Maybe there's a good reason for this change, but I definitely can't see it. and as many of you know, I'm pretty sensitive to the words "governor", "overspeed", and "RRPM", for much the same resons as The Nr Fairy. :eek:

[moosp]

Mr. Selfish, yes that is a worry. I am aware that we all become shorter as we grow older but maybe helicopters have the same problem.

Or is it a circumcision of the stinger that has lost us the four inches as the '44 came of age? Still popular in the States so I'm told...

As to the governor kicking in during start up procedures, I did have this once on a slippery surface in a light machine and we ended up 15 or so degrees from the original heading. It wouldn't fly with the collective down but I felt a bit of a twozzer for
allowing it.

I guess we shall get used to it, just need to teach different cautions.

[ShyTorque]

Mr Robinson should now brace himself for a whole load of legal claims for false advertising, if the aircraft is indeed four inches shorter than advertised.

As we all know, "Happiness is a big chopper". :ok:

[CaptainEagle]

Hedski, thankfully your correct, Dublin is not that congested, in fact, if you really had to fly at 500ft, it would probably be enough to get out alive.

Steve, in one sense your right, money is not really an object for Sky but neither would it be for their sister station FOX news in the USA which do utilise R44's.

While in reality it may not be possible to reach ALL the stories with an R44, for a price tag that is around an eight of the 355. Mind the pennys and the pounds will mind themselves!

Then again, I slightly agree with you, Sky is a private corporation and why shouldn't they buy the best helicopter. I just have a problem with Police organisations (mainly here in Ireland) spending so much on just 2 helicopters when the R44 is really suitable and so much more affordable.

[Thomas coupling]

Captain Eagle, I suspect you are not familiar with european police ops. It is a different culture to that in the US.
If you really want to know why R44's are not capable of carrying out police ops in this environ, PM me and I'll tell you. I don't want to hijack this thread.

regards,
TC

[Heliport]

Thanks TC.

I've split this off.

Shame to lose your opinions/experience on a PM when it will be of interest to many.

Heliport

[CaptainEagle]

Thanks Heliport :)

[Vfrpilotpb]

Me thinks they ( the Boys in Blu) may not like one engine, two engine make it much safer to chase speeding drivers with, especially in North Wales:rolleyes:

Certain Chief Policemen spend most of their funding chasing motorists, and ignore the bad guys and dope peddler's,rapists and muggers, but then who am I to complain, but it does all seem to point to the fact that certain PAS sections are underutilised! whilst other are always in the air.

Now, reaching for the cupboard where I keep my kevlar jacket, come on Tc don't miss this one:ouch:

[Thomas coupling]

I can't talk for the yanks, they operated helo's in the police role while we were still chasing crims in Zephyr 6's and Consuls:D

Until/Unless the CAA revise or change their remit, the rules will require police operators to fly twins if they wish to enjoy the exemptions agreed between the Home Office and the regulators.
The R44 is therefore automatically eliminated by default.

Thats the easy bit out of the way.

Since the police aviaton culture has matured, so too has the operational tasking and the way we perceive how the task should be conducted.

A 'standard' complement enjoys:

pilot / tactical commander / +1

We have just completed a paper on minimum crewing requirements for UK police air support units. It goes on to conclude that the above, is an absolute minimum for the majority of tasks expected from us. Especially at night, in pursuit of a stolen vehicle, or person on the move, for example. The pilot flies (!) the tactical commander delegates and the remaining observer shares this work load. One may be on camera, the other doing a commentary to the ground troops or command, together with checking the route along which the pursuit is going. An added extra, is the ubiquitous flight safety where, especially in busy airspace, an extra pair of eyes comes in handy :ok:

Add to all of the above, the following 'essential' police equipment for the modern force of today':
FLIR pod
Searchlight
Tracker stolen vehicle ident
Skyshout
Microwave down/up link
Video recording facilities
Moving Map
Police on board cockpit equipment (cameras/binos/maps/)
Survival gear (mae wests/ELT/Dinghy/Smokes/)
Police radio suite (currently 4+ radio heads, soon to change to all digital)

Sufficent fuel to stay on task for a reasonable time.

Then there is the requirement for additional tasking:

Carriage of firearms teams (flak jackets/ guns/ammo)
Carriage of specialist teams (bomb disposal/forensics/soco)
Carriage of paramedic equipment and or persons (on some units)

Speed is important, the ability to get to a job within 'x' minutes is common sense really. A chopper weighed down with all this drags the Vno down. The R44, I believe doesn't have too much of a top speed?

Overall, I hope you'll agree we are now looking at a substantial hike in helo size from that of the R44.
Your average police helo is driving around at between 2500 and 2850kg. Allowing him a little flex in payload.

Once we go above the 3000kg mark, new regs (FDR CVR etc)come into play and we don't want to go there...just yet!

I would say that the major difference between the europeans (Irish, Italians, German Uk etc) and the US, is that we cater for a greater spread of tasking, and are looking a little further into the future re: police ops.
Who knows what may be asked of the police force of the future:
SAR / EMS / Rapid roping / Winching / Long range ops.

My last para should incite some unrest amongst our pals across the water :E

The funny thing is, we buy our equipment with public money, the yanks (some states) get funded by claw back from the crims...and yet they still drive round in either war surplus rigs or mickey mouse R"" / R44's...:confused:

PS: There are very few AS355's left in the Uk for police ops, now. Most have upgraded to 902 / 135 with the odd ball in a 109
:uhoh:
These new generation a/c have relatively little down time, ours for example is 95% operational.

An R44 isn't sturdy enough to survive the rigours of a bobbies lightweight 100kg, size 14, good looks and charms
:ok: :ok:

Over to you

[Robbo Jock]

If whoever it was, was correct in saying that Ireland could have got eight aircraft for the price of two, there wouldn't be any need for the two aircraft to be specced up for every conceivable tasking, would there? You could have pairs specced up for individual sub-tasks, and use whichever was necessary for any particular shout. With a goodly number still available for use elsewhere.

[PANews]

If whoever it was, was correct in saying that Ireland could have got eight aircraft for the price of two.........


There is another item in this equasion ... the pilot.

Aircraft are VERY cheap - whether its a $25 OH58 or a £3.5M MD900.

What costs is the crew.... whether its one or two .... who can afford to put crews into EIGHT Robbos? That is before you pay for the maintainer..... they are still human and they cost more than the spares they fit.

[headsethair]

This string - fascinating. I find the load requirements and the workload requirements of PAS difficult to understand - they appear to be asking the machine to do so many things. But perhaps that's because the darned thing costs so much to run, they have to find other areas to use budget - no doubt the "bomb disposal" requirement comes from a different budget to "chasing Welsh motorists doing 33.3mph in a 30mph limit."
I've heard that there are talks going on with regard to tri-service helicopters - police, fire, ambulance all under one rotor. No doubt the unions will slow down this idea.
I've often wondered why the fire service hasn't opted for a fire-fighting helicopter in urban locations - tall buildings etc. Something that can fire a foam bomb at a building has to be better than 3 engines with ladders & cranes that can't reach. (The London Fire Service can only reach as far as 10 stories........)
And think of the reduction in risk to manpower.

[old heliman]

Robbo,

presumably you would have to crew up several of those cheap Robbos with expensive crews as the one crew might be on another task!!

UK forces operate for significant periods of time over towns and cities, a lot of which is by night. Hence twins are essential and of course, more flexible in how they can be used compared to singles.

In the UK at least, public transport by night has required 2 engines since about '84 or '85 and police ops are public transport....albeit with some easements.

Therefore no point in even thinking of a Robbo or similar.

[HeliMark]

Take a good size single/twin turbine and you can have the capability to carry out several missions with one aircraft (FLIR, search, rescue, chases, fire, containments..etc).

Having one multi-mission capable aircraft is worth a whole bunch of small ones that can only do one mission.

[Thomas coupling]

There will never be a multi service public helo, because the three services would never agree on protocols, a/c fit, crewing, etc etc. Nightmare scenario:oh:

Re the (x) times little helos and using them for specific tasking. What would thunderbirds 4 (R44) role equipped for car pursuit, locally, do, if on its way home, there was a call for a covert action on a drugs boat just offshore, and 50 miles away? Ignore it because it doesn't have the right equipment on board and only has 30 mins fuel left! Thunderbird 3 (R22) is down for its cracking rotor blade check and thunderbird 1 (R44) can't get airborne in >40kts of wind! Thunderbird 2 (R44) isn't cleared for night ops because it only has one engine. So the crews of 1,2, and 3, all 9 of them are now being deployed force wide instead because of best value :sad:

I must take this opportunity to advise that the VAST majority (99.9%) of police helos DO NOT monitor cars for speeding - sledgehammer and walnut come to mind!
Bikers are a different game:E :E :E

Next.......................................

[headsethair]

I have witnessed police ops in the USA using both 22 & 44. Not as a replacement for twin-turbines, but supplementary. In many ways the R22 has the capability to be a better pair of eyes than the vehicles on the ground - and at an operating cost which is not much more than the cost of one car. Factor in the enormous depreciation in the capital cost of a police car, against the relatively controllable depreciation of an R22 - and you see why they do it. Not major metro forces - more rural "county" forces.
OK - transfer this pattern to the UK. The all-up equipped cost of a Police Range Rover must be getting on for the price of an R22. Which one works better in rural, hilly environments ?
As a spotter for ground forces, the R22 makes a lot of sense. Unless it's night etc etc.
I am not at all certain that the £3m machine that costs £1200 an hour to run is being put to the best use ALL the time. If it's just for observation in daylight, surely a smaller machine could do the job?
Remember the Optica ? :\

[Robbo Jock]

TC,

There are two sides to that argument. What if the sooper dooper, equipped for WW III, doppleturbine, mega beast was out hunting for a little girl lost somewhere on the moors and a shout was made for a covert op on a drug runner offshore. Do you call off the task, RTB, refuel and set off, leaving the foot soldiers to slog through the marshy heather, or would it be better to have a Thunderbird 2 to launch ?

Old Heliman,

Point taken on the crewing requirements, but I'm cheap !!! You could probably have eight of me for the price of one old, bold twin turb vet. :D


But given the experience across the Atlantic why do we have massive, massively equipped helicopters in these roles. Everyone's happy to beat up the CAA with "the Yanks do it this way and their accident stats aren't any worse than our's", yet there's a sharp difference when it comes to the way the different airborne units operate. Are their accident/arrest/whatever rates any better or worse than ours, with their R22s/R44s/Jet Rangers?


PS I do also take on board the fact that the CAA has a fit at the thought of singles scooting around over cities (as indeed do I !) but surely they would make sense for some of the less well off Rural forces, at the very least.

[PANews]

There have been instances of UK police forces using singles [fixed wing and rotary] over rural areas in recent years. But .... the uses have been specific operations.

Ok the modern helicopters are expensive [but not £1200ph - yet ... cut that by a third unless you are including the crew] but the main difference is whether you have one airframe that does every conceivable job or go to the US system that has 6 $50 airframes in a rack [and some US taxpayers complain about that!] and you use whichever the hard pressed engineer has got working.

Even that multi-airframe system is moving over in favour of something new [and single] that is reliable and cheap to run.

The fact remains most police R44 operators in the US tend to be buzzing around the block - no great area and no great stress.

[t'aint natural]

Slightly off topic, but many posters on this thread have questioned the use of police helicopters to catch speeding motorists.
My neighbour's daughter was killed by a speeding motorist, so perhaps I'm biased.
But speeding motorists kill more law-abiding citizens than all the muggers, rapists and dope peddlers in christendom - about ten a day on average in Britain.
If you want to know who the real killers are, you don't have to look far.
There can be no better use of police resources than nailing these bastards.

[MightyGem]

It also comes down to different ways of operating. Police helicopters in the UK generally only fly when called for by patrols on the ground. Each force(apart from a couple) only has a single aircraft which flies around 1000-1300 hours a year.

Compare that to the US, where forces have numerous aircraft and fly routine patrols. For example: New York City Police Department has six choppers and flies an average of 300 hours a month. The Houston Police Department has eight aircraft and flies an average of 450 hours a month. The Los Angeles Police Department flies 18 aircraft, racks up 1,800 flight hours a month.

[ShyTorque]

Headsethair,

Speaking as a pilot with some experience of the situation, the answer to your question about firefighting helicopters against tall buildings is quite straightforward.

IT DOESN'T WORK.

The water runs off the building and doesn't reach the seat of the fire.

Water let loose from heli goes down. Water needed to put fire out should go horizontal. Simple as that.

[Watchoutbelow]

Come on ShyTorque,
Have you never seen "The Towering Inferno" It worked in that.:O

[ShyTorque]

No, I've not seen it.

However, have seen a few real ones and tried to put out more than one urban fire by water bombing because nothing else was available.

I wouldn't ever again live above the height of fire ladders and BTW these days I like to make sure I check out the fire escape routes at hotels I am sometimes obliged to stay in ASAP after check-in, always prefer a ground floor room. :ooh:

I once watched one trapped soul burn to death right before my eyes, he was the other side of a steel barred window at the time, with the fires of hell burning behind him. Absolutely no chance of rescue with firemen powerless to do anything for him or the dozens also trapped above him. (Not 9/11 BTW, it was well before that one). That image will remain with me forever . :ugh:

Sorry for this rather sombre post! :\

[headsethair]

My earlier figure of £1200 per hr is a direct quote from the 3-counties PAS helicopter that operates from Filton, Bristol. And yes - it includes 3 crew - and is the amount they bill out to other services for use of the machine.

[PANews]

Again slipping off topic, fire fighting.

There are [a very few] equipment options whereby fires can be fought using a water jet from the hover at the side of a building. the Neherlands police trialled [used?] it from an AS350 and I think it was the Far East [Japan?] that demonstrated an As330 with something similar. Hovering at the side of a towering inferno cannot be much fun though.

There are other uses for Fire helicopters though and they include, equipment transfer, personnel tranfer [firemen in and everyone out] as NYPD might have tried with 9/11 but for the roof doors being sealed.

On that figure of £1,200 per hour, no contest, but those tend to be arbitary figures. I have a quoted cost of £859K for the complete unit in 2001-02 and that includes the pilot but not the policemen. I believe they fly around 1,000 hours annually.

Any guesses on what the cops would add to that bill at around £30K each on average? That must be near your figure.

[Thomas coupling]

Headsethair: Your interpretations re the financing of police ops is woefully incorrect.

How much does a new R22 cost? £150,000 (guess) and that is in basic format, no police equipment of any discription fitted. By the time the engineers have finished with it, you'd be looking at >£250,000:ooh:

The police have never ever paid full factory prices for bulk cars. I would suggest that a brand new R Rover would cost the force about £20000 for example, then FULLY loaded for police ops would total around about £50,000, I am reliably informed by my traffic inspector here. Hmmm, 50 Vs 250????? Not even close.

DOC's for helos are very subjective. Where do you start, do you include everything such as crew salaries and running costs, base running costs in support of the helos, insurance costs, etc.
Or do you only quote the basic dry operating cost of a basic airframe?
The OFFICIAL DOC for an EC135, as per the manufacturers literature is: $185/hr (dollars, not sterling). Add to that the fudge factor for every manufacturer who is trying to sell their stuff, : $400/hr say.
The £1200/hr quote you used from one of my neighbours, caters for every conceivable extra possible, including salaries/admin/insurance/fuel/maintenance etc etc. Accountants can quote whatever you want :oh:

Mighty Gem touched on a good point. The Yanks have a different perspective on police air ops....which is just as well.

The thought of dozens of R22's flying over the skies of the UK in black livery with black windows (because the pilots don't want to be seen in an R22 :8 ), sends shivers down my spine...why do you think all yank police pilots wear black glasses :ouch:

Everyone would have to go round with insect repellant
:sad:

[CaptainEagle]

In relation to little old Ireland. Our helicopters (all of them, police, etc.) are unfortunately crewed by the Air Corps, so if we had 8 44's we would have a ready supply of pilots dying to fly them since they spend most of their pilot officer careers in the officers mess playing flight sim - that's how little time they get to fly.

In the UK I understand that the R44 may not be suitable, but policing in Ireland is different to the UK. Most of our sky police stuff involves patrol and surveillance, it is rare that we have to drop armed officers into a hot zone. I just think for the tasks that our machines carry out now, the same work could be done by an R44. Maybe in the future we'll require heavy's to do the job, or maybe we need 1 heavy to supplement smaller machines like the 44, but I really don't think Ireland is getting good value for money at the moment. The helicopters spend most of their time patrolling the streets or concerts or expensive neighborhoods. There aren't many car chases to speak of in Ireland (the place is after all, tiny).

I'm not a police man though and I don't fly a police helicopter so my knowledge is limited to what I've said. Thanks for your insight though TC.

[Thomas coupling]

I'd have to disagree with you Capt Eagle. The Garda, amongst other things cover Dublin, with a population bigger than some UK force areas. You're not telling me that 46 miles of water makes the Irish any less susceptible to criminal activity of the sort we get here on the mainland.
I know the unit quite well and can assure you that they are just as 'busy' as the rest of us. In addition, they have miles of black stuff (and I don't mean Guinness!) to fly over and I believe loading an R44 with a SPIFR suite would only further exacerbate the situation??

The mil pilot aspect is an ongoing issue politically which will have to be resolved at some stage because of the problems with flight and crew rules (IAA / Mil).

[STANDTO]

When Lancs were making their original bid for their 355, they worked out that in real terms, running the helo post purchase woudl be no dearer than keeping a double crewed traffic car on the road 24 hrs a day 365 per year.

I have never had the time to actually carry out the exercise, but think research should be done into low cost air support. There will always have to be a main helo (135, 902 et al) but I think there is a case for the additional use of the likes of the R22 and maybe even auto gyro's?

The biggest difficulty is funding. Every request for a sortie has to be carefully assessed by the pilot and observers, and a cost/benefit analysis carried out on the hoof. Money only goes so far and thus prevents the aircraft patrolling as such. However, I believe the Met do fly, or used to fly, some sort of patrol.

headsethair

The London Fire service did trial a BK 117 back around 1995. It had little thunderbird pods to put in the back

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/misc/pics1/lfb-heli1.jpg

I personally beieve that joint services machines are worth a look. Going up to the size of a 365 offers huge possibilities from SAR to medevac to customs to police.

[Thomas coupling]

I hope you're not a police observer with views like that. On the one hand you moan about costing each launch 'on the hoof' (which is not strictly true - that's already been factored in, pilots and policemen just get on with the job), then in your next sentence you exhort the virtues of purchasing an additional a/c??

As for auto gyro's -you're winding me up now:(

I just noticed, the IOM doesn't have an air support does it? Hence the lack of background knowledge. Didn't your force lease/borrow a civvy chopper/plane to do some police aeriel work recently?? (Skyforce or somebody)?

[Heliport]

Remember Hampshire's Optica?

http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Daedalus/optica-400-02.JPG

[CaptainEagle]

Knowing a few prominent civil servants over here with responsibility for the ASU of the Gardai, I disagree with you. Our police are busy, that is true, crimes rates are climbing sky high but it can not be said that Ireland is anyway as diverse a country as the UK. The majority of criminal offences here do not require air support at all, we have had only one armed stand off in the last 3 years (now the subject of a massive inquiry because the armed special gardai shot him in the head) and really could make do with a lighter and cheaper helicopter, especially if we could have more helicopters (up to 6 being realistic with the budget) which would help cover the rest of the country. The 2 current machines are supposed to give countrywide support but really the only time they leave dublin is for the airshow in Galway every year and maybe for a drugs bust, I think that's happened once.

[PANews]

The Isle of Man has no air support but they have a fair background of using helicopters - mainly to support EMS requirements relating to the TT racing.

The Optica [it was pretty crap really] jigs are still unused and lying at North Weald after yet another potential manufacturer baulked at the task. Its inability to carry a sensor turret effectively halts any ideas of it serving as a modern police aircraft, but there is an Australian pretender to the crown [similar all round but with hard-points] just entering the market.

TC you have to be a little careful in your enthusiasm for your helicopter - you will have EVERYONE in them and giving up their plank wings or lesser rotaries! Mixed fleet economics aside there remains a place for planks [that nominally could be flown 'STOL' by a gyro] - and 'other' makes of helicopter! Remember the UK air industry used to have choice as well!

[Thomas coupling]

PAN news - I only comment on the industry I am in. A police force with ONLY plank wing, is either short of money, or has a chief constable who is anti air support - full stop. I can only think of 2 forces in this dept!!!
There IS a place for plank ops but it is very limited, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. The helo is superior in EVERY department (don't drag endurance into it - very few jobs require the average force to remain airborne for hours on end). Helo AND FW is the ideal - but then we're back to costs.

Capt Eagle - May I suggest a visit to ANY (preferably the Gardai) police air support unit - it's amazing what you'll learn there. Then we'll talk;)

[STANDTO]

Thomas

views like what, exactly m8?

You surmise that I have worked here all my career. My previous employer was an ASU operator and I spent a good deal of time either working with them or underneath them. Indeed, had I not decided to become a tax exile I would probably ended up on the ASU in question in due course.

Please don't make comments regarding any lack of background knowledge without knowing a little bit about me.

An ASU XO is only given a fixed amount of cash each year, within which he or she has to operate, Constabularies in the UK have been expected to make a two per cent year on year saving for some time now, and it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to understand that once the money has gone, going to see the Chief to ask for more is a fairly fruitless exercise. A number of hours will be projected for each year, but there aint much point in using them up before june and the thing being sat on the pad until the following april. Therefore, each job is assessed on its merits. Believe me, the decision to deploy or not doesn't always suit the customer either............

I certainly wasn't moaning about anything. The budgetary issues are very real.

What I do (as a police officer) is take a pragmatic approach to any problem. Until someone actually looks at low cost solutions ( including gyro's) who is to say that it isn't an option. there are going to be operation restrictions, but it may be that the benefits outweigh them. I don't know, as nobody else does, because no-one has sat down and asked the questions.

Don't forget, gyros have already been used for police work in a particularly high profile missing persons case.

On the final point, TC, we didnt and haven't leased or borrowed a chopper at all. I have previously looked for advice on this thread (police commandeering civilain helos) as to the constraints of the AOC on such activities.

We could not justify a police only machine of the 135/902 genre, hence my interest in low cost and multi agency solutions.

Thanks for your comments Thos, but I think you missed my point by a country mile

[t'aint natural]

Anybody know what equipment Frank's turnkey law enforcement R44 carries?

[Thomas coupling]

Standto: If the annual flying budget is worked properly there would not be the need for overbudget situations. On occasions where the operations dept (aka air support) is extended to provide cover for a national or in depth incident, then either another department pays for the privilige or the C.C coughs up and bites the bullet! That is the case in this force, and (in discussion) with other forces.

You do your service a great injustice if you genuinly believe they have done little or no research on a/c types in the past. Huge amounts of time and energy have been expended nation wide by government offices (H.O. / PITO / PSDB) let alone by individual forces regarding the equipping of an air support unit. Do you think one of them decided one day to buy a twin, and then e-mailed everyone else to do the same.
You guys (the police) are known for re-inventing the wheel! Everytime one force does one thing, their neighbour ignores everything they've come up with and does thier own research. Funny then how 43 out of the 52 forces have light twin helos, eh??

You may have worked with or under an ASU but the bottom line is: you have never been a police observer , so you cannot fully understand how they function, or you certainly wouldn't be mentioning gyro's for police work:\

UK police air support is alive and kicking in its present form thanks to a very rapid (by US standards) transition through a 'live and learn' culture by switched on successive UEO's. Don't begrudge them all their efforts, please.

[imabell]

in the usa you have states made up of counties made up of cities.

some city police have their own machines, usually light, then each county has a sheriff's department and they have some too, usually light and medium, then there are the state coppers, i'm sure they would have one or two of each.

then there are the federal marshalls and the fbi and the national guard. the mind boggles.

then there is the private medevac companies, hundreds of them. there are more helicopters over there than you can poke a stick at.

helicopters fill the air and each one has its own role to play.

[Mars]

Thomas Coupling:

A number of us who fully support your views are watching this thread. As you are advocating in an exemplary fashion we feel no need to launch into print.

Mars

[headsethair]

It's a 3-position machine with the space under the left front and right rear seats reserved for electronics. It can be specced with a FLIR-type mount for video and/or infra red, a searchlight with cockpit controls, police and air radios, microwave downlink, a loud hailer and other toys. The observer works front left, so the stick is modified to lose the t-bar and a grip is put on the centre stick. TOGW is 2500 lbs - the weight of machine plus fuel comes in at about 1700.
When I say "FLIR-type", I should explain that they used FLIR at first, but found that gyros were going every 12 months - so they've made their own mount which has now down more than 12 months without failure.
Not yet certified for UK - but forthcoming certification of the 44 ENG should assist. Believe it is flying in some parts of Europe.
More at www.robinsonheli.com./R44Police.htm.

[STANDTO]

blimey TC, Hope you aren't as abrasive to work with in the cockpit!:D

Of course things were looked at in great detail when the original ASU's were set up. Each county had its own research to do with regards to their geography and demography, but I would say that air support is one of the few areas in policing where the wheel hasn't been reinvented 43 times - you only have to look at the narrow choice of aircraft types that exist - not much beyond the 135 and 902, is there, save for a few still clattering round in 355's and of course Dyfed. The situation wasn't a million miles from the " hey, lets all buy twins" scenario you describe. Singles have been tried at points in time ( Lancs had a 47 for a while, Strathclyde a 206, amongst others) but they were found wanting and so things evolved into highly capable, superbly equipped, twin engined machines.

What the Police hasn't historically been good at (and I concede it isn't the only thing!) is moving dynamically with the times. We now have a "model" for police aviation, bolstered by the PAOM and because of that you will see very little innovation and willingness to revisit things to see if, at this moment or that moment in time, our needs have changed. This has been particularly the case in the police use of firearms, where only very gradual evolution was taking place until a rewrite of the guidance manual and study of less lethal options (which had been around for decades) has led to a major rething in the ways operations are conducted.

I haven't - at any time or elsewhere - decried the efforts of ASU's in this thread and you were a little offside in suggesting that I had.

My point is - can you imagine where military aviation would be now if the willingness to revisit and expand concepts had not been prevalant. The likes of the AH64 and Mil 24 would never have been invented. In fixed wing terms, who would ever have thought that we would be taking out cars in deserts with missiles dropped from Predators? The latter example probably better demonstrates the low cost option.

Digital mapping is now coming to the forefront. The IOM police has access to aerial hi res pictures of the whole island, and I understand that a number of UK forces also utilise this. Another low cost option, negating the need for a photographic sortie. However, such a sortie could quite comfortably be carried out by a light single, or - to push my point - even a microlight. This would actually be quite a bit more covert, as there isn't a great deal of other people who hover around in twin engine helo's, where there is a lot who burn around the skies in robbos and gossamer winged lawnmowers.

Indeed, have a look at what Steadicopter is doing

http://www.steadicopter.com/ (http://)

The game is up TC. Don't forget the job is run by beancounters and a spotty, playstation generation probationer can now replace a multimillion pound ASU with a laptop and a toy helo. The new turbine ones even make the right noise! That puts an extra ten bobbies back on foot patrol, the hangar can be sold for low cost housing cos the 'ASU' is now in the back of a transit van, and the pilots can be released back into the staff- strapped aviation market! Someone could get promoted on the back of this idea.

Before you go off on one again Thos, please read all of this with tongue firmly in cheek :D :D

Bottom line - ASU's do a great job, but we must constantly look at what is going on. If I was a ground commander at a riot and had the option of launching an expendable model helo at tuppence an hour, or an EC 135 at a cost per hour far in excess, I know which I would choose. The final aviation solution for the policing of the British Isles has not yet been arrived at.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Altough I am but a mere civilian in this thread, the area where I live contains the one of the largest areas in the Uk covered by the local Contstabulary, they have as most of us know(who live here) a severe lack of feet on the ground or even spare vehicles just to patrol the area, to give you some idea of scale the distance between the two farthest points is something like 45miles, to actually drive this route can take around about 1 hour plus, ok put your blues and twos on and this may come down to about 50 mins, but this point to point can be covered even in the humble twitchy R22 in something like12 minutes, I once in my eager early flying life wrote to our Chief Constable( a lady) to expound this theory, I think my letter must have got lost in the post.
But to me, it would seem a resonably good idea to have something light cheap and easy to use, and leave the bigger Limo's to do the really combative work!! :ok:

[STANDTO]

Not that you would ever get me in a Robbo, that police spec Raven looks really good. How many of those could you have for the cost of a 902? Marvellous

And no, I have'nt forgotten about the twins over cities argument. However, haw many single engine law enforcement helos have crashed in US cities in the last 10 yrs.

The 1990 Strathclyde incident had an element of engine failure, but wasn't there other issues directly leading to that?

Careful VFR, you are talking sense. We don't do common sense in the Plods!

[PANews]

UK police air support is alive and kicking in its present form thanks to a very rapid (by US standards) transition through a 'live and learn' culture by switched on successive UEO's. Don't begrudge them all their efforts, please.


TC I can quote you many instances [some on paper]where a range of UEOs have been berated by other officers in other police units for 'choosing the wrong type of aircraft' - and I have been berated for thinking aloud too.... So I would guess that anyone might be allowed an opinion on Rotorheads!

I know that this is a UK Air Support thread, but plenty seem to whizz off with occasional mentions of the outside world when it suits them. Unless the IoM have a need to fly over the sea and particularly low, with their relatively small towns something single might suit them. I doubt the R44 because the trade off for the sensor would be too great, but a beefy single with good eyes would overcome the potential inability to fit PAOM easment criteria.

A fair number of US police singles have crashed into built up areas in recent years. Fatal for the crews but the effect on the ground has been less obvious because of the large areas of wide roadway and medians that US territory offers. They have really been lucky not to collect 'collateral voter' damage.

Most recent I can recall was the loss of the Californian crash in which the first operational example of the new searchlight was lost ... San Jose lost their MD520N .... LAPD have lost at least one off their rooftop... Baltimore of course sent a S300 whanging across the road.... that got them closed down until they recently modernised. In many ways it was the Strathclyde Bell 206 losing its engine [snow injestion] in January 1990 that led to the current PAOM three years later ..... straws and camels .....

[PPRuNe Radar]

Not exactly on topic but ... whilst researching some non aviation related information I came across this.

[SERGEANT HARRY LAWRIE BEM
Central Scotland Police

Harry Lawrie was killed on 1 February 1987 while assisting in a search and rescue operation on Ben More, when the helicopter he was aboard was hit by a sudden squall while trying to manoeuvre onto a ledge, and crashed into the mountainside.

It's not an accident I recall and was wondering if anyone can remember any more about it.

TIA.

[STANDTO]

wonder if he was in a mil m/c, and part of a mountain rescue team?

PA NEWS..

If we are giong rotary in the dear ol' IOM, then I'm going to be greedy. Here goes:

A nice new N3 365, primarily equipped for medevac, so we don't have to charter for IOM to UK hospital transfers. Can also configure for normal Pax operations for less serious transfers.

Winch equipped for SAR ops, to support our six RNLI stations and relieve pressure on Valley and Irish ASR operations.

Police role capable in order to service the police requirement, but in addition able to carry out fisheries protection work, and Customs and Excise coastal patrols.

Painted bright red with a big 3 legs emblem on the fenestron :ok:

Pride of the British Isles.:cool:

Oh yes, and an autogyro for messing about in on slack days:)

[StevieTerrier]

Electronics under the seats in the R44 - what sort of electronics? Does the R44 have the same seat design as the R22 i.e. crumpling on impact to absorb energy? I was always told not to put anything hard under the seat, as it would end up in a very unfortunate place in the event of a hard landing.

[headsethair]

Never seen a 44 with floats then ? Nice big gas bottle under front left seat. It takes years for surgeons to remove these from.......no I'll stop there.

[PANews]

At the risk of boring you all this is the full story of Sergeant Lawrie... twenty years ago .... and yes it was a military accident.

...... in Scotland, police aviation was still struggling to gain headway against financial restraint..... there was .... extensive co-operation between the military and the police, especially in the field of mountain rescue.

The regular point of contact was between the crews of the helicopters assigned to Air/Sea Rescue and the volunteers attached to the civil mountain rescue teams [MRT]. The military maintained its own air and ground rescue teams to serve what was originally intended to be a military personnel rescue formation. It was the fortune of hundreds of civilian walkers, climbers and civilian sailors that their rescue was excellent training for the prime military role of rescuing downed pilots.

One of the numerous civil rescue teams operating the often dangerous ground task on a voluntary basis was the Killin MRT. Financed by local subscription, donation and local government subsidies, the unit was administered, trained and equipped by the Central Scotland Police. Membership comprised a mixture of local people and police, each of whom underwent training to augment an interest in mountaineering. Part of the training included helicopter familiarisation at RAF Leuchars.

Early in 1987 the leader of the Killin MRT was Sergeant Henry J G Lawrie. This 47 year old officer had 26 years service in the police, of which almost half of which had been as a sergeant in the Killin and Callander areas and closely connected to the MRT. He was awarded the British Empire Medal [BEM] in the Queen’s New Years Honours list in 1987.

At 1547hrs on Sunday February 1, 1987 a “999” emergency call was received at the police control room in Stirling. The caller, Werner Kittel, reported that his walking companion, a 27 year old Edinburgh film maker Sarah Noble, had been seriously injured on the north side of Ben More, Crianlarich, over an hour earlier. It was cold and snow lay on the ground.

A message was sent to Sergeant Rose, an officer then engaged with enquiries into an earlier fatal accident, who telephoned the various members of the MRT and arranged for them to meet him at Benmore Farm near the scene. Almost an hour later the 34 years old language instructor Kittel arrived at the farm in an understandably distressed state. Although he thought that the injured climber was still alive when he left her, he believed that she was quite likely to die of her injuries soon if not rescued. Shortly afterwards Sergeant Lawrie requested helicopter assistance, as members of the MRT met up with another climber who, whilst climbing down Ben More, had found a woman’s body and was on his way to alert the emergency services. She was undoubtedly dead but, with the pressure off, the team had a more precise location for her.

Appraised of the new situation, the Rescue Co-ordination Centre, Pitreavie, Fife, allowed the helicopter to continue to Benmore Farm as it had already left its base and was due to arrive at 1735hrs. The helicopter despatched was an 22 Squadron RAF, “B” Flight detachment, Westland Wessex HC2, XT674, piloted by Flight Lieutenant Hugh Pierce with Flying Officer Christopher Palgrave as his navigator and Michael Anderson as Winchman. Wing Commander Rodgers, commanding officer of 22 Squadron, was an additional passenger.

It was dark by the time the helicopter arrived at the farm. The aircrew decided to take members of the Killin MRT to assist them both in locating the body and to enable them to be dropped in the vicinity of the location. As they were both suitably dressed for the flight, Sergeant Lawrie took Constable Joseph Ramsey with him in the Wessex. Leaving Wing Commander Rodgers at the farm, they took off at 1745hrs and commenced an air search of the north face of the hillside with the aid of powerful searchlights attached to the undercarriage. The remaining members of the ground team set off to start their own search of the lower slopes.

After checking their bearing with the observers remaining at the farm after ten minutes it was found that the Wessex, visible by virtue of its searchlights, was searching the wrong area. The helicopter moved westwards only to find that the wind and down-draught at the new location were unfavourable. On safety grounds it was decided to abandon the air search and drop off the Killin MRT pair wherever they chose. Sergeant Lawrie asked to be dropped off near to the ground team.

In seeking a suitable landing the pilot, Hugh Pierce, descended from a high hover with the fuselage of the Wessex parallel to the hillside with the starboard door, locked in the open position, facing onto Ben More. Flying virtually blind, he was acting primarily on the commentary given by the winchman, Michael Anderson.

One of the greatest dangers in such manoeuvres in close proximity to steeply sloping ground in the dark was that of the main rotor blades striking the ground. At about 1800hrs this is exactly what happened to the Wessex. The first the occupants inside the Wessex knew of the impact was the loud bang, immediately followed by being physically flung off their feet by an unseen force. For the two policemen it was worse. Most of the crew were still restrained, but the pair had unstrapped themselves from their seats in preparation for their deplaning. Ramsey was flung to the rear of the Wessex as the stricken aircraft bounced and slid down the slope on its starboard side, tail first. Fire broke out. The members of the approaching Killin MRT found themselves in the path of the big helicopter and were obliged to scatter in all directions as it careered towards them in a ball of flame.

Ramsey fell free of the fuselage via a hole created by the tail breaking away, only to find himself following the wreck down the slope, overtaking, then colliding with it and finally passing it when it stopped. He was found to have broken his right femur and some ribs. Pierce was still strapped into his pilots seat and able to operate the built in fire damping system as well as tackle the blaze with a hand extinguisher on his own. Chris Palgrave, the navigator, was sitting on the chill grass but framed by the open starboard doorway and enclosed by the fuselage. He made his way towards the gaping hole at the rear of the aircraft and found Anderson who lay in a heap near the rear of the damaged cabin with a serious knee injury. As one member of the Killin team fought the fire others extricated Anderson through the hole.

Sergeant Lawrie could not be found in close proximity to the burning Wessex, however a trail of blood was found in the snow as the injured were removed from the immediate vicinity of the blaze. The sergeant was found further down the hill, lying on his back and displaying severe injuries. He was obviously dead.

A “Mayday” had been immediately called up by the MRT on site, a call acted upon by the watchers at the farm. Once alerted to the new situation, and RAF MRT, in the area by chance, set off towards the glow they could see on the horizon. These teams were the first outside help to arrive and move the injured to a suitable helicopter landing location. The civilian aid mission had turned upon itself and was now a military personnel rescue.

A Sea King helicopter was despatched from RAF Lossiemouth, almost 140 miles away . It arrived at 2010hrs and took the injured to the Royal Infirmary, Stirling, 30 miles away. The body of Sergeant Lawrie was taken to the mortuary at the same hospital, his wife, Jane, had been among the horrified watchers at the farm and knew that he was inside the Wessex. Lawrie’s death occurred before the formal presentation of the BEM could be made. The object of the exercise, the search for Sarah Noble, was called off for the night, to be finally recovered at 1030hrs the next day. It was 200 yards above and 400 yards east of the crash site. PS Lawrie’s eldest son, Gary, served on as a PC with the Central Scotland Police and was later a rescue co-ordinator with the police and civilian Lomond MRT.

Sorry about the length, its from an unpublished manuscript.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Appreciate that PANews. Cheers

[Buitenzorg]

Guess I have to dip my oar in here, give the view from the other side.

The police R44 I presently fly is very well suited for its task - OBSERVATION. Patrol, surveillance, call response. It is not meant to do anything else, and we don't. But as I'm sure TC will confirm, 90% or so of police aviation work falls in the above category. So we have a helicopter with the capability to do 90% of the tasks, at 20% of the price, of a modern UK police helo. Good deal, methinks.

Now for the historical argument: in the US, where police aviation got started rather earlier than in Europe, the only helicopters available in the beginning were single-engine - mostly Bell 47s. They served very well for years, and the net result was not an aluminum rain on US cities - not even at night. As police forces identified the need for additional capabilities, they traded up to larger, more capable airframes best suited to their identified needs, a process that is continuously ongoing.

Now, in the UK, before police aviation got started properly, the CAA in its wisdom ;) had decreed that single-engine helicopters were Unsafe, multi-engine helicopters were Safe, so the only way a police department was going to fly a helicopter over a city, at night, was if it was multi-engined. Any police officer, heck, any astute reader of newspapers can tell you that most criminal activity takes place in cities, during the hours of darkness, so a police helicopter to be useful at all, will have to be able to operate over cities at night. Therefore, ASUs had to start with multis, mostly AS355Fs.

Now you have a very capable, not to mention expensive, 6-seat machine, and all you're going to do is have two people look out the window? Of course, intelligent minds at the ASUs began investigating and utilizing the untapped capabilities of these machines. It's a lot cheaper to buy a hoist and train the appropriate personnel than it is to buy a hoist-capable helicopter, buy a hoist and train the appropriate personnel. Six seats is enough to transport the Bomb Squad and their toys, so let's do that, etc. Before you know it the ASU has all sorts of duties that just cannot be performed by a smaller single, regardless of what the regulations say.

We don't do any of that. The local police department has been running without for decades, and will continue to run without. What we do is provide a quick-reaction capability equivalent to 5 or more squad cars, and it's had an appreciable effect on crime rates. Of course we get queries all the time; the last one was about the local SWAT team rapelling from the helicopter. The way we handled that was to ask some questions and get them to admit it was just a macho show-off stunt, and then point out the limitations of the machine. If and when the budget and needs of the department coincide to put me in an SPIFR twin, I'll be very happy to fly it; but at the moment, an R44 is all we can afford, and it's excellent value for money.

As to the rest of Europe: with the JAA you now have a bureaucracy made up of, what, 15 bureaucracies? Machiavelli must be groaning in his grave, "Why didn't I think of that?" Have any of you ever seen a bureaucracy willingly give up a regulation or admit "Well maybe we DID go a little bit overboard here?" For your eludication, do a search on this forum for both the words "Kenyon" and "CAA" and carefully read the result. The final JARs will be a combination of the most restrictive rules anywhere in Europe on any given operation. So forget about single-engine police helicopters.

As to equipment: we have a combined FLIR/video camera in a gyro-stabilized nose mount; an SX-5 searchlight, slavable to the camera; a PA/siren system; and police and marine radios. No microwave downlink 'cause we don't have a ground station.

Oh, and on the reliability side: I'll bet an R44's engine against a Twinstar's electrical system any day - especially in the rain. :ok:

[STANDTO]

Buitzenorg

Now THAT'S what I call putting things in perspective!!!!!

STANDTO;)

[old heliman]

Buitenzorg

Sorry to correct you but JAR Ops does not cover police operations. In most of Europe they tend to be quasi military ( or State aircraft) and in UK they are regulated by the CAA. Incidentally there is nothing in the PAOM to stop a police force using a single, they themselves choose not to because (I guess) of the limited benefit they themselves perceive from them.

Police over here don't use winches or carry out SAR either.

Sorry

[Helinut]

A slight correction or comment on oh's correction,

He is right that JAR OPS does not apply BUT the powers that be (i.e. the CAA in the UK) generally apply the same standards across onto police operations with a short time lag.

So for example,

Police Ops over a congested area require a twin;
Police Ops at night require a twin (cos police observers are considered as pax, pax means "public transport" and pt means twins at night)

If you want to do UK police ops day only and over open non-hostile terrain, you could still use a single in the UK........... but there ain't much point because most police work involves people where they live.

I think that Buitenzorg's comments are a great summary of the difference between USA and the offshore bit of Europe, and why we got to where we are.

[old heliman]

Helinut,

I think we are both saying much the same thing. In the UK police ops are public transport and based on the ANO. The reason for this is that the then Home Secretary (remember Cecil P?) said that police were to follow the same rules as PT unless it was operationally essential that they didn't. Hence easements on low flying rules etc. JAR Ops is largely similar to ANO and I would guess that sooner or later the PAOM will fall into line by and large with those rules.

[MightyGem]

STANDTO, yes most of the UK is covered by aerial photos. We use a collection of CD entitled Citiviewer for Merseyside, and very good it is to. For helping us ID the house that we need to take photo's of!

What it doesn't show are things like: what side are front/rear door hinges, what's around the side not seen on the CD, are there a couple of steps on the path or a low slung washing line. Stereo shots will even allow you to work out the height of fences and garden walls. All useful stuff for a rapid entry, but you need to get down and dirty to take them.

Again a seperate "recce bird" leads to more expense: sat around doing nothing, keeping crews current etc. People around here are used to our aircraft, so it doesn't arouse that much attention when taking photo's. People would soon learn that we had a "special" one for taking photo's.

[STANDTO]

Mightygem

Have they managed to offload G-BOOV yet. £375k seemed a bit steep.

And does anyone know if Lancs old 355 has gone yet. You would think that someone would donate one to us!

The other problem with GIS mapping is that people keep building extensions and digging ponds. This is particularly embarrasing with our low levels of ambient lighting over here, when you go over a fence and jump in the Koi pool.

You might need a spare m/c over there in Merseyside anyway. Imagine if the enemy had RPG's during Garston! Scary world we live in. R44 much more expendable. In fact, would probably go straight thru it!

Must lie down now - lunchtime drinking you see!

[Thomas coupling]

Buitenzorg(!): I'd say observation accounts for 10% of our work.
Mostly:
stolen vehicles / failing to stop / robberies / missing persons / all serious land/sea and air crashes / transporting specialists to anywhere in the 10,000 sq mile force area / aerial photography / public order / HEMS / convoy security / searches, etc etc.

Most of this requires us to stay airborne for some considerable time with more than one police officer on board.

Standto: as has been stated, single helos are dead in the water, now and forever...the CAA / JAA (EASA) will see to that:(
So your argument is purely theoretical from the outset.


You can please some of the people some of the time:bored:

[ShyTorque]

Just one more point...

I believe that the first UK police op using a rotary winged a/c was in 1931, which pre-dates the B-47 quite a bit.

[MightyGem]

BOOV wasn't ours to sell, it was leased. We have seen it flying since, and also seen it advertised as the star of a show, "Sit inside a REAL Police Helicopter". :rolleyes:

[Fortyodd]

STANDTO, G-LCON is still for sale. Pop over and have a look if you are interested, we're open 24 hours.

[PANews]

BOOV ........ seen it advertised as the star of a show, "Sit inside a REAL Police Helicopter".


I will 'plead' to that. Wearing another hat, and it worked very well... unfortunately though Cabair failed to send it on day two of the weekend and the queue had nothing to ride on! Expectations not realised.

Its a bit like police open days the public love to play with all the 'tits n bells' in the cars and this transposes to such as clearly identifyable police helicopters. And all the advertising shots used were the real thing from my flights in her a decade ago [no one sussed out the lack of hemets!].


The comment on the 'first' rotary .... it was June 1932 at the Epsom Derby and the craft was a Cierva Autogiro.

The World first police use of a helicopter was Norfolk [they who have yet to get to 24/7 operations] using a Westland owned Sikorsky S51 flown by [the] Alan Bristow .... June 1947...

[Buitenzorg]

TC,

You state:

"I'd say observation accounts for 10% of our work.
Mostly:
stolen vehicles / failing to stop / robberies / missing persons / all serious land/sea and air crashes / transporting specialists to anywhere in the 10,000 sq mile force area / aerial photography / public order / HEMS / convoy security / searches, etc etc.

Most of this requires us to stay airborne for some considerable time with more than one police officer on board."


Actually, if you look through your list you'll find that the ASU's function in most of your items IS observation. Maybe your ASU has a specific task named "observation", but I was using it in a more general sense. Let's go over your tasks and the ASU's role in them one by one:

stolen vehicles: you go look for them, right? So do we. That's observation. Unless you sling them out as well? ;) A Lo-jack system can be fitted to the R44 and is, in the LA area, but here nobody has them in their cars, so we don't have one either.

failing to stop: I presume you'd pursue the offenders, transmit your observations to ground units, and have them make any arrests. So do we. Observation again.

robberies: response to calls I was talking about. Observe what's going on, transmit observations to ground units, they make the arrests.

missing persons: we go look for them, eyeball, searchlight and/or FLIR. Observation again.

all serious land/sea and air crashes: I'm guessing these would involve a lot of transporting victims, crews, equipment, etc., and there the police R44 would be almost useless. However, we did find a ship sinking with over 30 people on it, who were saved by other ships once we told them where to go.

aerial photography: we do so too, limited of course to fairly small hand-held cameras or the built-in onboard equipment.

public order: had a prison riot here week and a half ago; we observed for the ground units who had to actually sort it out.

HEMS: R44 almost totally useless here, we don't do it.

convoy security: looking for possible dangers, observation again.

searches: looking for things, people... If that's not observation I don't know what is.


We do our operations with one officer besides the pilot; I agree it would be better if we had two, but it can be done with one, just not as comfortably or well. With our standard crew we have 3 hours endurance plus reserves, I expect similar to yours.

[Thomas coupling]

Thanks for that BZ. Interesting.

[John Eacott]

PA News posted:

"The World first police use of a helicopter was Norfolk [they who have yet to get to 24/7 operations] using a Westland owned Sikorsky S51 flown by [the] Alan Bristow .... June 1947..."

And the Army Bell 47's, operating from the Metropolitan Police Country Club in 1967, with my Old Man as Inspector in charge. No reason to mention it, except it's his birthday today ;) :D :D

PA News, do you still have those photos?