R44 main rotor contact with tail boom
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: California
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teetering heads are vulnerable but the Robinson seems to give no room for any error at all? I fly the JetRanger but mast bumping is a really really rare occurance.
In fact teetering heads was not considered a liability with the AH-1 Cobra... an aerobatic (almost) combat helicopter?
The following users liked this post:
The following 2 users liked this post by Torquetalk:
Preliminary Report already out
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/389856
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...ort/194501/pdf
On June 19, 2024, about 1620 Pacific daylight time, a Robinson Helicopters R-44 II, N323TT, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Bluestem, Washington. The pilot and the pilot-rated-passenger were fatally injured. The helicopter was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
According to the pilot’s wife, he was returning the helicopter to the Coeur d’Alene / Pappy Boyington Field (COE), Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and invited a friend, who was a certificated airplane pilot.
Recorded Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) showed that the helicopter departed Boeing Field / King County International Airport (BFI), Seattle, Washington at 1328. The helicopter arrived at Bowers Field Airport (ELN), Ellensburg, Washington, about 1437, where according to the airport manager, the pilot purchased 14 gallons of fuel, prior to departing at 1511. ADS-B data showed the helicopter flew to the northeast while at an altitude between 2,500 to 3,800 ft mean sea level (msl) and a groundspeed of about 100 knots. The last ADS-B data point showed the helicopter at about 3,050 ft msl, or about 740 ft above ground level (agl), with a groundspeed of 69 knots, about 50 ft southwest of the accident site.
Examination of the accident site revealed that the helicopter impacted open, hilly, terrain. The helicopter came to rest upright at the first point of impact, on a heading of about 086° magnetic at an elevation of 2,182 ft msl. The tail rotor assembly and about two ft of the tail cone was separated from the helicopter and were located about 340 ft southwest of the fuselage. Fragments of the helicopter were located within the debris path between the fuselage and the tail rotor assembly. A postaccident fire mostly consumed the fuselage. The remainder of the tail cone, engine and main rotor assembly remained but were also thermally damaged.
The wreckage was transported to a secure facility for further examination.
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/389856
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...ort/194501/pdf
On June 19, 2024, about 1620 Pacific daylight time, a Robinson Helicopters R-44 II, N323TT, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident near Bluestem, Washington. The pilot and the pilot-rated-passenger were fatally injured. The helicopter was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
According to the pilot’s wife, he was returning the helicopter to the Coeur d’Alene / Pappy Boyington Field (COE), Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and invited a friend, who was a certificated airplane pilot.
Recorded Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) showed that the helicopter departed Boeing Field / King County International Airport (BFI), Seattle, Washington at 1328. The helicopter arrived at Bowers Field Airport (ELN), Ellensburg, Washington, about 1437, where according to the airport manager, the pilot purchased 14 gallons of fuel, prior to departing at 1511. ADS-B data showed the helicopter flew to the northeast while at an altitude between 2,500 to 3,800 ft mean sea level (msl) and a groundspeed of about 100 knots. The last ADS-B data point showed the helicopter at about 3,050 ft msl, or about 740 ft above ground level (agl), with a groundspeed of 69 knots, about 50 ft southwest of the accident site.
Examination of the accident site revealed that the helicopter impacted open, hilly, terrain. The helicopter came to rest upright at the first point of impact, on a heading of about 086° magnetic at an elevation of 2,182 ft msl. The tail rotor assembly and about two ft of the tail cone was separated from the helicopter and were located about 340 ft southwest of the fuselage. Fragments of the helicopter were located within the debris path between the fuselage and the tail rotor assembly. A postaccident fire mostly consumed the fuselage. The remainder of the tail cone, engine and main rotor assembly remained but were also thermally damaged.
The wreckage was transported to a secure facility for further examination.
Join Date: Jun 2024
Location: São Paulo
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very experienced retired airline pilot now flying helicopters with a fixed wing pilot not rated in helicopters according to ALG. Isn’t there a safety notice by Robinson pointing out the risk of this? ALG writes their air speed fluctuates, plus or minus 40 knots with altitude changes going up and down up to 1300 feet. Not even close to private pilot standards.
Wishing their families the best during very difficult times. ALG doesn’t offer any condolences to the families other than let us make some money on this. I agree with Torquetalk . “Junk marketing by a law firm” disgusting...
Wishing their families the best during very difficult times. ALG doesn’t offer any condolences to the families other than let us make some money on this. I agree with Torquetalk . “Junk marketing by a law firm” disgusting...
Sad and Frustrating
As a commercially rated Helicopter Pilot I find this sad and frustrating, the new method of ambulance chasing by attorneys trying to capitalize on grieving family members who have lost loved ones in a tragic accident is just terrible in my opinion. There’s no way to know at this time what went wrong. This is how they fish for clients. If you look at the flight it had a very strange flight profile. For sure it doesn’t look like a normal cross-country flight by experienced helicopter pilots, more like some type of training flight by a new pilot on the controls. Look at the deceleration and acceleration of speed, with large altitude changes. Sadly, something went very wrong on the flight. Posting attorneys fishing for clients does nothing to help our industry. Their frivolous lawsuits in many cases only drives up our insurance, operational costs, and makes it even harder for those of us that work in the industry to earn a decent living doing what we love. Like I said way too early to determine what the cause of the accident was. Thoughts and prayers for the family members and the two pilots who lost their lives while doing something they loved. We all know there’s an inherent risk while flying any type of helicopters, and we should learn what could’ve been done differently to avoid being involved in one of these types of accidents. I for one will wait until the NTSB determines a probable cause.
The following 2 users liked this post by utahrotorhead:
Another example of a FW pilot being taught autos in a Robbo and getting the technique wrong perhaps?
The weather doesn't seem to have been a factor at all.
The weather doesn't seem to have been a factor at all.
Very bad smell. And then they come up with a statistic with numbers nobody has. Nobody knows the hours down to single digits for any helicopter type out there. That statistic is so wrong, it isn't even funny anymore. By their numbers, the R22 has less accidents per flight hour than the R44. That has never been true. And that is only the most obvious fault. What did they use to come up with that, a dice? But they can always say that everybody knows that lawyers are notoriously bad at math.
Very bad smell. And then they come up with a statistic with numbers nobody has. Nobody knows the hours down to single digits for any helicopter type out there. That statistic is so wrong, it isn't even funny anymore. By their numbers, the R22 has less accidents per flight hour than the R44. That has never been true. And that is only the most obvious fault. What did they use to come up with that, a dice? But they can always say that everybody knows that lawyers are notoriously bad at math.
Chart from a 2019 LA Times campaign against RHC:
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-...n-helicopters/
It was discussed at the time on PPRuNe here (beware, helmet related)
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-...n-helicopters/
It was discussed at the time on PPRuNe here (beware, helmet related)
Last edited by Petit-Lion; 1st Jul 2024 at 19:14. Reason: helmets!
I think anyone who is wary of Robinsons main rotor system has probably not been exposed to them enough. They are an excellent design as far as teetering heads go and they have been turned inside out more than most helicopters to prove it. As in any teetering aircraft, the way to handle negative G is NEVER do it. I think the design gets a bad wrap purely based on the target operators that come unstuck in them. Maybe it's time for Robinson to mount a composite star on top of the mast and add an extra blade to accommodate for the customers who are unable to keep themselves out of trouble. The very long list of 10 and 20'000 plus hour Robinson pilots I know suggests they are not the ones who need it.
The following users liked this post:
I think anyone who is wary of Robinsons main rotor system has probably not been exposed to them enough. They are an excellent design as far as teetering heads go and they have been turned inside out more than most helicopters to prove it. As in any teetering aircraft, the way to handle negative G is NEVER do it. I think the design gets a bad wrap purely based on the target operators that come unstuck in them. Maybe it's time for Robinson to mount a composite star on top of the mast and add an extra blade to accommodate for the customers who are unable to keep themselves out of trouble. The very long list of 10 and 20'000 plus hour Robinson pilots I know suggests they are not the ones who need it.
Excellent design?! The problem with the Robinson head design is the blade hinges in addition to the Main hinge at the top. In turbulence you can get movements around all these three bolts simultaneously. Low G is not always down to the pilot bunting the stick forward….
I might not have been exposed enough as you say to them, but I have enough hours in 22’s and 44’s to never wanitng to be in one for the rest of my life.
If this is such an excellent design, why do you have to throw the whole driveline away after 2200hrs??
In turbulence you can get movements around all these three bolts simultaneously
OK, we get it. You don't like Robinson, but your arguments get weaker by the post. Why you have to change a lot of parts at 2200 hours? Because Robinson thought, rather replace a lot of parts at the same time, than one part after the other every few hours. Makes sense from a business perspective. Fly the s... out of them and then fix everything at the same time. Why to change the parts at all? It is a helicopter. All helicopters are littered with flight hour and/or time limited parts, or RIN's or cycles. Ask Dick Smith, if he is so happy about his 109 after only 1200 hours. The main rotor retention straps on any 206? Way below the 2200 hours of a Robinson. And even time limited. You might have a hard time even to fly of the hours before time runs out. And that has not been fixed in almost 60 years. Bell didn't even fix it on the 505. And the list goes on and on of parts from most helicopters that are way below the 2200h of Robinsons. Probably only the Cabri beats them all.
The H500 has been loved by many throughout the industry, but it is the helicopter with the most technical related accidents. Why don't you pick on them? Well? Because it is cool? Looks good? Heros flew them?
Oh, and before you come up with the 12 year time limit for the Robinsons, Airbus has that too, for example.
The following users liked this post:
As for the blades to flop around independently is not a good design just because it was ment to do so. The original R-22 was basically made in Frank’s kitchen, and had his wife had a bigger oven, the tail rotor of the R-22 would be bigger. The design is based on keeping the weight and costs at a bare minimum, nothing else.
There is some quite graphic videos of these helicopters coming down in pieces and although some might be attributed to pilot error, these machines have a lot less margin for error. When they are flown by the general pool of pilots with low experience levels, the combination is not in your or Robbiee’s favour.
I used to enjoy both the 22 and 44 for their speed and ride comfort over the H300, but due to a large number of accidents over the years which have more or less open questions as to the cause of them, they don’t have my trust anymore, and that is why I don’t like them.
Now, how many other helicopter has it’s own SFAR…? and how did that come about for the Robinsons?
Have had the questionable experience to been caught in CAT in a Jetranger that almost put me upside down. I’m quite sure that I would not been able to discuss this issue with you if I had been in a Robinson at the time going by the cruise speed between the two was around 25kts in favour of the R44… meaning I wouldn’t have had the time to slow down as pr the POH, and would be entering the turbulence at a higher speed to begin with.
There is some quite graphic videos of these helicopters coming down in pieces and although some might be attributed to pilot error, these machines have a lot less margin for error. When they are flown by the general pool of pilots with low experience levels, the combination is not in your or Robbiee’s favour.
Now, how many other helicopter has it’s own SFAR…? and how did that come about for the Robinsons?
As for SFAR 73? That came about because the early pilots of the R22 were ex-military who tried to fly it like it was a Huey. If you drive your '79 Pinto like a Corvette, you're probably going to wreck it, plain and simple.
Some haven’t been fortunate enough to have time for that.
Have had the questionable experience to been caught in CAT in a Jetranger that almost put me upside down. I’m quite sure that I would not been able to discuss this issue with you if I had been in a Robinson at the time going by the cruise speed between the two was around 25kts in favour of the R44… meaning I wouldn’t have had the time to slow down as pr the POH, and would be entering the turbulence at a higher speed to begin with.
Have had the questionable experience to been caught in CAT in a Jetranger that almost put me upside down. I’m quite sure that I would not been able to discuss this issue with you if I had been in a Robinson at the time going by the cruise speed between the two was around 25kts in favour of the R44… meaning I wouldn’t have had the time to slow down as pr the POH, and would be entering the turbulence at a higher speed to begin with.
Anyway, there's always the guy who's almost crashed that declares, "Had I been in a Robby, I'd be dead",...and sure, maybe YOU would, but I've had my ass kicked around plenty in the R22 by wind and turbulence, without incident (or even low-g). Maybe its just luck, maybe its not, but I've flown too many Robby's to blame the aircraft's design at this point.
Sure, the R44 can go 130kts, but would you really want to drive a Pinto that fast?