500E Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 DCA/R44/31 Prohibition of Flight - C016-7 Main Rotor BladesApplicability All Robinson R44 series helicopters fitted with main rotor blades P/NC016-7.Requirement: To prevent the possibility of main rotor blade separation andconsequent loss of the helicopter, further flight is prohibited.Compliance : Before further flight.Note 1: Aircraft in remote locations may complete one further flight to thenearest appropriate facility, provided that they are subject to adetailed visual inspection of the blade skin in the region of theoutboard chord increase.Continuing Airworthiness Notice CAN 62-003 refers.Ensure blade is clean and inspect upper and lower surface payingattention to defects in paint which may signify cracking.Note 2: This Airworthiness Directive is issued as a result of initial advice fromthe investigators conducting the scene investigation into a fatal R44accident near Queenstown that occurred on 19 Feb 2015. Sceneexamination suggests that the aircraft may have experienced an in-flight main rotor blade failure similar to that reported in CAAContinuing Airworthiness Notice 62-003. The AD will remain in place Another sethttp://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...86475890,d.dGc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminal_velo Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomPPL Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Looking at the photos I'm amazed that blade didn't fall apart. Bet that was a hairy landing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawaiiCFII Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Wow, can't believe what I am seeing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikemv Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 CAA NZ has lifted the grounding notice and stated that this Safety Alert preflight procedure be followed. http://www.robinsonheli.com/service_library/safety_alerts/r44_c016-7_main_rotor_blade_crack_safety_alert.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Wow, can't believe what I am seeing. what is it you are seeing? 500E's link? it says "page cannot be found" for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500E Posted February 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Perhaps this why link is deadhttps://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/26417101/caa-lifts-flight-ban-on-robinson-r44-helicopters/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500E Posted February 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 holy COW ! at the picture of that blade! Do all robinson blades have a cord change like that one? what station of the blade does it change? You would think as smart as robinson and his company are, there is an obvious design flaw with changing the cord as abruptly as shown here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikemv Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 The crack was caused by the accident and not the cause of the accident. That is why CAA NZ removed the EAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bootcamp Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 The crack was caused by the accident and not the cause of the accident. That is why CAA NZ removed the EAD. Do you have an official source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikemv Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) This is where I got my info from. http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/30583 New Zealand’s Director of Civil Aviation, Graeme Harris, has withdrawn an emergency airworthiness directive (AD) that on Feb. 21 grounded all Robinson R44 series helicopters fitted with a C016-7 “Dash 7” main rotor blade (MRB). The directive was issued as a safety precaution following the fatal accident in the Lochy River basin near Queenstown on Thursday, Feb. 19. It resulted from initial advice from the safety investigators at the scene of the accident that damage to the MRB was similar to the Jan. 23 incident involving the partial failure of another R44 MRB. In that case the pilot experienced severe vibration but was able to land the aircraft safely. Sections of the MRB from the aircraft that crashed in the Lochy River Basin were flown to Wellington for laboratory testing. That testing has established that while the location of the blade failure was similar to that of the blade involved in the Jan. 23 incident, the mechanism of the failure was different. “The blade retrieved from the Lochy River had failed due to overloading – probably due to impact damage,” Harris said. “It was highly likely that it was damaged during the accident sequence rather than being the failure that initiated the accident. “Now that we have established that the blade failure in the Lochy River basin was the consequence of the accident rather than its cause, I am satisfied the precautionary grounding of aircraft with the Dash 7 blade can be safely removed.” Edited February 25, 2015 by Mikemv 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 after a bit of searching, i think i have found the source of that picture, and just as i suspected, it was of the blade from the 1st [incident] helicopter that developed in-flight vibration and landed safely ( i thought that picture looked in too good of shape to have been in a serious accident): For those that haven't seen it yet - this is the blade that cracked back in January (the first machine - non fatal):http://i.imgur.com/NxVJ7YBl.jpg(http://imgur.com/NxVJ7YB) http://i.imgur.com/E2fEsX2l.jpg(http://imgur.com/E2fEsX2) http://i.imgur.com/AuRbhIel.jpg(http://imgur.com/AuRbhIe) http://i.imgur.com/fERi4MSl.jpg(http://imgur.com/fERi4MS) http://i.imgur.com/xf6icZ2l.jpg(http://imgur.com/xf6icZ2) and to answer my own question: the transformation of cord is about midway of the blade span. Who would build in a stress point at a highly stressed area?,,, guess that is why they are cracking there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
500E Posted February 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 “The blade retrieved from the Lochy River had failed due to overloading – probably due to impact damage,” Harris said. “It was highly likely that it was damaged during the accident sequence rather than being the failure that initiated the accident. “Now that we have established that the blade failure in the Lochy River basin was the consequence of the accident rather than its cause, I am satisfied the precautionary grounding of aircraft with the Dash 7 blade can be safely removed. Strange wording so it is probably due to impact ?. my bold type & underline What about the first one that landed with the split ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pokey Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 reminds me of a 1978 diesel chevy pickup that my dad bought brand new, (which i still have). After 20 thousand miles, the headgaskets would blow out on a regular 2-4 thousand mile interval. I was a young mech. engineering student at the time and been building chevy hot rods and drag racing for enuf years to know that when you build an engine with 16:1 compression and FOUR headbolts around each cylinder---one is asking for early failure. I wrote numerous letters to GM engineering about this, they came out with a new hi-strength headbolt and super high torque value to fix the problem,,,,, yip, cracked the head castings at just about every bolt hole !.... all i wanted them to do after that was send to my local dealer, a small block 350 chevy gas engine (5 bolts/cylinder, 8:1 comp) which i would pick up and install at my own cost,,, they said NO. Year later they came out with new engine boasting "more headbolts-no more problems!" What i suggest mr robbie to do is : 1) buy back every set of blades @ a cost of what? 40-50 thousand per set? 2) pay a leaseback cost to every owner of (what they lease for in that post?) 15 thousand per month, up until he can produce a decent set of blades,,,,,,,,,,i bet ya my bottom $$ his answer will be same as GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.