Robinson's track record

[MileHi480B]

I know a lot of new or low-time private pilots that own R44s. They're fast and affordable. Hardly any new pilots own Jet Rangers or Euros. I think Robbies have more accidents because mostly regular guys fly em. More pros fly the others.

 

So, yes, pilot error can have a lot to with it ... not to mention sheer numbers. Robinsons are owned by more private individual owners than any other heli.

[Pohi]

To each their likes!

 

Dear Sir Rotowing,

 

As long as we are crunching statistics without taking into account number of aircraft that are flying in the air, within the last year the number of fatalities,

 

Robinson=26

Eurocopter=25

Astar=11

Bell=29

 

So, by these numbers, I guess the best helicopter to do training in would be a Astar.

The worst helicopter to fly would be the Bell.

 

On another note, however, you have not said how many ratings that you currently possess.

 

I am assuming that you have a significant amount of time, since you have stated that you have flown a decent variety of helicopters/

 

Taking that into account, why would somebody of your obvious vast experience be worried about what type of training helicopter to fly?

 

That is like a 18 year old person debating on which type of big wheel is better. The Superman or Batman big wheel, when that person has already advanced to a two wheel Huffy.

 

Assuming you have made it past the training stage, and are a wonderful person for looking out for the safety of others, but let Darwinism run its course and let people do their own research on what they want to train in.

 

Rock on with your bad self and thank the Gods that you have never had your life threatened by a Robinson.

[Pohi]

Some people have issues that this forum can't cure.

 

That is worthy of having as a signature.

[Trans Lift]

Since the A-star is owned by Eurocopter I guess the gives them 36 right?

[67november]

ok people, be sure this does not get out of control.

[rotowing]

Pohi, I never looked at how many death were in any helicopters ,all I looked at was the amount of crashes and the helicopter that had the most. As we all know anytime any brand helicopter crashes it make things look bad for manufactors and pilots so if I had my choice I would be better with none! I know I opened up a can of worms with this subject and since my last post I went back and looked at the total helicopter crashes for that and another year2005-2006 and both those were better than 25%. There is really no way to get an accurate account of how many total helicopters actually fly a year nor the total amount of hours they all fly a year. This is a subject I felt needed addressed and that I did, pissing some off and having some agree.

This debate will go on as long as there are more than one type helicopter built and happens with some fixed wings as well

Thanks for your input and calm demeaner toward my comments .

[Inferno]

I'm going to do this last post on this subject.

 

 

Pohi, I never looked at how many death were in any helicopters ,all I looked at was the amount of crashes and the helicopter that had the most. As we all know anytime any brand helicopter crashes it make things look bad for manufactors and pilots so if I had my choice I would be better with none! I know I opened up a can of worms with this subject and since my last post I went back and looked at the total helicopter crashes for that and another year2005-2006 and both those were better than 25%. There is really no way to get an accurate account of how many total helicopters actually fly a year nor the total amount of hours they all fly a year. This is a subject I felt needed addressed and that I did, pissing some off and having some agree.

This debate will go on as long as there are more than one type helicopter built and happens with some fixed wings as well

Thanks for your input and calm demeaner toward my comments .

 

Someone lied

[R22139RJ]

Roto, you have flown a lot of helicopters that are kick ass but i think what strikes a soft spot is that there are some on this forum, like myself, that have only flown the Robinson and this was our first taste of flying and we have grown to love it. Its touches home to have someone with more experience tell us that we are risking our lives for a "cheap" aircraft when its not deserved. Every machine is just as safe as the other when its flown by competent and safe pilots. I hope we can all agree to disagree and collectively agree that flying helicopters is the best!

[captkirkyota]

Slight edit, change the word "you" and use " this thread subject." LOLOL! Just kidding around and trying to bring a smile or two.

[RotorFlyer]

WOW! I am having a hard time reading this.

 

First off, I just want to say that I am a 300C CFI. Years ago, I thought the same thing that most you here are, Robinson's are not safe. Well, after being introduced to the R44 Raven II, I have to tell you that yes the helicopter can get you into trouble (Low-G Pushovers causing mast bumping resulting in tail boom removal if not corrected properly), but consider this:

 

1 - Robinson's R22 was the FIRST helicopter CERTIFIED IN THE UNITED STATES USING THE FAR 27 RULES - what does that mean to you? Well before the FAA existed in the 1960, the Civil Aviation Regulations book was used to build the set of rules that you and I follow everyday (now known as the FAR) - CAR 7 was the chapter that a manf. of aircraft used to certify its aircraft (including Helicopters) - Bell, Hughes, etc all made their aircraft, documentation and maintenance schedules based on the "very loose and fairly open standards". Once the FAA was created, and the FAR's replaced the CAR's, FAR 27 was born. FAR 27 is by far a "way more difficult set of rules to follow in order to get an aircraft its type certification", and that costs MONEY. But there was a loop-hole within the regulation. IT states that if you make an aircraft TODAY, but its certified under the old rules, you don't have to comply with FAR 27. What does this mean to you? Plenty.... read below for an example of what I mean.....

 

1 - Look at the 269CBI, it was designed way back in the day's of my father (kinda like the 60's dude) and was certified under CAR 7. Look at the 300C, it looks like the 269 except the engine, CG, and some other updates, yet its certified as a 269C. Vendors were able to certify new aircraft as long as they referred to the aircraft as as already compliance with its original certification under the old rules (in this case 269). Look at the 333. Its a fricken TURBINE! AND YET IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATOR ITS A 269D. Its doesn't look like a 269CBI, or 300C yet there it is..... why do manf. do this? They do it to save money in the overall cost of designing and certifying the aircraft...... Frank Robinson does not believe that is the way it should work. Compare a Robinson POH with a POH for a Bell 206. They are written differently and that is entirely due to the requirements of FAR 27.. Look at the POH for a Bell 206 Jet Ranger, then look at the 206 Long Ranger..... they are different aircraft with the same certified number..... yet they are not the same aircraft..... shame on BELL if you ask me....

 

Robinson's R22 was certified under FAR 27. The R44 was certified in 1992 under FAR 27, and the new R66 is also undergoing FAR27. Frank Robinson could have said "I'm going to do what everyone else in the industry did and save the money by calling my turbine the R44(t)" but he knows better than that. Robinson Helicopters that are light weight, cheap, and easy to maintain and sell, sell very well. Its been said that last year, Robinson exported more than 74% of its total sales to other countries. That accounts for around 900 units in a YEAR!.

 

So, if the helicopter is so "unsafe" then why doesn't the FAA do something about it? I believe that Pilot Error is a big cause, but the type of error is not so much related to the pilot moving the cyclic wrong or not paying attention to Vne, its more due to the ability of the pilot to make a safe decision to "go or no go". The R44 is in fact the type of aircraft that builds up confidence in a pilot so much you push your own "personal limits".

 

Robinson use to track ALL of the accidents that occurred with their aircraft, but in the 1990's they noticed that the majority of the accidents occurring were within TRAINING environments, and related to both Weather, and PILOT ERROR. That is why Robinson now has the PILOT SAFETY COURSE. (and I strongly recommend that if your signed off as PIC in a Robbie, you attend this course.....)

 

Now, Robinson knows that they cannot fix "error's in pilot judgment" BUT THEY CAN FIX THE HARDWARE RELATED ISSUES THAT HAVE CAUSED FATALITIES. They are very quick to make such fixes and then notify operator/owners quickly. Show me in those 47 accidents (and let us know of the time period your looking at) and compare incidents where hardware due to a failure in manufacturing was the root cause. Many times, its related to poor maintenance, or a failure of the pilot to respond correctly to something that THEY CAUSED..... people, proper training will show you what to do, and what not to do, so you can avoid operating the aircraft in the"what not to do" situation.

 

If you really want a safe, fun aircraft to fly, your probably better suited watching from the ground. There is ALWAYS inherit risk with any aircraft, but PROPER FLIGHT TRAINING is always a great way to become a better pilot.

 

Enough said from me.... I will not step off my soap box (lol)

[500E]

RF

Please don't start on that tack or we will have people who think the 22 should never have had type approval over from another helio site

[Little Red 22]

To all,

 

When I first soloed the R22 I felt just like astronaut John Young on the morning of the very first space shuttle launch, when he said "If you're not afraid, you don't understand the problem." I knew the 22 would lift off smartly when solo and it still caught me by surprise. I admire the level of engineering design and sophistication that is required to make a helicopter fly. ALL helicopters are complex and finely tuned machines that require respect.

 

With regard to advancing safety, here is a link to AMCC that VR members on this forum may find of interest, in particular the absence of a rotorcraft "Code of Conduct." Helicopters are operated in challenging environments, including my little R22 at 500'. Pilot skill and planning plays a much bigger role.

 

http://www.secureav.com/

 

http://www.secureav.com/AMCC-Listings-Page.html

 

LR22

[MLH]

rotowing,

 

I learned to fly in an H300C and presently own a Raven II, before that an Astro. My preference for Robinson's is a result of close examination of the design and, the accident stats you have refered to.

 

The simplicity of the Robbie with it's relative lack of moving parts as compared to other models is no doubt the reason that accidents due to mechanical failures are very low. My suggestion is that you carefully go back and read though each and every incident and compile for yourself the number that are attributed to pilot error versus an actual defect in the product. What you are likely to find is what others have pointed out, that the relatively low cost of aquistion and availability of Robinson products leads to usage by those who potentially may not be the safest of pilots based on experience and decision making.

 

After reviewing the accidents reports related to Robbies, do another search instead on "Cirrus" which earned itself the dubious distinction a one point as "doctor killer". Keep in mind that the Cirrus is even is equiped with an integral parachute, I think you will be suprised.

 

I think what the reports prove more than anything is that you can build the safest product in the world but, there are no safety guarantee's when poor skills or decision making are present.

 

Regards,

 

Mike

[Tom22]

Pilot error, academia has been trying to get rid of that term for years; amazingly, it is still used, even in academia. Pilot error vs. human error perhaps a topic for another forum.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Tom22

[rotowing]

"Cirrus" which earned itself the dubious distinction a one point as "doctor killer".

 

Thanks thats good to know but it has nothing to do with helicopters nor the crash % of helicopters in a year.

The fact is there were more Robinsons crashed in the 2 years I looked at wheather it was pilot era or mechanical.Maybe it was due to bad pilot skills or lack of training or Go no Go conditions but either way with the number of TOTAL helicopter crashes there was better than 25% Robinson crashes of all the helicopter crashes. Maybe they are great helicopters or maybe more training is needed in a Robinson but either way , to keep Robinson off the hot seat something needs to be done.

[Trans Lift]

Maybe they should not sell as many or make as many and that percentage might come down!!!

[rotowing]

Guess that makes it ok then!

[MileHi480B]

"Cirrus" which earned itself the dubious distinction a one point as "doctor killer".

 

 

Not to "split hairs" but it was the Bonanza that earned that dubious title -- not Cirrus. And Cirrus crashes are very similar to R44s in that guys with money want a lot of "bang for the buck". Both Cirrus and Robinson make the most "bang for the buck" in their respective markets.

 

So it stands to reason they will have a higher accident rate. They both outsell all og their competition combined -- respectively.

[EC120AV8R]

I have been following along on this thread, and found it somewhat interesting. I believe the OP (Rotowing?) uses faulty logic in trying to make his argument here. Those that have defended the Robbies have stated that one of the reasons that the R22/R44 have a higher rate of accidents, is there are simply more of them in service. This is reasonable and logical.

 

Sooooo...I took one year as a sample (you will have to extrapolate the numbers as an "average" year). The year I looked at was 2009. In 2009, there was 191 total helicopter accidents (I didn't break down fatal vs non-fatal...doesn't matter).

 

Here's some sample numbers:

 

AS350- 21 accidents (about 11% of the total)

369/500 (to include the OH-6 and MD and Hughes models)- 20 accidents (about 10% of the total)

269/300 (to include Schweizer and Hughes)- 10 accidents (about 5% of the total)

206 (to include the OH-58)- 22 accidents (about 12% of the total)

R22- 37 accidents (about 19% of the total)

R44- 28 accidents (about 15% of the total)

 

The rest of the accidents are scattered between about 24 other models. I picked the highest numbers of the group. Based on this TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC look, I would say the "there's more of them, so there are more crashes with them" argument is logical and probable.

 

If that argument doesn't have merit, then the Piasecki must be the safest helicopter flying...only one of those crashed last year.

 

For the record, we are weathered out and I was bored.

[RkyMtnHI]

NICE!!

 

thanks for taking the time to post that..

 

dp

[lelebebbel]

"Cirrus" which earned itself the dubious distinction a one point as "doctor killer".

 

Thanks thats good to know but it has nothing to do with helicopters nor the crash % of helicopters in a year.

The fact is there were more Robinsons crashed in the 2 years I looked at wheather it was pilot era or mechanical.Maybe it was due to bad pilot skills or lack of training or Go no Go conditions but either way with the number of TOTAL helicopter crashes there was better than 25% Robinson crashes of all the helicopter crashes. Maybe they are great helicopters or maybe more training is needed in a Robinson but either way , to keep Robinson off the hot seat something needs to be done.

 

As of 2008, Robinson has built a total of over 9,000 helicopters. About half of them were exported (according to a Robinson newsletter), which means that there are about 4,500 Robinson helicopters in the USA (if someone has a precise number, please post it).

 

The total civil helicopter fleet in the US according to Air Track is about 14,000 machines (2008)

4,500 / 14,500 = about 32% of all helicopters in the USA are Robinsons

 

 

You say, about 25% of all accidents involve Robinson helicopters

 

let me put that together for you:

 

about 32% of the helicopters in the US are Robinsons

only 25% of the accidents (according to Rotowing) involve Robinson helicopters

(34% according to EC120AV8R)

 

According to your number (25% of the accidents), Robinsons are actually safer than the average helicopter. According to EC120AV8R, they are right on the average.

 

 

Now what?

Edited March 25, 2010 by lelebebbel

[Goldy]

For the record, we are weathered out and I was bored.

 

Yeah, but whats the ratio of accidents between blue helicopters and white ones?

 

Damn, I fly one of each color, I'm screwed.

 

Goldy

[palmfish]

Yeah, but whats the ratio of accidents between blue helicopters and white ones?

 

Damn, I fly one of each color, I\'m screwed.

 

Goldy

 

Uh oh...

 

 

At least I don't wear a red shirt while flying!

[rotowing]

OK since I keep getting bashed here are more ststs!

 

From 1973 to date, 985 reported Robinson crashes!

From 1973 to date, total reported helicopter crashes 8692!

 

 

From 1973 to date around 8000 Robinsons built, couldnt find exact amount!

 

 

 

I could keep digging but guess this will help everyone sleep better

 

Better than 10% of total Robinsons 22's and 44's have crashed. maybe that is acceptable!

 

 

 

Fly safe!

[lelebebbel]

so 7,700 of the reported crashes since 1990 were NOT robinsons.

 

For your numbers to have any meaning whatsoever, we have to know how many non-Robinson helicopters were built since 1973, and what percentage of them has been involved in crashes.

 

If more than 77,000 helicopters were built since '73, the Robinson is (according to this analysis) less safe than other machines.

 

If less than 77,000 helicopters were built since '73, this means that MORE THAN 10% of all non Robinson helicopters have crashed, and your number just "proved" Robinsons to be safer than other brands.

 

 

So, does anyone know? My guess is that far fewer than 77,000 Non-Robbies were built since 1973, or - for that matter - ever.

Not that it matters, as these statistics are meaningless without considering things like hours flown, types of operation, time in service, pilot experience and so on

 

 

 

 

 

p.s.: Of the 38 Kaman 1200 K-Max built, I believe 22 have been destroyed. Who's going to start a campaign against them? Or could it have something to do with other factors, maybe.....

Edited March 28, 2010 by lelebebbel