Jump to content

300c requirements? newb question


t-time
 Share

Recommended Posts

SFAR 73 is only for the Robinson 22 and 44.... Robinson failed to challenge the FAA when they applied the SFAR to the 44 program... The 44 is an all together different and a much more stable platform. When the 66 was going through it's certification flights at Torrance, the FAA didn't even think of applying the statute to the 66 program.

 

Both helicopters (44/66) are not much different from each other. If you fly the 22 now, you're in for a good surprise... The 300's are a more of a stable platform and the fully articulated rotor system is more fun to fly! It should take a Robbie pilot no more than 3-5 hours to become familiar with the 300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when I was at the safety course (post R44, pre R66) they were quite frank in telling us that they originally wanted the SFAR because they thought the low cost would result in an "helicopter in every garage" and they only wanted a wider safety net for pilots of the R22. Now that Robinson is established as a flight trainer helicopter there is a lot of regret creating the SFAR and many of the people at Robinson wishes that they had never set up the regulations, or could undo them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that Robinson is established as a flight trainer helicopter there is a lot of regret creating the SFAR and many of the people at Robinson wishes that they had never set up the regulations, or could undo them.

 

Heh?

Wait, my recent discussion with a Robinson test pilot suggests the exact opposite.

 

The bulk of our conversation of over an hour was all about SFAR73, especially energy management and low rotor and how necessary it is. Pilots that don't have an in-depth understanding of SFAR73 should not come anywhere near a R22, with rotor decay of 1.6 seconds, without SFAR there's going to be a whole bunch of scrap metal and dead pilots around, and Robinson knows this better than most. Even the 44 with a much higher inertia requires an intimate understanding of those topics imo.

 

To say Robinson regret creating SFAR is like saying Robinson regret creating the R22, which is ridiculous. OK you're saying that many people at Robinson regret it, obviously that's kinda vague but I still very much doubt this to be the case.

 

Pilots with less than 200 hrs who fly Robinsons need the annual endorsement, it's no big deal, in fact it's really good knowledge which a pilot can apply to flying all helicopters.

Yes I'm a Robinson fan, and yes I'm a SFAR fan, it's made me a better pilot so :P

 

Unless you meant something else, or I missed the point, then oops, sorry. Either way please elaborate, I'm keen to know more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny how a thread about the 300 turns to the 22. It would be cool if there was a safety course for the 300 though!

 

I don't know for sure but I would imagine that they do. You probably have to schedule it and it would probably cost you a lot of dough, but I am quite sure they would be happy to facilitate training you up in their aircraft, especially if you are buying a new one from them.

 

Any flight school that does halfway decent training should be more than enough to safely check you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was Tim Tucker, maybe he was having a bad day when he told us this. :rolleyes: Don't get me wrong though, he wasn't refering to all of the SFAR 73 and I should have been more clear in my original post. They certainly approve of the awareness training. The story went that there was a person who ordered an R44 and wanted to have the helicopter delivered to him by the factory. As it came down to it Tim ended up having to be the one to deliver it. Well as part of the regulations (I realize this is Robinson and not an SFAR issue) in order for someone to fly the aircraft out of the factory without already flown the route they have to instead have completed the factory training course. Tim was stuck since he didn't meet the requirements since although he teaches the course he's never taken it. It was at that time they realized that there may be a few too many regulations and rules in place for rules sake. ^_^

 

Tim realizes that there is a need for the SFAR and most of the regulations, but other rules that become confusing would be better off removed. Didn't mean to confuse or misrepresent anyone. I should have take a bit more time in my last post to clarify this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say Robinson regret creating SFAR is like saying Robinson regret creating the R22, which is ridiculous. OK you're saying that many people at Robinson regret it, obviously that's kinda vague but I still very much doubt this to be the case.

 

Not sure how accurate this is… On the street, it was more like, Robinson compromised with the Fed’s to stay in business. In fact, the Rupertson can’t author (create) an SFAR….. Only the Fed’s can do that….

 

And yes as the NS’er pointed out, most manufactures offer training. That is, factory training….. And, some schools provide more than adequate transition training. And a few go well above and beyond what the factories offer….

Edited by Spike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know for sure but I would imagine that they do. You probably have to schedule it and it would probably cost you a lot of dough, but I am quite sure they would be happy to facilitate training you up in their aircraft, especially if you are buying a new one from them.

 

Any flight school that does halfway decent training should be more than enough to safely check you out.

 

I was refering to a formal course like the one at RHC. There are things I've learned and done there, that require a more experienced pilot than most flight schools seem to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I was refering to a formal course like the one at RHC. There are things I've learned and done there, that require a more experienced pilot than most flight schools seem to have.

 

As Spike pointed out, most manufacturers offer a factory safety course. Bell is a good example. It is just as formal and informative as the Robinson course. Also, though you may have had your share of inexperienced flight instructors, I don't think they teach anything at the RHC course that you can't learn somewhere else. The difference between the RHC course and any other formal training is that it's mandatory if you want to instruct, or meet certain other requirements of the SFAR 73.

 

The FAA does not seem to feel the need to make a safety course mandatory for any other manufacturer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Spike pointed out, most manufacturers offer a factory safety course. Bell is a good example. It is just as formal and informative as the Robinson course. Also, though you may have had your share of inexperienced flight instructors, I don't think they teach anything at the RHC course that you can't learn somewhere else. The difference between the RHC course and any other formal training is that it's mandatory if you want to instruct, or meet certain other requirements of the SFAR 73.

 

The FAA does not seem to feel the need to make a safety course mandatory for any other manufacturer.

 

Personally I think the FAA should make a factory safety course for 300 mandatory (since it is used primarily for flight instruction). I'm not really interested in hunting down a high time cfi for advanced training in the 300, but if the factory offered a course like the robbie factory does, I'd go (I liked seeing how its made as well). Perhaps Hughes offered one in the past, I don't know, but I don't think Sikorsky does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why do you think it should be mandatory? Saying a factory safety course should be mandatory is basically saying that pilot training is inadequate. At the time the SFAR 73 was created, I think they felt that training WAS inadequate for that model. The S300 has been around longer not had as many issues as the R22 has, so there was/is no need. Just because the RHC safety course is "good training" does not mean it should be mandatory for all types of training helicopters. If you feel your training was inadequate you should take it up with your chief pilot, not the FAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to do your "factory training" cept not at the factory in any of the 269's as we operate them all. (except the turbine version)

It is a future goal of mine to create more of a "formal course"... but what I find is that a personally tailored course can be more beneficial as it seems most pilots are not even comfortable with full-down's much less more advanced operations... and you can even see my "269 assembly line".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why do you think it should be mandatory? Saying a factory safety course should be mandatory is basically saying that pilot training is inadequate. At the time the SFAR 73 was created, I think they felt that training WAS inadequate for that model. The S300 has been around longer not had as many issues as the R22 has, so there was/is no need. Just because the RHC safety course is "good training" does not mean it should be mandatory for all types of training helicopters. If you feel your training was inadequate you should take it up with your chief pilot, not the FAA.

 

I don't think the 300 is really any better/safer than the 22, so if we have to take a special course, why shouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the 300 is really any better/safer than the 22, so if we have to take a special course, why shouldn't they?

A lot of opinion there. How much of it is credible, or expert ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the 300 is really any better/safer than the 22

 

That's an opinion and I respect it, but it's a bold, loaded and loose one.

Nothing wrong with that, just be ready to justify it when asked to :)

 

so if we have to take a special course, why shouldn't they?

 

The issues SFAR73 address are absolutely Robinson relevant, especially with the 22.

Energy management, low rotor and rotor RPM decay are all due to the 22's low inertia rotor.

Mast bumping only relates to two-bladed rotor systems, irrelevant to the 300.

Low G is not 22 specific but closely related to mast bumping specific to the two-bladed rotor system.

 

Do Robinson pilots need a special course?

Yes!

 

Do all pilots need safety courses?

Probably not, but it's a good thing that exists for the right reasons so I'm going to stick my balls on a block and say that all pilots need a safety course of some description at some point.

Chances are you're going to fly a two-bladed system at some point and knowledge (amongst other things) is what's going to keep you alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think the 300 is really any better/safer than the 22, so if we have to take a special course, why shouldn't they?

 

Better? Hard to say. I like aspects of both. Safer? A bit. Not much. But a bit. Here's the rub. The number of things that can bite you in the 300 are less than in the 22. Ground resonance is really the only thing that will get you in a 300 that won't in a 22. And I prepare my students for that. No special course needed.

 

Your logic of us vs them is sounding a bit cooky, by the way. I fly both. I like both, for different reasons. I don't think of myself as a 300 guy and you as a 22 guy, though that's clearly how you think. I'm just a pilot, and the less regulations I have to contend with to do my job, the better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot this forum favored the 300! So glad I brought it up!

 

Oh stop, now you're just being childish. You made a statement that S300 pilots should have to go to a safety course because R22 pilots do. That logic makes no sense to me at all. What about people that do their primary training in a B206? Do they have to go to a safety course? What about Enstroms? What about B47s? There are lots of aircraft used for training. As I said before, saying a pilot HAS to go to a factory safety course is basically saying that regular flight instruction is not adequate. So why not just change the whole flight training system so it IS adequate? Oh wait. They are. And to my knowledge none of those changes includes much of anything taught in the RHC safety course as that pertains strictly to the Robinson series of helicopter.

 

I must say though, accident rates are down to about normal compared to other makes since they instituted the course. They must have needed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...