'Junk'? - R22 Debate Looms

[fatnlazy]

You can't believe everything you hear from Brazos, I know of many people that have been their and know. I don't trust Mike. And, thats my opinion only from people who I've talked to over the years. Besides, the link you posted doesn't work... THE QUERY HIGHLIGHTS FATALS, TRY IT YOURSELF....

 

Sounds like you don't believe anybody. Try www.hothelicopter.com then click career helicopter pilot program, then click career schools, scroll down and read.

[Linc]

Link: http://www.hothelicopters.com/career_schools.htm

 

"Source: U.S. National Transportation Safety Board"

 

It really just remains to see whether or not people believe that Brazos quoted the NTSB correctly or not. If the figures in the table are correct, then the math seems to bear out.

 

The text mentions leaving out the Military's use of the 269. I expect that this is because the Army does not report its accidents to the NTSB. While it may have increased the number of accidents, it would've also increased the number of flight hours flown...significantly.

 

The table also says that it is dealing with fatal accidents. So, if an accident occurred and no fatality resulted, the accident would not have been included in the figures, since the premise is that dying from the accident is the greatest determination of a lack of safety. Not sure that I totally agree with that, but a higher fatality rate with an equal number of accidents would also be an eye raiser and make me consider not flying such an aircraft.

 

Interesting that the B206 has the best record and that is the aircraft that both the Army and Navy currently conduct their pilot training in. I know, money and all that. The question being, how much money is safety worth?

Edited January 29, 2007 by Linc

[fatnlazy]

It also states to the robbies credit that the SFAR 73 has reduced the # of fatal accidents, however they are still twice that of the 269, just be careful guys, do what you've got to do just be god damn careful.

[bossman]

Link: http://www.hothelicopters.com/career_schools.htm

 

"Source: U.S. National Transportation Safety Board"

 

It really just remains to see whether or not people believe that Brazos quoted the NTSB correctly or not. If the figures in the table are correct, then the math seems to bear out.

 

The text mentions leaving out the Military's use of the 269. I expect that this is because the Army does not report its accidents to the NTSB. While it may have increased the number of accidents, it would've also increased the number of flight hours flown...significantly.

 

The table also says that it is dealing with fatal accidents. So, if an accident occurred and no fatality resulted, the accident would not have been included in the figures, since the premise is that dying from the accident is the greatest determination of a lack of safety. Not sure that I totally agree with that, but a higher fatality rate with an equal number of accidents would also be an eye raiser and make me consider not flying such an aircraft.

 

Interesting that the B206 has the best record and that is the aircraft that both the Army and Navy currently conduct their pilot training in. I know, money and all that. The question being, how much money is safety worth?

Linc,

Eurocopter now has the training contract. They beat Bell. Building a new facility in MS or LA to assemble the aircraft for the military. Too bad.

bossman

[Linc]

bossman,

 

Eurocopter is providing the UH-72A Lakota to replace OH-58A/C and UH-1H/V helicopters at Fort Irwin, Fort Polk, and in the Army National Guard. Eurocopter, North America will be based out of Mississippi.

 

The U.S. Army currently conducts primary and instrument training in TH-67A Creek helicopters and the U.S. Navy uses the TH-57B SeaRanger. Both are Bell 206B-3, FAA-certified airframes. Training for the Army is provided by a contractor who provides the instructor pilots (the contractor is NOT Eurocopter North America). I'm not certain how the Navy conducts their training.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Linc

[bossman]

bossman,

 

Eurocopter is providing the UH-72A Lakota to replace OH-58A/C and UH-1H/V helicopters at Fort Irwin, Fort Polk, and in the Army National Guard. Eurocopter, North America will be based out of Mississippi.

 

The U.S. Army currently conducts primary and instrument training in TH-67A Creek helicopters and the U.S. Navy uses the TH-57B SeaRanger. Both are Bell 206B-3, FAA-certified airframes. Training for the Army is provided by a contractor who provides the instructor pilots (the contractor is NOT Eurocopter North America). I'm not certain how the Navy conducts their training.

I'm pretty sure that the Bell is going to be replaced. Talked to the Eurocopter safety guy last week. He was at their new facility gearing up for the change.

[Linc]

I'm pretty sure that you're confusing two separate programs. The OH-58A/C and the UH-1H/V are both Bell products.

[bossman]

Linc,

Could be some confusion on my part. I know it's hard to believe but it has happened before.

I'll get off this so we don't hi-jack this thread.

bossman

[500pilot]

I'm pretty sure that the Bell is going to be replaced. Talked to the Eurocopter safety guy last week. He was at their new facility gearing up for the change.

 

Bossman I can reply to this as I have some experience here as I was an instructor for the army for over 4 years and still have many friends there. All of the primary and instrument training is done in the TH-67 by contract pilots working for Lear Siegler Services. The army is not replacing these with Eurocopter. As a matter of fact the army has been steadily taking delivery of more of the TH-67A+ models to replace the OH-58a/c that are flying in Combat Skills division.

 

The Navy training is done in the TH-57 for both primary and instrument out of Pensacola. However unlike the army the training is done by Navy personel though that may change in the future.

 

The eurocopter contract is for the new LUH that will go mostly to the National Gaurd to replace the UH-60s they currently have. However what you may have heard was Eurocopter gearing up to help train the army pilots in the UH-145 so that they can get a training program for students coming through when they do thier advanced aircraft qualifiaction.

 

As for safety of the 206, hands down it was safe to train in. However very few people can afford to train in the aircraft. While I worked there accidents were usually few and far between with the usual being spike knock due to poor autos. This though has to be attributed partly to the experience of the flight instructors there. Most of the instructors there averaged over 10000 hours. They had a couple dynamic rollovers (one due to a tie down chain not being removed) but all the accidents were mostly attributed to pilot error. Even a couple years ago when they had a rash of engine failures due to a governor problems not one aircraft was damaged. Unfortunately they did have their one and only fatality in thier history while I was there as well but this was also due to pilot error. Its to bad every one cant afford to train in the 206.

[joker]

Well Gentlemen,

 

I'd rather hoped this thread would reveal more than 'old' statistics, which are debatable at best, dodgy at worst and malleable all the time.

 

I am thankful to FatNLazy, who has at least taken more time to attempt some explanation as to his experience, and has not called anyone a 'moron' yet!. While I don't care for his patronising tone at times, he would appear to have some inkling of what is going on in the helicopter industry.

 

That being said, it seems that his information is still only mostly based on hearsay (and the SFAR history), rather than first hand experience. I still don't see much new information from him...he has mostly posted about himself.

 

I have only personal exp. ( wrench side only ), friends and foe's exp, PM's from other JH/VERT REF. posters and of course NTSB reports

 

It is the 'personal experience' that I am interested in.

 

On the R22, I don't think this thread is going anywhere enlightening. However, so long as healthy debate (in intreasting reading) ensues I will leave it open. Otherwise, if it gets at all personal, then I think we do without the thread and close immediately.

 

FatNLazy, I really love to read everyone's opinion. We are all entitled to say what we want. However, I hope you can see that some of your past posts have not really been constructive. Why bother? A full-bodied discussion will do more to alert people to your cause then simply shouting 'junk'. Hence my reason for starting this thread.

 

I often see new 'VR' members (particularly in from other web forurms), come in with habits and attitudes opposite to what I enjoy here. I don't come here for arguement. Discussion, yes, disagreement, often, but juvinile aggression, no. Like I said, if that's what you're here for then don't bother. On the other hand, if you wish to share what you know, enter in the spirit of the board then you're totally welcome. Does that make sense?

 

Well, time to fly folks,

 

Joker

Edited January 29, 2007 by joker

[bossman]

500,

Thanks for the info, it clears up my confusion.

Mike

[Linc]

joker,

 

I can appreciate your desire for people to "qualify" their comments. Would you also mind qualifying the following:

I'd rather hoped this thread would reveal more than 'old' statistics, which are debatable at best, dodgy at worst and malleable all the time.

I'm curious as to just how the stats that fatnlazy referred to are "debatable at best, dodgy at worst and malleable all the time." Edited January 29, 2007 by Linc

[fatnlazy]

Well Gentlemen,

 

I'd rather hoped this thread would reveal more than 'old' statistics, which are debatable at best, dodgy at worst and malleable all the time.

 

I am thankful to FatNLazy, who has at least taken more time to attempt some explanation as to his experience, and has not called anyone a 'moron' yet!. While I don't care for his patronising tone at times, he would appear to have some inkling of what is going on in the helicopter industry.

 

That being said, it seems that his information is still only mostly based on hearsay (and the SFAR history), rather than first hand experience. I still don't see much new information from him...he has mostly posted about himself.

It is the 'personal experience' that I am interested in.

 

On the R22, I don't think this thread is going anywhere enlightening. However, so long as healthy debate (in intreasting reading) ensues I will leave it open. Otherwise, if it gets at all personal, then I think we do without the thread and close immediately.

 

FatNLazy, I really love to read everyone's opinion. We are all entitled to say what we want. However, I hope you can see that some of your past posts have not really been constructive. Why bother? A full-bodied discussion will do more to alert people to your cause then simply shouting 'junk'. Hence my reason for starting this thread.

 

I often see new 'VR' members (particularly in from other web forurms), come in with habits and attitudes opposite to what I enjoy here. I don't come here for arguement. Discussion, yes, disagreement, often, but juvinile aggression, no. Like I said, if that's what you're here for then don't bother. On the other hand, if you wish to share what you know, enter in the spirit of the board then you're totally welcome. Does that make sense?

 

Well, time to fly folks,

 

Joker

 

It makes complete sense however I'm not sure what it is that you wanted to see here, proof that main rotor blades like to strike the cabins and or the tailbooms for no apparent reason or that the tailrotor blades like to strike the tailboom or that the tailrotor gear boxes and or entire tailbooms like to leave the aircraft in straight and level flight for no reason. they have major mast bumping issues and low rotor rpm issues, after you find these things out its almost common sense not to get into one of them.

[factsfacts]

The following website from brazos helicopters has the NTSB report that shows accident rate per 100,000 flight hrs indicating that the R-22 is 2.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than a h269/300, per 100,000 flight hrs.

 

www.hothelicopters.com click on career helicopter pilot program, click on career schools, scroll and read

This will be my first and last posts ever here:

IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS (AT LEAST), THERE HAVE BEEN ABOUT 200 TIMES MORE TRAINIG HOURS LOGGED IN THE R22 VERSUS THE 269/300. MAYBE MORE. AND THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE, BUBBA.

YA THINK THAT JUST MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE THE REASON FOR THE HIGHER NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS?

 

I have no idea who posted the data from "brazos helicopters" but I also want them to do my taxes this year if they have the time.

They're so very wrong about the accidents per hours flown. And if the data/people that show these supposedly much higher rates of accidents for Robbies versus the Hughes/Schwetz is trying to assimilate the Army training hours in the T55 and 269 into their figures then I am really starting to laugh.

 

I have no idea who you are but you're really giving some folks a good hee haw. I teach in 300's and there's no comparison to the R22. I'll readily admit (the R22) is a much better bird. Harder to fly, but overall much better. The problem is the 300 hasn't had any really good design changes ever. The F-I engine change was good but the sorry-assed engineering needs to at least get into the 80's or maye the 90's. It's a dinasour.

We are constantly spinning wrenches and the competion's R22 just keeps fueling up and taking off.

 

If you haven't noticed, not every fact and figure on the 'net is accurate, fatty.

PS

We sell 300's here in VA so continue with your silly bull crap. And thank you. Although anyone with half a brain here can see what a blooming idiot you must be so it ain't working. But thanks again for trying.

[joker]

Hello all...again!

 

Let me please address those who directly addressed me.

 

Linc,

 

I'm curious as to just how the stats that fatnlazy referred to are "debatable at best, dodgy at worst and malleable all the time."

 

Satistics are debateable

 

Added:

For a perfect example of what I mean, read yours and others' posts on this thread!

 

Although someone may quote me raw data, there can always be debate as to its relevence to the question. As well as that, the question is debateble too. What exactly do we mean by safe? Well built? Not easy to make a pilot error? Less likely to crash? Maybe as likely to crash, but less likely for a fatality? On and on... Before we answer it, we have to define the question.

 

For example - The safety of an aircraft type - NTSB reports showing raw figures of aircraft accident numbers by type does not tell me anything about that aircraft's safety.

 

That's because raw figures don't take into account other contributing factors or people try to use raw data to compare apples and oranges.

 

Some contributing factors which have to be considered are:

 

Number of flights - If a type is flown 10 X more flight hours than another, doesn't it stand to have 10X more accidents.

Types of Pilots or operation - As Training is inherently more risky than other operations, shouldn't types used for training have more accidents.

Location and weather conditions

Dodgy operator or careful contientious operator

 

There are so many more factors that should be considered, that either the question must be refined to be more specific or the dataset used refined to match the question.

 

(Crashes)

(Crashes per 100 hrs)

(Crashes per 100hrs in training situations)

(Crashes per 100hrs in training situations whilst doing autorotation practice)

(Crahses per 100 hrs in training situations whilst doing aurotrotation practice off airfield)

(Crashes per 100 hrs in training situations whilst doing off airfield autorotations with students with less than 50hrs experience)

 

I could go on and on.

 

This leads me to my next point.

 

Statistics are malleable

 

In order to prove a point, people can adjust their use of statistics to convey almost any desired result. This is done by clever tools such as ommission, inclusion, proportional misrepresentation etc..etc..

 

 

Statistics are sometimes dodgy

 

This should really come first in my list, as the first question is to ask what the source of the statistics are.

 

Who collected it? How did they collect it? What rules did they follow to include or omit a record? What data was not collected? Over what time period? What source data region did they use? How did they deal with anomolous results? e.g. Imagine a pilot error after a critical mechanical failure caused by turbulence which ended up with the helicopter crashing into a boat causing the boat with 30 people on to sink (and they all die) and the pilot survives but passenger dies in hosiptial a year later after a beer overdose which is made worse by brain damage proven to be linked to the accident! How would this be handled?

 

All of those questions produce doubt in the dataset as a tool to answer a question.

 

So I shall not take statistics at face value. As someone may well 'prove' one point with statistics, it is normally possible to prove an opposite point using the same statistics. Any use of statistics should be questioned.

 

In our question, stats such as NTSB reports have such a limited validity in answering the question.

 

Interestingly, someone quoted the number of accidents the R22 has had. That same person has conceded that the number of accidents is dropping year after year. What if the R22 was dangerous once, but safety has now improved? Doesn't that make the timespan of the comparrison critical - what are the numbers for the last year alone...last 2 years...etc..etc...has anyone run those stats on the other thread?

 

That's all on statistics. Here's a site for further reading. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1091350 Or you could simply type 'How Statistics Lie' into your web browser search page!

 

Anyway, I leave you with this article, which I amusingly found whilst browsing tonight. Not entering the debate, I just thought it would be an interesting read with all this in mind!

 

Statistics show R22 is as safe as a turbine

 

 

FatNLazy,

 

I'm not sure what it is that you wanted to see here

 

By your original claims and your assertion that you had some knowledge of the R22 that I did not, I was hoping to learn that knowledge.

 

Maybe you have had a personal experience which you could share. Maybe you are a disgruntled RHC mechanic who saw some dodgy stuff at the factory. Maybe you are an FAA representative who knows of some payoff to the government. You could be a 'crash investigator' or even a great physics scholar. There could be any number of reasons why you might have some 'new' experience to share which would help me see your point.

 

Whatever! I was hoping you could share more than the NTSB reports and second-hand opinions.

 

I've read them all already. I've read accident reports, the NTSB SIR96-03 cover to cover, talked to many people, flown many hours in the aircraft. , etc..etc..I have even lost a friend (a good pilot) to this aircraft. This debate is not new. The information is not new.

 

I have formed my own opinion on the R22 based on what I have seen or heard. My opinions can be read in the archives on this site. If I am to change my opinion, I need something new. That's what I was hoping for. You haven't told me anything more than most know already.

 

Well, that's about the last from me. Glad to see we didn't end up in a slagfest. I don't know if we acheived anything though.

 

Joker

Edited January 29, 2007 by joker

[Linc]

joker,

 

Yeah, you showed me...you summarily dismiss the statistics without qualifying why you disagree with those statistics or without being able to show how they were tweaked to present certain aircraft in a certain light. It's like begging the question, you just keep asking the question, regardless of how many answers or explanations are offered.

 

In the context of the discussion and the way the Brazos page presents the figures, I'd say that we're talking about the likelihood of dying from a crash. Given a number of accidents, the number that results in fatalities is significant. We can trace it down to the percentage of causes to argue the design versus training versus weather...etc., but I'd just like to argue the results. Given a somewhat comparable number of accidents for a given timeframe, spread among the various common causes, the R22 has a higher probability of a fatality being the outcome. I can dilute that by the number of hours flown, number of operators, whatever. I can't argue the number of accidents or the number of deaths that result from those accidents.

 

Those odds alone say something about the R22. That a SFAR was introduced, even if it was voluntary on the part of Robinson, is significant. What other aircraft requires a specific hour level for the CFI in order to reduce accidents and fatalities? To deny it would be like saying that the B206 doesn't suffer from LTE. I'm not trying to demonize anything or anybody, the history and facts say something.

[John90290]

I think most people, R22 fan or not, would agree that the R44 is a safer aircraft to fly. That is, given a choice which to fly your child in, you'd choose the R44. If you agree with that then by default, aren't you implying that the R22 is not as safe as it could be?

 

Even the owner/designer is phasing them out in favor of the R44.

 

Just making an observation.

[volition]

The R44 does not even compare to the R22, when it comes to safety, and rotor inertia! The 44 is the best way to go by far!

[joker]

Linc,

 

Sorry, I did not mean for my link to that thread to seem patronising to those partaking. I was just amused that as I was typing on one thread, the issue I was typing about was being illustrated in another.

 

My reference to your thread was to illustrate how statisics could be debateable. The number of different permuations that people have gleened from the NTSB data website and the discussions they have prompted shows this. There is debate and disagreement on how to show the data. Isn't there?

 

On Brazo's page: http://www.hothelicopters.com/career_schools.htm To be honest, I almost 'sumarily' dismissed Brazo's statistics even before I got to them. My bad.

 

First of all, this page is entitled 'Choosing a Career School'. The page is part of the school's own website. It happens that the school flies Schweizers (among others).

 

So I scroll down the page and my eyes catch the mention of the word Robinson. Hold-on, this school doesn't use Robinsons. I wonder what they have to say.

 

They mention the 25kt wind limitation and claim that 'severely' restricts the training that can be done. Argueable, don't you think? Keep going...

 

Then he says, "Another point of fact is that most of the offshore and EMS operators don't really like Robinson time on a pilots resume." This is the first I've heard of this.

 

A couple more loose statements follow. "...coupled with marginal ability to handle emergencies, as well as their poor safety record..." I'm starting to think that this guy has something against Robinsons. I bet I can guess where his statistics table goes.

 

My eyes skip the stats table to read further. More gibberish about this and that. He has a go at 141 schools, schools in controlled airspace. Check this out. "Uncontrolled flights are what you will do over 98% of the time as a working pilot." Er..no. My job is 100% in controlled airspace. Anyway, he spends a whole paragraph on this.

 

Then he finishes by showing this diagram, and telling me how from this I can see "that the majority of low level airspace in the US is "Class G" un-controlled airspace." To me, most of it looks green, blue magenta and turquoise...which we all know is 'controlled airspace'! Good use of diagram, Brazo. Point is that a newbie wouldn't understand the diagram anyway.

 

 

Clearly a biased page. The statistics will of course show what the author wants. All the tricks of statisticians. Omission - Leave out non-fatal accident statistics. Leave out pilot error statistics. Leave out a particular time period. Decline to point out how the stats were collected. Where do the flight hours come from? Bombardment - show the same information twice. Confusion - Have a technical description (LOC) poorly punctuated to make understanding difficult. Makes me go away thinking that R22 is a terrible aircraft...the worst there is.

 

The fact that the stats are 10 years old I suppose doesn't come into it either. The fact that the Beta II model (certified in 1995) must be under represented. (The Beta II presumably having improvements over the previous models). The fact that the SFAR came out AFTER those statistics, and Brazo himself admits that the SFAR has brought the accident rate down. They don't come into it either.

 

Assuming the stats are true to the NTSB records, then the stats table shows what it shows. Fatalities between those dates. Hey ho. If you think 'Safety' is a factor only relating to 'Fatality' statistics, then I can't argue with you. Whatever.

 

Hey, I love the Schweizer. I think it is a far superiour trainer. I am not here as a Robbie Crussader! I just don't think the R22 is as 'unsafe' as some will have people believe. I know that statistics are not always the best measure of something. I know that many people bash the R22 based on what they are told by others, or read in manipulated statistics.

 

I have read the stats, I know what they show. They do not constitute proof to me of the safety of the R22.

 

Joker

 

John90210,

 

Good greif! Actually, I like it. It made me chuckle. Robinson phasing out the R22. Is this fact now? Forgive me, I really don't know. Last I heard it was a rumour that Robinson himself had refuted. Anyway, does that necessarily mean he thinks they're unsafe?

 

 

Added: OK - on this thread, please contact me by PM. I feel myself getting sarcastic...a bad sign that I must be tired and feel like this is going nowhere. So no more posts from me...unless really juicy stuff to reply to!

Edited January 29, 2007 by joker

[John90290]

John90210,

 

Good greif! Actually, I like it. It made me chuckle. Robinson phasing out the R22. Is this fact now? Forgive me, I really don't know. Last I heard it was a rumour that Robinson himself had refuted. Anyway, does that necessarily mean he thinks they're unsafe?

 

 

Not sure if it's ture that he's making the decision but the cosumer appears to be makeing that choice for Mr. Robinson by selecting the R44 over the R22 accordinig to recent production numbers posted on his site.

[PA Pilot]

Not sure if it's ture that he's making the decision but the cosumer appears to be makeing that choice for Mr. Robinson by selecting the R44 over the R22 accordinig to recent production numbers posted on his site.

He certainly has been making a pitch for flight schools to use the R44 instead of the R22, and he's also been raising R22 prices, possibly to encourage R44 sales.

 

Still, I wonder about the economics. When I did my R44 transition training about a year ago, the cost for a Raven II and CFI was $500/hr, and at another school $435/hr in a Raven.

[Linc]

joker,

 

Granted, the Brazos page is biased.

 

I really enjoyed the article that someone had posted (I think it was a post here, or maybe it was rec.aviation.rotorcraft) that had a comparison of the Schweizer and Robinson for training. It was very neutral IMHO and included accounts of flights conducted the same day at HAI, a school that operates both aircraft.

[klas]

In response to LostHeliBoy

 

I don't know if there the same or not, I do know however that it is not hard to fly a UH-1, any monkey can do it, look at me, if your ever in the area I'll take you up and show you. From what I here though the r-22 is a bear to fly and I've been told by some of the fella's on this forum that I would never be able to do it. Just as well though I couldn't see myself paying money to go to a special SFAR 73 school to get the min. 20 hrs or so required so that I could become a robbie flight instructor, make 16$ an hr, and fly 10 hrs a week, when I can stay where I'm at 2 on 2 off flying 100+ hrs a month at 80$+ an hr. I just don't see the logic in it.

Anyhow email me if you get in my area and we will go for a little spin.

 

 

I'd love to go in a Huey - where you located?

[mechanic]

Linc,

 

I don't know if this is the aritcle you are referring too? But, Vertical Mag issue #7 has something simular, with HAI. I ordered a back issue of it last year.

 

 

 

Vert Mag back issues

[apiaguy]

I posted the link to the pdf file that Midwest helicopter has on their site... yes it is from vertical mag. december 03 jan 04.

 

http://www.flymidwest.com/TrainingBirds.html

 

Then click on robinson vs schweizer pdf near the top of the page