Jump to content

R22 safety record vs other piston helicopters


apiaguy

Recommended Posts

OK, big debate on the numbers and statistics on the other thread. Does anybody have the current info from robinson safety course that counters or shows a fatal accident rate that people can agree on? Maybe that is impossible to satisfy people on here.

I think it can be agreed upon that Robinson CURRENTLY has a larger fleet than say hughes/schweizer, so any attempt to correlate the two based on the current fleet sizes and accidents to date would be somewhat inaccurate.

That said, you should still be able to take a sample picture of the two fleets and show which has a better safety record. I believe the 269 series is going to win that. (I will admit now that you may prove me wrong with the correct display of numbers) There are alot of "old" hughes out there that can prove to be unreliable if not maintained correctly.

This doesn't mean the R22 is no good, unsafe, or otherwise, it just shows that history has shown it (the 269) to be marginally safer. The 269 series was the primary trainer for 4 million flight hours in the us army and completed 12 million touchdown autorotations. Unfortunately we don't know how many army guys were killed during 1964 to 1988 in it.

Can we have a "nice" debate about the "true" safety records of these aircraft.

Edited by apiaguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The R22 has a relatively poor safety record, and will continue to have one, because it's used so heavily as a primary trainer. Put a CFI with a few hundred total hours in the cockpit with a brand new student, and there are going to be accidents, no matter which helicopter is being used. You see lots of R22 accidents, and you see lots of Cessna 152 accidents, but few, if any, are the fault of the aircraft. Inexperienced people have accidents, and always will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the NTSB query for robinson from 1977-present there has been 784 accidents/incidents w/262 fatalities. The NTSB query for the h269 from 1965-present shows 1105 accidents/incidents w/108 fatalities.

 

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 likley to be involved in a fatal accident than the h269/300 per 100,000 flight hrs, It says that the accident rate for the R-22 has improved some since the SFAR 73 but is still twice as likley as the 269/300. according to the study the robbie is the most dangerous in the survey w/the B206 being the safest.

 

www.hothelicopters.com/career schools.htm

Edited by fatnlazy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the twenty-year period in which the U.S. Army utilized the TH-55 at Fort Rucker for primary training, they accumulated 1.5 million flight hours in TH-55s and had only one fatality.
Source: http://www.californiaflightcenter.com/news/news.htm#364

 

Apparently, it is a release by Schweizer Aircraft Corp. (note the dateline location). Still, the claim matches what I've been able to find out about the TH-55 during the Army's use of it from 1964-1988 from non-Schweizer, Hughes, and MD sources. NTSB database shows 59 fatal accidents in Hughes 269 types from 1962-1980. If you extend that to 1994, you get 92 in 32 years. Add the Army's one, you get 93 in the same timeframe. And, in the other 13 years that bring us to the present day, 26 fatal accidents. That's 118 for 45 years.

 

Since 1979 (production of the R22), I counted 122 fatal accidents for the R22. That is 122 for 18 years. That's not a marginal difference in my book. That's significant. I'll grant you that there are quite a few factors we might introduce to attempt to shorten the gap (soften the blow?). But, the raw data is enough to give one pause.

 

At the very least, I'd say that the R22 is a more unforgiving airframe. I think that may be the source of disagreements in these discussions; the criteria we're using to frame the definition of "safety".

Edited by Linc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I queried robinson not r-22, not r-44, only robinson, and It gave me 262 fatalities in robbies from 1977-present, try it see what happens. I did the same thing for h269 from 1965-present.

Edited by fatnlazy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fatnlazy,

 

I was trying to make sure that the figures I found weren't biased by the number of people who died in the event. 1 fatality is enough to qualify as a fatal accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fatnlazy,

 

I was trying to make sure that the figures I found weren't biased by the number of people who died in the event. 1 fatality is enough to qualify as a fatal accident.

 

I see now but I still come up w/162 fatal robbie accidents and 108 this time for the 300 w/1 in th th55.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1313 R22's

1054 R44's

969 269's

 

So, there are over 2.4 times more Robinsons registered than 269 series. No doubt they have more accidents. There are more of them! Not to mention that they are the most heavily utilized trainers, thus they fly more hours than just about any other type of helicopter in existance.

 

Also, a high fatality rate doesn't make an aircraft unsafe. It just means it is exposed to more risk. You have to look at mechanical failures not attributed to pilot error to determine if an aircraft is unsafe. You are talking a handful of accidents in both models, and not enough to make a statistical determination. This means that both aircraft are perfectly safe in the hands of a competent pilot.

 

The B-26 Marauder had the worst training record, but it also had the best record in combat. The MU-2 has a horrible reputation as a pilot killer, but those who are comfortable in the model love it, and it has been shown to be very safe when a properly trained pilot is behind the controls. Very rarely to aircraft kill people. The part of an aircraft most likely to fail is the nut that holds the controls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you get 969 269's?

The number of currently registered ships can't be used as the fleet size as more than 3000 269 ships have been produced.

 

Those are the number of helicopters registered in the US since the accident figures are US figures. Robinson is manufacturing around 800 helicopters a year, and Schweizer around 25 helicopters a year. You don't become the best all time helicopter manufacturer outselling all other manufacturers combined by producing junk or unsafe machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I edited my original post to show what I read about the 269 series...

4 million flight hours by the US ARMY, 12 million touchdown autos, 60,000 pilots trained, over 3600 269's produced, military trainer for 23 other countries, over 20 million hours put on the fleet.

 

Yes, robinson is pumping out way more aircraft nowadays... but hughes/schweizer has put them out for 20 years longer, making the fleet size more comparable... what is the R22 fleet size at?

 

Here is a nice read comparing the two at midwest helicopters website http://www.flymidwest.com/TrainingBirds.html

Then click on schweizer vs robinson pdf at the bottom....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the NTSB probable cause report Jan 99- Dec 03.

 

Fatals

R22 and 206 series are tied, 18 fatals each.

269/300 w/ 8

369/500 w/ 8

Bell 47 w/ 7

R44 w/5

 

 

Mechanical Failures

206 w/18

369/500 w/13

269/300 w/11

B47 w/11

R22 w/5

R44 w/1

 

Pilot Errors

R22 w/140

206 w/115

269/300 w/68

B47 w/53

369/500 w/45

R44 w/17

 

Undetermined

206 w/10

269/300 w/8

369/500 w/ 6

B47 w/6

R22 w/5

R44 w/0

 

Engine Failure

369/500 w/8

206 w/7

B47 w/3

269/300 w/2

R22 w/1

R44 w/0

 

Total accidents

R22 w/151

206 w/150

269/300 w/89

B47 w/73

369/500 w/72

R44 w/18

 

 

 

 

 

corrected 01/29/07

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, couple things.

 

First- how do you estimate how many hours each aircraft type flies? Do you log into some NTSB website each time you land to tell them what kind of bird you just flew and for how long? Of course not, hence any graph showing rates/hours flown are best guesses..not actuals.

 

Second, someone asked is the R22 safe? Well about 85% of all accidents are pilot error compared to a Bell 206 where the run rate is about 69%, about 55% in a 500, and I think in the high 90%'S for the R44..what this means is a couple things,

 

While the R22 has a higher rate of accidents, most are attributed to the pilot. Which means that mechanically it is a very strong ship..The R44 has even fewer mechanical issues...however- once again, there are many limitations in the R22 that pilots ignore..so what could be construed as a mechanical weakness gets attributed to pilot error..just look at carb ice. And like someone stated, it has the highest number of low time pilots flying it.

 

Statistics are an interesting game- From 96-2000 the R44 had one fatal accident, the MD 500 had 17....guess the 500 isnt safe now?

 

Bottom line is this- Pilot error kills more helo pilots than everything else combined....lets work on that one first.

 

Fly safe,

 

Goldy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FNL,

 

Drop the H from 269 and search. You will get 1230 incidents, not 1105. Count all the 269 frames, including the D with the Allison 250. Yes, the Robbie had troubles in the beginning, everyone knows that. After the NTSB Special Report on the R22, there were design change recommendations suggested. Most if not all has been added to the R22. Read the report and look at a Beta or Beta II. Changed RRPM from 94% to 97 and 101 min's respectfully, low rotor horn, sensitive gov, and of course the S.F.A.R. 73 and awareness training for a light low inertia rotor systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, couple things.

 

First- how do you estimate how many hours each aircraft type flies? Do you log into some NTSB website each time you land to tell them what kind of bird you just flew and for how long? Of course not, hence any graph showing rates/hours flown are best guesses..not actuals.

 

Statistics are an interesting game- From 96-2000 the R44 had one fatal accident, the MD 500 had 17....guess the 500 isnt safe now?

 

Fly safe,

 

Goldy

 

Of course, comparing apples with pears is the first and often the most practical step towards faking a statistical review, i.e. a comparison between R44s and MD500s, two birds w/ IMHO a somewhat different mission assignment.

 

So would it matter, if you had the mentioned data? Basically speaking, only if, once again, both models would NOT be used for the same task. Because said task sets all other perimeters, as e.g. duration of flight, takeoffs, landings, maneuvers performed et cetera.

 

Let's just assume for a moment, the main task assigned to Schweizer and Robi is the same - Training. Of course, this assumption does not disregard the fact of either being used for different business, say photo or surveillance flight, heck, even long line if ask a kiwi, but reduces this in our model to a neglectable "slip-up" that is statistically accounted for by a confidence interval in the calculation.

 

Another advantage: because of the relative high number of models around and in "active duty" one can safely assume a normal (gaussian) distribution, making things a lot easier. Why? Because now you don't have to ask, whether school A flies two-hour blocks with 1200h per year/helicopter (school B 1,3, or 4-hour and 250h p.a./heli), school C does primarily hoverauto (totally forgotten by school A) and so on, because statistically, in the end, they all do pretty much the same with the same frequency and the same kind of pilot - one and a half beginner. For example, if schools A,B,C fly 10.000 hours per annum, D,E and F do 20.000 hours p.a., the latters will just see twice as many (but the same kinds of) accidents in the time period.

 

IMHO, both are in a head to head race, the one mechanically more reliable while trickier to fly, the other more forgiving in piloting character with a higher stress on the parts leading to more mechanically induced accidents; but in the end injuring or killing pretty much the same amount of pilots. :o

 

Cheers,

Lance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why the figure of 100,000 flight hours is used. I admit, I have no idea where the figure came from in the Brazos table. I can remember that there is a place in the NTSB report for that kind of thing.

 

Honestly, the closer I got to the beginning of the NTSB database (1962), the higher I thought I'd see the fatality rate of the 269/300 rise significantly so that we would be able to see some parity in the figures. That wasn't the case. I can't find a 13 year period where the 269 fatalities match the R22, or come close without some serious graphing to attempt to put the worst years in the same run of 13. The only other way to see how the total records would pan out is to look at the 100,000 hour fatality and accident rates.

 

Determining what the helicopter is being used for is another way of skewing the reports. If you were to look at the figures that way, you might arrive at a conclusion that the 269 is a safer aircraft to train in, but a more dangerous aircraft to operate and maybe vice versa on the R22. When overall, it IS more likely that one will have a better record than the other.

 

Goldy suggests that the R22 is a stronger ship, mechanically. I would suggest to you that the ease of maintenance and the reliability of the engine have little to do with fatality figures. Those often have to do more with the structural design and aerodynamic handling capabilities of the aircraft. Pilot error is a result of the understanding of the flying capabilities of the aircraft and the procedures to recover from them.

 

One final note, my figures do not include the R44. I do not consider those similar in the same manner that the 269/300 is.

 

mechanic,

 

How come the total accidents for 269/300 is the same number as pilot errors? That totally ruined my ability to make an illustration using totals vs pilot error vs fatalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the 22 record is Skewed by the no of LOW time instructors out there,

with what appears to be a attitude of, lets get to 1000hours and find a real job!

I am not saying that they don't do their best, but with real low hours do they have the experience ??

Taking the total life of the 269 fleet the instructors were initially military who presumably had a whole lot of experience to start with & if not by the end of their service would have been 10.000 hour ++ pilots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mechanic,

How come the total accidents for 269/300 is the same number as pilot errors? That totally ruined my ability to make an illustration using totals vs pilot error vs fatalities.

 

Linc,

Sorry, my eye got off course. Was not trying to stir the pot!!!! Thanks for pointing that out.

 

 

 

RHC pdf w/NTSB Probable Cause Report on last page. This chart is also on the R22 Auto's DVD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500E,

 

But if that is the case, where is the corresponding high accident rate from early in the 269's existence or from its reemergence with Schweizer's 300CB and CBi as a training aircraft? (see my additional question in the following paragraph) And, as a training aircraft, isn't the Schweizer primarily operated at the same types of schools where you progress to being the CFI training the students? I know that several schools that use the 300 almost exclusively, including Brazos, market themselves that way. And they do it without the additional hour requirement of SFAR 73 for their CFIs.

 

The one thing I haven't heard is someone suggest that the NTSB database is incomplete for the early years, which may be likely, since it takes time to build the understanding of a reporting requirement. (There you go, joker, more ammo for you! ;) )

 

mechanic,

 

I didn't think you were. I assumed your source made the error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you cannot compare the military hours and fleet numbers to that of the civilian training environ. Now, if upon successful completion of IERW and AQC all of those wobbly 1's were now instructors........those numbers would be equal to that of Robinson.

 

The problem does not lie with the Aircraft. The problem lies w/ training and the insurance lobby.

 

Look at it honestly.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at it honestly...hmmmm.

 

What would insurance companies look at to determine what to charge for insurance on an aircraft?

 

Frequency of accidents

Mortality rate

Liability

Repair/Replacement cost

 

Kind of the same things they look at to cause them to charge the motorcycle rider more than the Soccer Mom driving the minivan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at it honestly...hmmmm.

 

What would insurance companies look at to determine what to charge for insurance on an aircraft?

 

Frequency of accidents

Mortality rate

Liability

Repair/Replacement cost

 

Kind of the same things they look at to cause them to charge the motorcycle rider more than the Soccer Mom driving the minivan.

 

 

Hey Linc - that is precisely my point. Frequency of accidents, mortality rate, and general liability would be exponentially decreased if the training environment was revamped.

 

That is why I said previously that the Military fleet should not be compared to the civilian fleet. The reason for that is you DO NOT stand a chance at being an IP at Mother Rucker until you have logged mucho experience and mucho hours......which is the polar oposite of the civilian training environ.

 

The insurance companies are undoubtedly paying MORE money on their policies and as a direct result and are obviously required to charge more. If you had to have 5000 hours to be an instructor it would be very safe to assume that the top 3 categories you mentioned above would be DIRECTLY affected and the trend would decrease exponentially, Rapidly. That is my point. Its not that the aircraft is a peice of crap that simply falls from the sky. Some do fall from the sky....but so do Bell, MD, EC, Sikorski's, Agusta's, et all.

 

Either I am way out in left field or I over-analyze to get to the real root of an issue. I'm probably just way out in left field though. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flyfisherman79,

 

According to my count, the one military fatality that we can account for helps the R22 rather than hurts it since I did not attempt to define the fatality rate according to 100K of flight hours. I merely attempted to account for all the fatalities over the lifetime of each airframe to the current day.

 

But, I dunno if the helicopter industry can support higher hour requirements for CFIs. I agree that it would only benefit the training, but could the industry sustain training waiting for the next crop of instructors to gain that magic amount of time to begin training? Would the next group of pilots be able to afford to gain that amount of flight time experience? I don't think so. Helicopters are expensive to operate and our training is highly specialized to the jobs we do, but our industry is upside down compared to the fixed wing. We pay more to acquire the training, pay more per hour to operate the airframes we fly, and pay the monkey behind the stick peanuts to keep flying (yes, I are one). The pilot is the cheapest link in the whole chain. For these reasons, both the R22 and the 269/300 are critical for the niche they fill in the market, no matter what the accident rates say, to allow pilots the easiest way to break into the industry.

 

Face it, if it wasn't exciting and dangerous, nobody would want to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, one thing I did want to mention is that we are all only looking at the NTSB database, which is 95% those accidents that occur in US or US territory, ( there are a few exceptions)...and we are not looking at worldwide occurrences....which is almost impossible to derive...certain ships, like the R22, does a lot of export to other countries, and any accidents would not be in the numbers you are looking at.

 

Also, I like the 300. In fact if I was going to be out in winds, turbulence or have to crash a bird, I would rather be in the 300 than the 22. The stats simply show that the R22 has fewer accidents due to mechanical failures..and certainly more due to the pilot.

 

My comment about the 500 was a jest...hopefully I didnt lose any chances to catch a ride in one !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Also, a high fatality rate doesn't make an aircraft unsafe. It just means it is exposed to more risk. You have to look at mechanical failures not attributed to pilot error to determine if an aircraft is unsafe. You are talking a handful of accidents in both models, and not enough to make a statistical determination. This means that both aircraft are perfectly safe in the hands of a competent pilot.

...

 

I would have to disagree somewhat with this statement. In my opinion, safety is not limited to just mechanical failure. A huge part of safety is the machine’s resistance to pilot error induced accidents. As an example, I would consider the 300CBi safer than an R22 because it does not give the pilot an option of icing up the carb or bumping the mast. If an engine failure were to occur, it would also give more reaction time. I’m sure most people will agree that the helicopter’s susceptibility to accidents as a result of pilot error, is a major factor in the aircraft’s overall safety.

 

No one is perfect. I bet many of us know at least one or two awesome pilots who were killed in accidents as a result of pilot error. While the industry does an excellent job of promoting safety, everyone makes mistakes at some point (we are humans after all). It’s just nice to be able to fall back on the machine when the mistakes happen.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...