Any idea how many R22 deaths there are annually? Total? Just curious what the body count is

[franknyc]

Anybody have links on such stats?

[majmun]

Anybody have links on such stats?

 

With regards to accidents in the US or involving US registered aircraft, ntsb.gov is the best place to start. They have a fairly intuitive query page that allows you to sort by date, injury, aircraft type, etc. There's a ton of valuable information there if you have the right attitude towards the subject, which is to learn from other's mistakes - not to satisfy some morbid curiosity. There may be some all-inclusive statistics (world-wide) out there as well.

[RotorWeed]

Anybody have links on such stats?

 

And your point is?

[mattcob]

when you ask a question like this it makes me wonder what on earth people are telling you about r22s, when treated properly, flown properly they are as safe as any other copter, i have plenty of hours in a 22 and still to this day do i not understand the scaremongering that goes on with this aircraft.

 

what you really need to ask is how many stupid accidents that were avoidable had the pilots taken the correct precautions in one of the most successfully built helicopters in the world that accrue thousands of event free flying hours per year!

 

had to get that off my chest!!

 

blue skies

 

mattcob

[PA Pilot]

Anybody have links on such stats?

I wasn't going to respond for the reasons the others gave. And then I got curious. So I looked at 2006 for the U.S. Only:

 

R22 - 3

Hughes/Schweizer - 4

Other helos - 19

 

Since there's a boatload of R22's out there, that makes it a pretty safe helicopter, doesn't it?

 

If you want to look at the reports, go to:

 

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

[franknyc]

I was just curious. I found the answer though, but it only covered years 1984-1994. 62 total deaths, or 4.061 deaths per 100,000 hours flown. It's actually the most dangerous helicopter (excluding experimentals/homemades) The 2nd most dangerous helicopter was the Bell 47 at 2.3 deaths per 100,000 hours flown. The Bell Ranger 206 is the most safe at .92 deaths per 100,000 hours flown. Although there were more deaths in Bell 206 from 84-94, the Bell 206 logged a total of 13.5 million hours of flight time during those 10 years as oppossed to the R22, at 1.5 million hours flown during the same period.

The above figures are U.S. only.

[Tenacious T]

A more interesting and less controversial topic would be; "How many civilian helicopter training related deaths occur each year?".

[FUSE]

I was just curious. I found the answer though, but it only covered years 1984-1994. 62 total deaths, or 4.061 deaths per 100,000 hours flown. It's actually the most dangerous helicopter (excluding experimentals/homemades) The 2nd most dangerous helicopter was the Bell 47 at 2.3 deaths per 100,000 hours flown. The Bell Ranger 206 is the most safe at .92 deaths per 100,000 hours flown. Although there were more deaths in Bell 206 from 84-94, the Bell 206 logged a total of 13.5 million hours of flight time during those 10 years as oppossed to the R22, at 1.5 million hours flown during the same period.

The above figures are U.S. only.

 

And where did you find this information. Like everything else, if you do a search on this board alone you will find lots of threads about the exact topic you posted with answers just like you posted and rebuttals on why that information is not correct.

 

One of the biggest things you need to take into account is how many of those deaths were due to the machine and how many were due to pilot error. Being that the R22 is mostly used as a flight trainer most of those accidents are due to pilot error, NOT the machine. So the machine itself is not dangerous, it's the pilots flying it.

[RotorWeed]

How many people were killed in their Toyota Camerys this year? How many people were killed on motor cycles this year? How many people were killed crossing the street?

What difference does it make?

[FUSE]

Ok, So I was curious now and decided to do some reading. All of my information for the first part of the post is from the NTSB. Records from 12-22-1975 to 7-31-2007.

 

During that time recorded with the NTSB in the USA only there were 56 incidents which resulted in 84 deaths. 2 of those deaths were in a plane that an R22 hit.

 

Now out of those 56 incidents, the NTSB determined that 39 of them were due to Pilot Error, 15 were unknown, and only 2 of them could they determine was because of mechanical failure.

 

In reading those 15 unknown it seems though that at least half could have been mechanical failure but there was no way to say for sure.

 

The 2 that they say for sure was failure of the aircraft was in 1982 and 1983. You can definitely see a pattern of things getting better. The 80's seemed to be a school of hard knocks decade. Lots of those incidents they now have training in place to avoid, IE: mast bumping, low G conditions, ect....

 

Bottom line though, it's hard to believe ANY statistics. Remember 83% of all statistics are wrong. They can be twisted so many different ways, leave one thing out and they can tell a totally different story.

 

I did learn a lot reading those reports though. The two biggest lessons that were reinforced with me,

 

1 - DO A PROPER PRE-FLIGHT, including weather briefings!!!

 

2 - WATCH THE DAMN WIRES FOLKS!!! Those things are killers.

 

Now here are the stats that Robinson says in their safety course. Just percentage numbers...

 

In the early 80's before the safety program.

 

36% - Low Rotor RPM Stall

14% - Weather

14% - Collision - Mostly Wires

14% - Fuel Exhaustion

14% - Aircraft Failure

7% - Mishandling Controls

 

In the late 80's to Early 90's

 

32% - Collision - Mostly Wires

22% - Low Rotor RPM Stall

14% - Weather

9% - Low G Mast Bumping

 

Mid 90's & 2000's

 

36% - Collision - Again, mostly Wires

22% - Weather

14% - Low Rotor RPM Stall

7% - Low G Mast Bumping

21% - Other - Unknown

 

According to Robinson it is currently 1.4 deaths per 100,000 flight hours.

[Voluptuary5]

Thanks for doing your homework, Fuse.

 

-V5

[lockedcj7]

I didn't reply because this is the same, tired subject that has been covered sooooo many times.

 

It's actually the most dangerous helicopter (excluding experimentals/homemades)

 

Correction: was

 

As others have pointed out, it's not the helicopter as much as it is the mission, who's flying it and how it's flown. More accidents occurred in that helicopter than any other for the years indicated. Since SFAR 73 came out and Robinson instituted their school, the accident rate is actually better, or as good as, any other helicopter.

 

If you've had SFAR 73 training, been to the Robinson school and you fly a well-maintained Beta II, you've got no more to worry about than in any other make and model, probably less. I would pass on the chance to fly a Standard or Alpha, but that's just me.

Edited August 15, 2007 by lockedcj7

[Gomer Pylot]

When you have very low-time instructors flying with new students, there will be accidents, no matter what the helicopter make and model. The R22 is one of the most common training helicopters because it's relatively inexpensive to purchase and maintain. Students want the cheapest training possible, not the best or the safest, and that's what they get.

[apiaguy]

I like to look at stats.... they do tell you something... just not sure what sometimes.

 

I querried fatal accidents 1990-2007 (that eliminates alot of early r-22 teething) in the US only: 84

 

Same years for the 269C (schweizer 300C) : 43

 

There was certainly a larger fleet size of the 300 for those first 10 years... now the robinson has a larger fleet but both aircraft have similar flight profiles and missions.... especially in the accidents that have occured with each.

 

I always agree that it is the pilot not necessarily the aircraft (wire strike, fuel management, etc..)

Unfortunately when put in an emergency situation the R22 has less margin of forgiveness... I do equate that to being less safe.

[Helo-Pilot]

I have read and re-read this post several times.

 

For some reason I am fascinated by the fact that several people here took immediate offense to the original question by Franknyc.

 

RotorWeed "And your point is? "

 

Why is everyone getting so uptight about a simple question? Nowhere did Frank point any fingers, even at Robinson, to says that they are bad machines, or killers. He just asked for some information.

 

If this is going to become the type of response we give our fellow VR members, maybe we should petition to have the name changed to something like Jus . . .

 

OOOOOO, never mind.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Helo-Pilot

[Pogue]

Why is everyone getting so uptight about a simple question? Nowhere did Frank point any fingers, even at Robinson, to says that they are bad machines, or killers. He just asked for some information.

When the thread title makes what appears to be a snide remark about body count it's pretty easy to assume there's an agenda.

[Helo-Pilot]

Ok. I'll give you that.

 

The remark about the body count does have a nasty sound to it.

 

Sorry for the earlier rant, I just get irritated when I see so many seemingly good people in aviation treat each other with such disrespect and utter contempt.

 

Why are people in this industry like that?

[Galadrium]

Thats what happens when you train with an aircraft that wasn't designed for training.

 

Bottom line, the R22 was never designed to be a trainer. Considering the fact that Frank Robinson agrees, I'm in good company with that opinion.

[RotorWeed]

Ok. I'll give you that.

 

The remark about the body count does have a nasty sound to it.

 

Sorry for the earlier rant, I just get irritated when I see so many seemingly good people in aviation treat each other with such disrespect and utter contempt.

 

Why are people in this industry like that?

 

Do you ask your friends that drive Honda Accords what is Honda's body count?

 

How about your friends that drive motorcycles? Do you ask them what the "body count" is for a Harley?

 

What difference does it make if two more people have died in an R-22 then a Jet Ranger in the last 10 years? What is the point? That a jet ranger is safer?

 

RW

[svtcobra66]

What difference does it make if two more people have died in an R-22 then a Jet Ranger in the last 10 years? What is the point? That a jet ranger is safer?

 

RW

 

I'd imagine that yes, the Jetranger is safer. And statistics prove it...No reason to get overly defensive of the R22. Its twitchier than other trainers, thus higher accident rates. Seems pretty straightforward...not saying one is better than the other, but its the same kind of reason inexperienced drivers (teenagers) have higher insurance rates for sports cars, its easier to lose control and they require more skill to operate. Newer pilots jump in an R22 and may get themselves into trouble, and due to the very low inertia of the r22's rotor system, there's not much room for error. I don't really see how one could argue that the R22 is "better" than other trainers, as Frank Robinson himself said it was never meant to be one. Its cheaper, so of course more people want to learn in it. And i could certainly see why potential students would be interested in comparing accident rates in helicopters, the safer the better. If Jetrangers were cheaper to fly, everyone would train in one. Would you want to train in a Mini 500? No, because the accident rates are awful. End rant

[Goldy]

Hey, I know ..lets turn this into an R22 vs 300 discussion !!!! ( ducks while you throw things at me !)

 

Ok, couple things to remember when dealing with stats.

 

A VERY large number of R22's and 44's get shipped internationally- and very few international accidents get loaded into the NTSB database.

 

There is no hours police. Consequently any estimate of 100,000 hours flown is nothing more than a guess.

 

Check out how the stats changed when the governor on the R22 came out (about 1995?).

 

Personally I love flying the Bell47 and consider it a very safe ship. I would be curious to see what is behind so many of those accidents.

 

Goldy

[apiaguy]

well said!!

 

now we all can agree that the r22 is the most dangerous certified helicopter produced.

 

 

hehe

[ADRidge]

Yes, the R-22 is a "sportier" aircraft than should be used as a trainer. Maybe it's just my ignorance, but the fact that my current instructor has about 2k hours in type makes me feel a touch better about only having 1.5hrs TT, 1.5hrs in type. I feel that it's a safe enough aircraft to trust my life to.

 

About the statistics. How many 206's are used as primary trainers? You mentioned the safety of the 300C's. Does that include the 300CBi's and all the other variants or just the 300C? One of the guys made a point about pilot error. Yeah the R-22 is probably a bit less forgiving (even the Beta's) than other trainers, but come on. Less than 2 deaths per 100,000 hours flown. Do you want a sure thing? As long as you're breathing, nothing is a sure thing. I've hedged my bets as best I can and if I eat it, I eat it. If I don't, I honestly feel I'm that much better a pilot for training in an unforgiving aircraft.

Edited August 16, 2007 by ADRidge

[Goldy]

Lets see, the insurance companies will let me fly the R22 solo as a student pilot with a simple endorsement and a handful of hours? Now then, as a licensed pilot I cant fly the 206 solo until I have 300 hours IN TYPE...I wonder which ship they think is safer to fly ?

 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[Voluptuary5]

I agree with Helo-Pilot. Franknyc got a pretty rude response to his thread. Actually, doesn’t his query show maturity? To me it sounds like he might be simply doing his homework. Granted how he phrased his question was a little insensitive, especially in light all the high-profile helicopter fatalities this past year (including loosing one of VR’s own), but if he is trying to do his homework and maybe trying to convince an unsupportive wife/girlfriend/family member, his query can’t be viewed as anything other than trying to “get both sides of the story”.

 

That being said, Franknyc, FYI, most, if not all, on this site take pilot fatalities very seriously if not personally…

 

For what it’s worth,

 

-V5