R22 deemed safer than the R44

[Goldy]

Ok, now that I have your attention. A review of all NTSB reported incidents and accidents involving the R22 or R44 ships during the last 3 months (July, Aug, Sept) shows that the R44 has been involved in 13 deaths, the R22 only 2. And there are a lot more R22's in the air right now.

 

I love statistics.

 

Over 3 months there were 16 crashes for both types. Until the very last incident on Sept 30th, ALL R-44 crashes resulted in fatalities for all aboard. Wow, that makes surviving an R44 crash very unlikely. There were 4 R44 crashes and 12 for the R22. Out of all the R22 crashes there were only 2 fatalities and 1 injury.

 

I feel so much better now flying my R22.

 

Here's some more interesting twists. 2 crashes were R22's losing drive belts. 6 crashes were practicing auto's...thats about 40% of all crashes ! ( 6 out of 16, you do the math !)

 

5 sure look like pilot error, with 2 being CFIT. Not surprising, those 2 CFIT crashes resulted in 9 of the R44 fatalities. I wonder why no one is trying to fly the R22 into total IMC ? Maybe as Frank thinks, the R44 and all the cool instrumentation gives you the false sense that you can really fly this thing in zero vis. One R44 accident killed 5 people on board ????? Hmmm...must be the new 5 seat R44, a pre-cursor to the R66 I'm sure.

 

OK, so lets see 5 pilot errors for sure PLUS the 6 practice autos...also pilot error, give you 11 accidents out of the 16 total. Again, you do the math.....about 70% of all accidents.

 

COME ON PEOPLE !!! We should sure know better than this. While helicopters aren't perfect machines, and neither are humans....70% is a number that is way too large. Proper training should keep this number under 20%...and that's lives saved.

 

7 of the R22 crashes pretty much destroyed the bird, yet resulted in zero injuries. Just goes to show you the R22 can roll around on the ground pretty good without injury.

 

3 of the 16 were not clear what the cause was. 2 of those 3 looked suspect of loss of control, maybe mast bumping incidents.

 

Wow, stats sure have a way of twisting things. Sorry to cut this short, I have to run to make my flight in my favorite ship of all time....a white and blue R44 Raven I, with fully integrated IFR cockpit, GPS linked to HSI.....great stuff. Glad I never plan to use any of it.

 

Fly safe. Goldy

Edited October 11, 2007 by Goldy

[Hovergirl]

"COME ON PEOPLE !!! We should sure know better than this. While helicopters aren't perfect machines, and neither are humans....70% is a number that is way too large. Proper training should keep this number under 20%...and that's lives saved."

 

 

I remember reading that the ultimate goal was to make 100 percent of all accidents pilot error -- I was rather shocked at this initially, until I started thinking of it from the engineer/maintenance person's point of view. Of course you want the machine to give you as close to perfect performance as it can, and they're a lot more predictable and easy to control than anything else in the equation (pilots, weather, other pilots, birds...). I think if the helicopters get better/safer the goal should be fewer accidents in general, human beings are going to take constant tinkering.

[mechanic]

Hey Goldy,

You feel up to doing this for the 300 CB/CBI??????

 

LOL

[BOATFIXERGUY]

I'm going to slightly quote (mostly because I do not know the exact quote!) Frank Robinson as an incite into why there would be more R44 crashes... Frank said that because the R44 is so easy to fly, that the biggest problem with it is that it's still a helicopter. Pilots forget that. The R44 requires a more seasoned pilot, just in hours. The tendancy of some of these pilots is that they become too comfortable in their flying. Comfort will kill you.

 

No one is saying you should be tense waiting for it to crash. I sure do not fly that way. I fly for a living and the pure fun of it.

 

Thanks Goldy for getting a hot topic started...

 

p.s. Your r22 looks good upside down...Might check you altitude though! LOL

 

john

[Chi-town]

Here's my explanation which comes from instructing in both types of Robbies and watching former students fly their personal craft.

 

R22s are primarily training aircraft which (other than for solos) usually has a flight instructor in the aircraft. If the CFI is doing his job, he will be ready to react to any wrong move the student pilot makes or to "make the call" on things such as weather, altitude, route, etc. That's why I'll make the assumption that most of the accidents occuring when an instructor is in the ship is limited to auto practice and dynamic rollover (which may happen too quickly for adequate recovery)

 

The R44, on the other hand, is used more by the recently minted private pilot who got his license in order to fly his own personal craft. What I have observed is that these owners (usually older, well-off professionals) quickly become complacent. Some examples: Cruising along with your left hand on your lap instead of the collective, exiting the aircraft while the engine is still running and the blades turning in order to get the ground handling wheels and dolly in position, flying under questionable weather conditions due to "get-there-itis", habitually over-loading the aircraft past MGW. Having three passengers in the ship versus one in the R22 increases the distractions also.

 

This complaceny is what causes the accidents in the R44. The relative comfort, ease to fly, etc. of R44s is also a factor contributing ti the complaceny. The only thing instructors can do for these types of students is to hammer safety into their heads and keep them scared straight. Show them the videos, the NTSB reports, point out complaceny by others and hope that it sinks in.

[apiaguy]

NEWS FLASH!!! SCHWEIZER 300C/CBI ARE SAFEST TRAINING HELICOPTERS (I knew it)

 

Due to popular demand a study has been conducted of the accidents involving the Schweizer 300 series helicopters following the accident database prescribed in a previous r22 accident investigation (July, August, September 2007)

 

There were only 4 accidents!

Only 3 minor injuries

3 of the 4 accidents occured during autorotation practice with a student and instructor at the controls.

The other accident occured when the pilot got out of the helicopter to refuel and told his friend not to touch anything and when he swiped his credit card he looked back and saw the helicopter roll over

 

One auto accident the pilot said he rolled on and pulled collective but the rpm went down and they hit hard

Another student misjudged his flare and took out the tailrotor

The final accident the engine died when the auto was initiated.

 

So two out of three accidents will be blamed on mechanical failure as the engine died or failed to respond during the auto. That's 66% mechanical failure... a horrible rate. Yes, a contributing factor in the accident was the cfi/student's poor piloting skills during the final touchdown. When are people gonna learn not to "roll off" the throttle during simulated auto practice in the 300? Simply lower the collective and the correlator will reduce rpm... the POH even warns about simulated throttle chops.

 

Other than that mechanical failure prone engine the aircraft is impeccable!!

The only 300CBI accident was the guy getting out to refuel! Man that aircraft is perfect in safety... only pilot error!!!!

 

Come on.... you knew it was coming

[Goldy]

NEWS FLASH!!! SCHWEIZER 300C/CBI ARE SAFEST TRAINING HELICOPTERS (I knew it)

 

 

Lets see, Robinson made what, about 600 ships last year...and Schweizer built 20 ?..ok..maybe 90?

 

I used to know the figures......big difference in production that is for sure.

 

I still like the 269/300 though...wont own one until they come with reclining seats, 120K VNE, and get rid of the damn doorframe that I stare into when looking for traffic..

 

Goldy

[Voluptuary5]

To account for the differences in aircraft number in each flavor, you only have to put these numbers in relation to something the two have in common; for example, total flight hours flown in that time frame or total number of aircraft flying. I know it is easy to fudge numbers and make them come out looking like you want them to but it is my opinion that percentages are a relatively unbiased way to look at numbers like these (i.e., number of accidents/number of hours flow or number of accidents/number of aircraft). This would then be your likelihood of an accident occurring and that equals your risk (the smaller the number the better).

 

The only argument then is how you come up with your numbers.

 

66.6% of my opinion,

 

 

-V5

[Mike Murphy]

Most mishap statistics I have seen are givern in mishaps per flight hour (usually in thousands of flight hours)

[Pogue]

Just out of curiosity does anyone know where you can get the Army training accident rates for the TH-55 and TH-67?