One Type with 33 pages of accidents!

[OPECJet]

There's an entire subsection in either Part 61 or 91 on the R22 and R44 models. I think it's in 61, deals with minimum amounts of type specific training for that helicopter.

 

[gutshotdraw]

It had to do with certain flight control inputs causing dangerous rotor loading that could sever the tail boom....yikes.

 

[twinbeech]

There's an entire subsection in either Part 61 or 91 on the R22 and R44 models. I think it's in 61, deals with minimum amounts of type specific training for that helicopter.

SFAR 73.

 

[fischman]

An aircraft that has the wings moving faster than the fuselage is a helicopter, and inherently dangerous.



And this is the wrong forum.

 

[deadstick]

A few years back, I had an engine go TU on me. I luckily found a some-what flat field and una$$ed the a/c in the on my own two feet. Once I started breathing again, I thought to myself "Dang, I wish I was in a helicopter." Zero ground run auto, baby!

A year or so later, I decided to get the SFAR check-out in a Robbie. After the first auto, I wish is was back in that glider/airplane. That lil bug with the low-intertia rotor drops like a ROCK.

I did a little research on the R22 and the 269/300-series (not including the Army) helicopters. The 269 has been around since the 1960's and the Robbie since the late 1970's. They have about the same number of NTSB "events," except I believe the number of fatal crashes were almost 3:1. The 269 is a tank. The 22 is cheap with low DOC.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X14890&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X24624&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21753&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X15708&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X32539&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020917X04804&key=1

..less than 2 sec to enter an auto after and engine failure or the rotor stalls...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X14670&key=1

 

[RTRHD]

It had to do with certain flight control inputs causing dangerous rotor loading that could sever the tail boom....yikes.

That is with any semi-rigid rotor system. I did all the SFAR training on a R22. (a friend of mine had one and I only have just less than 100hrs in one) I can say if you did all your initial training in one and lived you would be able to fly anything. Its really not that bad as a training ship. But you really have to pay attention in ground school and watch Frank's video its mandatory and it gets your attention. (I see dead people)

And this is still the wrong forum.....

 

[OPECJet]

I've never seen a bird whose wings spun around his head. Therein lies the problem.....

 

[Be 23]

I once heard the safety rep from Robinson say, "We have the worst safety record because we have the worst pilots." It makes sense when you consider they've (nearly) cornered the market on training. On the other hand, what kind of POS needs its own SFAR? I got my 50 hrs in the TH-55 and wouldn't hesitate to fly a 269/300 again, but not a Robbie.

And really folks, this is the wrong forum.

 

[propsarebest]

Did you know that the R22 has the most AD's against it? Compared to all other GA airplanes, that is.

Frank Robinson didn't design it to be a trainer, he designed a CHEAP personal helicopter that flight schools began buying by the truckload, because thay are cheap.

A 300 or a Bell 47 is a MUCH better training helicopter.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Turbine or piston, too many moving parts for me. I prefer not to fly something so ugly the earth repels it.....

I thought it beat the air into submission.


Oh, if nobody said so, this is the wrong forum.

CE