Is the Robinson R44 A SAFE HELICOPTER
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- I walk you through 3 steps to find out if the Robinson R44 is a safe helicopter. First is the Evolution of Helicopters. Second is How they are flown. And third is who is flying them. I break apart some helicopter accidents and why they happen. Ultimately I give you my opinion on whether or not it is a safe helicopter.
The music is from Epidemic Sound:
www.epidemicso...
If you are interested in the flight training we offer you can visit our website:
www.bchelicopt...
You should follow us on the socials:
Instagram @bchelicopters
TikTok @bchelicopters
One of my former Army Reserve pilots had over 45,000 flight hours in just about everything you could think of from about 1966 in Virtnam to around 2000 when I lost track of him. He adamantly refused to get in a Robinson. He said you get no second chance with those things.
Dave Stutesman, don't you confuse anything with the number of hours? This is a very large figure and not realistic for such a period of time. I am writing this to you as a former pilot who has flown about the same number of years.
one went down immediately after take off out of Broome couple years back; didn't make any sense - looked awfully suss re maintenance or whatever. another sad day.
Your friend is wise. As a 31 year pilot, I've refused to ever fly a Robinson. Their design is too unforgiving.
@@garycook5125 They require a competent well trained pilot . Obviously you know your limits .
@@sarahann530Numerous, well trained, competent pilots have died in
Robinsons. There are situations that occur in flying aircraft sometimes, that the very best of us can't control.
The point about how the HC is being flown interests me a lot. The military in the US and Australia enforces a structural integrity program that is designed to pick up deviations from the design usage spectrum/profile (% of time spent in different flight phases and hence load cases leading to fatigue life consumption). The OEM would publish life limits in flight hours which are derived from the design usage spectrum. E.g., it was assumed 1.5 ground/air/ground cycles per flight hour. The design is then safe to be used if the HC over its life if the actual GAG cycle rate is at or below 1.5 per FH. If, however, the GAG rate is say 3 per FH over the life, the part most impacted by fatigue loading due to GAG cycles is likely to fail earlier than the published limits in the maintenance manual.
Hence, the structural integrity program is monitoring actual use vs design use, so that these trends could be picked up and life limits adjusted accordingly.
I am always curious to what extent operators of the GA HC types know how they are being flown compared to the design assumptions. I believe the grounding in NZ and Aus was, as you indicate, related to this issue.
Given the R philosophy to overhaul of critical components all at the same airframe time (as you outlined in your video re operating cost), and given the variability in usage across the fleet, safety factors in the design combined with the prescribed regular inspections of critical parts are the primary protection against premature failure due to usage deviating from the design assumptions. But this can only protect to some extent.
Well presented. Thank you. Past military rotary wing pilot here. I will not get in a Robinson. I don't even want to be under one when it is flying overhead. Sure, it appeals to the ones with no other options and the relatively ignorant. They are the ones for whom my heart aches.
The R22 and R66 have the same low mass teetering rotor system. Why only mention the R44?
It has been said many times in many places that all helicopters can experience "mast bumping"? Not true? The Hughes 500, and it's later versions, rotor hub is attached directly to the airframe which prevents mast bumping. This design should be required on all new designs henceforth!
I’ve flown Bell, Westland, Sikorsky and Aerospatiale helicopters. All solid, robust and safe helos with no sig dangerous flying qualities other than mast bump limitations with the older Iroquois and jet rangers. All my family are banned from ever going in a Robinson. John from Australia
I have worked on helicopters for 26 years. I have never liked Robbinson helicopters. I won't fly on one .
You notice that the military won't touch one? That's a clue....
I don't even like them flying close to me,
Robinson helicopters are not only unsafe, they look ridiculous and ugly.
Also note that no New Zealand government employee is allowed to fly in a R44-it's considered an unnecessary risk.
A New Zealand Coroner has just determined that due to a design flaw in the rotor head the Robinson is not suited to the turbulent mountainous terrain in New Zealand. A crash investigator has seen numerous Robinson crash remains with perspex bubble scratches on the leading edges of the blades and the accompanying blade impacted control column. Robinson refused to participate in the inquiry and also refused to comment on the findings. The conclusion is that over correction in turbulence results in the blades instantly losing all semblance of normal tracking and flailing away at the fuselage - in mid air.
I just watched the documentary on the crash of a Robinson which killed both pilot and son of famous NZ woman choppa pilot. Rotar blades completly failed. Id rather go up in a hot air balloon than one of these death traps.
Anyone thinking of flying in or piloting a Robinson helicopter should watch this first. Robinson are in denial about a serious design flaw in their helicopters..
th-cam.com/video/XuXDtZjqbQw/w-d-xo.html
Another Robinson mast bump fatal accident.. th-cam.com/video/alpGMjCZ83Y/w-d-xo.html
@@mickeybowmeister1944 Pretty much this. As a pilot myself, i've never gotten anywhere near a Robinson. They're total garbage. Most folks in aviation know this but they turn a blind eye when it comes to that matter or just try to relativize it.
@@mickeybowmeister1944 I’m trying not to have confirmation bias, but after I saw that same documentary I am now seeing many reports of Robinson crashes and “mishaps”. Wasn’t previously aware of this but now paying attention.
In NZ we have a very high accident rate with this chopper , they make up 25 % of choppers in NZ , and also make up 50% of crashes , basically the fall apart in mid air , mast bump due to tri hinge main rotor design . If they are used , then best on flat ground & low altitude , NOT good in mountains , or high and speed kept to 70 or lower .
There are a lot of them around , and its all to do with the low price , not because they are good .
I think it's because of mountains
Bottom line, know how to fly them-good advice that works in any aircraft.
There was an amendment to the r44 stating in turbulence slow down to help keep the disc loaded. Doesn’t matter what machine you’re flying, don’t fight the wind. That leads to a tense pilot and over correction. Relax and the helicopter relaxes, just accept its a bumpy ride. If it gets too much, put it down and wait it out.
Very well said.
It was very good advice too. I used it when flying through the Welsh mountains and it was getting a bit all over the place. Perhaps pull it back to 70 or so and enjoy the beautiful scenery for a little longer.
Great advice
Do Bell helicopters also have the ability to mast bump?
Yes, all twin blade machines are susceptible. As a rule, low g is not advised in any helicopter, but two blade machines an absolute no.
The investigation report about the crash of the R44 that killed the owner of the helicopter Stephane Roy (Savoura Sagami) and his son Justin during summer 2019 in Québec just came out. The cause is an undetected gradual rotor blade delamination wich is also apparently a popular issue on the R44.
Just too many "If's, and's or butt's to make it safe." Three-blade system would be good and stop the jerky vibration and reduce noise. How many more pilots and passengers must die before al the bugs are worked out? Push forward sever the tail, pull back aggressively and blades enter the cockpit and decapitate some poor soul. Bad training Heli
The design limitations of the R-44 are much easier to exceed due to the design itself and I just find it hard to put my faith in them, the risk far outweighs the reward in my book and flying "timidly" and constantly having to remind myself of limitations is not my idea of fun so I chose to stay away from them. The recent accident in Texas is all the reassurance I need was a training flight and there is no reason mast bumping should be occuring in training flights with the CFI in control.
I'm not a pilot but I see a lot of comments on here claiming that having an experienced pilot would stop that, but that seems like a super poor excuse for a helicopter being cable to chop it's own fucking tail off lol. I feel like that just shouldn't be possible
I agree “Ok”
@@brock83196831 I agree 100% ...The "design feature" consisting of the ability to hack one's own aircraft's tail off, just defies reason...
..agreed.
@@brock83196831 Well, as you said, you are not a pilot. If you were a helicopter pilot, you would have learned about the dangers of low-g flight in any two bladed teetering rotor system.
I have an observation. Since a lot of the training aircraft are R22's and R44's, they may be getting more abuse than you realize. The stress fractures can't be seen by the naked eye so you have no way of knowing you are renting a damaged craft. Unless you own the helicopter, you are just praying it hasn't had a severe mast bump in it's recent history that has not reached the point of causing total failure but is on its way.
MrOlddave, you may find this Australian ATSB report of interest: AO-2020-061.
It does discuss the indicator as to evidence of mast bumping. I may ask further at my local Robinson service agent.
Ask this question today and you may get some different answers. Those two pilots in Texas are dead because the Robinson chopped of it's own tail. They had no chance. Now, it may have been pilot error, but any machine that has that capability for catastrophic failure just for routine training isn't airworthy in my opinion. To my knowledge I can never remember another helicopter cutting off it's own tailboom. Just saying.
the Russian hind attack chopper is well known for doing it but that is also a 3rd word countries engineering
Even if it was pilot error the aircraft should be able to withstand a certain amount of that.
@@robslade2571 Exactly my point. If it's even POSSIBLE to self destruct with something so simple and routine, shut it down and fix it. That would be like buying a new car and the dealer says "oh, by the way, don't hit the brakes if you're on a side slope and over 30 mph. The wheels will come off". WTF? Uh...here's the keys back, can you get me a cab home?
Been doing a lot of reading lately about the R44, and your video really sums up what the reality is. Basically - and you and several of the commenters here have said - The R44 ain't an MD530, or a Kamov Black Shark, or an MBB105, so don't try to fly it like one.
Excellent video,very informative easy to understand,perfect for a student . Much better then most r22 instructors ive seen. Yes r22 are dangerous ,but so is every other helicopter, i do agree it shouldnt be a beginner trainer ,but at same time once u master it ,there are very few other helicopters u cant fly and well. And 1 million percent correct its who is behind the controls ,i had a friend taught here on long island ,moved back to cali was teaching part time while waiting for another job he had 700 hrs approx and was flying with a student a bit over 10 hours while taking off in a r22 ,about 200 ft, a turkey vulture ,came across and tore off tail rotor, bird had a 6 ft wing span, with a lot f luck and a excellent pilot auto down keeping skids straight and level, when he landed, skids bowed some but made it down safely. Also helped end of that runway lead over a golf course ,so no house ,buildings . So as u say its who flys them that ultimately can make all the difference in the world
master it or die. i'll pass.
From the New Zealand coroner's inquiry, the Robison cannot handle anything more than moderate turbulance due the rotor head design. While most helicopters might get a slight wobble in turbulance, the Robinson can cut its tail off or cut into the cockpit.
The rotor head was the problem.
Can't wait until Gimbal build a 4 seater Cabri. In my mind, Robo could learn a thing or two from the G2's rotor system.
It's been a round for a long time it's called the Astar or with the Fenston the Eco star. Gimbal has a major connection with Airbus (Eurocopter) and i don't think you will ever see anything but the Cabri. I would love to see a turbine Capri.
@@phatboizbackyardkustomz9006 Guimbal has mentioned they've received worldwide interest in a larger Cabri and they are keeping an open mind about it (paraphrased so as not to imply anything).
I have a picture of a potential prototype however, its a fake :-(
Turbine G2? that really would make it the most expensive 2 seater!!
I think they will desgin a 4 seater sooner or later. For the time, they are busy with UAV (VSR-700) but I am sure they will develop a 4 seater. We have to stay tuned! ;-)
@@runthering No, there is already turbine italian 2 seater.......not very expensive
...what I want to ask the Robinson Company... why do the as steering sticks use a old bicycle handlebar...
If I had the money to buy a heli.. for this reason alone I would not buy it.
Other thing the ugly design with the ultra high rotor axis housing...
Bell 206.. pretty Capri pretty... Robinson.. ugly..
Firstly is any aircraft safe? Define “safe”....i fly R22 and R44 in probably the most dangerous flying there is....game capture (always flying in the dead mans curve, flying under wires and trees etc.), i fly in mountains, rain, high wind and have never had a problem with them. They are extremely safe helicopters if flown correctly and within your envelope (the pilots personal envelope as the helicopter can do a lot more than what the poh limits you to). Bladder tanks in a R44 is a must, i agree. Frank Robinson is a legend and without him most of us would not have been able to fly helicopters. All these more modern helicopters have learned from past incidents and accidents on other helicopter makes and models, therefore they cannot claim to be praised like they are. Give me a Robinson helicopter for any task anyday....in wind, rain, mountains no problem. Hats off to Mr Robinson
, thank you Sit for a great machine.
I agree, he gave us a great helicopter... now make it better. Change the rotor system. 3 blade would be safer and a phenomenal improvement that I would welcome.
also try enstrom, nearly the same price.......better performance.....can take three adult & cargo compartment on piston......Handling, autorotation you will be surprised.......try new piston enstrom............
Hey man, I'm a ppl holder currently working on cpl and I am very interested in game capture flying. How did you get into it? What do they look for? Thanks
@@rustusandroid wouldn't making it 3 blades make it a lot more expensive, and hence turn some people away from flight training?
@@jasondick4756 It would be more expensive, yes. But not much more. And I would think the safety would attract more people to learn to fly, as they know they couldn't kill themselves by inadvertently chopping off their tail. Not killing people is more important than the little bit of money they are saving with a cheaper but flawed design. My opinion, of course.
I fly a Hughes 269A. I love my 3 blade system. I just wish I had a little more speed and passenger space.
I fly one, too Billy. My instructor called it a "tractor" LOL!
Buy a 66
I think an important point you could have emphasized more, in fairness to Robinson because someone watching this could possibly assume the mast bumping problem is a Robinson-only problem, is the fact that the same teetering semi-rigid rotor was used on thousands of Bell machines since the '47, it was always a problem on those machines too, and the whole phenomenon really wasn't understood until the 60s following the US Army's investigation of a number of nap-of-the-earth Huey crashes.
I learned in a 47 at Ft Rucker
I like the R44. The more hours I get the less I like two bladed helicopters because of the danger presented by low G pushovers. I also don't like the T bar cyclic. It's poor ergonomics. The T bar cyclic makes it more difficult to get to the console. One of my ideas for a helicopter is to remove the console but have flat screens closer to the pilots. The view outside would be improved, the instruments would be more readable, and the avionics controls more easily reached.
I think its a very safe helicopter, if it stays on the ground!
Thanks for discussing. For many years, without researching the issues, I've created a mental block about Robinson helicopters. This was in my mind when watching your channel, but saw that you weren't scared of them. Thank for explaining the issues head-on.
In total, there have been more than 1,600 accidents or incidents involving Robinson Helicopter aircraft, more than 425 of them fatal accidents resulting in more than 700 deaths do you think they are safe.I feel safer in a RAF 2000 gyrocopter than a Robinson helicopter
Did you happen to come across any data that reflects how many accidents Robinson’s have as a percentage of how many are in use? I know they’re inexpensive so I’m assuming there’s a ton of them out there compared to other brands. Just wondering if their accident count is so much higher just due to the high volume in usage out there. Thanks for sharing this!
Damn sure it is...
Us Aussie mustering pilots seem to break them (with surprising regularity) and we do! We break them so often, Robinson WILL NOT warranty a helicopter if it is used for mustering in Australia!
We've been known to do crazy shit like whacking the blade tips into the small branches to make noise (which we know will scare that bullock out from his cover), hover in UNDER a tree's canopy for the same reason. We sometimes mast bump (and pray the rotor head doesn't separate which has killed or seriously injured fellow muster pilots) with our sudden departures from a "normal" (read BORING!!) flight paths to chase that errant bull or cow (I've turned the chopper on its side at speed to get the rotor disc to fit between two trees chasing a cow back to the herd).
We "hot seat" refuel or change pilots (or even whole aircraft if the one we are flying needs a 100 hourly inspection).
Fuck, we even use them to "hellifish" (attach a fishing line with bait/lure to the skid, hover over a good Barra spot and then "reel in" the fish when it bites by climbing high enough to pull it out of the water to dump on the bank for a mate to retrieve. Don't tell the boss though, ok?).
Love 'em!!
P.S. I wonder how the R66 will handle what we will throw at it?
Neil Cutten Spot on Sir. As per my post above (or below). I am a game capture pilot in Africa and as you say we fly those helicopters way outside their designed criteria. I will take Robbies any day first time when doing this type of flying.
The one thing you didn’t mention is the low inertia of the Robinson two blades which means you have to be really alert for engine problems. You have a very short time to get the collective down and establish a good speed for autogiro.
A comment on Robinson, they are very safety conscious. There was an R22 in New zeland I think that had a corrosion problem because he lived near salt water. Mr Robinson knew I lived right on the Chesapeake Bay. One afternoon I got home from work and a big wooden box arrived from Robinson. New stainless Steel blades. No charge. My service center installed them the next day. I’m sure Robinson paid them for their work. That was really impressive for the company to do something like that. I flew my R22 for 8 years and put 1200 hours on it in total an since it had 800 hours on in when I purchased it. I got caught in turbulence several times but just making no fast moves it performed great. Each time I did and the service center carefully checked the places supports and found everything is good condition. Maybe it was the stainless steel blades but I was happy with the helicopter. I have to say the saddest day of my life was having to sell it to pay some health bill for my wife. I’m currently looking for another helicopter.
Any design that allows me the ability to chop my own tail off, is just a bad. For Robinson to say it's not a problem is really incredible. "Just fly it within it's design characteristics" they say. How bout just deleting the flaw Robinson, and you may save some lives.
Exactly...........Robinson refused to update design
You can't just delete a flaw.
@@jasondick4756 You can redesign it easily. But they don't even try.
What are you talking about? It is relatively very unsafe and one of the most dangerous helicopters there is- period. Stats don't lie. Between 2006-2016 it had 38 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Compare that to the Sikorsky 76 which only had 2. Airbus 1. McDonnell Douglas 369 had 6.
You spend too much time talking about some rubber bladder- ok, that's nice but more on and stop selling it. "IN THE RIGHT HANDS" is not reassuring. Either it is generally safe overall or it is not. If they are going to cut costs to make these things affordable, they best include a big parachute.
R.I.P. R44 Pilot- Dr. Ty Wallis and his flight student. 3.2022
Addendum: Dr. Wallis WAS THE STUDENT, not the instructor (Laura Trout was the CFI).
Re "Probable Cause w/Dan Gryder" video on that accident.
Bladdered fuel tanks have a shorter service life......so that adds another super expensive mandatory service/maintenance expense. I’m sure that was an initial consideration by Robinson to lower the selling price and ongoing running costs. That’s how it works in my world of race cars.
Ferrari f40 fuel tanks need to be replaced after 7-9 years at the cost of 12k usd.......whether you drive it or not😎
Mischa, Have you have seen some of the aussie outback helicopter pilots mustering cattle in R22s, some of them make the R22 look like the safest most agile helicopter in existance.
jbm Neil Cutten Spot on Sir. As per my post above (or below). I am a game capture pilot in Africa and as you say we fly those helicopters way outside their designed criteria. I will take Robbies any day first time when doing this type of flying.
I think that the video was spot on. It said it all. Bravo, and many thanks
Lot many crashes also.........
The cost is one factor, but Robinson didn’t change their design to make it better. Every other helicopter company changed their design to make them better. They took a bad design of the R22 to a larger version with the R44 and the R66. The Bell 47 went through many versions. All better. Then when they went to a bigger helicopter. They didn’t make a larger version of it they came up with an entirely new design. The Bell 47 was built with their rotors so it can’t mast bump. Robinson worked for Bell but didn’t have the device to prevent mast bumping. When you have to have special training and an extra 10 hours and a special FAR for it. It’s a bad design. The R44 could have been a whole new design. But they didn’t. I know Army pilots who won’t fly it. My instructor said it’s a death trap. I also think the T-bar cyclic is also a bad idea. It shouldn’t be used by flight schools. It wasn’t designed as a flight trainer. I would rather fly a Schweitzer. Any flaws should be worked out of the design. For a four place helicopter, I would rather fly a MD500. It’s a better safe helicopter.
Excellent summary. Too many pilots fight the wind because they haven’t learnt to visualize the air they’re flying through. I’ve always taught that when you’re in a strong tailwind situation, to NOT rush it by trying to get it over with by pushing the cyclic forward but to imagine you’re a gorilla banging his chest. Not literally of course but just saying ‘Gorilla!’ reminds you to pull back on that cyclic and ride it out calmly. Like they say, “better late than dead on time” ...
I'm curious about what you said about the design flaws of the Bell 206.I can think of one real quick, the early 62 inch tail rotor which was increased to 65 inches.I started flying the 206A in 1971 and I am pretty sure that they all had the bladder type fuel cells.Besides the rotor system on the R44,I think that that the angled crossover cyclic is a poor design.I have never flown one but it looks like it is very unconventional .
a 4 bladed R44... yes please. that would be sweet.
ive had some gnarly updrafts in a 44 but my instructors always emphasised to just let the helicopter do whatever it wants mostly and do not try to counteract in those conditions so thats how i fly. currently getting IFR rated with 150ish hours in a 44.
Approximately how many hours did it take to get your license?
They look awfully dangerous 😳. Always were a parachute that way you can abandon ship if you need to.
Tell me you you aren't a pilot without actually telling me
One would think that, taking into consideration who flyes these helicopters, Robinson would put extra emphasis on designing it so it is not as succeptible to mast bumping. If a motorcycle manufacturer designs a cheap and fast motorcycle that starts wobbling at high speed, that motorcycle would not stay on the market. Robinson manufacturs a helicopter that caters to the less experienced pilots but it is much more fragile and prone to self destruct than higher end helicopters, sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Would be very interested in a follow up regarding the safety of the R22 (as compared to the R44 and Cabri)
Frank Robinson would have been intelligent to consider the same problem that the Bell 47 had with their exploding and burning fuel tanks in a crash. You are very correct. Over controlling ANY aircraft is always a problem, especially in a helicopter. ALWAYS move the controls slowly and gently. You are absolutely correct in your description of how to handle the controls. Flailing the controls around on a helicopter will always exceed the rotor blade limits at some point. Except under some circumstances when landing; IF the passengers can see that you are moving the controls on either a helicopter or an airplane, you are making too much movement!!! MANY flight instructors are VERY ignorant about how to actually operate the controls on aircraft, especially helicopters. They believe that "controlling an aircraft" means moving the controls. ALL machines are dangerous when operated improperly. My favorite helicopter is a Hughes (MD) 530FF. Except for the initial investment, it costs about the same as operating a Robinson R-44. The Hughes (MD) 530FF is an awesome machine!!!
Having had an interest in aviation all my life, I have heard many stories and read many articles. Most of these involve military aircraft, and many of these have "is the ____ safe?". And virtually all of those claim that with proper training and the right mind-set, they CAN be very safe. I'm thinking of the F-100 "sabre dance" and the F-104 "widow maker". These are aircraft that had major, MAJOR design flaws, and killed many people, and yet the people who learned to tame them (i.e., avoid the situations and apply "what the surviving pilots learned"), almost to a person, say, "yes, they CAN be very safe." Which, just to be clear, is plain BS.
I'm not a helicopter pilot, but I've read FAA documents that make exceptions of the Robinsons, that in my recollections amount to, "you need special training to be safe in a Robinson."
Whatever possessed you to include stupid background music? I want to hear what you have to say, not the background noise.
Regardless of your elaboration on this topic, the answer is no, Robinson helicopters are not safe. Any helicopter designed with such a huge flaw, such being the ability to chop off the tail rotor, a completely unrecoverable situation, is not a safe vehicle. End of. They should all be grounded.
"Exacerbating" was the word you were hunting for, hard when you're doing a long monologue........ good material, I always enjoy your content.
Are you sure that is the word he was hunting for? You DO know that synonyms exist, right? You seem so sure of what was going on in his brain, yet you appear to be unaware of how your own is working. Maybe think about cleaning your own porch first?
Many years ago in FLYING magazine there was an article about a guy who analyzed both fixed and rotary wing crashes of single engine aircraft, taking into account all risks and situations, to come up with the flying machine, both fixed and rotary with the lowest overall risk of death. And the winner was... Bell 206. Anyway, in the late 80s I was chatting with an insurance broker about hull premiums and we were going through the range, something like 2% for recip landplanes, 3% for recip floatplanes, 4% for amphibious floatplanes, and 5% for recip helicopters (at the time) and when I said, "Why is the piston helicopter insurance so expensive?", he responded instantly, "Cuz they all crash!!!!". He then laughed and said it was mainly because recip machines in those days were used very heavily for training and Ag work (wire strikes).
I think the 206 still has best safety rating for single engine aircraft.
I've been flying Robby's since 2012 and Airbus EC120 since 2015. It's been said before but the Robby's are outdated and the manufacturer is as stubborn as they come. They're of the "if it ain't broke and no one died" mindset. That stubbornness to continuously improve and innovate will only hinder the industry, Robinson, and the pilots that fly them. I understand their niche and why they do what they do, but they could seriously improve safety and performance with a few modernizations.
call the co and tell em sir
Dg 27 Perfectly said. Everyone on TH-cam has the solution for every problem in the history of ever. It’s odd af.
@Jesse Mitchell It is hilarious 99% of the time; the remaining 1% is terrifying realization of them being in control of our collective future.
"They're of the "if it ain't broke and no one died" mindset" - 262 dead people would argue that Robinson doesn't give a flying F if their customers die or not.
@@Ziggy_Moonglow 100% agree with you.
My blood really starts to boil when people defend a really shity rotor system like in the R 44s and they can fix it really easy in production but they won't ! And because of that obtuse attitude I will never get into Robinson helicopter again and I find it offensive that you blame Pilots for an inferior built helicopter !! How about this Robinson fix your damn helicopter !! Especially when you have known issues !!! skål 🍺🍺🍺PS That's like putting a paper propeller on a Cessna and say okay now fly within its design limits !!!
Great videos as always! Key items in turbulence: Slow down; gentle aft cyclic as needed to keep rotor loaded; Cyclic friction added; avoid the word “gusting” in the forecast; set down and wait it out!
The R44, when you slow down and keep the rotor loaded, it will “just fly through” most light to moderate turbulence if you just leave the controls inputs alone. When flying in (more likely getting “caught in”) even light to moderate turbulence, I always think “No matter what attitude is presented, I must slow down, use aft cyclic as needed to fully load the rotor before ANY attempt is made to address the attitude.
or just worry free ................fly enstrom
@Rich McBride, well said..load FIRST..
I'm currently training for my CFI in both the R22 and R44. I agree with pretty much everything said, but a few other points I would add would be for a pilot to really understand the SFAR 73, and how quickly these aircraft can get low rotor RPM blade stall if not operated correctly. Also I would recommend to anyone who's wanting to fly or is flying the r22/r44 to take the Robinson Safety Course. They go through all the most important things you should know and even show you around their manufacturing facility (which after talking about the dangers for hours really makes you understand the complexity and sophistication involved in building these helicopters which in turn makes you more confident about their safety).
"how quickly these aircraft can get low rotor RPM blade stall if not operated correctly." that sounds like an unsafe helicopter
@@valentinexavier9278 That's all helicopters homie. It's just because it weighs less so there is less inertia so it has less time in comparison to other helicopters.
@@WhyitJellyDonut The Cabri in comparison has nearly twice the rotor inertia of a R22.
@@adamlinamen9720 Where did you find that info?
You need to reach out to Micah flies to do a show together. He also has a vlog on cars He flies an enstrom You two together on a yt video would be great.
Mast bumping, mast rock, mid air breakup, rupturing fuel tanks... and Robinson's response...
crickets......
Hit's the courtroom and... It's the pilot's fault..!
It’s a bit scary. I’m from a gliding background - ok deliberately looking for the right kind of turbulence - but hearing this helicopter talk “low g” is the kind of hazard where your vessel will slice itself to oblivion? Anyone with experience on any other flying vessel held together with more than duct tape will be comfortable with occasional negative g and may occasionally ask for it. Or so I thought. I totally get the issue of pilots needing to know what they are are flying but this seems dodgy. The need to relax and avoid over-correction I get, applies to flying and boating too. I’m not personally against Robinson, if this was just a Robinson issue there would be no Robinsons.
Exactamundo. It's ALWAYS the deceased pilot's fault.
Good video it's amazing the aircraft is allowed to be produced or flown with that such critical limitations.
I would never fly in a Robinson there is a design flaw , stop blaming pilots
No - everytime a small chopper falls it's a R44
That's because everytime there's a small chopper it's a Robinson :)
Thanks, Mischa! I have long heard of the safety issues surrounding Robinson helicopters and you're the first to objectively address this. I have two questions... How does the life cycle (with respect to these safety issues) compare between the B206 and the R44? Secondly, how does the R22 compare?
They do it completely differently. Robinson's have a complete overhaul time limit which is 2200 hours or 12 years and the whole thing needs to go in for months for a massive overhaul and basically come out a brand new helicopter where Bell and everybody else has component times that things need to be replaced or overhauled.
I’m a low time inst/comm rotorwing pilot. I’ve no intention of flying a Robinson helicopter for many of the reasons listed in this video. In my opinion Robinson helicopters are on the quality level of most ultralight helicopters. You kinda get what you pay for.
I got my helicopter add-on a little over three years ago in a R22. Since then, I've flown mostly in the R44 especially in the last year or so. Yes, they have their drawbacks due to the rotor system, however they ARE quite safe IF you fly them correctly...as you said. Here in the states we must have special training per SFAR 73 prior to flying in the Robinsons. SFAR 73 covers the special quirks to know and avoid to fly them safely. With proper maintenance and training, the Robinsons are safe, reliable, and lots of fun to fly, especially the R44. It would be great to have the better rotor system, but I'm not holding my breath for that one any time soon. Thanks for the informative video Mischa!
There was an article on the Robinson mast bump tail severed accident in New York Harbor in Flying magazine many years back. After that it was supposed to be fixed with an AD. I guess it wasn't. Personally I never cared much for the design and I hate that ridiculous cyclic. Hope to be flight training soon in a Guimbal G2. You don't train in aircraft you don't like.
I wish Robinson would make some on condition composite blades like everybody else.
I heard that there blades are finally made of fiberglass now
The question “Is it safe?” is not really the question. It isn’t a black and white answer and can’t be…safe or unsafe. An R-44 flown by an experienced pilot with R-44 time and a cautious hand is relatively safe. It probably isn’t as safe as other helicopters. An R-44 flown by an inexperienced CFI with a new student is probably relatively unsafe compared to other trainers and may present risks to the Instructor and Student that aren’t usually fully disclosed to the Student.
When someone says “all you have to do is not this or that and you’ll be safe” are missing the point. The stats don’t really lie. I personally have lost two friends in Robinsons and both were careful and skilful pilots. If they can have it go wrong in a Robinson, then pretty much anyone can.
I agree completely! All the training in the world may not prevent that slight distraction that causes the best pilot to exceed an already slim aircraft's limitation!
I got my CPL on an R-22. Sitting at 147 hours today and am in the process of getting my R-44 rating now. Can’t wait!
I really appreciate your comments in this video. I think I kind of knew some of the points you were going to make when I read the subject line. I figured you would talk about mast bumping but you made some other great points too. Your comments about "right aircraft, right conditions, and right pilot" are dead on, and they also apply to every aircraft that's ever been built. The pilot has to be fully aware of the aircrafts capabilities and limitations. He/she has to do their homework in terms of what kind of conditions they are likely to be flying into and what their mission is on any particular flight, and, I think, most importantly, he/she needs to be fully honest with themselves about their own capabilities and limitations at any given time. I think that's the hardest part of all. I've seen too many reports of relatively high time pilots who got themselves in trouble because they had the experience and were maybe just a little too confident in themselves with unfortunate consequences.
As for helicopter safety, I was remembering an article I saw in an aviation magazine back in the mid to late 70's I think. The cover story was on the Bell 206 (which you mentioned in this video) and the headline was that the 206 was, for that year, the "safest single engine aircraft" in the United States. Note that they didn't say, "safest single engine helicopter," but safest single engine "aircraft," which included single engine fixed wing airplanes! At the time, I thought that was pretty impressive, especially for a helicopter considering how mechanically complex they are.
On a slightly different, but related subject, could you talk about ground resonance issues on multi bladed rotor systems? There are so many videos out there of A-Stars and it's various iterations and Schweitzer/Hughs 300's tearing themselves to bits because of this phenomenon. What causes it and how does the pilot avoid it? There's one video I've seen of a 300 that's just being run up on the ground after a maintenance cycle. It's fine for a couple of minutes and then the resonance just starts and the helicopter destroys itself right there? Fortunately, no one got hurt. I imagine there was something else going on that we're not told about but it's certainly an eye opener. Are there design parameters that make one model more prone to this than others and since I'm asking the question, where does the Cabri G2 potentially fit in this situation?
I love your videos, Mischa! Keep em coming!
I agree, mast bumping, a huge training problem, i fly a 206 and low G was never properly trained and dealt with... Most machines are as safe as the pilot.
Great video, I think that you do a great service to aviation in general by bring these issues to the forefront so that they can be examined and discussed in a educational form where we has pilots can discuss and learn how to be safer .
Even minimal research of robinson helicopters will show they manufacture ridiculously outdated and inferior equipment and have a deplorable business practice.
Fuel tank ruptured...you shouldn't have crashed it, and wear a nomex suit next time.
Entire rotor assembly detached from the mast....you didn't fly within the machines "safe limits", regardless of how experienced you may be.
Rotor blades disintegrated...they weren't replaced soon enough, regardless of how many service hours it has had.
Enstrom have a much better safety record and have built a hugely less flawed helicopter from the start. But, almost never receive any recognition.
Yes.....Enstrom cheap, performing & safe..............but unfortunately they are neither on this side(small) nor on that side (three seats only).....
Correctamondo.
I have around 5800 hrs on a R44 and around the same in a R22. They are really safe if the pilot is safe. The reason that more Robbies are involved in accidents is simply that many more of them are flown than any other make and mainly in low level ops and training. Would be interesting to know how many accidents were training or wildlife related. No piston is really suitable for serious mountain flying especially in turbulence.
You are a blessing to the helicopter community.
Thanks for the excellent laymans description on how the rotor blades operate and how a mast bump happens! There is so much stuff needed to keep those things spinning, unlike a propeller on a plane.
Way to much stuff that will cause catastrophic failure if one piece breaks for me to go fly on one!
Are they safe??? Is petting a hungry Lion safe how about putting your head in a hungry Gators mouth, is that safe?? I've flown in Chinooks, Sea Kings, Rangers, Long Rangers and Mi-8's but I would rather walk or swim than get close to those Robinson death machines!!!! The FAA needs to ground them permanently and turn them into soda cans or something safe.
FAA/NTSB is as toothless & inept as all politico manifested Gov't fiefdoms.
Thinking Robinsons are safe is a delusion. I thank God everyday I never have to fly one again. The public should be more aware of the dangers.
this is not convincing enough that R44 is safe.
I’m an A&P licensed aircraft mechanic and have worked on aircraft for nearly 25 years and you couldn’t pay me to get into a R44.
I learned on a Robinson R22, at the now defunct Pompano Helicopters in Florida. It always seemed strange to me that the Robinson was the ‘go to’ trainer, as it was such a sensitive machine. A Cessna 150 pretty much flies it’s self, you have to do something to it to make it manoeuvre, so it’s an ideal trainer machine…However, if you learn on a Robinson, everything else seems pretty docile afterwards. I couldn’t believe how easy a Bell 206 L3 was to fly in comparison. So from that point of view, the Robinson is a great trainer as it ( hopefully) teaches the new flyer how to be sympathetic to the machine.
C150 is stable, forgiving and cheap to run. R22 is only cheap to run
Is the R44 a safe helicopter? to a degree yes, with the correct training, and a competent pilot, however it could be a lot better, and you touched on it. Everyone knows what is required. Will it happen? We will see.
I have flown over 10,000 hours in real helicopters. I would never be caught dead in this toy. Where’s the beef?.
Exactamundo.
I remember a Robinson dealer telling me when I was doing my training in Australia in the mid 90's that Frank Robinson hated Australian (mainly mustering industry) and New Zealand Robinson users because of the way they operated the machines (lot of low rotor RPM accidents) and especially in New Zealand that they were not recording the actual time on the machine, 1 in every 3-5 hours I was told and I also remember an article about a business selling time expired parts. I recall a few main rotor blades with small fractures at the main rotor trim tab rivet if I'm not mistaken or at one end of the trim tab and quite a few had delaminating issues as well. But overall an enjoyable machine to fly.
or he was making excuses to cover his arse and shit engineering?
My dad trained in the RNZAF in1938/9,he remarked once that turbulence used to make flying interesting.Told me to avoid the new fangled light weight aircraft.
@@geraldperyman6535 only time I’ve been nervous flying in turbulence was going into Coffs Harbour on the NSW coast in a Kawasaki KH4 at 3000ft that actually scared me it was so violent. Then after about another 10 flying hours on that machine we found the transmission and rotor mast pretty much destroyed and CASA after inspecting the transmission said we were lucky to have been able to tell the story as most fail in flight with the rotor separating from the aircraft.
Great video!! I always teach this content to my students! 😁
The NTSB recently completed their investigation into the 2019 Hawaii crash of N808NV. Yes, the pilot was low time, but he was certified and had a few hundred hours in an R44. Per the NTSB report:
The helicopter’s encounter with a strong downdraft or outflow boundary while operating at a higher than recommended airspeed in turbulence which resulted in a low-G condition, excessive main rotor flapping, and an in-flight breakup when the main rotor contacted the cabin area.
Yes, it's pilot error flying into weather, too much airspeed, and turning to evade the weather. Having said that, if it's that easy to beat your aircraft to pieces, there's a design flaw. The entire world grounded the 737Max because the non-US carriers purchased planes with a single point of failure and their pilots did not know how to disable an automated system.
The r-22 went in service in 1979 not late eighties
Thank you. I was going to mention that I remember them coming out when I was doing my fixed wing Commercial and they were going to be as cheap to hire as our then training aircraft the PA28-140. Didn't turn out like that though.
@@josephking6515 right
Yes. I stopped by their hanger in 1979. Climbed into serial #1 and saw 2 thru 10 being assembled. Just managed to get my first flights in the r22 a few weeks ago.
@@johnwalker9057 excellent
I took my first heli lesson this past week and the heli was a 53 hrs new r44. Instructor point #1, keep the disk loaded or fall out of the sky. Instructor point #2, keep rotation at 100, if you stall the blades they will get over loaded, snap, and you'll fall out of the sky. So there you have it.
Doesn’t sound ideal
@@adm5618what's ideal? Let the helicopter fly itself? Only if
As a new guy looking to learn to fly and purchase the Robinson r44
This video just made me think 🤔
Which isn’t totally a negative.
Great video Micah. I appreciate your frankness & honesty. I realize you don’t like the R22, hence; your reason for not mentioning it. Over the years I have tried to avoid the R22, but an Army assignment to a remote base in Louisiana left me no option, but the R22 to train in for my Commercial Helicopter Certificate. I had previously trained in Enstroms & Schweizer 300C’s.
With 16 hours in the R22, a substitute CFI had me do my first solo in type at night. An hour after doing approaches after terminating at a hover over the numbers, just as I was about to take off, the helicopter inexplicably violently spun out of control. The wind was almost straight down the runway & I applied full left pedal, but the helicopter violently spun faster & faster with my headset shooting off my head & the helicopter wanting to flip over. It resulted in a hard spinning landing with the helicopter spinning & sliding down the runway. The owner & insurance company couldn’t find any mechanical malfunctions & ultimately blamed LTE. I finished my Commercial Rating in R22’s, but promised myself to never fly an R22 again.
I later got checked out in the R44 which seems more substantial than the R22, with the hope of getting a tour job. I rented this R44 for 22 hours & I never had any problems with it. I like that they spin the tail rotor the right way (clockwise) to make it more effective.
On my last flight my CFI talked me out of taking a ballast as I had on my other solo flights & it was a windy day. On my way back to the airport with the wind & turbulence I was nervous about mast bumping, so I slowed down to 75 knots & tried not to move the cyclic.
I was going to train in the R44 to get my Helicopter Instrument Add On Rating, but after seeing the recent fatal R44 crash where it broke up in flight over Texas, I am having second thoughts about training in the R44. There are a lot of experienced pilots who have tragically been killed in Robinson helicopters. I think a 3 or 4 bladed rotor system will be a major breakthrough for Robinson.
www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-robinson-helicopters/
I've really never liked the Robbies...too light of a bird, after having flown much heavier birds like UH1's, it is hard to fly a Robinson, mainly because I do not like their Cyclic design, and the rudder feel. My choice would be a Bell, or a M-D, and to ad, the Military did not encourage hill or tree hopping!
Robinson Death machines.
I agree with what you stated. I also think pilots need more constant training, fly more hours than just 50 hours per year. Training , training and training. Even if is through reading material, actual flying or going to local airports (or-online today )and discussing a personal experience in the past.
never stop training, study every accident, 50 full down autos per year and always carry a gun.
I am agree, the pilots neeed to know this machines need constant training and they need to study the POH and learn everthing to this helicopter can do, I think if you have constant training and you are consent of the emergency to can happen you don´t will have problems with R-44 and other kind of helicopters and airplanes
Well, 'safe' is a relative term. Inherently, the Robinson can be considered safe or it wouldn't be sold. However, it's how the helicopters are being used that puts the term 'safe' into question. In this area, helicopters are used extensively in the forestry and mining fields. For years, the mainstay machine was the Bell 206 Jet Ranger. Then came the 206R Long Ranger. That stayed around for a few years until the Aerospatiale A350 AStar came along. Most of the operators went with the AStar due to its ability to lift heavier loads. With all of these machines, operating cost was critical factor. Then, back in about the late 1990's, a company showed up with a Robinson R22. They touted it as a much cheaper way to go on reconnaissance flights that required only one passenger plus a pilot. Nothing wrong with that. Then, this same company brought in an R44, saying they could ferry entire crews much cheaper that either the Bell 206 or the A350. This idea was acceptable to the various industries and the R44 became more popular. However, due mainly to operating cost, companies started to use the R44 for, what I call, a "poor man's Bell 206". They were observed on many occasions slinging loads that were obviously too heavy for the machine and, as a result, started occurring more downtime hours for maintenance. A few also crashed. Some outfits still used them but I won't fly in one.
The question to ask is: Why does a Robinson have SFAR 73? In other words, one can solo any other light helicopter (or airplane) with any amount of dual instruction, but not the Robinson. The Robinson takes a minimum of 20 hours of dual before a solo can be done. You can solo any Bell, Schweizer, Airbus, Enstrom, and many others, but not the Robinson… That alone, should be evidence that they are death traps. As an instructor, I have 250 hours in each, the 22 and the 44, but I stopped flying them in 2007. I would never fly in one again for any reason or purpose. Literally, the second one pulls pitch in a Robinson, your life is over, unless the thing works perfectly.
You'd never catch me in a Robinson...the Yugo of helicopters.
The R22 is the safest helicopter ever made when Jesus takes the stick
TLDR: it's cheap, not meant to be super safe; if you can afford buy a better one.
Correctamondo maximus.
The way Robinson handled the situation tells me all I need to know. I'm not flying in one.
I agree.
Truth is we pilots fall in love with the machine we're flying, and we fight for them like we're talking about our loved soccer team. I used to love the Hughes 300, then I used to love the Jet Ranger, then I used to love the S76, then I used to love the 407, then the AS350, then the S92, now I love the Cabri. Anyway, I still love them all, but they all have their pros and cons. Sorry I never loved Robinsons, and yes I flew them a bit. Thing is, let's get over that. They're obviously outdated and more dangerous than most helicopters. Amazingly nobody came out with nothing better, business wise, so we're making generations of pilots to love Robinsons.
I was working on my 24th hour of training when I flew through moderate turbulence. I just froze and smashed my arm into my leg, jammed my elbow behind the seat, and rode it out until my instructor could grab the controls. It felt like an ongoing car crash. After landing my instructor told me it was the worst turbulence he had ever encountered. We were both shaking. But I did the right thing somehow and I'm here today. Praise our Father in Heaven because I shouldn't be here.
The key is to do nothing or slight aft cyclic when hitting turbulence.
@@SkyCoreLLC Yes, I think fear automatically made me slightly pull aft to slow down and reload the rotor. The Father was certainly with me. I had plenty of time to kill us had I done the wrong thing.
@@johnw.ryoniv8953
The turbulence was just a fart from your invisible sky daddy.
I'm not a helo pilot but am a former USAF pilot and kinda love helicopters ever since my first amazing canyon ride in Bell-47 at 16 -- Yellow Pilot's comments regarding hitting turbulence in a helo and not overacting w/ control inputs is something I've seen most flyers do instinctively -- even so, from a safety of flight perspective, it's important to affirm this behavior for new and expienced pilots alike. Doesn't Robinson have in their flight manual re encountering turbulence and averting rotor assembly damage?
After over 80 years it’s to bad Robinson didn’t take and look at things that other people have had to do to their helicopters to make them safer and incorporate that into his. Bell helicopter started out with Fuel Cells because they were looking at a military contract . Robinson knew this when they designed the 44 and also knew that A more complex Rotor system is safer but the to bleed it is easier to manufacture
It would be nice if you could out timestamps in the description so I could listen to specific topics rather than having to skip around and try to find the section I want.
Review of the Enstrom, please!
Hell no they are not safe. I am a fixed wing pilot, and I would never get in a Robinson. We have an FBO at our local regional airport that operates those things, and there have been several crashes over the past 10-12 years, a couple involving fixed wing aircraft. Not only are Robinsons dangerous because of the way they are designed, but it seems to be mostly idiots that fly them. Pretty much all of the accidents were the fault of the Robinson pilots. They seem to think that they can just fly around anywhere they want. One crash involved a fixed wing aircraft that had just taken off, and the Robinson pilot flew right into it. Three people were killed. Those things should be banned.
It’s cheap…that’s why it sells so well.
Cheap and dangerous.
Exactamundo✔
4:21 bell has much better rotor head 206/505, bell redesigned their rotor-head for mast bumping issues. Robinson has similar design but NOT SAME.
Making it a 3 or 4 blade helicopter may help to stabilize it better to prevent the tail from getting chopped off, when one goes low g causing a bank to the right followed by the pilot pushing the cyclic to the left causing a blade impact with the tail boom.
Liked your video. Have never flown in a Robinson but, I have always thought it was an ugly looking helicopter.