R22 owners please help with AD 2004-06-52

[rotortrash]

For those of you unaware the FAA has issued an emergency AD
(2004-06-52) on March 18, 2004 that requires any R22 blade older than
10 years may no longer be used. The basis for the AD is questionable.
Little if any documented research was done to verify that the age of
the blade has any effect on what caused these failures. From my own
research it appears the AD and the failure problem are disjoint and
the AD will not solve the problem...but it will cost R22 owners a
fortune to replace blades older than 10 years. Please read the
material below and help change this overly severe AD. If there is a
problem it should be solved out in the open where all owners can voice
their opinions instead of behind closed doors.
The website below documents the abuse of the R22 by some mustering
operators in Australia. The crashes that resulted from this abuse
(main rotor blade failure) were used as the basis (at least in
part…50%) for the US AD. After reading this website and the CASA and
ATSB websites you will see that what's been going on in Australia has
been on the FAA and Robinsons radar for years. This AD is far in
access of any kind of reasonable response to these crashes considering
we here in the US have never had a blade failure and are not mustering
in these conditions. For instance: The documentation says that many
Australian mustering operators average 4000 to 6000 hours between
overhauls! That's double the normal life! The ships are run 8 to 12
hours a day…every day and in very hot tropical climates and the ships
appear to be subjected to a higher load spectrum then what they were
designed for.

Please take the time to research this for yourself. Then write your
congressman and let him/her know you want this AD modified! I don't
know about you but I don't have a spare $15,000, $21,000 or $28,000 as
the case may be.

http://wave.prohosting.com/tcamiga/australiapage1.htm

[Bob]

OK. Then what's the MTBUR in hours on the blades? Or are you just
suggesting an unlimited retirement life? What has your "research" shown?

[[email protected]]

I talked to an A&P about this and he said that its normally 2200 hours
or 12 years whichever comes first. Now the FAA wants to make it 2200
hours or 10 years and only for the blades with certain serial numbers.
Most of the ones he services never get past 5 years before he has to
change them anyway because of the hours.

Dennis.

"Bob" > wrote:

> OK. Then what's the MTBUR in hours on the blades? Or are you just
> suggesting an unlimited retirement life? What has your "research" shown?
>
>

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[rotortrash]

That's not accurate. The current standard for the R22 dash 2 blades is
2200 hours whatever the age. The year limit is only in the Robinson
service manual and not the type certification and therefore is not
applicable. Your blades are good for 2200 hours regardless of age.
Many owners (including me) have bought used blades with hours left so
that we wouldn't have to buy the very expensive new ones. I'd never
use 2200 hours anyway. I just spent 5000 bucks on a set of blades
after Robinson representatives told me that it was O.K. to buy them
and a good deal. That was November 2003. Then, a couple months later
the AD comes out making them worthless. At the place I hanger my ship
and take lessons they have to buy 2 new sets of blades for nearly
$60,000 because the blades they currently have are over 10 years old.
One set still has 600 hours left. Talk about a shafting! This AD might
put a lot of training outfits out of business.

There never has been a crash from blade failure in the US and my
research found that for the crashes that I can verify the age (that's
all but one crash) and the same crashes the FAA is using as the basis
for the AD (three in Australia with the last one being the one they
cite in the AD and the one in Israel on the AD) happened on blades
that were younger then 10 (the last crash in Australia the blades were
9 years old and the crash before that the blades were only 4 years old
but rumored to have over 5000 hours on them and I haven't heard yet
about the Israeli crash and when I talked to the FAA they couldn't
give me a firm age either) years.

These blades failed from abuse and would have failed no matter what
the rules were. This is a huge shafting of R22 owners and a windfall
for RHC. Please read the Australian story on this link. It will open
your eyes. Then write your congressman and ask for an investigation.

http://wave.prohosting.com/tcamiga/australiapage1.htm


wrote in message >...
> I talked to an A&P about this and he said that its normally 2200 hours
> or 12 years whichever comes first. Now the FAA wants to make it 2200
> hours or 10 years and only for the blades with certain serial numbers.
> Most of the ones he services never get past 5 years before he has to
> change them anyway because of the hours.
>
> Dennis.
>
> "Bob" > wrote:
>
> > OK. Then what's the MTBUR in hours on the blades? Or are you just
> > suggesting an unlimited retirement life? What has your "research" shown?
> >
> >
>
> Dennis Hawkins
> n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
>
> "A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
>
> To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[Clive]

"rotortrash" > wrote in message
m...
> That's not accurate. The current standard for the R22 dash 2 blades is
> 2200 hours whatever the age. The year limit is only in the Robinson
> service manual and not the type certification and therefore is not
> applicable. Your blades are good for 2200 hours regardless of age.
> Many owners (including me) have bought used blades with hours left so
> that we wouldn't have to buy the very expensive new ones. I'd never
> use 2200 hours anyway. I just spent 5000 bucks on a set of blades
> after Robinson representatives told me that it was O.K. to buy them
> and a good deal. That was November 2003. Then, a couple months later
> the AD comes out making them worthless. At the place I hanger my ship
> and take lessons they have to buy 2 new sets of blades for nearly
> $60,000 because the blades they currently have are over 10 years old.
> One set still has 600 hours left. Talk about a shafting! This AD might
> put a lot of training outfits out of business.
>
> There never has been a crash from blade failure in the US and my
> research found that for the crashes that I can verify the age (that's
> all but one crash) and the same crashes the FAA is using as the basis
> for the AD (three in Australia with the last one being the one they
> cite in the AD and the one in Israel on the AD) happened on blades
> that were younger then 10 (the last crash in Australia the blades were
> 9 years old and the crash before that the blades were only 4 years old
> but rumored to have over 5000 hours on them and I haven't heard yet
> about the Israeli crash and when I talked to the FAA they couldn't
> give me a firm age either) years.
>
> These blades failed from abuse and would have failed no matter what
> the rules were. This is a huge shafting of R22 owners and a windfall
> for RHC. Please read the Australian story on this link. It will open
> your eyes. Then write your congressman and ask for an investigation.
>
> http://wave.prohosting.com/tcamiga/australiapage1.htm
>
>
> wrote in message
>...
> > I talked to an A&P about this and he said that its normally 2200 hours
> > or 12 years whichever comes first. Now the FAA wants to make it 2200
> > hours or 10 years and only for the blades with certain serial numbers.
> > Most of the ones he services never get past 5 years before he has to
> > change them anyway because of the hours.
> >
> > Dennis.
> >
> > "Bob" > wrote:
> >
> > > OK. Then what's the MTBUR in hours on the blades? Or are you just
> > > suggesting an unlimited retirement life? What has your "research"
shown?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Dennis Hawkins
> > n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
> >
> > "A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> > A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> > A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
> >
> > To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> > them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> > web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> > video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

I don't believe the 2200hrs whatever the age thing.......

There are many composite materials/glues used in the production of rotor
blades. After a certain age these materials 'break down' and the complex
structure becomes 'unstable'. They then no longer perform as in the design
criteria.

If someone says replace at 2200hrs or 10 years, then do it - or risk serious
damage to your aircraft, yourself or your passengers.

Clive

Clive

[[email protected]]

On 23 Apr 2004 11:56:47 -0700, (rotortrash)
wrote:

This is a huge shafting of R22 owners and a windfall
>for RHC. Please read the Australian story on this link. It will open
>your eyes. Then write your congressman and ask for an investigation.
>

I cannot believe that Robinson would gleefully profit from this AD.
Frank doesn't seem to be in the business of driving his customers away
from flying his aircraft from what I've seen, no matter that Robinson
will make some dough on the new blades. They seem to be doing quite well
not being able to build enough R44s..

But then, I'm not an owner... I just see what appears to be a decent man
running a great company (as helicopter companies go) that makes a
semi-affordable product (as helicopters go).

Dave Blevins

[Eric D]

> On 23 Apr 2004 11:56:47 -0700, (rotortrash)
> wrote:
>
> This is a huge shafting of R22 owners and a windfall
> >for RHC. Please read the Australian story on this link. It will open
> >your eyes. Then write your congressman and ask for an investigation.

If you don't like the selected corrective action of this AD you have
choices. Here are a few:

1. Do the AD if your aircraft falls into the ones targeted
2. Don't fly, hold off and see if the AD changes – this could be never
to a few weeks.
3. Call the number at the bottom of the AD and voice your case why you
feel the action required of the AD is wrong and how they might better
deal with the problem being addressed. In most cases, if not all, you
better have some real data, evidence that your way is better in order
for it to be considered at all. Believe it or not, if you have the
data/evidence they will listen.

The problem has nothing to do with composite like someone suggested.
It's water and corrosion. Here is the statement from the AD:
"Investigation revealed that corrosion from water penetration
initiated a fatigue crack in a blade."

I would suggest the holding off, if you can and see what happens.
They may come up with a change.

Eric D

[rotortrash]

Actually, I think it's more of a control thing for Frank. Obviously
he's wanted the 10 year limit from the start…it's in the service
manual and I here grumblings from RHC of worry over the glue that
holds the blades together. Whatever the case RHC will make a killing
in blades sales. I suggest you read up on the subject before making
judgment. I spent a great deal of time researching this. The AD has no
basis in truth and is unnecessarily punishing R22 owners. Please read
the Australian story. It's very interesting and exposes some of what's
been going on. Also, the ATSB and CASA have the accident reports.
Somewhere buried in all this the ATSB has stated that the blades
failed from OVER RUNNING the hours not the age. Robinson has insisted
repeatedly that the blades are good for 2200 hours. There's no good
explanation for this AD. I have no problem with the first part of the
AD, which is balancing the blades and doing some inspections but to
throw away perfectly good blades is not acceptable. And they offer no
other means of compliance. This AD needs to be changed. Write your
congressman and let him/her know you want an investigation.


wrote in message >...
> On 23 Apr 2004 11:56:47 -0700, (rotortrash)
> wrote:
>
> This is a huge shafting of R22 owners and a windfall
> >for RHC. Please read the Australian story on this link. It will open
> >your eyes. Then write your congressman and ask for an investigation.
> >
>
> I cannot believe that Robinson would gleefully profit from this AD.
> Frank doesn't seem to be in the business of driving his customers away
> from flying his aircraft from what I've seen, no matter that Robinson
> will make some dough on the new blades. They seem to be doing quite well
> not being able to build enough R44s..
>
> But then, I'm not an owner... I just see what appears to be a decent man
> running a great company (as helicopter companies go) that makes a
> semi-affordable product (as helicopters go).
>
> Dave Blevins

[[email protected]]

(rotortrash) wrote:

> 2200 hours whatever the age. The year limit is only in the Robinson
> service manual and not the type certification and therefore is not
> applicable. Your blades are good for 2200 hours regardless of age.

Thanks for posting this. This is good to know.

> and take lessons they have to buy 2 new sets of blades for nearly
> $60,000 because the blades they currently have are over 10 years old.

2 sets = $60K
1 set = $30K
I didn't realize they were that expensive. Aren't they normally
changed as part of the 2200 hour megservice? The whole service is
only about $90K I thought.

> One set still has 600 hours left. Talk about a shafting! This AD might
> put a lot of training outfits out of business.

Where exactly is that hangar - what airport, city?

> but rumored to have over 5000 hours on them and I haven't heard yet

I also heard rumors about using it to trim hedges and low RPM.

Dennis H.


Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[rotortrash]

Your right Dennis the blades are included in the overhaul. Seperately
they cost $28,500 and you may recieve some credit (normally about 2400
I think) but that's it. RHC is giving some incentives but they are
very iffy. You might get a break or they may not give it to you. Any
way you slice it blades are expensive. Please read the Australian
website and write your congressman. I can't do this alone. The AD is
not based on the truth. If I were the FAA and they had to prove to me
the necessity for this AD it would have NO CHANCE AT ALL! Conversly,
if I wanted to say, come up with an alternative method for changing
oil on a plane, the FAA would MAKE ME PROVE beyond any doubt that my
method worked and worked every time. They do not require the same
rigor of themselves. For this AD they didn't provide one shred of
concrete engineering evidence. When I asked where's the research the
non-response I got was "how many more people have to die". No kidding
that's what the FAA said to me. Can you believe that? How ridiculous.
There's something very wrong going on here.

wrote in message >...
> (rotortrash) wrote:
>
> > 2200 hours whatever the age. The year limit is only in the Robinson
> > service manual and not the type certification and therefore is not
> > applicable. Your blades are good for 2200 hours regardless of age.
>
> Thanks for posting this. This is good to know.
>
> > and take lessons they have to buy 2 new sets of blades for nearly
> > $60,000 because the blades they currently have are over 10 years old.
>
> 2 sets = $60K
> 1 set = $30K
> I didn't realize they were that expensive. Aren't they normally
> changed as part of the 2200 hour megservice? The whole service is
> only about $90K I thought.
>
> > One set still has 600 hours left. Talk about a shafting! This AD might
> > put a lot of training outfits out of business.
>
> Where exactly is that hangar - what airport, city?
>
> > but rumored to have over 5000 hours on them and I haven't heard yet
>
> I also heard rumors about using it to trim hedges and low RPM.
>
> Dennis H.
>
>
> Dennis Hawkins
> n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
>
> "A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
>
> To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[[email protected]]

(rotortrash) wrote:

> rigor of themselves. For this AD they didn't provide one shred of
> concrete engineering evidence. When I asked where's the research the
> non-response I got was "how many more people have to die". No kidding
> that's what the FAA said to me. Can you believe that? How ridiculous.
> There's something very wrong going on here.

Perhaps ask them the Tail number of the helicopter in the US that
crashed due to blade failure because of this cause. I have looked at
a lot of, but not all, NTSB reports on R22 crashes. To date, I have
never seen a case where a blade was thrown from an R22 without hitting
something first.

That really sucks that they would do that. Maybe someone at the FAA
is getting kickbacks from RHC? What a windfall? Is there any way to
check to see who at the FAA owns stock in RHC? Is RHC publicly
traded? Maybe you can request this under fredom of information?

From what I have been told, only certain serial numbers have to be
changed at 10 years. If you are not on the list, you're OK.

Dennis.


Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[Murphy's law]

wrote in message >...
> (rotortrash) wrote:
>
> From what I have been told, only certain serial numbers have to be
> changed at 10 years. If you are not on the list, you're OK.

A016-2 aluminum airfoil blades 10 years, A016-4 stainless-steel
airfoil blades 12 years, period.

[rotortrash]

Your absolutely right Dennis. There's never been a crash from blade
failure here in the US. Probably never will be either and not because
of this AD. We don't have pilots flying 5000 hours on one set of
blades like pilots do in other countries. About the blades: the AD
applies to all -2 blades. That's basically all of them. And your right
about Robinson...they will make millions and millions of dollars off
this AD. HUGE MONEY. And here we are forced to buy stuff we don't
need. I feel like I'm being robbed. I've managed to retrieve data on
many of the accidents caused by blade failure. The data does not
support the ten-year limit. In fact the data proves age is not a
variable in these accidents. The FAA told me that in both accidents
that they cite as the reason for the AD (last one in Australia one in
Israel) the blades were 12 years old. That's not what I found. I
checked and found the serial numbers on the ATSB (Australian
Transportation and Safety Bureau) accident reports. I still don't have
the Israeli blade number but the age of the blade in the last
Australian crash was 9 years old. And in the Australian crash before
this one (2000) was 4 years old. With this information how can anyone
come to the conclusion that blades are unsafe after 10 years? Clearly
there's some other cause for these accidents. What we are told by the
Australian mstering community is that it's common practice to put
4000-6000 hours on a set of R22 blades. There's your cause not the
age. And why should we have to buy new blades because other countries
have pilots flying like this? This just doesn't make any sense at all.
We must write our congressman and get an investigation going.

wrote in message >...
> (rotortrash) wrote:
>
> > rigor of themselves. For this AD they didn't provide one shred of
> > concrete engineering evidence. When I asked where's the research the
> > non-response I got was "how many more people have to die". No kidding
> > that's what the FAA said to me. Can you believe that? How ridiculous.
> > There's something very wrong going on here.
>
> Perhaps ask them the Tail number of the helicopter in the US that
> crashed due to blade failure because of this cause. I have looked at
> a lot of, but not all, NTSB reports on R22 crashes. To date, I have
> never seen a case where a blade was thrown from an R22 without hitting
> something first.
>
> That really sucks that they would do that. Maybe someone at the FAA
> is getting kickbacks from RHC? What a windfall? Is there any way to
> check to see who at the FAA owns stock in RHC? Is RHC publicly
> traded? Maybe you can request this under fredom of information?
>
> From what I have been told, only certain serial numbers have to be
> changed at 10 years. If you are not on the list, you're OK.
>
> Dennis.
>
>
> Dennis Hawkins
> n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
>
> "A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
>
> To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[rotortrash]

That's right all -2 blades 10 years throw away. Like I said that's
most of them in use now. The -4 blades are Robinson's new stainless
blades. What a coincidence that they JUST got certified right before
the AD came out. An AD that requires us to throw away perfectly good
blades and buy new one at a cost of $28,000 a set. There's about 1000
R22's in the US. Do the math! If you figure a third will need new
blades immediately that's 9 million dollars! Then there's the constant
stream of replacements coming in. What a bonanza! Oh yes don't forget
Australia and Israel and everywhere else that RHC has been able to
force this. Holy cow...that's big money.


(Murphy's law) wrote in message >...
> wrote in message >...
> > (rotortrash) wrote:
> >
> > From what I have been told, only certain serial numbers have to be
> > changed at 10 years. If you are not on the list, you're OK.
>
> A016-2 aluminum airfoil blades 10 years, A016-4 stainless-steel
> airfoil blades 12 years, period.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> rotortrash > wrote:

> Do the math!

Do it yourself.

28,000 bucks over ten years is 2,800 per year.

Hmmmmm...... At 100 bucks per flight hour as a reserve that
works out to just 28 hours of flying time per year.

Hmmmmm...... At 28 bucks put aside per flight hour that
works out to 100 hours of flying time per year.

Now we are not talking about something trivial here are we boys.

Like.... It's not as if the skids have to be replaced, or the seat
adjustment levers or the windshields.

IT'S THE ROTORS.

Hmmmmm...... Let me think about this for a second.

Yah... I think that if a government agency said that in their wisdom
those rotor blades had to be replaced after ten years of use and it was
going to cost me 28 bucks an hour for the peace of mind of knowing that
the rotor blades were safe I'd be writing the check in a heart beat.

As for the AD and the timing of the AD.... I don't think the Robinson
helicopter company has any control of whether or not an AD is issued
against their blades.

TO THE GROUP......

If I was renting a helicopter from someone called rotortrash, and he
offered to save me 28 dollars an hour on the rental rate by using a
helicopter with old timed out rotor blades, or I could spend 28 dollars
more per hour and rent a different helicopter with new or newer blades,
would some of you more experienced helicopter pilots please tell this
armchair lurker which helicopter you would recomment I rent.

[Davdirect]

I agree. The place I train is going to have to buy replacements. I talked
with the owner and while not happy, his attitude was hey you don't want the
ROTOR BLADES falling apart. The last post was right, its not like the AD is
for seat cushions. Robinson is NOT a publicly traded company, and though they
do produce black helicopters, I'm not buying all the 'conspiracy' theories that
this thread seems hell bent on. If nothing else it makes Robinson look bad.
Why would you want your product to have ANY ADs or service bulletins issued?
Makes them look less safe/reliable. While I think the AD may be a bit of an
overkill, as someone learning to fly these things and hoping to one day operate
a business with them, I think I'd rather bite the bullet and err on the side of
caution than have even a 1% chance of some kind of in flight separation.
My 2 cents.
Dave

[[email protected]]

But given that there have been no crashes in the US prior to this AD,
wouldn't it be more sensible to have an AD order that blades over 5
years old must undergo some type of annual non-destructive test - such
as eddy current, xray, or dye penetration - instead of an outright
replacement. The blades that failed, did so at the neck just behind
the cone. This is a good place to look for a problem. If there is no
problem, then keep flying. In any event, its nice to know that R22
blades commonly go 5,000 hours (abeit illegally) in other countries.

Dennis.


(Davdirect) wrote:

> I agree. The place I train is going to have to buy replacements. I talked
> with the owner and while not happy, his attitude was hey you don't want the
> ROTOR BLADES falling apart. The last post was right, its not like the AD is
> for seat cushions. Robinson is NOT a publicly traded company, and though they
> do produce black helicopters, I'm not buying all the 'conspiracy' theories that
> this thread seems hell bent on. If nothing else it makes Robinson look bad.
> Why would you want your product to have ANY ADs or service bulletins issued?
> Makes them look less safe/reliable. While I think the AD may be a bit of an
> overkill, as someone learning to fly these things and hoping to one day operate
> a business with them, I think I'd rather bite the bullet and err on the side of
> caution than have even a 1% chance of some kind of in flight separation.
> My 2 cents.
> Dave

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[Murphy's law]

Shiver Me Timbers > wrote in message >...
> > rotortrash > wrote:
>
> > Do the math!
>
> Do it yourself.
>
> 28,000 bucks over ten years is 2,800 per year.
>
> Hmmmmm...... At 100 bucks per flight hour as a reserve that
> works out to just 28 hours of flying time per year.
>
> Hmmmmm...... At 28 bucks put aside per flight hour that
> works out to 100 hours of flying time per year.
>
> Now we are not talking about something trivial here are we boys.
>
> Like.... It's not as if the skids have to be replaced, or the seat
> adjustment levers or the windshields.
>
> IT'S THE ROTORS.
>
> Hmmmmm...... Let me think about this for a second.
>
> Yah... I think that if a government agency said that in their wisdom
> those rotor blades had to be replaced after ten years of use and it was
> going to cost me 28 bucks an hour for the peace of mind of knowing that
> the rotor blades were safe I'd be writing the check in a heart beat.

How come the government agency FAA did not have the foresight "wisdom"
at the time of issuing the Type Certificate of Robinson R22
rotorcraft?
Still to date, the Robinson recommended 12 year overhaul/inspection is
not mandatory by FAA part-91 rules & regulations.
How come Robinson did not have the engineering "wisdom" to include the
recommended 12 year overhaul/inspection in the Type Certificate Data
Sheet and
in the Airworthiness Limitation Section (Fatigue Life-Limited Parts).
FAA's wisdom is policy, Robinson's wisdom is market.
Politics & Money hand-in-hand.


> As for the AD and the timing of the AD.... I don't think the Robinson
> helicopter company has any control of whether or not an AD is issued
> against their blades.

RHC has the biggest control of FAA issuing the so called Emergency AD
of the blades. It has been emergency for RHC since missing it in the
Type Certificate & Airworthiness Limitation Section of R22.
Legally, RHC recklessly endangered the public especially R22 flyers,
knowing all these years that the blades are prone to break at the root
after 10, later 12 years in service. There has been ADs issued
regarding the blades before, but none about the calendar time.
Why was not the 10/12 year life-limit AD issued before?
Certainly, neither FAA nor RHC had the right "wisdom".



> TO THE GROUP......
>
> If I was renting a helicopter from someone called rotortrash, and he
> offered to save me 28 dollars an hour on the rental rate by using a
> helicopter with old timed out rotor blades, or I could spend 28 dollars
> more per hour and rent a different helicopter with new or newer blades,
> would some of you more experienced helicopter pilots please tell this
> armchair lurker which helicopter you would recomment I rent.

[rotortrash]

Someone who refers to himself as "Shivermetimbers" really shouldn't
make fun of someone else's handle. Anyway, you need lots of help with
your math…it's not accurate for a couple reasons. First to obtain an
hourly cost divide $28,000 by 2200hours to get $12.72/hour. The
$28/hour figure is not meaningful. If you use your figure of 100 hours
per year you would only use 1000 hours or 45% of the TIS life of the
blades before having to throw them away. You make my point
Shivermetimbers!
Secondly, your math does not accurately factor in the time element. To
fly off 2200 hours in 10 years means flying 220 hours a year. Unless
your in the flying business that's not going to be possible. Here's a
more accurate calculation: the average GA pilot flies 50 or less hours
a year. Lets assume the high end of 50. So in ten years you fly 500
hours. The blades will have 1700 hours left but will now be worthless.
Your 500 hours will have cost you $28,000/500hours=$56/hour. That's a
440% increase. Robinson understands this.

Here's an interesting tid bit: just last August a high-ranking
Robinson official stated:

"We have already shown the blades can make 2200 hours safely".

This is on the Australian Website I told you about. Read it. This AD
is punishing US pilots for what pilots in other countries are doing.
They are over flying blades an average of between 4000 and 6000 hours.
That's why there have been failures. It has nothing to do with age.
If this AD was about the age of blades we would have seen the
countryside littered with the bodies of R22 pilots crashing after
their rotor blades flew off. Yet there hasn't been a single one. If we
let this slide what will it be next? Don't suckering for it. Ask for
an investigation. Write your congressman.

(rotortrash) wrote in message >...
> Your absolutely right Dennis. There's never been a crash from blade
> failure here in the US. Probably never will be either and not because
> of this AD. We don't have pilots flying 5000 hours on one set of
> blades like pilots do in other countries. About the blades: the AD
> applies to all -2 blades. That's basically all of them. And your right
> about Robinson...they will make millions and millions of dollars off
> this AD. HUGE MONEY. And here we are forced to buy stuff we don't
> need. I feel like I'm being robbed. I've managed to retrieve data on
> many of the accidents caused by blade failure. The data does not
> support the ten-year limit. In fact the data proves age is not a
> variable in these accidents. The FAA told me that in both accidents
> that they cite as the reason for the AD (last one in Australia one in
> Israel) the blades were 12 years old. That's not what I found. I
> checked and found the serial numbers on the ATSB (Australian
> Transportation and Safety Bureau) accident reports. I still don't have
> the Israeli blade number but the age of the blade in the last
> Australian crash was 9 years old. And in the Australian crash before
> this one (2000) was 4 years old. With this information how can anyone
> come to the conclusion that blades are unsafe after 10 years? Clearly
> there's some other cause for these accidents. What we are told by the
> Australian mstering community is that it's common practice to put
> 4000-6000 hours on a set of R22 blades. There's your cause not the
> age. And why should we have to buy new blades because other countries
> have pilots flying like this? This just doesn't make any sense at all.
> We must write our congressman and get an investigation going.
>
> wrote in message >...
> > (rotortrash) wrote:
> >
> > > rigor of themselves. For this AD they didn't provide one shred of
> > > concrete engineering evidence. When I asked where's the research the
> > > non-response I got was "how many more people have to die". No kidding
> > > that's what the FAA said to me. Can you believe that? How ridiculous.
> > > There's something very wrong going on here.
> >
> > Perhaps ask them the Tail number of the helicopter in the US that
> > crashed due to blade failure because of this cause. I have looked at
> > a lot of, but not all, NTSB reports on R22 crashes. To date, I have
> > never seen a case where a blade was thrown from an R22 without hitting
> > something first.
> >
> > That really sucks that they would do that. Maybe someone at the FAA
> > is getting kickbacks from RHC? What a windfall? Is there any way to
> > check to see who at the FAA owns stock in RHC? Is RHC publicly
> > traded? Maybe you can request this under fredom of information?
> >
> > From what I have been told, only certain serial numbers have to be
> > changed at 10 years. If you are not on the list, you're OK.
> >
> > Dennis.
> >
> >
> > Dennis Hawkins
> > n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)
> >
> > "A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
> > A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
> > A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."
> >
> > To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
> > them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
> > web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
> > video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

[Davdirect]

If you are only flying 50hrs a year how/why should you buy a helicopter in the
first place...not a very wise use of cash, you'd be much smarter to rent.
davdirect

[rotortrash]

I'm sorry you miss the point Dave. I said "the AVERAGE GA pilot" and
this is a fact. The decision to own is up to the individual. Many of
the helo pilots I know own R22's or R44's but only fly 50 to 60 hours
a year. There are various reasons for owning for instance many like to
keep the ship at their residence or they want the ability to fly when
they want to fly. This is all beside the point. In the end every R22
pilot will pay for this AD weather they rent or own. The cost will be
past on.
Make an informed decision and read more about this AD. It's far too
suspicious to ignore. Then write your congressman and ask for an
investigation. Don't just ignore this.


(Davdirect) wrote in message >...
> If you are only flying 50hrs a year how/why should you buy a helicopter in the
> first place...not a very wise use of cash, you'd be much smarter to rent.
> davdirect