If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 . com... 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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 om... 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Air Force Print News for Aug. 24, 2004 Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:12:41 -0500 | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 25th 04 05:03 AM |
16 Aug 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 17th 04 12:37 AM |
30 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 31st 04 03:55 AM |