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