Steve R wrote:

Doesn't SFAR 73 apply "only" to the R22?

In scanning it, it appeared to apply to the R22 and the R44.

Don W.



So does that mean if a student is training in something other than a
Robinson, then the numbers originally quoted are possible by regulation?

The way I read the reg, the minimum hours for a
conversion to rotorcraft from fixed wing is 9 dual
+ 10 solo in a helicopter. Someone please correct
me if I'm reading this incorrectly. SFAR 73
essentially says you cannot do this in a R22 or
R44 because you have to have minimum of 20 hours
of dual before solo in these two birds.


I've never heard that the R22 has any significant control issues when
compared to other makes and models that are likely to be used for primary
training other than they've got a relatively light rotor system which makes
collective management more critical than most if power is lost. I've not
heard much about the R44 in that regard. I've never flown either one
although I've ridden in a couple of R22's and they seemed to fly as well as
any helicopter I've been in.

The R22 apparently has a couple of issues. One is
that it is a "low inertia" rotor system, which
means that the rotor slows down very quickly in a
power loss situation. That means you have to
recognize a power loss and enter autorotation
quickly compared to other helicopters.

The other issue is that the rotor can contact the
tail boom under the right combination of low-G and
cyclic inputs.

Whatever the reasons, there were a lot of fatal
"lawn dart" or "smoking hole" accidents with R22s
in the early days. Check the NTSB accident
reports and search for R22 -- "loss of rotor
control". The reports are sobering (and sad).
Several of these accidents were students flying
with CFIs. The large number of accidents led to
SFAR 73, and a marked tendency for R22 CFI's to
keep their hands close to the controls at all times.

It just seems strange, without knowing the specifics, that the FAA would
feel it necessary to issue a set of FAR's targeting one specific
manufacturer. That might explain why I've occasionally met individuals that
were outspokenly against flying in one.

The problem with a R22 accidents caused by "loss
of rotor control" is that all the people who know
exactly what they were doing before things went
wrong are dead. The factory engineers and the FAA
have lots of theories--all unproveable as far as I
know.

Here is a link to an example of what I'm talking
about.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...28X00255&key=1

There are more examples in the database.

Don W.