R22 owners please help with AD 2004-06-52

(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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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