Mvh

[R22Captain]

anyway that's another story that's been hashed out before.

I worked for PB for a year. From what i saw of the school the few times i was in ybw, it's a tightly run ship. Like others have said, go there , work hard, they guys and gals will do what they can to help you out.

[green arc]

Seen my share of banged up machines due to training. BUT, there does seem to be an inordinate amount of Robinson crashes. To me, they're like a slinky,of little mechanical worth, but fun to watch someone else play with it. (And yes, that's GGB back in 1980)

 

You nailed exactly what I was trying to say. I know the others arn't with out their flaws, and I'm ceratinly not trying to belittle the leavle of training by any one. My comments are are strictly based on mechanical design.

[Swissmatt]

You nailed exactly what I was trying to say. I know the others arn't with out their flaws, and I'm ceratinly not trying to belittle the leavle of training by any one. My comments are are strictly based on mechanical design.

 

green arc, out of curiosity, when you say it's the most unreliable machine out there (the R22), do you account for the order of magnitude more hours flown worldwide on that type? I mean, are we comparing incident by incident numbers or incident / hours flown numbers?

[green arc]

green arc, out of curiosity, when you say it's the most unreliable machine out there (the R22), do you account for the order of magnitude more hours flown worldwide on that type? I mean, are we comparing incident by incident numbers or incident / hours flown numbers?

I dont think I said "unreliable" I belive I said "unstable". The machine is very reliable. As a matter of fact you can count on it being twitchy every time you fire one up.

[Swissmatt]

I dont think I said "unreliable" I belive I said "unstable". The machine is very reliable. As a matter of fact you can count on it being twitchy every time you fire one up.

 

fair enough, unstable .. so, are we comparing incident by incident numbers or are we comparing incident over hours flown on type numbers .. it's a bold statement you're making and I just want to understand what the numbers you are stating as 'fact' are based on .. like I said .. just curious ..

[green arc]

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9603.pdf

 

The above link is to an NTSB report on R22's which along with many other interesting "facts" it states that the fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours are 2.5 times greater in the R22 than the Hughes 269.

[Swissmatt]

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/SIR9603.pdf

 

The above link is to an NTSB report on R22's which along with many other interesting "facts" it states that the fatal accidents/100,000 flight hours are 2.5 times greater in the R22 than the Hughes 269.

 

great read, thanks green arc

[green arc]

great read, thanks green arc

Yeah I thought so too. What I gather from it is the Robinson design is touchy and when handled with in its very specific guidelines they are ok machines, just like any other helicopter. Just perhaps a little less forgiving.

 

I have to admit all I was really trying to do is stir things up a bit. Clearly this is a debate that has been going on for years and in my opinion theres not a real solid winner.

[Swissmatt]

Yeah I thought so too. What I gather from it is the Robinson design is touchy and when handled with in its very specific guidelines they are ok machines, just like any other helicopter. Just perhaps a little less forgiving.

 

I have to admit all I was really trying to do is stir things up a bit. Clearly this is a debate that has been going on for years and in my opinion theres not a real solid winner.

 

yes, this debate has been going on for years and probably will continue, despite this or similar reports. I for one have simply never actually seen published numbers that were based on /hours flown before, which is why I was intrigued .. It's fairly easy to compare one's perception of different types, but, as in this report, incidents / hours flown kinda speaks for itself .. no need to argue