facthunter Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Dick Smith flies just about everything. He doesn't pretend to be a "good" pilot. I would be more comfortable if the current 'chief" had flown minimalist aircraft ( and understood the concept). I think they "frighten" him. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 True Nev, but JMac's first official introduction to RA culture was probably enough for a lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 The evidence substantiated what his preconceptions were. The happenings that day did little to advance our cause, but the train crash just kept happening. An administrator should have been appointed. Too many people incurred losses. I can't see that is the only way it had to happen. Just my humble take on it. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 As I stated in my other post, I didn't find an AD when I searched. Did you search the USA FAA website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriya Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Did you search the USA FAA website? I didn't go to the FAA website earlier but just did a google search for Robinson AD's. To satisfy my ongoing curiosity I have just tried the FAA website now and still don't see the fuel tank mod mentioned as an AD. Therefore unless someone can produce an AD, as far as the FAA (and therefore CASA) are concerned this SB is not mandatory. My original statement regarding choosing not to fly in an unmodified R44 stands. I had already decided this before the Bulli accident, however this tragedy confirms my suspicions on this matter. No-one gets in an aircraft intending to have an accident, however I'd like to think that in the event of a minor bingle my chances of walking away remain high. The evidence for survivability in a minor R44 accident is not good. As I mentioned earlier in this thread for those of us in the industry, we have the opportunity to make an informed choice regarding risks we are willing to take, but the general public don't have the same knowledge, thus they rely on CASA to maintain a level of safety. Based on the history of R44 crashes in Australia alone, I'd have thought enough evidence exists to ground this type until the mod was done. As others have pointed out CASA does use this grounding option in the name of safety (including diverse ops such as RAAus, Barrier Air Charter, Ansett). Many have questioned the politics behind some of these past 'groundings'. I too have questions about the legitimacy of some of these actions, although I don't know the full facts behind any of these historic events. However I am somewhat confused at the lack of regulatory action mandating a clearly needed safety modification. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 From 2006 a safety notice from Robinson : http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sn40.pdf Again, from Robinsons website : http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/rchsn40_addendum.pdf The service Bulletin.: http://www.robinsonheli.com/service_library/r44_service_bulletins/r44_sb78.pdf Im not really up on the politics of it all. But who issues AD's? Is it the manufacturer or CASA, FAA etc?. The SB above and the other bits of information on Robinsons website clearly indicate knowledge of the problem from as early as 2006. Surely if the manufacturer have a "to be complied with date" which they themselves moved forward by a year after the crash at my airfield, surely someone at CASA made a decision NOT to get involved. Oh those good old boys at Robinson are dealing with the problem. There wont be too many of these post crash fires before april, now lets get on with grounding the RAA because of missing photographs. Robinson even link customers to 'nomex' suppliers and recommend you wear fire protective clothing in the flight manual. IS THAT PLACARDED for paying customers to see?? WARNING; THIS HELICOPTER HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF INCINERATING THE THE OCCUPANTS IN THE EVENT OF ANY SORT OF ROLL OVER. WEAR FIRE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND FLY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Excuse me mr Pilot, what does that mean? Should I be wearing Nomex?? How many operators make it clear to the passengers? This is a bloody disgrace ....!!!!!!!!! Friendly CASA personel, PULL YOUR FINGERS OUT AND FIX THIS PROBLEM....NOW!!!!! Or change your name.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriya Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 SB's (Service Bulletins) are issued by the manufacturer. Although much debate has occured over the years, the bottom line is that an owner/operator can apply SB's at their own discretion. This even includes so called 'Mandatory Service Bulletins' where the word 'mandatory' is included by the manufacturer as part of a CYA exercise. (Having said this I'm not suggesting anyone decides to ignore SB's) AD's (Airworthiness Directives) are issued by the regulator (FAA, CASA, etc). The owner/opterator is legally obliged to complete any AD's or observed any limitations that they contain. To simplify their job CASA does not normally issue AD's for aircraft which are operating on an overseas Type Certificate, but rather says that AD's issued by the NAA (National Airworthiness Authority) who issued the type certificate will apply to Australian aircraft. Therefore in the R44's case, as an American aircraft when the FAA issues an AD, it automatically applies to Aussie aircraft too. What often happens is that once a Service Bulletin is issued by the manufacturer, if the NAA determines that the SB should be mandatory they will issue an AD which states that a SB must be carried out. So given the legal status of AD's, SB's and the various responsibilities of the FAA & CASA in regards to R44's, it may be the case that CASA have simply washed their hands of all responsibility and say the FAA are primarily responsible for issuing AD's for this aircraft. However the accident history and previous ATSB recommendations would suggest to me that some regulator should have issued an AD making this mod mandatory. Even if CASA did not want to issue the AD themselves, one would think they would have ensured that the FAA respond to a design flaw that is killing people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Thanx myria. Very informative. Casa recently issued an AD for jabiru aircraft. I am trying to recall what it was for. Control cable ends possibly ? I'm struggling to understand how an AD can be issued on jabs where presumably no fatals had occurred , and here we have multiple fatals in various accidents where the crash did not kill them, but a design failure ensured they can't survive. I am seriously at a loss. And I feel awfully guilty for not pushing the matter further after the accident at jaspers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpacro Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Motz, you may like to email Danny Nguyen via this airworthiness bulletin http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/SW1311.pdf/SIB_SW-13-11_1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriya Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Hi Motz, An event like this makes us all ask the 'what if' questions. Don't be too harsh on yourself though, as in my view the regulator (whether that be CASA or the FAA) seems to have approached the issue too casually. I just had a look at the FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin that DJP referred to (which incidentally also clearly shows that the FAA have not made the mod mandatory) and couldn't help but think their decisions on this one have cost lives. I had gathered that this one is a bit personal, given the Jaspers Brush accident last year, however I could just as easily have asked the same questions that you are now wondering. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I had already personally decided that unmodded R44's present more risk than I am willing to take for myself or my family. Given that personal assessment, should have I been more proactive in pushing the authorities myself. However the simple fact is that the regulator already have just as much (and more) information than any of us and ultimately the responsibility will rest with them. Sometime when I'm up visiting my parents at Wollongong, I'll need to try and drop in at JB and say hi. Given communication in threads such as this + FB posts on JBAAG it feels like we should have met. Anyway, all the best and remember responsibility for this one rests fairly and squarely with the regulator. They had more info than us and yet have not made the mod mandatory. regards, Justin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Gazer Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 From 2006 a safety notice from Robinson :http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/r44sn40.pdf Again, from Robinsons website : http://www.robinsonheli.com/srvclib/rchsn40_addendum.pdf The service Bulletin.: http://www.robinsonheli.com/service_library/r44_service_bulletins/r44_sb78.pdf Im not really up on the politics of it all. But who issues AD's? Is it the manufacturer or CASA, FAA etc?. The SB above and the other bits of information on Robinsons website clearly indicate knowledge of the problem from as early as 2006. Surely if the manufacturer have a "to be complied with date" which they themselves moved forward by a year after the crash at my airfield, surely someone at CASA made a decision NOT to get involved. Oh those good old boys at Robinson are dealing with the problem. There wont be too many of these post crash fires before april, now lets get on with grounding the RAA because of missing photographs. Robinson even link customers to 'nomex' suppliers and recommend you wear fire protective clothing in the flight manual. IS THAT PLACARDED for paying customers to see?? WARNING; THIS HELICOPTER HAS A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF INCINERATING THE THE OCCUPANTS IN THE EVENT OF ANY SORT OF ROLL OVER. WEAR FIRE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND FLY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Excuse me mr Pilot, what does that mean? Should I be wearing Nomex?? How many operators make it clear to the passengers? This is a bloody disgrace ....!!!!!!!!! Friendly CASA personel, PULL YOUR FINGERS OUT AND FIX THIS PROBLEM....NOW!!!!! Or change your name.. Wow what tradjedy .- Unfortunately it has turned into a political soapa box to persecute CASA and Robinson. The bottom line is it was Pilot error- Neither Frank Robinson nor CASA were flying the chopper when it struct the tree initiating the disaster. As pilots we know that we take the lives of any passengers in our hands the moment we buckle up and turn the key - Ignorance is no excuse but accidents do happen. Yes I agree the outcome would most likely been more favourable if the R44 was equipped with the bladders but the pilot would have known this. The Pilot decided to proceed with the flight and botched the landing so he /she must ultimately assume responsibility for the outcome whether here or not. Why do we always have to blame (litigate ) someone else for every and any unfortunate accident or are there no longer ANY accidents? More people die in Fords than Robbies why don't we have them all taken off the road too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Because buddy, when a ford rear ends a Holden in a 40 zone, nobody gets incinerated. Fact is its a deadly design. They know, robbo know it, casa know it, and yea, the pilot probably knew it. But I bet my hat the passengers didnt. And that's the big difference mate . 1 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriya Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 More people die in Fords than Robbies why don't we have them all taken off the road too? If my Ford had a habit of incinerating its passengers when involved in a minor accident, then yes I would expect it to be taken off the road and fixed to save lives too. You are right in pointing out that pilot error may have been a significant factor also and indeed the pilot may have taken an informed risk when choosing to fly this helicopter, however were the pax aware of the issues surrounding crashworthiness of this design. It is an unfortunate reality that when humans are involved accidents will occur due to misjudgement of the situation or other failures. However this design has developed a particularly bad history of incinerating its occupants in minor accidents. The manufacturer knows it and has redesigned the fuel tank to make it safer. The ATSB knows it from previous R44 accident investigations and recommendations. So why then has the regulator stopped short of making it a mandatory mod? This is the basic question we are asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Yes, the fact that the pilot has initiated the accident is simply not relevant. It is the post-accident occurrences that we are dealing with here. It doesn't really matter why the accident happened, they are going to happen it's that simple. The Ford Pinto incidents in the states where they readily exploded after minor rear end collisions, is a prime example of where the model was quickly removed from the market, before it killed more innocent victims....there is a precident, and the regulators here really need to step in quickly, and minimize the real risks, or face sure, and sizeable littagation down the road.................................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodo Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 I was thinking of the Ford Pinto myself. But the most significant point about the R44 and the Pinto is the same - the company and the regulator DID NOT pull the vehicle. in the Pinto case, one later court case ordered "punitive damages" after an accident to make it clear that the company had known the vehicle was unsafe, dodo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Gazer Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Yes, the fact that the pilot has initiated the accident is simply not relevant..........Maj... Really ? I'd like to see you explain that to the families of all involved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Gazer Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Yes there is a known problem and a solution found and in place - unfortunately the availability of the components is an issue. Yes grounding the A/C until it complies is not an unreasonable request and maybe CASA should have done so or at least restricted operations until the repairs were completed. As for the argument that the passengers were not aware of the status of the AC I don't know how far you can realistically push that point as all air crew or passengers put their lives in the hands of the pilot whenever they go flying. They do not know and cannot be expected to know the intricacies of the aircraft that is the pilot''s domain. They trust that the Pilot in command as having assessed the aircraft an deemed it safe for flight under the prevailing conditions as he or she assumes responsibility for all on board. If its not safe or conditions are beyond your level of control then DON'T risk your life let alone anyone else who has placed their faith in your abilities. All I am saying is lets stop pointing the finger of blame at everyone else but the pilot. From the photos in the news article I can't see why he was so close to the trees to start with it sure looks like there was plenty of room to land without getting anywhere near them. Would I go flying in an R44 without the Bladder update? NO and that is the choice I personally would make just as this pilot COULD and as we now know should have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 All I am saying is lets stop pointing the finger of blame at everyone else but the pilot. You are suggesting that we stop discussing this vital fuel tank safety issue. What rot. And we won't (stop). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Sky Gazer. Please don't speculate and Point fingers at the pilot. That's not our job, for all we know there could have been a control issue, weather event, mechanical issue. We don't know enough to tall about the cause of the accident. We do however know what killed the occupants, and it wasn't the crash. We know the tank mod was not done. We know at least some of the occupants survived the crash. ( pm me and I will tell you how we know this). We know the regulator is aware of the problem. And we know they do ground aircraft for much much MUCH less than this. Try explain THAT to the relatives. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 WMore people die in Fords than Robbies why don't we have them all taken off the road too? Not a very apt or meaningful statement SG. I suggest you google 'Ford Pinto Memo' to familiarize yourself regarding the saga of woe that Ford had with re-occuring fatalities directly attributed to burning fuel resulting from inadequate tank design. Subsequent to the investigations following the recalls, it was generally accepted that Ford eventually bought their way out of the controversy. But many people were incinerated during the interim. OK - On posting, I see that other 'venerable' forumites remembered the Pinto's issues. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriya Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Skygazer, I second motz's call to avoid pointing the finger at the pilot. He has rightly pointed out any number of things that could have gone wrong other than specific pilot error. Our focus is on the regulators response (or lack of) to a known hazard. One of the regulators primary tasks is to protect the general public from unacceptable risk. An aircraft with a tendency to burst into flames even in a minor accident IMHO needs the intervention of the regulator to protect the general public who have no way of making the assessments that even you have made regarding your personal safety once you realise the implications of the design flaw. Also I think you have misinterpreted what MAJ was trying to say. We all acknowledge that something went wrong which set of the chain of events in this specific accident. MAJ was not trying to discount this, but he was highlighting that the thrust of our conversation does not focus on such speculation. We reluctantly recognise that minor accidents continue to happen but (without discounting efforts to reduce their occurence) our questions focus on why the regulator has not made this mod mandatory. In response to your comments on parts availability, I would suggest that if an AD had been issued with a deadline, then Robinson would pull out all stops to ensure their machines are not grounded due to delays in obtaining parts. It would be a PR nightmare for any company to have their product grounded for an extended period and they would ensure parts were made available to meet the need. However without the AD, less demand for parts exists and therefore Robinson will only match supply to demand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 The Ford issue. When i was at airventure 2011i checked out the Ford exhibit and one of the safety features they where pushing was the inertia fuel cutoff that is now fitted to every model in the US after a problem of under bonnet fires after an accident. R44 are not the only model burning. I recieved a crashed R22 from NZ that was bought for parts. It had burned after the blade folded and penetrated the aluminium fuel tank. This was back in 91. So this not a new problem. Does anyone know if R22 are produced with bladder tanks now or are they optioned on purchase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2tonne Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 This is part of an email sent to CSIRO alumni by Dr Megan Clark: It is with great sadness that I share with you that last night we received confirmation that four of our former CSIRO colleagues lost their lives in a helicopter accident just outside Sydney last Thursday. Dr Tony Farmer (former Deputy Chief Operations), Dr Gerry Haddad (former Chief of Industrial Physics), Dr Don Price (CSIRO Fellow) and Dr John Dunlop (former senior research scientist) were on the helicopter. This was a private trip by four friends and former colleagues which ended tragically. Terrible tragedy. Great loss for their families, friends and former CSIRO colleagues. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 They trust that the Pilot in command as having assessed the aircraft an deemed it safe for flight under the prevailing conditions as he or she assumes responsibility for all on board. Would I go flying in an R44 without the Bladder update? NO and that is the choice I personally would make just as this pilot COULD and as we now know should have done. The whole point is... your choice not to go flying in an R44 is based upon the information you have AND that the pilot had... The passengers as you point out trusted the PIC to make that decision for them without having that same knowledge... and the system of GA regulation we have in Australia (and in most of the Western Aviation World) was put in place to provide regulation to insure that this scenario does not happen... In this case there were several failures as your post points out... IMO this is not defensible. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted April 5, 2013 Share Posted April 5, 2013 ABC News 24 reporting this afternoon that CASA have made the fuel tank modifications madatory before the end of April. Saying 100 out of a fleet of 400 aircraft had not yet had the modifications. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-05/unsafe-robinson-helicopters-to-be-grounded/4611458?section=nsw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now