AustraliaPage8

18 Sept 2003

The R22 Chronicles

Part Eight: "Bits and Pieces"

During the time I have been writing this story I have had wonderful support from Industry.

What has been evident is conjecture that various agendas may be sitting in the background which may have caused or may have an effect on the final outcome. Some of this has come about due to operators who believe they are not in receipt of natural justice and who have been trying to find answers.

The following are some of the e-mails received - I have removed reference to the authors where necessary:

"hi Tony,

Not so rosy if your blades have done 1600hrs but only 700hrs mustering as the rest has been govt. work ie.XXXXXX. and this happens at the peak of the mustering season when I need three helicopters instead of two for another two months and still have to hand over $4900 pm plus insurance .My number three pilot whom I have invested a lot of time and money in since mid February wonders where he stands. My opposition have just got a free kick for the next couple of months as their two helicopters are `nt affected for the short term. I estimated there could be up to 70 helicopters affected if Australia has 200 hundred mustering helicopters? and as 1500hrs is two thirds of life approx. there could be a third of the mustering fleet affected. This doesn't even factor in the number of machines at 1100 hr-1500hr mark which might do up to 400hrs in the next two months. Private station helicopters might still elect to make their 25hrs available to mid October get them through the rest of the season an bugger the law. All R 22 owners in the western region of CASA have received a reg 301 surrender of documents letter as I have heard they are targeting one particular owner but I gather that a lawyer would contend that he could refuse as he has the right not to incriminate himself. I find it ironic that a machine in the charter category and used for charter now has been allowed longer life than a machine in the aerial work category.

regards XXXXXXl"

And:

Tony

Hi, I have just been put on to your web site and have read your story on R22 blades. I just wanted to give you my support for your actions , the more of us that can put pressure on CASA the more chance we have of changing the corrupt system that is currently in place in the helicopter industry.

I personally have been talking & writing letters to as many people as I can including Robinson, CASA & other industry members re this latest AD. Everyone accepts that the reason for blade failures is the under recording of hours, not the increased loads supposedly caused by mustering. Everyone that is except you guessed it.... CASA !

Keep up the good work

And:

---

Customer Service

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 12:00 PM

Subject: Re: R22 MR blade AD amdt 6

Pat

Hope you had a good vacation !

I was just wondering if you have received my last email as I have not yet received a reply. Since writing my last email I have spoken with David Villiers CASA Airworthiness Canberra. They are still sticking to their theory that Robinson R22 blades can not safely complete 2200hrs on aerial mustering operations. He also told me that it was Robinson that suggested the reduction of life to 1500hrs on R22 MR blades. If this is the case why hasn't there been a world wide safety alert to all Robinson R22 owners? As there are many more stressful operations than mustering being carried out with R22's surely there are many lives at risk?

I'm sorry to be bugging you with questions but I along with many other operators are just not prepared to accept the restrictions that CASA are imposing on us. We know that R22's are a great helicopter and are more than capable of flying 2200 hrs

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 5:17 AM

Subject: Re: R22 MR blade AD amdt 6

Dear

Pat is on vacation. He will be back on September the 8th, 2003.

Best regards,

Roberto Vela

RHC Tech Support

----- Original Message -----

To: Customer Service

Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 10:25 PM

Subject: Re: R22 MR blade AD amdt 6

Dear Patrick

Since I received your last email Australian CASA have issued a Regulation impact statement CASA #320 relating to AD/R22?31 - Main Rotor blades. If you have not read this document I suggest you obtain a copy from CASA's web site .There are a few statements in this document that are at odds with the correspondence that I have had with you.

You have told me that Robinson does not agree with CASA that the blades are not capable of doing 2200 hrs and have suggested to them that they follow the money trail to detect under recording of hours.

In paragraph 2.8 of the impact statement CASA claims "The manufacturer supports the actions taken by CASA" and also in paragraph 6.1 "the manufacturer has written to advise support of CASA's regulatory decision"

If Robinson supports this action why have you not issued an AD yourselves covering all machines world wide ? Australia is certainly not the only country that engages in aerial stock mustering. If as little as 50 hrs mustering can cause a blade failure what about all the other stressful operations that Robinson R22's are engaged in ?

Is there really a structural problem with R22 main rotor blades or is CASA making false claims about Robinson's support of their action in reducing the service life to 1500 hrs?

I look forward to your reply

----- Original Message -----

From: Customer Service

To:

Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:46 AM

Subject: Re: R22 MR blade AD amdt 6

Dear

We have indeed been in contact with CASA. Since the subject aircraft records have not conclusively proven a life limit exceedance then CASA apparently will proceed on the assumption that mustering imposes higher loads.

We have suggested CASA look beyond formal aircraft records and "Follow the money" (American journalism term meaning look into the business & financial records of the involved companies). If, as you allege, there is any chicanery then someone, somewhere paid for extra fuel, oil, pilot time etc and there will be a written record.

We have encouraged CASA all we can on our end. It is going to be up to the honest operators to apply the necessary pressure for a full accounting.

Fly safely,

Patrick Cox

RHC Tech Support

----- Original Message -----

To: Customer Service

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:32 AM

Subject: Re: R22 MR blade AD amdt 6

Dear Patrick

Thanks for your reply. You made the statement that you have already shown that R22 blades can make 2200 hrs safely. I take it then that you agree that the blade failures that have occurred here are most likely caused by an over run of hours not a structural problem with the blades that could cause them to fail before their time life of 2200 hrs?

Have you had discussions with CASA and expressed any concern over their belief that there is a problem with the blades and that as little as 50 hrs mustering time in the life of a blade could cause it to fail prematurely?

To my knowledge CASA have not conducted any structural testing to support their claims, are you prepared to let them destroy the R22's excellent safety record without any real evidence to support their view ?

What if in their wisdom they decide to do the same thing with the R44 down the track?

As a Robinson owner/ operator It is very important to me to be able to reassure my clients that there is not a problem with the helicopters when they are operated within their limits, any support you can give us would be much appreciated, thanks

----- Original Message -----

From: Customer Service

To:

Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:53 AM

Subject: R22 MR blade AD amdt 6

Dear

Thank you for your fax, altho I was dismayed at some of its contents.

If "It is standard industry practice for many operators here to fly between 4,000 to 6,000 hours on an R22 before completing a 2200 hrly rebuild" is the norm then CASA needs to turn over their investigation to your national police (or equivalent) for probable violations of the Australian criminal code due to risk of life and limb.

We have already shown the blades can make 2200 hours safely, but I cannot say what further actions CASA will take.

Maybe your MP can be of help?

Fly safely,

Patrick Cox

RHC Tech Support

And:

Tony

Thanks for your reply have only just retrieved your email from our junk mail filter.

I have just sent another email to Pat Cox at Robinson. I think some of my questions to them were getting a bit hard as I have not had a reply for a while. I will try to forward on our previous correspondence so you can see the responses I have had from Robinson to date. The letter attached to this email is the first one I faxed to Pat.

I spoke with David Villiers of Airworthiness Canberra at the end of last week. He is still sticking to his theory about excessive loads during mustering ops being the problem. Because the investigators of the previous blade failures have failed to come up with the real hours that would have been on the blades he has drawn the conclusion that this cannot be the cause of the problem.

He is talking black boxes but of course even after the fitting of a black box he is not going to extend the life of the blades back to 2200hrs because in his view under recording of hours is not the real issue. Sound like a familiar response from CASA?

And

HI XXX

I can’t believe what I’m reading from RHC – its “pass the parcel” all over again!!

My last update – on Saturday night puts forward the same messages as below to some extent. Has anyone worked out what money has been made by rebuilds, parts, new machines etc? And what about the $s that RHC and the in-betweens will make from a bonanza blade replacement windfall. Sure, I would agree that they can argue replacement on some machines, however not ALL machines.

The blades that broke on the first two machines were proven to be over life. I’m not sure about the Sydney machine but hear vibes.

We would have to question RHC and CASA about their assumptions as follows:

if it was a mustering related problem fatigue problem then we would have had machines spread all over the flat for the last 20 years
Mustering is not as hard on a machine as some other occupations due the long ferries and basic low power mid range speed used for a large percentage of the operation. This can be proven by the fuel consumption while mustering (between 26 and 31 litres an hour)
The use of the governor has meant that the pilot’s style has also changed in that Over revving is now reduced considerably, yet the M Rotor blade failures have happened recently – supposedly on machines that have been flown more conservatly.
They are tarring everyone with the same brush by assuming that every muster pilot is a cowboy.

Maybe you might want to talk to XXXXX – a producer on XXXXXX who has an interest in the blade saga.

Please keep me in the loop as to any replies from Pat Cox.

What has XXXXX done as President of the HXX – the industry advocate?

Fly safe XXXX – these things work better when people band together as a voice and put aside competition etc.

And:

HI XXXXXXXX

I had another thought today about the CASA comments.

The R22 was certified to the FAA FAR 27 standards – which are pretty specific for their compliance.

Earlier model machines such as the B47 were certified to a lower standard - CAR 23 (I think).

If CASA and RHC are saying that the R22 hours are to be reduced because the act of mustering adds greater stress on the blades etc – then the same principle should apply to ALL FAR or CAR certified machines as they ALL were certified to the same standard.

.........................................................................

Want to contribute either anonymously or otherwise to this story? Why not send me e-mail ! Your privacy will be respected - your information welcomed.

Safe flying