Thread: Robinson helicopters - new possible rules CAA

Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst

Interesting as old man just did a run on pigs and wallabies for DOC, in a Cabri. Does it only apply to work that involves their staff getting in the machine?

May be by district.
No piston helicopters used for Doc on the coast. I only got told last week by a fella that is always flying Doc around.
@gimp might be a better source of info.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I don't know of any rule barring piston choppers in general for DOC, just Robinsons.

Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst

Interesting as old man just did a run on pigs and wallabies for DOC, in a Cabri. Does it only apply to work that involves their staff getting in the machine?

As understand it is a national policy (though I hadn't heard about the exclusion of all piston engine machines until now), but it applies to DoC staff only.

Originally Posted by Maxx

As understand it is a national policy (though I hadn't heard about the exclusion of all piston engine machines until now), but it applies to DoC staff only.

So they don't give a shit about contractors then

It also applies to volunteers, there was a fuss recently about some permolat volunteers not being allowed to use a R44 for some voluntary hut restoration work. If a contractor is considered a separate PCBU under the new act they may be able to use whatever helicopter they like? Not my area

I took the fella at his word. He is a well known pilot here on the coast.
I did question him when he said piston helicopters as I also understood it was just Robinsons.
I could have misunderstood but apart from Robinson it only excludes the Huges 269 and Cabri as far as NZ goes.
Don't know of any other piston machine certified for ATO's

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

As an aside old man reckons that the Cabri is an awesome shooting platform compared to a 22/44 shorter rotor span with the 3 blade head doesn't wallow through chop and more responsive in the tight stuff, much "safer feel" to it. Don't know what they are rated to with a hook as they were only doing search and destroy but doing some fallow soon.

I believe it's Doc staff that aren't allowed "in" the Robbies. Some other govt organisations as well, like TB Free, etc

A very interesting thread thank you to all concerned

R93 - quite a few years ago now, but a helicopter that I am sure had a piston engine crashed in a river bed west of Christchurch and I am pretty sure it was an Enstrom. Was a long time ago though, so could be wrong.

Organisation policy on aircraft engines is nothing new. I know plenty wouldn’t allow staff to travel in single engine fixed wing aircraft, and some required twin engine aircraft to be turbo-props

New warning from Robinson - beware carrying passengers, they might distract you

Robinson Helicopter Co's passenger warning is 'bizarre', says expert - NZ Herald

Robinson Helicopter Company's warning about the risks of carrying a passenger is 'bizarre", an aviation safety expert told the Government.

The warning made by the helicopter company in a safety notice was possibly unique, John Fogden, director of the company Total Aviation Quality, told the Department of Conservation (DoC) in documents released to the Herald under the Official Information Act.

"I certainly haven't seen anything similar issued by any other helicopter (or fixed wing) manufacturer. To me it seems quite bizarre."

The safety notice warns that "carrying a passenger in and of itself increases risk because passengers add workload and distractions".

Fogden's take on it was that if the pilot was distracted by having a passenger, he may inadvertently fly the aircraft outside of its design limits, thereby inducing mast bump.

"Robinson seem to assert this 'risk' is because a passenger is on board and not in any way associated with a design fault of the helicopter."

Robinson helicopters make up 35 per cent of the New Zealand fleet but 49 per cent of accidents, 64 per cent of fatal crashes and all seven fatal mast-bump accidents.

The company has blamed many accidents on poor pilot training, while critics have contended the helicopter has a design flaw.

Originally Posted by stug

New warning from Robinson - beware carrying passengers, they might distract you

Robinson Helicopter Co's passenger warning is 'bizarre', says expert - NZ Herald

Robinson Helicopter Company's warning about the risks of carrying a passenger is 'bizarre", an aviation safety expert told the Government.

The warning made by the helicopter company in a safety notice was possibly unique, John Fogden, director of the company Total Aviation Quality, told the Department of Conservation (DoC) in documents released to the Herald under the Official Information Act.

"I certainly haven't seen anything similar issued by any other helicopter (or fixed wing) manufacturer. To me it seems quite bizarre."

The safety notice warns that "carrying a passenger in and of itself increases risk because passengers add workload and distractions".

Fogden's take on it was that if the pilot was distracted by having a passenger, he may inadvertently fly the aircraft outside of its design limits, thereby inducing mast bump.

"Robinson seem to assert this 'risk' is because a passenger is on board and not in any way associated with a design fault of the helicopter."

Robinson helicopters make up 35 per cent of the New Zealand fleet but 49 per cent of accidents, 64 per cent of fatal crashes and all seven fatal mast-bump accidents.

The company has blamed many accidents on poor pilot training, while critics have contended the helicopter has a design flaw.

this is lawsuit protection in the USA, bit like the 'caution contents hot' on coffee cups. Same shit turned the Cessna 172 and 206 from work hourses to overweight shitheaps that cant do anything.

Konev...so very true.....used to own a C-206G..Stationair .....it was a workhorse....the “H”s I’ve been told are what you say........shame really,

Originally Posted by Konev

this is lawsuit protection in the USA, bit like the 'caution contents hot' on coffee cups. Same shit turned the Cessna 172 and 206 from work hourses to overweight shitheaps that cant do anything.

Himmm Just read through this entire thread. Very interesting!
But the one thing that dose seem to crop up time and again is that maker wants to blame the pilot.
Who’s watched the movie “Sully” ?
That seems to strike a cord? He managed to land that plane on the Hudson and then got everyone off. They still tried to blame the guy at the controls.
Conspiracy? Himmmm now passengers will distract you. Please all passengers keep your stick mags in the over head lockers so as not to spas out the pilot
Shit man.

Sideshow...Interesting take....Sully made some huge mistakes....Read the NTSB Report......I flew for the same airline as “sully”...USAirways,he based in philly,me in Phoenix.....agreed,they did a great job with the final outcome,ie....no one died,only lost an airframe,.....I could bore you with some very fine politics about the “ miracle on the Hudson” .....a great PR scit for the FAA,USAirways,and the general yank public,....Airbus took a beating,some procedures never followed,a host of other “shit”.........they were bloody lucky...Period!.......I certainly get where you are coming from...outside looking in.......me...the inside looking out......

The pilot (just about)always gets blamed,the reasons,ha,count the stars....but major mistakes were made...you say,......well everybody survived...so true....I say,because I’m in the buisness,...he was lucky,me having the inside track and information the story is very different.....believe Hollywood all you like......this is not a sour-grapes post,this is a post of me knowing info you don’t...

To understand,you will have had to have flown the airbus,....he was close to retirement,but was retired”early”......to make a “hero”.....the yanks are good at doing that

....just look at how the AIRNZ crew were crucified with Erebus.....