EASA COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT

EASA CRD of Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding for Power boost and power-operated control system CS27.695 (a)(1)
Applicable to Robinson R66
Issue 1
EASA
COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT
Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding for Power boost and power-operated control system CS27.695 (a)(1)
Applicable to Robinson R66
Issue 1
Commenter: UK CAA
Please note that there are no comments from the UK CAA regarding Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding for Power boost and power-operated control
system CS27.695 (a)(1) applicable to Robinson R66.
EASA response: Noted
Commenter: SLOANE HELICOPTERS LTD
It is our understanding that RHC have fulfilled all the requirements necessary to demonstrate full compliance of the ELOS, as reflected by the recent
certification of the aircraft in Canada and Russia. Furthermore, we have been operating the aircraft under the N-register for over two years and have
experienced no issues or concern with the R66.
We believe that the aircraft offers a great potential capability for public transport and private operations within Europe and, especially in this depressed
economic climate, extends an opportunity to stimulate the helicopter market. The success that the R66 has already achieved throughout the world
demonstrates this capability and therefore we can see no reason for any further delay.
EASA response: Noted.
EASA is aware of the validation of the R66 FAA-type certification by other countries based on the completion of the FAA- ELOS demonstration. In line
with the applicable processes the Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding was published for the public consultation process. The comment does not request
changes or clarifications to the Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding technical content.
Commenter: Johan Vandenbussche
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to give comments related to the R66 ESF and R66 certification in general.
1/4
EASA CRD of Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding for Power boost and power-operated control system CS27.695 (a)(1)
Applicable to Robinson R66
Issue 1
We have been following the Robinson R66 certification with a lot of interest since the FAA approved the machine back in October 2010.
Our comments to this subject are as following:
1. As active pilot of R44 and R22 helicopters we have always been attracted by the simplicity of the solutions developed by Frank Robinson. Many
occasions have learned the aviation industry that simple solutions are preferable over complex backup solutions that introduce a new level of
complexity. The recent findings around the backup system on the Eurocopter EC-225 main rotor are a clear example of this statement.
2. The hydraulic systems on the R44 are very reliable but more importantly allow the pilot to fly without in case of a hydraulic error. The FAA has
clearly confirmed this in their ESF but all R44 pilots can witness this from their own trainings on landing without hydraulics.
3. I have spoken recently to one female and one male pilot that has followed the R66 courses in the US. Both are experienced R44 pilots and they
confirmed me that flying the R66 w/o hydraulics is very comparable to the R44. They believe that this is a very good backup system with the
lowest possible risk of failure.
We want to recommend EASA to accept the R66 hydraulic backup system as it has been developed now, and certify the R66 Helicopter for Europe. We
also would advise that the R66 needs a separate rating given the difference with the R44 but also with the other light turbine helicopters; this would
oblige pilots to train specifically the hydraulic backup system and at the same time also the particularities that Robinson helicopter have versus others.
EASA response: Not accepted.
The Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding does not address the kind of back-up system but the availability of the mechanical back-up system when
considering the potential of a control valve jamming.
Comparison with EC 225 is not considered related to the ESF.
Commenter: P&B Helitrade GmbH
Ich bin nunmehr seit 35 Jahren als Pilot tätig und habe es auf mehr als 10000 Flugstunden auf Hubschrauber gebracht. So habe ich seit vielen Jahren
u.a. als ranghöchste Lizenz die des Senior Examiners in Österreich. Seit 1985 fliege ich Robinsons und seit 1994 die R44. Als selbstständiger AOC und
ATO Unternehmer bin ich quasi seit der ersten Stunde mit dem R44 vertraut. In meinem Unternehmen haben wir bisher ca. 50000 Flugstunden auf R44
geflogen. Speziell seit dem es die "Hydraulische Steuerung" bei der R44 Raven gibt zählen wir ca. 25000 Flugstunden.
In einem Satz kann ich ihnen sagen, dass wir noch nie ein Problem mit der "Hydraulische Steuerung" hatten. Wir hatten in diesen 25000 Flugstunden
sage und schreibe ein einziges Mal einen Servo wegen Undichtheit zu wechseln. Ich habe vollstes Vertrauen in die bisher bekannte und bewährte
"Hydraulische Steuerung" von Robinson Helicopter Company und keinen Anlass nur irgendwelcher Bedenken.
Aus diesem Grund bin ich der Ansicht, dass die "Hydraulische Steuerung" in den vielen Jahren bisher bereits den "Equivalent Level of Safety"
nachgewiesen und bewiesen hat !!!
EASA translation: I am a pilot for more than 35 years and have flown more than 10000FH on helicopters. In that way I have, besides others, the highest
Licence of a Senior Examinar in Austria. Since 1985 I am flying Robinson helicopters. As self-employed AOC and ATO businessman I am familiar with
2/4
EASA CRD of Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding for Power boost and power-operated control system CS27.695 (a)(1)
Applicable to Robinson R66
Issue 1
the R44 since the very beginning. In my company we have flown 50000Fh on R44, Specifically since the “Hydraulic Flight Controls” are available, we
have collected about 25000Fh.
In one sentence I can tell you, that we never had a problem with the Hydraulic Flight Controls. Believe it or not in those 25000Fh we had only changed
on actuator due to leakage. I fully trust in the already known and well-proven “Hydraulic Flight Control” of Robinson Helicopter Company and I have no
reason for any concern.
For this reason I am of the opinion that the “Hydraulic Flight Control” in these many years already has demonstrated that “Equivalent Level of Safety”.
EASA response: Noted.
Die angeführten Flugstundendaten allein sind nicht ausreichend, um ein gleichwertiges Maß an Sicherheit zu zeigen. Der Kommentar beinhaltet jedoch
keine Forderungen zur Änderung oder weitergehenden Erläuterung des technischen Inhalts des Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding.
EASA translation: The quoted flight hour data alone are not sufficient to demonstrate an Equivalent level of safety. The comment, however, does not
request changes or further explanations on the technical content of the proposed ESF.
Commenter: Valair AG
Das ELOS (Equivalent Level of Safety) auf der Steuerhydraulik beim Helicopter Robinson R66 Turbine ist positiv zu begrüssen aus folgenden Gründen:
1. Die Zulassungsbehörden des Herstellerlandes USA/FAA aber auch Canada und Russland haben dieses ELOS positiv anerkannt.
2. Das im Helicopter R66 eingebaute Hydraulik System ist äusserst bewährt. Die Ergebnisse des ELOS unterstreichen die Zuverlässigkeit und
Funktionstüchtigkeit deutlich.
3. Praxis erprobt; Das verwendet Hyraulicsystem ist auch auf dem Helicopter R44 Series eingebaut und zertifiziert (mit Excemption). Nahezu 6000
Helicopter sind mit diesem Hydraulik System ausgerüstet und fliegen weltweit störungsfrei.
Wir erwarten von der EASA, dass dieses ELOS positiv beurteilt wird und der Helicopter R66 ohne weitere Einschränkung zügig zertifiziert werden kann.
EASA translation: The ELOS on the Hydraulic Flight Control of the R66 is to be welcomed for the following reasons:
1. the NAAs of the State of Manufacture USA/FAA but also Canada and Russia have accepted the ELOS
2. the Hydraulic System on the R66 is extremely well proven. The results of the ELOS clearly underline the reliability and the functionality.
3. Praxis-proven. The same Hydraulicsystem is installed on the R44 series and certified (by Exemption). Almost 6000 helicopter are equipped with
this Hydraulic System and are flying world wide failure-free.
We expect from EASA, that the ELOS will be positively assessed and that the helicopter R66 would be certified speedily without further restriction.
EASA response: Noted
Wie im veröffentlichten Dokument dargestellt, wird auf das FAA-zugelassene ELOS Bezug genommen. EASA hat Kenntnis von den abgeschlossenen
Validierungen des R66, in denen das FAA-ELOS akzeptiert wurde. Der Kommentar beinhaltet keine Forderungen zur Änderung oder weitergehenden
3/4
EASA CRD of Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding for Power boost and power-operated control system CS27.695 (a)(1)
Applicable to Robinson R66
Issue 1
Erläuterung des technischen Inhalts des Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding.
EASA translation: As described in the published document, reference is made to the FAA-approved ELOS. EASA knows of the completed validations of
the R66, in which the FAA-ELOS has been accepted. The comment does not request changes or further explanations on the technical content of the
proposed ESF.
Commenter: British Helicopter Association
The British Helicopter Association, on behalf of the UK’s civil helicopter industry, is content that the recent demonstration of ELOS for the FAA
conducted by Robinson Helicopter Corporation is sufficient to support the immediate certification of the R66 in Europe. This action will remove the
anomaly of some R66s operating commercially under national rules at present pending certification.
EASA response: Noted
In line with the applicable processes the Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding was published for the public consultation process. The comment does not
request changes or clarifications to the Proposed Equivalent Safety Finding technical content.
4/4