Talk:Robinson R44

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robinson R44 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft / Rotorcraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the aircraft project.
	This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Rating

I disagree with this article being classed as a stub. It contains a lot of information for this type of article. --GW_Simulations 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reclassed as Start-Class. --Born2flie 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:ROBINSON R44 HELICOPTER.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ROBINSON R44 HELICOPTER.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recomended grounding of certain models in Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-05/unsafe-robinson-helicopters-to-be-grounded/4611458 if someone is interested in including? TinTin (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue with a table

It's concise and well-referenced, and shows at a glance how the R44 accidents in Australia compare with others. Looking forward to hearing from the folks that feel so strongly about this that they are reverting my other changes too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently tweaked the accidents and incidents section as it clearly was unbalanced, Bilcat just reverted it back to this more "balanced" version. The table doesnt add anything and the relevant info is still in the article text. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate what's "clearly unbalanced"/ Bilcat's edit summary did not match what he reverted as he removed more than the table that his edit summary indicated. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt matter Bilcat was challenging your change so really you need to explain why you want to change the article and gain consensus. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Milb1, I was reverting to the more-balanced version you wrote. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates2008, you need to understand that Wikipeida must maintain a neutral point of view; it is not for advocacy and is not the place to right great wrongs. If you have conecerns about the safety of Robinson helicopters, you need to do so on a blog, or to write an opinion piece for a website or newspaper; an encyclopedia is not the place to push the implication that they are inherently unsafe. Also, the fair-use photograph of the fuel tank fails WP:NFCC #8, as it does not add to readers' understanding of the article and removing it does not reduce their understanding. (Not to mention that a 1500x1196 picture far exceeds the standards of "fair use"; general practice is that a fair-use image should be no larger than 200-300px on its largest dimension.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robinson R44. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105133245/http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=6703 to http://www.fai.org/fai-record-file/?recordId=6703

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Crash

Not sore over my edit being reverted, realized I missed that part of the MOS. However, as Bilcat noted on his page, it may not be notable now but it may become notable whenever more information comes to light. So we should keep an eye on the news/FAA reports for the crash as they unfold and not disregard it entirely. If the crash was a flaw in the craft itself hitherto not covered in this article, we may want to put it back in. EEBuchanan (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any accident can be later added if it is later shown to be notable, but at this point in time that one seems to be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. If the investigation results in an airworthiness directive or other lasting effect it can be reinstated. The simple fact is out of 6300 built, hundreds of R44s have crashed and most accidents are not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAA - limits of authority

"The FAA, the governing body in the country of manufacture whose directives would normally be followed in other countries like Australia, had not mandated the retrofit..."

The FAA's jurisdiction ends at the US border. The FAA is only able to issue mandatory airworthiness directives (AD's) to operators of specified aircraft that are either manufactured in the US or that use, or are intended to be used in, American airspace. In the case of a light helicopter like the R-44 - which in the instance given was not intended for operations outside of Australian airspace - only the Australian aviation regulator has the authority to *MANDATE* an airworthiness directive for it. Any FAA 'mandatory' AD would have only the force of an 'advisory' for R-44s used in Australia. Nevertheless, it's common for manufacturers and operators to implement technically 'non-mandatory' ADs of foreign regulators - for example, it's likely that Boeing would implement an AD issued on one of their aircraft by EASA, the European aviation safety regulator, because not doing so is such a bad PR optic.

There seems to be a commonly held misconception (principally amongst Americans) that not only do US federal laws often apply outside the US but also that federal regulators such as the FAA, FDA, FCC etc have global jurisdiction. They do not.152.37.80.78 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]