Talk:Robinson R44

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

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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)

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.

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

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)


 * 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)