seeking accident reports from DOT site

[xcaret]

I'm new here and have a RAF 1000 gyro that has been ready for the final airworthiness inspection for 10 years or so .I would have been taking lessons long ago but the 2 flight instructors I was making arrangements to teach me were both killed in gyroplane accidents while flying .After the first shock and several years later I got the courage to seek lessons again and no sooner had I been arranging things the second instuctor crashed while testing a clients gyro .Of coarse being a little nervous about flying to start with this didn't help things .Now I'm thinking of flying again and despite my aquaintences all telling me they heard these are definite death machines ,I beleive all the accidents are human error .To confirm this I'm looking for the gyro accident reports .I asked for and got them in 1996 and they went back 13 fatalities all of which 1 were confirmed piolot error .( the other a possible suiside) If anyone has the website for Canada or US I would be greatful.I have the one for Africa at the moment ,fortunatley they have no fatalities on record for gyros going back to 1998 .I didn't go back farther as I was looking for Canadian stats.
Thanks ,Neil

[dragonflyerthom]

Welcome to the forum.

Sorry to hear of your many side tracks to the joy of flying. Aviation can be dangerous. Most of the accident come from people trying to teach themselves to fly. I think you will find what you are looking for here. There are many others also but you can do a search for them/http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/Response2.asp
There are many others also but you will have to do a search for them.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

" I'm new here and have a RAF 1000 gyro that has been ready for the final airworthiness inspection for 10 years or so .I would have been taking lessons long ago but the 2 flight instructors I was making arrangements to teach me were both killed in gyroplane accidents while flying "

Unfortunately many of these accidents are preventable by refusing to fly unstable designs.

There were two fatal accidents at the RAF factory one of which involved a flight instructor who had thousands of hours flying helicopters but did not seem to have understood the HTL issues in the RAF design and bunted to his death.

The second accident that resulted in three fatalities was pilot error flying close formation and what most likely was a nose up pitch probably caused by turbulence magnified by a pitch unstable design.

[gyroplanes]

Why didn't both aircraft pitch up together if they were so close?

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

" Why didn't both aircraft pitch up together if they were so close? "

There can be many reasons such as two pitch unstable machines pitching out of phase with each other.

One machine having pitch, yaw, roll out of phase occillations due to flying into the lead machines wake turbulence plus the turblulence of the airmass.

Or maybe the two pilots were flying formation without proper training and understanding of how to fly formation.

How in depth was their formation briefing and communications during the flight.

There could be many contributing factors, but one factor that is indisputable is if you fly close formation in unstable machines in an unstable air mass you are exposing yourself to a higher risk of collision than if you are flying stable machines.

But then what do I know about flying formation or what is stable or unstable?

So you tell me what you think Tom.

Chuck E.

[Caribean_gyro]

Neil.
First go to the ocean enter the watter bacwards and thro your self 3 times. This is what we do here with bad luck.

Tehn try to get an instructor that have proven trak history. Also if you can go to a convention and fly with several you will get diferrent views and ways of learning.

ChuckP

[gyroplanes]

" Why didn't both aircraft pitch up together if they were so close? "

There can be many reasons such as two pitch unstable machines pitching out of phase with each other.

One machine having pitch, yaw, roll out of phase occillations due to flying into the lead machines wake turbulence plus the turblulence of the airmass.

Or maybe the two pilots were flying formation without proper training and understanding of how to fly formation.

How in depth was their formation briefing and communications during the flight.

There could be many contributing factors, but one factor that is indisputable is if you fly close formation in unstable machines in an unstable air mass you are exposing yourself to a higher risk of collision than if you are flying stable machines.

But then what do I know about flying formation or what is stable or unstable?

So you tell me what you think Tom.

Chuck E.


I think your first post jumped to a conclusion.

I think your second post presents several scenarios, one of which is probably correct.

I think the unmodified RAF is an unstable aircraft.

I think the unmodified RAF can be safely flown by some individuals.

I think you probably have flown formation, and unstable aircraft, in your career.

I think every time you see the letters "RAF" you feel compelled to say something negative and often you don't put much thought into it.

I think you believe you might be "saving lives" with your comments.

I think your hatred of all things RAF shows through with every post.

I think you are your own worst enemy, regarding your comments.

I think most RAF pilots wrote you off long ago.

I think you are ineffective in your delivery.

I think you "could" be an asset to the gyro community, someday, if you did more than talk.

I think that's enough for now.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

And I know that everytime you read one of my posts you get very agitated, even though you really know very little about me or my motives. Remember it was you who started the personal insulting comments Tom.

So what exactly should I do to get your approval Tom?

[Harry_S.]

The second accident that resulted in three fatalities was pilot error flying close formation and what most likely was a nose up pitch probably caused by turbulence magnified by a pitch unstable design.



Come off it.

You have no proof of what happened...no one has; just another bad assumption on your part.:sad:


.

[gyroplanes]

First, You don't need my approval.

Second, I don't get agitated. I see and talk to far more RAF owners than you do and I do my very best to help them understand stability.

Third, I don't believe I EVER insulted you. I may have suggested you have an ego problem, that's all.

Fourth, I'd like to see you quit acting like you and RAF had an ugly divorce. You sound just like a guy ragging on his ex-spouse.

Fifth, You have the right to hate RAF. I just wish you would start your own "I hate RAF" thread and leave the rest of us, that are trying to do some good, alone.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

So you tell me what you think happened Harry?

When two aircraft hit each other in flight while trying to fly in formation to take pictures there must be reasons that are plausible.

I think my post covered the plausible, especially having personally known and flown with and subsequently refused to fly with Dan because I wanted to live longer.

So why are my comments getting such knee jerk reactions from you Harry?

[chuter]

I think you left out a possible medical event....... or mechanical failure.......or object in the cabin jamming the controls.......or bird strike...........or something unknown that none of us could even imagine.

[dragonflyerthom]

Chuck E.

I would like to see you take that brand new RAF you have in storage and do th e modifications necessary for y ou to feel the mods y ou suggested would work. I would like to meet you, I do feel you are a person to know. I think you are like a bitter ex spouse when it comes to RAF. I would like to see you share some of the wisdom you have with all of us. I would like to see you fly a Gyro someday. I personally would like to see you post more.(without the sarcasims) Chuck B has decided to share so why can't you?

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Sure chuter there are endless possible causes for accidents.

However when we look for possible causes we first look for the most likely and then after rejecting the most likely we look at the less obvious.

As I recall there was some pictures taken just prior to the two machines colliding in flight?

Whether or not you agree with or disagree with my opinions or thoughts on the subject of flight safety it does not change the fact that my business is teaching flight safety and all flying machines operate under the same principles and all pilots fly under the same principles.

Would you agree with me that if you are going to choose a particular flying machine to examine fatal accidents in the gyro world RAF will give you many fatal accident reports to use as subject material?

Chuck E.

[Cobra Doc]

To answer the question of this thread:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp

[dragonflyerthom]

OK Chuck E

Here is a list of fatal accidents in the last 5 years
09/09/06 Garner Falcon
03/31/06 Eiland Sparrowhawk
11/11/05 Rahler Gyro
07/04/05 Becker RAF
06/26/05 Martel Air Command 532 Elite
12/03/04 Close Air Command
03/12/04 Ortmayer/Parson
02/21/04 Gillespie Sport Copter Vortex
11/16/03 Norftham RAF
05/19/03 A&S 18A
01/24/03 Long RAF 2000
01/01/03 Air Command Commander Elite
09/08/02 Adler SA-1
07/16/02 Wheeler RAF 2000
06/29/02 Denzer RAF 2000
03/16/02 Kopp Gyro Kopp ter
01/26/02 Quitzau Vortex
01/22/02 Stiles Choctaw
07/28/01 Holsclaw Barnett J4B
06/16/01 Patalivo Dominator
04/27/01 Benson Aircraft Corp Gyro


Now this is from 01/01/2001 thru 09/09/06.

Granted there are more RAF fatalities than the other but have you read the reports. A lot of them had little or no Gyro pilot experience.

[C. Beaty]

Neil, when reviewing accident reports, one must be very careful in drawing conclusions. The US NTSB doesn’t allocate much in the way of resources to the investigation of accidents involving amateur built gyroplanes. There is a good chance the investigator has never before seen a gyroplane, much less having some idea of how the things work.

The “factual” data is fine; type of aircraft, time of day, etc.

But “probable cause: pilot failed to maintain control” is, for the most part, meaningless.

If you have a little understanding of the way gyros work, you can read the detailed descriptions and eyewitness reports and generally come up with something more cogent than “pilot failed to maintain control.”

Did the rotor chop off the vertical tail, propeller tips and leave a trail of debris before impact? That’s a bunt/PPO and while indicative of pilot skill is the result of a design flaw rather than pilot error.

The Brits do a lot better in their investigations but usually 2 years elapse between an accident and report publication.

[chuter]

Would you agree with me that if you are going to choose a particular flying machine to examine fatal accidents in the gyro world RAF will give you many fatal accident reports to use as subject material?


Yes, I would agree.

[Harry_S.]

So you tell me what you think happened Harry?

When two aircraft hit each other in flight while trying to fly in formation to take pictures there must be reasons that are plausible.

I think my post covered the plausible, especially having personally known and flown with and subsequently refused to fly with Dan because I wanted to live longer.

So why are my comments getting such knee jerk reactions from you Harry?



Chuck e

I don't want to get into a pissin' match with you, but...

1) I have no opinion as to what happened, nor the cause of that tragic accident. I always wait for the investigative analysis of any accident. I think, but never publicly voice my opinion, until after the official report...if even then.

2) Why have the Navy Blue Angels (Professionals) have mid air collisions? Get real...**** happens.

3) The plausibility on your part is not warranted nor accepted by me, nor many others, I believe. Again, I must remind you, there is no proof of what caused this tragic accident.

4) I might add here, that I had personally flown with Dan H. and IMO, saw saw nothing wrong with his piloting skills. Of course, I was an experinced gyro pilot myself at the time.

5) Chucke...I haven't had any "knee jerk reactions" since I stopped/quit fighting...back in my early 20's. I truly think the "knee jerk reactions", if any, are on your part.

I could say more but...what's the use?!

I endorse Tom's suggestion that you start an " I hate the RAF" thread. Other detractors could join in with you.:sad:


.

[Harry_S.]

Yes, I would agree.



I would consider *time in grade*...by that I mean, hours of experience...in type.


,
.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Harry, you and I are on two different worlds when it comes to discussing any accident with an RAF, however I feel that I can comment on subjects that I understand and I did not have to be a gyroplane expert to make the personal decision that Dan's flying was in my opinion wreckless and I chose not to take instruction from him, Transport Canada was of the same opinion as they cancelled his temporary gyroplane instructors rating because they also felt he was not qualified to teach.

You may not like the above fact however it remains a fact.

" 4) I might add here, that I had personally flown with Dan H. and IMO, saw saw nothing wrong with his piloting skills. Of course, I was an experinced gyro pilot myself at the time. "

What is that supposed to mean Harry, do you think that someone with decades of commercial fixed wing and helicopter experience can't make the decision that a given pilot is unprofessional and unsafe in their flying and can not refuse to fly wiht them? So tell me why Dan had so many gyro accidents and I have had none in any type of flying machine Harry?

Anyhow it is inevitable that any post I make concerning RAF and safety the same people will make the same comments about how wrong my opinion is.

When people such as Chuck B. and D. Riley start cautioning me about my lack of understanding about the subject of safety and how to fly safely then I will really have another look at my posts.

Chuck E.

[Doug Riley]

Neil, poring over government accident reports prepared by people who've never seen a gyro before isn't going to tell you what you need to know. Here's what I've come to believe is THE key concept to absorb when considering flying homebuilt gyros:

In contrast to most other types of aviation, in gyros YOU are 100% responsible for the safety of your aircraft. This means much more than just safety in operation and maintenance. It means the safety of the original design. You are responsible for that, too.

You cannot safely presume that the little shops that crank out gyro "kits" are (or ever were) staffed with ANY engineering talent whatsoever. You cannot assume that the person who designed your craft understood even high-school physics... never mind stability or aerodynamics. The promotional literature may make it sound as if your supplier is a scaled-down version of Boeing; don't you believe it for a second.

You must learn some of the basics of gyroplane design yourself. Only then can you properly watch your own back.

Many people who get into this activity think at first that it's just an aerial version of go-karting. They are surprised when they realize what a commitment it really is. You need to learn what the "designers" should know, but don't.

If this level of responsibility for your own well-being is OK with you, then you're a candidate for gyroing. If, not, then that's perfectly reasonable, but don't take up gyroplaning.

There's plenty of information in the PRA magazine, here in this Forum and on various websites about gyro stability. Absorb this information and you'll be much better "calibrated" about gyro safety than you will be just crunching numbers.

[Friendly]

OK Chuck E

Here is a list of fatal accidents in the last 5 years
09/09/06 Garner Falcon
03/31/06 Eiland Sparrowhawk
11/11/05 Rahler Gyro
07/04/05 Becker RAF
06/26/05 Martel Air Command 532 Elite
12/03/04 Close Air Command
03/12/04 Ortmayer/Parson
02/21/04 Gillespie Sport Copter Vortex
11/16/03 Norftham RAF
05/19/03 A&S 18A
01/24/03 Long RAF 2000
01/01/03 Air Command Commander Elite
09/08/02 Adler SA-1
07/16/02 Wheeler RAF 2000
06/29/02 Denzer RAF 2000
03/16/02 Kopp Gyro Kopp ter
01/26/02 Quitzau Vortex
01/22/02 Stiles Choctaw
07/28/01 Holsclaw Barnett J4B
06/16/01 Patalivo Dominator
04/27/01 Benson Aircraft Corp Gyro


Now this is from 01/01/2001 thru 09/09/06.

Granted there are more RAF fatalities than the other but have you read the reports. A lot of them had little or no Gyro pilot experience.

Also a gyrobee

[C. Beaty]

It’s not Smith & Wesson’s fault when someone loses a game of Russian roulette.

When someone splatters himself in an RAF-2000, the victim is as much to blame as anyone for having been seduced by a crocodile wearing lipstick.

To that extent, the RAF apologists are correct; fault lies with the victim.

[dragonflyerthom]

Hi Mark

These are just the ones the NTSB investigated. I would like to point out that two of the fatalities the pilot had less than 25 hours in type. One took off without his instructor after he had put his doors on. The CFI told him to wait a minute. Several had, like you Chuck E, thousands of hours in GA A/C. This would say something wouldn't it? Sometimes we do take chances even tho we know better. Now do you know from an engineering stand point why the folks at RAF designed the RAF 2000 as a high thrust line type of aircraft?
Do you think the folks at RAF don't care what type of Aircraft they are turning out. There are hundreds of A/C kits that they have sold.
Most of these employees couldn't go to sleep at night if they thought for a minute they were hurting even one person. I have a problem when someone is demonizing normal, good, and honest people. I just wish some of our companies around here were just half as good in customer service. We wouldn't be having all of the recalls.
Yes We do as the builder need to know how to make the best Gyro that we can make. If you see a fault it is your responsibility to be knowledgable enough to correct the problem.. Now alot of us are not rich but we should be able to afford to correct any problem that arises. So it true that as a gyro pilot we need to be dedicated enough to be the very best we can be and as knowledgable as we have to be.
This sure seems to be one of those threads that test mens souls.

[mcbirdman]

Chuck - you sure can tell the defensive nature of those seduced by bad design.

Thom I really hope you aren't suggesting now that somehow this high thrustline was on purpose? That would be a totally new slant on something that simply is NOT desirable.
My take on this is that as engines got larger and props got larger the engine kept getting raised more and more to avoid prop striking the keel.....

but hey... if you want to keep telling yourself this is just another way they are looking our for ya just so you feel better about your choices then that is fine for you. This other guy with real instincts could have ignored them back 10 years ago and ended up the same as the instructors because they simply did not know what the design problems were and what conditions were causing these fatalities. But except for trying to be more careful - what has changed? Nothing except that there is a forum that has some insight into these problems. The instructors are the same, teaching the same, selling the same as if nothing is wrong.

Can you believe it? Now, 10 years later the company is selling the SAME machine with the only difference being that we know it is a flawed machine. Interesting you use the word honesty or asuming that because people are doing a job that it couldn't be detrimental to you. Demonizing? Not sure what that is but if you are saying that except for all the inaction regarding redesign, except for instructors NOT being able to use stabs or downright recommending against the use of such safety devices that would have quite likely saved a few lives of these low time pilots..... they are good people well...... It just makes me wonder what kind of people are so attracted to bad things that they still seek out things that common sense would disuade.

Kinda like the women who write to men in prison to find love..... Unfortunately these emotional decisions based on investment, looks, sales hype and desires are much more serious than a bad marrige. You can keep bringing home the roses but it is still the same wife. Believe me.... the parents know what is going on........ they can sleep at night - they aren't flying it during the day. The people that have had a real problem with it can't come back and complain. That means people excited about their machines keep the interest going and it overshadows the things we don't want to talk about. Makes it alot easier blaming it on pilot error so that somehow that simply means it was their fault anyway.

Chuck - Post 24 Sums all this up nicely but I will add that - It is what it is and should be respected for what it has done.....

[xcaret]

Thanks for the web site I found what I was looking for .Hmmm,lots of fatalities ,many things to remember while learning ,and one strike your out.
BTW one of the RAF instuctors mentioned that crashed into the gyro taking video pictures was to be my instructor.My other instructor to be was also killed in an RAF machine about 30 miles from the factory .
On a more positive note the founder flew gyros since probably the sixtys .He told me he used to teach in single place machines by towing them behind a car without the engine installed .When the student could fly the kite propely they bolted the engine in .I hope I got that correct ,I met him only once ,and that was back in the mid seventys that he told me that.
Neil

[dragonflyerthom]

Jame why don't you go pick on Magni, ELA, or even the MT03. Just get off the RAF diet. Just in case you haven't read Post number 16 there has been a fatality in almost every type of gyro in the US. RAF has the most but please read the reason for them. Pilot stupidity not stability is the problem. This goes to General Aviation as well. Why is it that we don't hear of RAF fatalities in the rest of the world. Could it be that they know how to fly a Gyro before they are released to go terrorize the skys. This Cr@p is really becoming absurd. What we need is a different buzz word on this forum. And it ain't RAF

[C. Beaty]

The reason, Thom, most RAF fatalities occur in the US is that most RAF-2000s are in the US. There are perhaps 100 RAFs in the US in flying condition.

There have been 2 fatal crashes in the UK in recent years with only a dozen or so RAFs with permits to fly.

There have been several in Canada, the most recent having been in Quebec this year. I don’t know the RAF count in Canada but it’s not many.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

I was going to let this rest Thom, but you have made a statement that can not go unchallenged.

You said:

" Pilot stupidity not stability is the problem. "

For a start there were at least two RAF gyroplane flight instructors here in Canada that died in RAF's and in the USA most of the RAF victims were trained by gyro instructors so not only do the buyers of RAF gyros have to worry about the RAF 2000 killing them it would seem by your comment that they have stupid RAF instructors teaching them.

Thanks for pointing that out Thom and I hope every new gyro pilot to be reads all these discussions and realizes the grave risk they are taking when deciding to buy and fly an RAF.

Chuck E.

[C. Beaty]

I see from the Transport Canada website, Chuck E., that you are the proud owner of C-FLUY.

Transport Canada lists 70 registration numbers having been issued for RAF-2000s; the last one having been issued to Patrice Dion in 2005 and if I’m not mistaken, the last Canadian to die in an RAF.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/activepages/ccarcs/en/current_e.asp

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Yes Chuck I am the proud owner of C-FLUY.

Transport Canada gave it a pass on inspection for the Canadian Amateur Built Airworthyness Certificate, but alas I never actually got it airborne because I was unable to get the engine to run and RAF would not give me any help in getting their product to do something as simple as run on the ground.

Some here may recall Dan Haseloh threatening to beat the crap out of me at the PRA meet in Ohio in the early 90's because I brought up the subject of why won't your engine run? His real concern was trying to cover up the fact that I had found a cracked hub bar on D. Hunns machine during a per flight inspection. I never did get to fly with Mr. Hunn.

Anyhow Chuck this is a no win with many of the RAF enablers as evident from years of these same discussions going round and round despite the fact that the RAF's still crash and kill the occupants on a semi regular basis, caused of course by lack of training and no fault of the design.

Oh well.........

Chuck E.

[C. Beaty]

Chuck E., you probably know more of the early history of RAF than any outsider.

It is my understanding that Dan Haseloh’s Uncle Jasper(?) came up with the basic layout after having played with Bensens for a number of years.

I recall Pete Haseloh relating how the first airframe with 2 x 3 mast and SkyWheels rotor shook so bad that no one could stand to fly it.

They had taken some movies of the thing in flight and noticed a strobe effect of mast motion like old movies of wagon wheels seeming to spin backwards. That’s when Uncle Jasper(?) invented the magic rubber bushing.

They concocted the theory of the magic rubber bushing being a stabilizer only after they began receiving criticism for not having a horizontal stabilizer; “The magic rubber bushing IS a stabilizer and a horizontal stabilizer makes it TOO stable.”

“The front mounted pushrods tilt the rotor forward when the mast leans back;” demonstrating their ignorance of elementary geometry.

[dragonflyerthom]

Chuck E

I found where the factory who built the 2.2 Soob engine would mistime the new engine. If you would like to know what I did to get mine running please P>M me.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

"
Chuck E., you probably know more of the early history of RAF than any outsider.

I would think that is correct Chuck, I first got interested in gyros when I watched Dan and Peters uncle fly in a local airshow in Edson Alberta in 1976 when I was flying water bombers and based there. I finally met Dan and Peter in 1990 when I saw an add in a magazine about the RAF 2000. Anyhow the way I understand it from having lived with Don Lafleur when I was working at the factory Dan and Peter somehow got the design from their uncle and then copied the blades from Chuck Vaneks blades and like magic they " designed " the worlds best two place gyro.

Actually the uncle was not only quite skilled in flying he actually tried to build something he thought was better, Dan on the other hand was more or less self taught and had zero, I mean zero formal ground school or flight training and that was one of the reasons that Transport Canada would not give him a instructors rating, that and of course his disregard for air regulations and the many accidents he had with his machines.

The goofy claim that the magic mast makes it so stable that a H.S. makes it unstable was born when Dan was trying to land in the parking lot at the factory in high winds and smacked into an employees van. It was while he was in the hospital that Don first dreamed up the cause for the crash was due to Dan testing a H.S. on the machine....anyhow the idea that a H.S. makes any flying device less stable is so absured the RAF devotees are the only small group on the planet who actually believe this rubbish that Don LaFleur spreads as gospel.

Next to me Jim Logan has the longest history with RAF, Jim and I went different ways. I severed relations with RAF to protect the integrity of my flight school with Transport Canada, Jim drank the cool aid and the rest is history.

" It is my understanding that Dan Haseloh’s Uncle Jasper(?) came up with the basic layout after having played with Bensens for a number of years.

I recall Pete Haseloh relating how the first airframe with 2 x 3 mast and SkyWheels rotor shook so bad that no one could stand to fly it.

They had taken some movies of the thing in flight and noticed a strobe effect of mast motion like old movies of wagon wheels seeming to spin backwards. That’s when Uncle Jasper(?) invented the magic rubber bushing.

They concocted the theory of the magic rubber bushing being a stabilizer only after they began receiving criticism for not having a horizontal stabilizer; “The magic rubber bushing IS a stabilizer and a horizontal stabilizer makes it TOO stable.”

“The front mounted pushrods tilt the rotor forward when the mast leans back;” demonstrating their ignorance of elementary geometry. "

Chuck, I can't remember the uncles name...its been a long time since I heard it, however I do know there was a lot of friction in the Haseloh clan over who's design the RAF 2000 was.

Their ignorance of elementary geometry is only exceeded by their dishonesty.
and that has been proven in court so I have no fear of being accused of lible.

Chuck E.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

" Double post

[Harry_S.]

It?s not Smith & Wesson?s fault when someone loses a game of Russian roulette.

When someone splatters himself in an RAF-2000, the victim is as much to blame as anyone for having been seduced by a crocodile wearing lipstick.



Chuck;

Sometimes I get a chuckle from some of your posts, over the years.

Has anyone suggested or have you ever contemplated putting pen to paper and publishing a gathering of your analogous witticisms?!


Cheers :)

[Harry_S.]

I was going to let this rest

For a start there were at least two RAF gyroplane flight instructors here in Canada that died in RAF's



I'd like to let this rest too, Chuck but...please clear up a point on the the deaths of the two CFI's in Canada. I'm going by what I've heard over the years. Correct me if the info is wrong?!

One CFI while in a dive to gain speed, pulled up into an attempt to perform a loop and failed...the rotor striking and exploding the tail.

One CFI while performing the first flight with a builders RAF was tragically killed when a rudder turnbuckle failed on takeoff and he lost rudder control.


.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Harry why would I debate you regarding how all those people died in RAF 2000's over the years?

Regardless of the reasons you would still defend the RAF, so for me to discuss this subject with you would be counter productive.

We come from two entirely different worlds in avaition Harry so far apart we don't even speak the same language.

So rather than try and convince me that all those pilots died because of poor flying skills why don't you convince people Like Udi, D. Riley and Chuck B. just to name a few.....

..you can't accuse them of being biased like me.

The story about the helicopter pilot gyro instructor trying to loop the RAF is pure B.S. that came from Dan and Don to divert people from looking into the true cause....

I stilll have the newspaper arcitcle on the day of the crash describing how Dan and Don said it happened. Also I live close to Kindersley and talked to the people in Government that investigated the accident and there were no, do you understand N O eye witnesses to the crash..period.

But Doug was well known in the helicopter business and I was flying for a heli logging company when Doug died and we all felt very angry to know that Dougs wife and children had to read in the newspaper that he was accused of wreckless flying before his body even had time to get cold.

So Harry you think about that and maybe you might find enough human compassion in your soul, if there is such a thing as a soul, to reflect on what B.S. statements do to the victims family.

When I read these made up causes for fatal accidents I feel unclean just thinking I live in the same world as the people who try and lay blame on the dead by accusing them of something that was not proven or witnessed.

Yeh Harry you and I are far, far apart in our thinking.

Chuck E.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Double post

[chuter]

Chuck E,

In post #3 you said,
“The second accident that resulted in three fatalities was pilot error flying close formation and what most likely was a nose up pitch probably caused by turbulence magnified by a pitch unstable design.”

Then in post #39 you said,
“When I read these made up causes for fatal accidents I feel unclean”

How do you reconcile these two statements?
It sounds like you have no hard evidence for the probable cause you gave in the first quote.

[PW_Plack]

Harry said,

One CFI while in a dive to gain speed, pulled up into an attempt to perform a loop and failed...the rotor striking and exploding the tail...

Harry, that's the first I've heard of the story about the loop attempt. Based on my admittedly brief study of gyroplanes, the story sounds suspicious.

I believe the dangerous time in the maneuver described would have been the dive, not the pullout. Jim Vanek's inside loop produces nearly 3G, and rotor RPM well up into the 400's. There's no way you're going to chop off the tail at 460 RRPM. It happens when rotor disc loading, and RRPM, are too low.

I guess rotorblades could fail under these stresses, but that seems a stretch.

If I have this wrong, I hope someone will straighten me out.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Chuter I reconcile my two statements based on the information I have regarding these two different accidents.

In the case of Dan flying into the camera ship we have weather reports and there were as I am told camera footage showing turbulent air which is supported by the weather reports at that time.

My business is teaching advanced flying and formation flying is part of the air show business in which I earn my living, therefore I am making an educated observation based on the known facts before the collision, therefore if you mix an unstable flying machine with turbulence and pilots untrained in formation flying my probable cause opinion has merit. Unless you think that Dan deliberately flew into the other gyro? Remember he flew his gyro into a parked van in the factory parking lot and almost killed himself just prior to his last collision with the other gyro, so I guess anything is possible.

Accusing a dead pilot of attempting to loop a gyro with no witness or other supporting evidence except Dan and Don making accusations before any investigation has had time to start is not in my opinion acceptable as cause.

So I guess you have a point that I have no hard evidence, except what came out in the investigation by the authorities Transport Canada.......

...where did the investigating authority Transport Canada ever say trying to perform a loop was a cause in Dougs death?

What makes me agitated is RAF making unproved accusations of Doug flying wreckless and without permission from the company as stated in the newspaper before any official investigation had even started....and this stuff being repeated over and over.

This will be my last comment on this subject in this thread.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Double post

[chuter]

Chuck E.

I don't have a problem with thinking that instability could POSSIBLY have played a role, but apparently the bottom line it no body really knows.

There is always a chance that something happened that would have caused the same results with two very stable craft with professional pilots.

I think your eagerness to jump to conclusions about RAF detracts from the valuable points you do have to make about them.

[C. Beaty]

Chuck;

Sometimes I get a chuckle from some of your posts, over the years.

Has anyone suggested or have you ever contemplated putting pen to paper and publishing a gathering of your analogous witticisms?!


Cheers :)

Harry, most of my material came from my grandmother.

She had a saying for every occasion; most of which couldn’t be posted on a family site like this one.

One of her tamer sayings, expressing her exasperation at the philandering ways of her sons and perhaps demeaning the women they ran with: “Turn ‘em upside-down and they’d all look the same.”

As a young woman, she had been a schoolteacher at a one-room school in South Georgia and, as I came to learn from experience, had an unwavering belief in the adage: “Spare the rod and spoil the child.”

One occasion I recall her telling about, a boy, presumably, did something out of line such as thumping a spitball or something of the sort. She didn’t see the perpetrator and when not a single boy would rat, she lined up all the boys in her class and whipped them one by one. I suppose they ranged in age from 6 to 16.

Times have changed. For the better, I guess

[xcaret]

I read all these posts .Many different opinions re RAF .Since I have one I am interested in all you guys write.
BTW shortly after the fellow crashed at Kindersley with no witnesses I was at the factory there and got a mini tour .They said the piolot was a real gung ho kinda guy who did everything on the edge ,and had tried a summersault .Later I heard that was a cover story to protect the factory but it didn't really concern me .
Also I beleive the uncles name was Ben ,he is credited with being an experimental flyer and builder of gryroplanes .I think he died around 6 years ago or so but not while flying .
Now to add a little joke Ben lived in the town of Ponoka .Ponoka has the Albeta Mental Hospital there ,it's been there for years .The folks who thought gyros were a little wierd always claimed Ben didn't live in Ponoka by choice .lol.

[mcbirdman]

Thom, quite simply the eagerness in your posts show that you are at the romantic stage of flying and are quite willing to accept all these negative occurances and data including the fact that there are serious design flaws so that you can romance something that you have fallen in love with, and now married. Good luck. It doesnt change the fact that the problems that exist with the current old design as released as new today - Get off it? I wouldn't get IN one again. I won't accept these major shortcomings as normal. Still, you bought it and now you got it.

Design flaws are very likely to have been a large influence in the chain of events leading to a crash. Pilot workload is often a large factor to also be considered. This design has more than just a few problems. You blamed the pilot after all has been written and considered. You take a machine that is very heavy, with no suspension, pitch unstable that with the simple addition of the doors as supplied by the company makes it want to swap directions all while realizing that your sucsess depends on going against all the manufacturer's recomendations. So like approved doors good and Stab bad. Yeah, I think you are getting much more than you deserve Thom, and I care enough to say it even if you can't see it. I do care. I guess I agree that if a pilot accepts these shortcomings, they should take the blame also - after all we have to make the decision as to airworthiness. What about passengers who are novices and trusting in a pilots choices? What would the family of a passenger think finding all this information after suffering a loss? Would it make them wonder why certain pilots would pursue such a machine when there are so many better machines out there?

Thom- no disrespect but it seems like pilots that are meticulous and minimize their risks are the the ones who survives the years. Pilots with years of experience have a lot to offer and extra attention should be given when the advice comes on strong. I am not one of those pilots with years of experience but there are definately more problems here than you realize.I have been on both sides of this issue and after years of reading know that it isn't just about a jilted buyer as suggested.

Further, I really hesitate to mention Magni AND RAf's in the same sentence. They are idiologically different as their geographic distance apart.

My main point is that RAF blaming it on a pilot leads a potential buyer to believe that the machine is ok and that a "good" pilot will be ok You pick up on the inuendos and say and believe just what they want you to.....It answers all your reservations AND lets you tell the story with all conviction that pilot training is the real issue. It just isn't that simple. It is much more complex and aphalling than that....

[gyroplanes]

Another thing to consider regarding the accident reports.

The numbers of accidents in type are meaningless without the number of hours the type has flown.

Going by numbers alone, the Marchetti Avenger is near the bottom of the heap. Considering the numbers built and flown, it is probably the deadliest gyro design.

Chuck B.
I'd guess your RAF population numbers are off a bit. I have probably certified 10-15 local RAFs in the last few years, far more than any other make of gyro.

Unfortunately, most of the RAF owners are not PRA members nor do they visit this forum. We can't help those we can't reach.

[dragonflyerthom]

I just got off the RAF Pilot site. Looking at the number of H/S that are on the A/C there someone must be listening.

Yes I do like my RAF. She is really pretty and sure does feel good to sit in. The motor runs like a top. The heater fan works good too. I will be flying her soon. I will take care and keep the speed down. Thanks for your concern. I will post some pics soon.

[C. Beaty]

Chuck B.
I'd guess your RAF population numbers are off a bit. I have probably certified 10-15 local RAFs in the last few years, far more than any other make of gyro.


That may be true, Tom, but where are they? I don’t think I’ve ever seen more than 5 RAFs in a single gaggle at any aviation gathering.

At the ‘06 Bensen Days, there were 17 Dominators and perhaps 5 RAFs and half of those were dealers.

Even if all 246 issued “N” numbers had resulted a machine that had actually flown, the population would still be pretty sparce.

The FAA registry isn’t a precise guide to number of aircraft in service; some are never completed, some are rolled over on the first flight attempt and never rebuilt and some bore smoking holes in the ground and are never struck off the registry. Dan Haseloh is listed on the registry as owning an RAF-2000 in Georgia.

Whatever the case, there can’t be more than registration numbers issued.

[Harry_S.]

Harry, most of my material came from my grandmother.

She had a saying for every occasion; most of which couldn?t be posted on a family site like this one.

One of her tamer sayings, expressing her exasperation at the philandering ways of her sons and perhaps demeaning the women they ran with: ?Turn ?em upside-down and they?d all look the same.?




Mom and dad had a similar saying. Mom had us six boys and no girls, so she was partial too.

As each boy came of age, their saying was..."You stand 'em on their heads and they all look alike.*


Cheers :)

[Chuck Roberg]

Actually Chuck there could be more than are listed in the registry as an RAF model.

Some of the builders, including me, for tax purposes. List themselves as the builder and make up a model name. They also list it as plans built rather than "kit" built.

This could save you some money when the state it is registered in comes after you for state sales tax. I live in Illinois and believe me they do come after you. It could take 1-3 years. Then they get you for late fee's, interest and collection fee's.

If you register as a kit built RAF 2000. When the tax man comes after you. They look up the value on RAF's web site and send you a tax bill for that amount. If you resister it as plans built. They have to take what ever bills you submit as to it's value.

If some one reading this thread believes that the tax man deserves all that is owed. Then please ignore this post.

[Harry_S.]

Now to add a little joke Ben lived in the town of Ponoka .Ponoka has the Albeta Mental Hospital there ,it's been there for years .The folks who thought gyros were a little wierd always claimed Ben didn't live in Ponoka by choice .lol.



I got a chuckle out of that one, Neil. :D


Cheers :)

[Harry_S.]

If you register as a kit built RAF 2000. When the tax man comes after you. They look up the value on RAF's web site and send you a tax bill for that amount.



Actually, the tax man here in Florida, when contacting me...DEMANDED I submit a copy of the bill of sale. To make sure I'm taxed for any extra options, you know?! :(


Cheers :)

[Harry_S.]

When I read these made up causes for fatal accidents I feel unclean just thinking I live in the same world as the people who try and lay blame on the dead by accusing them of something that was not proven or witnessed.

Yeh Harry you and I are far, far apart in our thinking.

Chuck E.



You're somethin' else. I just asked if the info I had heard was correct...and you had another *knee jerk reaction.*

You dichotomize, with relative ease, these two accidents.

There were *no witnesses* to either accident, but according to you, Don's accident, by a well experienced pilot, was pilot error combined with an unstable RAF and your CFI friend's accident was definitely not pilot error, but was well experienced in flying an unstable RAF?!

I could expound more on this but I'll let it drop.


.

[Harry_S.]

Harry said,

One CFI while in a dive to gain speed, pulled up into an attempt to perform a loop and failed...the rotor striking and exploding the tail...

Harry, that's the first I've heard of the story about the loop attempt. Based on my admittedly brief study of gyroplanes, the story sounds suspicious.

I believe the dangerous time in the maneuver described would have been the dive, not the pullout. Jim Vanek's inside loop produces nearly 3G, and rotor RPM well up into the 400's. There's no way you're going to chop off the tail at 460 RRPM. It happens when rotor disc loading, and RRPM, are too low.

I guess rotorblades could fail under these stresses, but that seems a stretch.

If I have this wrong, I hope someone will straighten me out.



My goof, Paul.

He had to put it into a dive to build airspeed. If you notice, Vanek does the same. You cannot possibly perform a loop in a low powered aircraft from a S/L entry.

The info I had heard was that the aircraft failed to reach the apex and fell out

Vanek's machine is lightweight...the RAF is a lead sled. IMHO, the RAF cannot be looped. Rolled maybe, but not looped.

Needless to say...I won't venture anything... no, I don't even go near a 60* bank anymore. Don't have to.:rolleyes:


Cheers:)

[C. Beaty]

Some of the builders, including me, for tax purposes. List themselves as the builder and make up a model name. They also list it as plans built rather than "kit" built.

This could save you some money when the state it is registered in comes after you for state sales tax.

Hmmmm, Chuck Roberg, wonder what the standard fee for tax informants is in Illinois?

The standard fee for US IRS informants is or was 10% of the take.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Harry there is just no way on earth you and I would agree on anything to do with any comments on any RAF accident.

But I am not going to let you claim that I have posted something I did not post.


How do you manage to twist what I posted into this?

There were *no witnesses* to either accident, but according to you, Don's accident, by a well experienced pilot, was pilot error combined with an unstable RAF and your CFI friend's accident was definitely not pilot error, but was well experienced in flying an unstable RAF?!

Where did I say that the accident involving the instructor was not pilot error?

What I said was RAF made a statement to the press that their company pilot was trying to perform an aerobatic manouver and was flying the machine without their permission and lost control of the machine....now taking into consideration that there was no formal investigation started does it not strike you as strange how RAF would accuse their own company instructor of trying to loop the machine with no proof that in fact was what hapened?

Here is a comment made here by a newby to gyros who actually remembers what happened and he is another person who is aware that RAF was laying blame without proof to divert attention from their product.


This by xcaret

" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read all these posts .Many different opinions re RAF .Since I have one I am interested in all you guys write.
BTW shortly after the fellow crashed at Kindersley with no witnesses I was at the factory there and got a mini tour .They said the piolot was a real gung ho kinda guy who did everything on the edge ,and had tried a summersault .Later I heard that was a cover story to protect the factory but it didn't really concern me .

When this accident happened there was no doubt that RAF had smeared their own company instructor with the accusation that he was a wreckless pilot.

That was not the opinion of all the people in the helicopter business who knew and worked with him.

So get your facts sorted out Harry I did not claim that the accident where the Instructor died was not pilot error, I said that RAF made claims that were not truthful obviously to make RAF look good and Doug wreckless.

As to Dans accident the odds very much support pilot error. However once again if you read my posts again I have stated that my opinion was probability not fact.....

...but I guess in your mind no RAF accident could possibly be because of any fault on the part of RAF or their pilots, except of course the dead instructor who according to RAF was trying to loop the machine.

What do you think about Dan Haseloh smacking into a van in the company parking lot trying to land in gusty winds Harry? Is it possible someone that lacking in flying skills and decision making skills could also be capable of running into another machine trying to fly to close to it in turbulent weather?

Or in your mind is landing in a factory parking lot normal?

Yeh we are eons apart in our thinking Harry, I consider aircraft accidents can be prevented through knowlege of why they occur and using good judgement.....so whether you like it or not my record over the past half century as a professional pilot with zero accidents supports my beliefe that they are preventable to a very high degree.

Chuck E.

[automan1223]

Neil,

You have a tremendous opportunity to do the right thing here. Listen and learn even if the answers are not what you wanted to hear. You CLT and put a HS on the gyro with some extra work. I would not fly it in stock form.

I am sorry to hear that you lost instructors right before you were ready to start your training. May have been a blessing in disguise. My training took way too long and one thing was that money, time and finding a good safe instructor in a good safe machine took effort and lots of travel time. In the end I know that in the last 100 hours I have flown into some unfriendly wind and weather and there was always that possibility that I could have ended up as a report had it not been that I was flying a very stable gyro.

Jonathan

[C. Beaty]

Chuck E., the preliminary Transport Canada report of the Pearson fatality was posted on Norm’s old forum but I’m just not clever enough to be able to make a lick of sense out of their website.

The only thing I can find after wading through page after page of irrelevant nonsense; Transport Canada’s enabling legislation, politicians’ speeches, PC stuff about “save the whales,” I finally located what seems to be formal reports passed on by the entire safety board. But they only skim the surface and there’s no cross indexing for severity of accident, type of aircraft or whatever.

Do you know how to pull useful information off their site?

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Chuck, up here in the land of big Government none of us poor taxpayers are able to find needed information in Transport Canada's web site let alone comprehend it should we by accident run across what we were looking for.

For some reason the site gets more clusterfu.ked as the years go by, must have something to do with bureaucracy run rampant.

There is a guy that works for T.C. in Ottawa that posts on a Canadian forum who is expert at finding things.

PM me if you wish and I will give you his contact info.

Chuck E.