208 Gyroplane fatalities since 1966 [Archive]

View Full Version : 208 Gyroplane fatalities since 1966

Steve Osborne

11-17-2006, 07:01 PM

Some have been asking for this info. Here is every Gyroplane fatality since 1966

http://www.airsafe.com/analyze/ntsbdb.htm

Page down to the dates

Click on Severity then select Fatal

Page down

Click on Aircraft Category then select Gyroplane

Page down

Click on Submit Query

gyroplanes

11-17-2006, 08:22 PM

Thanks for the depressing trip down memory lane.

John Stahl

11-17-2006, 11:01 PM

Chopper Reid

11-18-2006, 02:36 AM

dragonflyerthom

11-18-2006, 02:42 AM

Good point Brian

I did notice that since the implimentation of dual traing that the accident rate per year has also gone down. Infering that training is the key to safer pilots also. I still have a problem believing that the rotary wing is stable at all speeds.

Heron

11-18-2006, 03:11 AM

Considering numbers:
Can we assume that the larger number of RAF's flying is the main reason for having more accidents?
If that is correct can we expect another make to have similar numbers down the years?
If both conclusions are right, should we assume that gyros are dangerous?
I still think that design and better training will make those numbers go down.
Better design first.
More training second.
Also I think by now RAF's can't be defended successfully . . .
Educated choice will make RAF's numbers go down.
thanks
Heron

Papa Smurf

11-18-2006, 04:34 AM

I tried to dig through this sometime back.... there's another thread wit the same discussion and some good estimates on flight hours, etc. were thrown out with the same conclusions. Don't fly a stock RAF.

I started a statistical look at the RAF to try and separate the different mods and rate them, but ran into too many time consuming variables.There are about 3 times more RAF's listed than the nearest other manufacturer. Of these many machines we need to list as subsets the ones that have the AAI mod, stabs, etc....I haven't finished this work but it has become very clear the the AAI mod is the only modification proven to improve the safety of the RAF.

ScottTinnesand

11-18-2006, 04:46 AM

"Can we assume that the larger number of RAF's flying is the main reason for having more accidents?
If that is correct can we expect another make to have similar numbers down the years?" -Heron

We all asked this question in the helicopter EMS business over the past few years. The accident rate was climbing at an alarming rate. Temporarily becoming the "most dangerous job" in the US.

However, although the number of EMS aircraft was at an all-time high, the safety experts did not conclude that increased number of EMS aircraft and flights should explain the increase in fatalities.

Instead, when they looked at the root causes of the accidents, training, pilot decision making and weather (they are all very closly linked, of course) were the evils. Not just because there were lots of us out there.....

Food for thought.

Scott

gyro

11-18-2006, 04:59 AM

does anyone know where the report is for Bill Parsons? I was trained by him back in 92 and never knew he died until a few years ago when I stopped by Air Command HQ in Tx.

Doug Smith told me that he was testing some prototype rotor blades and they obviously did not work. I wanted more details but this seem to really bother Doug so I dropped it and never did really find out what happened.

so if anybody knows and would like to share I would appreciate it

Cheers.

Steve McGowan

11-18-2006, 05:26 AM

At why people are and have died in gyros, the number of RAF's are in numbers more than most gyros on the market. Atleast was.

The MENTAL Attitude of the people that purchase them is another aspect.

If I can buy it, I can fly it..seems to be present with that attitude.

John Wall,, the ninth wealthiest man in the world died in an ultralite a few years ago. Raf's with airline pilot as owners seem to be the most common with deaths for a while..

It's not the gyro that kills the person... The person also kills the gyro.

Except in certain cases that we'll probably never know what the hell
happened..

And those of us that are self taught,, I totaled four Bensens before I did a pattern solo.. And live to tell about it.

I know this is a serious thread,, and my comments are NOT MEANTto be in the least bit funny.

Scotty,Heron,,, you both have good points,,,

You can lead a horse to water...and then drowned his ass..

just my way of lookin at it,,

most folks would call it being a Horses-ASS.

Steve

ps.. I put the doors on my SH ,, nice.. very nice

Steve McGowan

11-18-2006, 05:31 AM

Harry_S.

11-18-2006, 05:43 AM

Bill Parsons crash was due to a broken control stick (cyclic) is what was detemined.

Why it broke, I am not sure of, so's I'll leave that to a man that does know.

.

Screw

11-18-2006, 05:55 AM

Screw-In

Who died in a Dom? What happened?

Screw-Out

Harry_S.

11-18-2006, 06:05 AM

208 deaths in 40 yrs. is bad, real bad.

I would guess there have been more deaths in Parachute Jumping in those 40 yrs.?!

Do you think you could convince the jumpers and the wannabe jumpers that their sport is dangerous?! I think not. I did quit the sport tho, but not because I thought it was dangerous.

Now...:focus:

.

twistair

11-18-2006, 06:28 AM

...
There been 36 fatal crashes from 1996 to 2005.

...Air & Space 1
...

It is a sad but necessary and teaching statistics though it looks to be not adequate since it isn't correlated to the hours flown (by type for example).
I remember somebody had an article in the Inetrnet comparing safety levels for R22 and Exec helos. Numbers of accidents, fatalities etc were way higher for Robbies though if they only were divided by hours flown per year on type then the conclusion would obviously turn to exactly opposite direction.
In this logically correct way of comparing the only death in, say, A&S-18A should weigh much more than eleven in RAFs.
Here in Russia we thankfully keep zero fatal accidents in gyros for last 50 years though this in no way may be explained that we have better safety than in other countries.
BTW, I recall there were not one but two known A&S fatalities during 1996-2005.

John Stahl

11-18-2006, 07:00 AM

I'm not sticking up for RAF but does the fatalities per make take into account the number flying of each make. RAF were /are a pretty poular model and there are lots of them about.

I'd be pretty sure that if you checked vehicle fatals that the most popular model would feature highest.
__________________
Brian Reid

I think if you did a survey you would find that the number of Bensen’s flying would Dwarf the number of RAF flying in the same period. But the number of fatal RAF crashes is double the number of Bensens. I don’t buy the popular gyro excuse.

The dominator death was

The non-certificated pilot's inability to maintain control of the gyrocopter after inadvertently allowing it to become airborne. A factor was the pilot's lack of flight experience.

He had no flight training was taxiing and went airborne, and ran in to a tree while trying to land it.

C. Beaty

11-18-2006, 07:32 AM

How does the number of people killed driving automobiles, dying in hospital beds or falling off the roof excuse lethal flaws in a gyro?

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-18-2006, 08:29 AM

Chuck, we could also examine why radical Muslims strap on explosives and blow themselves up.

Any chance they do that due to a beliefe system taught by those with no regard for life?

And on another thread someone asked about someone having survived a bunt being able to share their experience with us, I wonder how many suicide bombers survive to share what they learned with us?

There that otta get me some real interesting comments from some of our brethern.

Steve McGowan

11-18-2006, 09:49 AM

C. Beaty

11-18-2006, 11:03 AM

Lloyd Poston, who died several years ago from natural causes, survived at least an incipient bunt.

Lloyd, just barely able to write his own name, was neither the smartest nor the dumbest person to ever fly a gyro but he possessed something I only wish I had; catlike reflexes. He always managed to land on his feet.

Lloyd’s gyro, built somewhat on the Hollmann Sportster pattern with twin tail booms, was powered by a Lycoming O-235. It used a surplus aircraft drop tank as a pod.

At what I recall as a SRC 4th of July at Okeechobee (it’s probably been 30 years ago so my recollection of time and place might not be exact), Lloyd was running through his usual bag of tricks that he performed whenever he had an audience.

He was performing what we called hammerheads; stand the thing on its tail and when the airspeed nearly ran out, kick it around using rudder and prop blast. Performed as a series, the aircraft scribes a “U” and Lloyd always did his routine as low as possible with the bottom of the “U” 20 or fewer feet above the runway.

I wasn’t paying much attention but heard what sounded like a shotgun blast and thought to myself; “what sort of damned fool would be firing a shotgun at an airport?”

Lloyd had stalled the rotor as he kicked over the top and the stalled blade slapped the air just like slapping water with a canoe paddle; perhaps the reason eyewitnesses to a fatal bunt report hearing an explosion.

The rotor bent the rotorhead flap stops and slapped the stick of Lloyd’s hands, beating his thighs black and blue.

Lloyd had instantly banged the throttle shut as soon as the machine started to get away from him. He wouldn’t have had much airspeed to begin with and a stalled rotor can recover in a vertical descent.

Lloyd landed normally with no further damage to the machine but that was his last hammerhead.

*A hammerhead in a FW is a stall turn so a gyro hammerhead isn’t the same thing.

Harry_S.

11-18-2006, 11:58 AM

How does the number of people killed driving automobiles, dying in hospital beds or falling off the roof excuse lethal flaws in a gyro?

Let's make an assumption...right this instant, all gyros are deemed to be CLT, or whatever, and are the safest in the world.

Would gyro fatalities cease? Of course not. Gyro fatalities will continue ad-infinitum. Sh!t happens. People who think that deaths will cease with the perfectly designed machine, are on cloud nine. It WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Face up to the fact that thousands of people lose their lives...every year...in certificated SAFE aircraft. Sh!t happens.

Let's stop beatin' this dead horse. If you want to kill him again...shoot 'im.

In spite of what you, I, or anyone else proffers as to the flawed design of the RAF...people will still buy, build and/or fly 'em, and I'll concede that somewhere, sometime, someone, for whatever reason, while flying an RAF, will die. Sh!t happens.

A final note...Whenever an RAF accident is posted, the RAF Haters come out of the woodwork and start on their mission. My observation is...none of these RAF Haters have ever flown SOLO in an RAF, some have never flown in an RAF, but they sure know that it CANNOT be flown safely.

It's amazing that the hundreds of RAF pilots around the world, have flown thousands upon thousands of hours safely in their RAF, not knowing what they were doing, while those other gyro pilots in those CLT machines knew perfectly well, what they were safely doing. Amazing?!

Cheers :)

PW_Plack

11-18-2006, 12:23 PM

Harry,

...have flown thousands upon thousands of hours safely in their RAF...

Surviving something does not always mean you were safe while doing it.

Harry_S.

11-18-2006, 12:57 PM

Harry,

...have flown thousands upon thousands of hours safely in their RAF...

Surviving something does not always mean you were safe while doing it.

Whatever meaning could it be, Paul?! We're still alive, we're not dead. Does that mean we were not safe, or we were just...fortunate?!

You were safe in your gyro, or...you were just fortunate?! You survived the flight...right?! So do I.

Cheers:)

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-18-2006, 12:59 PM

Harry, I can not seem to understand your mind set about RAF.

You say:

" A final note...Whenever an RAF accident is posted, the RAF Haters come out of the woodwork and start on their mission."

I guess you could put me in the anti RAF group, however "haters " is a subjective assumption on your part.

It seems that you are one of the top RAF supporters, why I have never quite been able to understand.

I have two questions that I would like you to answer.

First, in your opinion is a stock RAF without any owner mods a safe machine?

Second, if RAF changed the design and produced a stable properly designed gyro do you think the deaths in RAF 2000's would decrease?

Chuck E.

John Stahl

11-18-2006, 02:25 PM

I have looked into the reports further and found the cause of the fatalities in the last 10 years to be of interest

PIO/PPO -16- 9 are RAF
Blade flap 3
Prop/Rotor strike - 3 Do we count these as a fatal crash?
Control linkage failure - 2

Hit something - 4
No training - 4
Undetermined - 2
Fuel problem - 1
Wreckage not found- 1 RAF I would Bet PIO was the cause

The top group are fatalities that I feel can be reduced with better gyro designs & training.
The lower group are stupid human tricks. It doesn’t matter how good the gyro is designed it still will not prevent these crashes.

dragonflyerthom

11-18-2006, 02:26 PM

Sorry Harry

This is experimental aircraft. We are the R&D guys. We build(manufacture) Gyros. This is allowed by the FAA. We as gyro pilots are the proving ground for all of the people that manufacture the plan, kits and sub parts. When we have it right then we will lose the experimental designation and we will be certified aircraft. Now I realize that this might be a little over reaction but it is the way it will come about. The pilot is the x factor in most of these accidents. All aircraft are effected by weather, design and pilots.
Anyone of these can be the fatal factor in any accident.
Just as any aircraft should be evaluated as the whole aircraft then any accident should be evaluated as the whole factors. What I would like to know is why does it always come back to lets bash the RAF again, and again and again. I don't pipe in until you bash the RAF. You can talk about HTL machines all day long and I will not chime in but gosh guys.

THESE ARE EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. There ARE reasons why they are called EXPERIMENTAL.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-18-2006, 03:36 PM

" Steve Osborne
Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q- First, in your opinion is a stock RAF without any owner mods a safe machine?

A- Absolutely, positively, YES. Providing that the Pilot has the proper training in a RAF and a CFI solo sign off for a RAF. "

Steve, note, I am being polite and desperately trying to find out how you can be so positive about the above statement.

As I recall there have been deaths in the RAF 2000 of pilots who were trained by RAF approved instructors and I understand there is evidence that some of these were classic bunt overs.....

........

" Q- Second, if RAF changed the design and produced a stable properly designed gyro do you think the deaths in RAF 2000's would decrease?

A- No, I do not. People would try and fly with out any or minimal training like some other post I have read."

O.K. once again how about the fatals where they were trained by RAF instructors ( assuming I am correct and there in fact were such accidents ) are you telling me that had their machines been stable designs they would still have bunted?

Remember there have been at least five fatal RAF accidents here in Canada one of which was definately a bunt, here in the Vancouver area.

And strangely enough in all but one of these fatals RAF instructors were involved.( if you can stretch your imagination enough to consider the RAF president to be an instructor. )

I truly feel the gyro industry deserves more accurate cause findings than " Sh!t happens "

Fl90

11-18-2006, 03:55 PM

Hello all, I know of two fatal accidents that don't show up on the report. If I know of two in the last ten years, then I'm sure there are many more that are not on the report.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-18-2006, 04:06 PM

O.K. Steve, I accept your answer.

Lets wait and see if anyone else feels that there have been accidents where the pilots were RAF trained and signed out RAF owners were killed and there is no evidence that they were flying dangerously... ( until the machine started to pitch up and down beyond the ability of the pilot to stop it. )

Man I gotta quit this, because it is getting me no where....so Steve, Harry, Thom and all the rest of you guys I will try and sit in the weeds and see if I'm all alone in my beliefe that the design is contributing to needless loss of life.

Udi

11-18-2006, 04:54 PM

First of all, no aircraft is safe - Some are safer, and some are less safe. True, many accidents can and should be attributed to pilot error, but if we keep the pilot factor out of the safety equation (lets assume the same responsible pilot is flying all aircraft) we can still make some general comments about the relative safety of different aircraft.

1. Aircraft that are more forgiving to pilot error are generally safer than aircraft that are less forgiving.

2. Aircraft that statically and dynamically stable within the manufacturer recommended flight envelope are safer than aircraft that are unstable within part or the entire flight envelope.

3. Aircraft that may enter a non-recoverable departure from controlled flight during normal operations are significantly less safe than aircraft that would recover from the same events.

Everyone is free to choose their aircraft but their selection should be based on solid understanding of the risks involved.

Udi

dragonflyerthom

11-18-2006, 05:05 PM

Very Good Udi.

Now how do we identify who is going to get into flying gyros and bombard them with information overload. Heck I'm older and it has taken a lot to get all of this information in to a usable form for my understanding. Lots of reading. I would dare to say than a lot of the members on this forum read. READ A LOT. Now how do we make it easier for new wanna be gyro pilots to get the information that he will need to make a better decision and Good choices?

gyroplanes

11-18-2006, 05:06 PM

I took the some stats from that sight.

From 1966 to 1975 there were 5.8 fatal gyro crashes a year.
From 1976 to 1985 there were 6.0 fatal gyro crashes a year.
From 1986 to 1995 there were 5.2 fatal gyro crashes a year.
From 1996 to 2005 there were 3.6 fatal gyro crashes a year.

It has been said many times on this forum that Air Command ushered in the PIO era. The Air Command came out in 1984-85 and the accident rate appears to go down. So much for the Near CLT Bensen theory.

There been 36 fatal crashes from 1996 to 2005. Here is the number of fatal crashes broken down by make.

Bensen 5
Dominator 1
RAF 11
Air command 4
Experimental 7
Snow bird 1
Vortex 4
Rotor dyne 1
Air & Space 1
Sports copter 1

There are some things I have learned while looking over the data.

1. Flight training didn’t make as big of an impact on the number of fatal crashes as I thought it would.
2. It looks like CLT and HS have made a big impact on the fatalities.
3. Don’t fly a stock RAF.
4. Think twice before you build a gyro of your own design.

John, what did you REALLY learn? Not much.
You can't tell anything by these statistics. Take the Air & Space accident, 1 of maybe 2 or 3 flying in the USA= 30-50 % accident rate?? or the Rotordyne fatal. I think it was the only one in existance. that equals a 100% accident rate for that design. These statistics are very misleading.

1) How did you reach your flight training conclusion?
2) I think you are correct on the Stab and NCLT having an impact.
3) Don't fly a stock RAF? (I might agree with you, but not because of these stats)
4) I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. There is a reason why certificated aircraft have a much better safety record than homebuilts.

gyroplanes

11-18-2006, 05:31 PM

I have two questions that I would like you to answer.

First, in your opinion is a stock RAF without any owner mods a safe machine?

Second, if RAF changed the design and produced a stable properly designed gyro do you think the deaths in RAF 2000's would decrease?

Chuck E.

Chuck, I couldn't help but respond to the kinder & gentler you.

1) My answer: NO, a stock RAF is not a "safe" machine. It cost Ken Brock a lot of money, in a lawsuit, because he used the word "safe" to describe his gyro.

I looked up "safe" and found these definitions:

Not in danger; free from harm's reach.

Free from risk; harmless, riskless.

Providing protection from danger; providing shelter.

Based on these definitions, I'll say there is no such thing as a safe gyro (or airplane for that matter). I will agree that any gyroplane (and there are many) that have a significent cg / thrust offset, pose a much greater risk to fly than a NCLT machine.

2) YES. I think a "stable" RAF design would reduce the number of RAF fatalities. Just as converting old Bensens, SnoBirds, Air Commands, etc. would decrease their number of fatalities.

I also agree with you that RAF should change the design of their gyroplane. It is RAF that needs to be convinced. The RAF factory people, and their instructors, do not think stabs and NCLT mean that much to the safety of their machines. Now that they have built a defense wall around themselves. Only time will show them how incorrect they were in their assumption.

It's nice that we can agree on something gyro related for a change.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-18-2006, 06:22 PM

Gyroplanes, maybe we were never that far apart in our positions on safety in the first place, it just might be the internet is a very poor communication tool.

By the way, in retrospect I could have used a different word that "safe " but in our world of commercial aviation we are bombarded with the word "safety " so maybe I am just programmed to use it....:) In Europe they even changed their acronym to EASA. ( Euorpean Aviation Safety Authority ) So I guess I just have become programmed.....:confused: As I have been flying over there for over ten years now and training trumps most everything in how we think.

The bottom line though is if everyone thought safety and choose how they would fly and what we fly we would have less grief within the industry.

Anyhow I'm pleased that we are on the same page for a change...:)

automan1223

11-18-2006, 06:31 PM

Then does not go out and do a maneuver or fly in conditions they were not trained for. The same goes for any aircraft.[/QUOTE]

Steve,

I wonder how you plan with all your planning not to run into at least 1 snag at least one time in 100 hours...?

That snag called Mother Nature ? You know the one where that freak wave, that amazing gust of wind that comes out of nowhere and turns your arse on its end ?

If you can fly in perfect, predictable weather and wind at all times, I need to know what your using cause I want some of that for my flying.....

Jonathan

dragonflyerthom

11-18-2006, 06:58 PM

By the way, in retrospect I could have used a different word that "safe " but in our world of commercial aviation we are bombarded with the word "safety " so maybe I am just programmed to use it.... In Europe they even changed their acronym to EASA. ( Euorpean Aviation Safety Authority ) So I guess I just have become programmed..... As I have been flying over there for over ten years now and training trumps most everything in how we think.
Quote Chuck E/

Chuck

I don't know if you should say that you have been programed. You have lived and survived in a very structured enviroment. Safty was paramount to everything you did for the safty of your passenger and multimillion dollar aircraft.

Heck they have to keep this formost in your mind to protect their investment.

There isn't anything wrong with being safe. We want it for out families and friends and as you so aptly put it trained to trump your own thoughts of self.

Please share more of your adventures over there.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-18-2006, 07:17 PM

Out of Africa - Four days in a Cat - By Chuck Ellsworth

Day One

The sun was just rising as I finished scraping the frost off the windshield of the P.B.Y. Catalina with a credit card. This is not the picture one would have of Africa, however it is Thursday July 22/99 and it is winter in Johannesburg. After eighteen days trying to find the cause of a high oil temperature in our right engine and fixing some other mechanical problems the decision has been made to leave so as to have a chance of making the Oshkosh Airshow.

Today's flight will be six and half-hours to Lilongwe Malawi and we have an all up takeoff weight of twenty seven thousand nine hundred pounds, including a crew of five, fifty four hundred pounds of fuel and nine hundred pounds of oil. Lanseria Airport is forty five hundred feet above sea level with ten thousand feet of runway, with the temperature at two degrees C. take-off poses no problem.

The weather en-route is excellent and we have filed V.F.R. for to-days trip. Whenever possible I have found it easier to fly V.F.R. in most of Africa due to the difficulty with radio communications at the altitudes we normally fly this type of aircraft. The terrain from Johannesburg is sparsely settled with low mountain ranges through Zimbabwe, Mozambique and into Malawi. The dense jungle we think of associated with Africa occurs only in a relatively narrow band at the equator, A lot of Southern Africa is quite barren until you get into the central part of the continent.

A highlight of this trip was crossing the Zambezi River half way through Mozambique. Not only is the Zambezi famous for its Victoria Falls but it was especially important to both me and my wife Pene who was with me on this ferry trip. We had canoed part of the river In Zimbabwe two years previous to this flight. We arrived Lilongwe at three fifteen in the afternoon and two hours later finished fuelling and had cleared customs and immigration. We had no trouble finding a cab, however finding a hotel was another matter.

In the end all we could find was a very poor quality cheap hotel and when we asked if there was a restaurant nearby the desk clerk informed us the hotel had a restaurant just outside next door. Judging by the quality of the hotel we thought maybe we could wait and eat the next day, hunger finally decided for us and it turned out to be the best meal of the entire trip. It was a Korean restaurant and the food was diverse and delicious, you just never know until you try sometimes.

I have been in over twenty countries in Africa and Malawi is by far the best, the people are not only very friendly but everywhere you go it is absolutely clean unlike most of Africa there is no garbage or junk anywhere. As well the plants and trees are very colourful and well looked after in the city.

Day Two

After the easiest customs, immigration and fee-paying routine I have experienced anywhere in the many countries that I have flown in we were airborne For Nairobi Kenya at seven thirty A.M. Once again we had perfect weather for our trip which took us up through central Tanzania.

Shortly after departing Lilongwe we flew across Lake Malawi which is famous for its diverse species of fish. There cannot be a better way to sightsee than from the big blisters on the P.B.Y. Catalina the view is spectacular as you can see not only ahead and behind but straight down as well. Again the countryside is similar to the previous days flight. We decided to take the Eastern route into Kenya so as to see Mt. Kilimanjaro this however was not to be as most of the mountain was hidden in cloud cover. Approaching Kilimanjaro we contacted their arrival controller to position report and were advised to report ten minutes prior to the Kenya F.I.R..

Next we were given a handoff frequency for Nairobi radar, we were unable to raise Nairobi due to our low altitude and the distance I gave this no thought at the time as I had not expected an answer at that altitude. Crossing from Tanzania into Kenya we were able to identify many kinds of wildlife from our altitude of fifteen hundred feet above ground, the minimum allowed when flying over the African plains so as not to disturb the wildlife. From this height the bigger game such as Giraffe, Rhino, Buffalo, Zebra, Elephant etc. are easily identified and plentiful on the vast plains such as the Serengeti and once again the Catalina is perfect for sightseeing.

Our arrival at Nairobi's Jomo Kenyatta airport, elevation 5300 feet was uneventful until ground control advised me that arrival requested I go to their radar room as they wished to talk to me. Before leaving the airplane I told the rest of the crew that this might take some time as I suspected this would be another typical African shakedown. Sure enough the controllers wanted to know why I had not reported the Kenya F.I.R. on their frequency, when I explained the altitude problem they asked why I did not call on H.F. I informed them I did not have H.F. however I had brought my overflight and landing clearances for all the Countries we were fly into or over including their airport.

I never did really understand exactly what obscure rule of theirs I may have violated resulting in their threat to charge me and seize the airplane. One only has to understand the game being played which is finding a way to receive forgiveness for your stupidity in having done whatever it was they decided you are guilty of. In this case after over an hour of arguing, pleading and going around in circles one of the controllers went for a walk with me. In return for a gift of one hundred and fifty U.S. dollars to show how happy I was with his decision not to charge me I was free to go.

I couldn't believe how cheaply I had gotten away this time; I must be getting good at the game. Kenya is one of the most corrupt countries in the world; it is everywhere especially the police. We better hope that some of our Canadian politicians do not decide to vacation there, as they will really get a chance to polish their skills in how to extort money out of us. Allow me to diverse for a moment while I am on this subject and compare the police in Africa versus British Columbia where I live.

The way I see it in Africa the police extort money holding an A.K. 47, in B.C. they are holding a radar gun, just a slightly different method. We had planned on a one-day layover in Nairobi before continuing on to Djibouti our next fuel stop. This became a five day delay due to the first officer deciding he was returning to California and several days later Dudley Lieveaux our engineer had to return to South Africa due to the time restraints on his being away from his maintenance business in Cape Town. I was really sorry to lose Dudley as he was a very experienced pilot and engineer and we would have to wait until London to replace him.

We now had several days to spare so Pene and I decided to take a day Safari and see more of Kenya and its wildlife, it was really worth the three hundred and fifty U.S. dollars as one never sees too much of Africa. All of the African game guides have an incredible knowledge of their country and its wildlife and vegetation, there is no better way to explore the country. On Tuesday five days after arriving in Nairobi our new first officer Richard Maier arrived from Johannesburg . We were unable to depart the following day due to a low ceiling which prevented us from navigating the route V.F.R. as it is very mountainous to the North East of Nairobi. It was not possible to file I.F.R. as the M.E.A. is 21,000 feet and the P.B.Y. will not reach this altitude. Our greatest concern now was the new overflight and landing permits running out as the time frame is four days after which you must reapply for the entire route. In our case this would include Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Yemen. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Not only is there a lot of time involved in getting the clearances for the route it is very expensive costing several thousand U.S. dollars each time one goes through the process and this would be our third set of clearances.

It did not help knowing that at this time of year Nairobi can be low overcast for weeks at a time. But we were to finally have a change of luck as the next day dawned clear and no wind.

Day Three

We were up at four A.M. checked out of the hotel hoping to get all the paperwork and fees paid in time. For the first hour it went good we managed to pay the landing, parking and departure fees, then it was off to the weather and flight planning a walk of about half a mile. Weather was no real problem typical Africa, very little weather available for our route, so you take what you get and go. Flight planning is where we came up against the mind numbing stupidity of the African system. We were asked for our landing permit, I told them in the process of dealing with the air traffic controllers it got lost, the last time I saw it the controllers had it. Furthermore it was a departure clearance we were after today, we landed a week ago.

No amount of reasoning moved them, no landing permit no departure permit so another half mile walk back to the airplane and a search of every conceivable place it could be. Finally I found it in the Malawi file how the hell it got there I have no idea.

Half way to the control tower I see Richard coming, and he said lets get out of here I have the permit. What had happened is he had called the person in charge of Kenya C.A.A. and solved the problem paid the two hundred and fifty U.S. dollar navigation fee and lo and behold we had our departure permit. By now it is coming up on eight A.M.

We are running out of time to make Djibouti with some safety margin before dark, I will not fly in that part of Africa V.F.R. after dark it is bad enough running the risk of being shot down without adding another problem to the flight. We start up and ask for taxi clearance only to be told there was no departure permit for our airplane. We informed the tower we had the permit and they said not for that airplane, so I get out of the seat and get the paperwork give them the permit number and the problem was solved, our airplane was N9521C they thought we were N9525C so off we go.

Now we are in the holding bay for the runway and ask for take off clearance, only to be told we could not depart as they needed our landing permit number.

Lucky for us I had it and we were cleared for take off.

The usual radar vectors to clear their terminal area and good bye Nairobi and our friends in the radar room. The flight from Nairobi to Djibouti is planned for seven hours and thirty minutes, we now are in the most dangerous part of the trip. Due to the many local wars only one route was available to transit central Africa. We had to stay on the flight planned route or risk being forced down or shot down. Our route was through central Ethiopia and less than an hour into our flight low stratus started to form and soon it was at our altitude 7,500.

Eventually we were able to remain on top at 11,500 where we remained for the next four hours. With the help of high flying airliners we were able to report our position, altitude and estimates to Addas Ababa. The further we flew into Ethiopia the less our choices of where to go became in the event of an engine failure or any other problem that could force us to land. To the west of our track were the central mountains of Ethiopia and the southern Sudan, which is at war and a no fly zone. To the east is Somalia also a war zone not to mention the airplane we were flying was painted in U.S. Navy colours with a big U.S. star on it, to land in Somalia would be suicide.

Just prior to Djibouti we were approaching Eritrea another no fly zone. The Ethiopian controllers monitor the last one hundred miles into Djibouti and they allow zero deviation from the airway and are continually asking for estimates for the fixes ahead of us. Finally the cloud cover disappeared and we once again could map read. Our airway passed directly over Ethiopia's biggest military airfield and they were the controllers we had been talking to. After we passed the airfield Pene came up and asked us if we saw all the Jet fighters on the airport we just passed and we said yes, they looked like Russian Migs but at least they knew who we were. Prior to our arrival Djibouti we received the landing information and as expected the temperature was 42 deg. C. now we find out if our engine oil temperature problem is still with us. It was, by the time we were parked it had already climbed into the caution range.

We had fuel drums waiting for us and wouldn't you know it their hand pump quit after three drums, we left for town after dark not knowing when if ever we would get our fuel out of the drums. The taxi ride to the hotel was Pene's first real introduction to the real Africa first it ran out of fuel just out side the airport, he had a small can with enough fuel to get us to a gas station. The cab was a real beauty no door handles and no lights except one parking light on the right front. But all was not lost as Pene saw her first two camels, the driver slammed on the brakes and lo and behold there they were two camels we had just barely missed them. Djibouti is about as run down as any country can get and still have people live there, the hotel was a Sheraton the best in town, dirty run down and only one tap had water in our room.

We were to stay two days in this hotel waiting for our fuel. There was no thought of sightseeing as it is very unsafe for foreigners even in the daytime especially if you have a white woman with you, but she wanted to go on this trip so caused us no real problem. By dark on our second day in Djibouti we had our fuel and were ready to depart at sunrise.

Day Four

Up at four A.M. and the usual run around to finish the paper work and pay the charges we had not paid the day before. The plan was to get airborne when the temperature was at its lowest just at dawn. We had talked to the tower people and they agreed to allow us to depart with no delay so as to keep our oil temperature as low as possible.

This was our last problem with no fly airspace all we had to do was fly 65 miles east to an airway intersection then follow the airway up the middle of the red sea. Once again we must stay right on the centerline as we can see Eritrea just off our left wing and it is for sure a no fly zone. Somehow Eritrea has Mig 29's and all kinds of missles it is amazing that these countries have very little food or any other necessities of life that we here in North America take for granted, yet they are armed with the most modern of weapons. The right engine oil temp was a real problem but using minimum power with it we managed to get into cool air at 9,500 feet after one and a half hours of slow climbing.

The red Sea has the most beautiful coral reefs that extend for miles and miles just prior to entering Saudi Arabian Airspace. Our fourth day ended in Jeddah Saudi Arabia temperature 47 deg. C and once again no fuel available until tomorrow. We have done it in four days of flying, we are through the entire difficult airspace in Africa. This was to be the end of our trip to Oshkosh, we could not get fuel until three P.M. on our second day in Jeddah. When we departed at dawn the next morning the air temperature was over 30 deg. C. shortly after take off the right engine oil temperature could not be controlled leaving us no choice but to shut it down and return to the Jeddah airport. We stayed a further four days, we were on a general declaration visa which has a seventy two-hour time limit.

After two extensions we were deported to apply for a visa outside Saudi Arabia to fly the airplane out of the country when it is repaired. We flew to London stayed three days then home to Vancouver Island, I will return to Jeddah and ferry the airplane to London England where it will be stored until a sale is found for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-18-2006, 07:19 PM

Arcturus, Missing Hours and Fate - By Chuck Ellsworth

Finally after over a week of just plain tough flying weather the stars came out and we would depart Johnston Point on Banks Island for what should be an easy flight. This flight would turn out to be remembered forever as one of the closest calls I have ever had in almost fifty years of flying. The year was 1975, late February. We were flying supplies to a cat train that was shooting seismic lines for oil exploration on Banks Island in the high Arctic.

Johnson Point, an oil exploration base camp with a paved runway, was the main airport for supplying the western Arctic. In these very high latitudes winter means total darkness for months and navigating in that very hostile environment is difficult at the best of times. We had just gotten our first twin otter equipped with a new navigation aid called Global Navigation System. G.N.S. was based on very low power radio transmitters located in various parts of the world. In order for the computer to be able to navigate it had to acquire at least three G.N.S. transmitters.

Latitude and longitude had to be entered, for both our departure and destination points, in the computer. This entry was done with little wheels to select the numbers and other information for each trip. A further limiting factor with G.N.S. was that we had to have accurate positions or the computer to navigate to wherever we set it. Cat trains are always on the move, consequently requiring a navigator with each train to take celestial shots whenever he could to accurately keep track of their new location.

Once the G.N.S. stations were acquired and the trip was set up it was so accurate we could fly several hundred miles and then return to our parking ramp at the airport without a hitch. To us G.N.S. was like having died and gone to heaven. Being able to navigate so accurately in the high Arctic, where the magnetic compass always points strait down, was a "god send". This particular trip to the seismic train was uneventful with no cloud cover at all just the stars from horizon to horizon. After the last week of flying all our trips from takeoff to landing on solid instruments while relying on two radar altimeters one in front of each pilot for our landing decision height this one had been easy. The only visibility restriction we had was the complete loss of forward visibility in the snow which blew up when we went into reverse to stop on the short runway, which had been ploughed for us, on the ice.

Sometimes these strips were not much over 1000 feet long due to the location of the cat train at that time therefore, reverse was a necessity to stop before we ran off the landing strip. With clear weather and no rush to get back to Johnson Point we went to the cookhouse, had a leisurely meal, listened to the tape recorder playing music such as North to Alaska, which we of course changed to South to Alaska. Finally, off to the airplane we went where we decided to hell with waiting to reset the G.N.S. Instead, with such a clear night, we would fly back to home base using the astro compass. After lighting up the two P.T.6's we taxied back to the runway and lined up with the flare pots. We got the almanac out and shot Arcturus. It is one of the easiest stars to identify and shoot due to its position and brightness in the sky. Arcturus is the first bright star out from the handle of the Big Dipper. We read our heading on the astro compass, set our direction indicators (gyros) and off we went for Johnston Point. Once leveled off in cruise there was nothing but the sound of the engines and the big canopy of stars that ended in a faint white blur which was the endless Arctic snow just barley visible below us in the faint starlight.

Sitting in the warm cockpit with only the sound of those dependable turbine engines and no sense of movement through the dark night I slowly became aware that something was wrong but could not quite figure out what it was. I remember asking the co-pilot to see if Johnson Point was showing up on the A.D.F. After a few minutes he had no luck, now I came wide awake and said, "This doesn't look right. Let's get another shot on Arcturus.". Once more I gave him the time and he read the almanac to set the astro compass. Again there was no change in our D.I. settings. All of a sudden a possibility came to me and I asked him what time he had. When he read his watch we both knew we were really in trouble as there was almost three hours difference between our watches. I will never forget the feeling of real fear when I realized that we had departed the cat train with a D.I. setting that was almost forty-five degrees in error.

The sudden realization of just how serious our position was made it very difficult to convert the position of the stars versus what I figured they should look like. Now there was no doubt, in my mind, we were far off our track for Johnston Point, so far in fact I knew we might never be found.

Time was now critical. We had to decide which watch was right. Making a quick position guess based on nothing but the time we had flown on this heading and instinct we turned ninety degrees to the right starting a slow cruise climb for better fuel burn. All we could do now was wait and hope.

In this part of the high Arctic, at night, there is absolutely nothing but endless white, to try to recognize any feature below you is hopeless. Now both of us were really worried, questions and doubts started. Whose watch was set wrong? Had we turned the right way? Why had we not noted the runway heading after landing? Why had we not written the heading down so as to be able to confirm our star shot? Why did we not check both of our watches, especially in that the clock in the airplane did not work which in these temperatures was normal? Radio reception was so poor we could not raise anyone on H.F. or V.H.F. then all of a sudden the A.D.F. came alive and there was the Johnston Point N.D.B. strait ahead. Soon we could see the lights of our destination on the horizon. For some time I had been quite concerned about our fuel state. Seeing the lights in the distance was just to good to be true. However, to be on the safe side we stayed at eleven thousand until we could definitely make the airport as distances can be so deceiving at night in the high Arctic.

Descending through one thousand feet the low fuel light came on telling us we had eleven minutes of fuel left in the front tank. I really don't remember how much fuel remained in the rear tank. Of course, how much fuel there was in the rear tank is now a mute point. It really doesn't matter, because like in Earnest Gann's great book "Fate is the Hunter", that night so many years ago the hunter did not find my young co-pilot, whose name I cannot even recall, and me. Had we turned left instead of right we would have been so far off course it is possible no one would have ever found the airplane or us in those millions of square miles of ice and snow. After landing and going into the Atco Huts, that were our accommodations, we finally found out it was my watch that was wrong. To this day I do not really know why I chose to make the decision it was my watch, even stranger the damn thing worked just fine after this what should have been an uneventful trip.

That just leaves fate as the best explanation for my decision to turn right that night. Isn't it strange how words like Arcturus, Missing Hours and Fate can have such chilling meaning when flying airplanes?

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-18-2006, 07:24 PM

Thom:

You shouldnt have asked me for some stories....

...now I'll be in trouble for taking up to much bandwith about airplanes on a gyro forum.

So be careful what you ask for.

By the way we do a lot of work in Africa and meet some real interesting mercenaries and get up close to some real exotic weapons.

Chuck E.

dragonflyerthom

11-18-2006, 08:07 PM

eventfull and exciting That is what I call flying in the wild. In and over the wild areas of Africa and thru and over the frozen tundra and ice packs of the far North.
I really believe everyone here will enjoy your adventures.

Thanks Chuck E Your a writer too. I really am impressed with the talent you exhibit.

Look at your post and the time of my last post and you will see I really reveled in your exploits.

C. Beaty

11-18-2006, 08:17 PM

Interesting experiences, Chuck E.

The one thought that kept popping up is how much easier things would have been had GPS been available during those travels.

I wonder if naval academies even bother teaching celestial navigation to cadets any more?

gyroplanes

11-18-2006, 08:25 PM

Ok Ellsworth, now you have gone too far.

Just kidding.

The stories were great. Have you ever submitted them to Flying magazine? They make great reading.

My longest flight as a commercial pilot was to fly two trash compactor mechanics to a school about 250 miles away.

My most memorable was flying into Chicago's O'hare airport (twice) for passenger pickups.

Go ahead, laugh at me.

Chopper Reid

11-18-2006, 09:38 PM

We are talking fatatlities in gyros, I would lke to see per hours flown how FW and gyros compare for fatals.

Its interesting to see that horse related sports kill more people than any other sport.

John Stahl

11-18-2006, 10:08 PM

1) How did you reach your flight training conclusion?

Tom
That is a good question and I should explain my thinking a little.
The years 1986-95 flight training became more common. This time period is prier to CLT & HS. Any reduction in fatal crashes then could be credited to flight training.
I had expected to find a drop of around 1 to 1.5 crashes a year.
I was surprised to find only a .6 drop in fatal crashes.
I also thought that I would find a gradual reduction in crashes as more and more pilots received flight training.
Here are the numbers
1986-5
1987-6
1988-6
1989-4
1990-6
1991-6
1992-7
1993-5
1994-6
1995-1
So flight training didn’t have as much of an impact as I had anticipated.

3) Don't fly a stock RAF? (I might agree with you, but not because of these stats)

I do not understand.
From 1996 to 2005 flight training was the norm. We have HS and CLT gyros. The drop to 3.6 in fatal crashes is impressive.
If you remove RAF from the stats there would have been only 2.5 fatal crashes a year.
In My opinion 2.5 fatals a year is about as good as we will ever get because of stupid human tricks.

dragonflyerthom

11-19-2006, 02:38 AM

When I bought the whole concept of the RAF from Arlen Mock in North Carolina, I had to register that kit number. One of the things they asked me is wheather or not I was going to modify my kit. Naturally I said no I had no plans to modify it.
They gave me great support even tho I had not bought it directly from them. I started to put it togeather and in May I found this site in a google search. I found the NTSB site about the same time.
When I started to read about the many gyro accidents, I was appauled at the number of accidents. Why did the gyro have such a terrible accident rate. Why did the RAF have a bad rate also? I had to know why so I read each accident report. I found that most of the fatalities were from people that didn't even know how to fly the gyro that they had built. Seems the attitude of I built it I can fly it. Also very low hours pilots were crashing and the high time pilots were crashing also.
I came to the same conclusion as to not fly the stock RAF with out the H/S mod. To place it far enough back to get some prop wash and clean air. I still believe that the training and knowing the flight characteristic on my gyro is extremly important. The RAF is not a forgiving aircraft and to get it out side the envelope is fatal. Speed is another problem with the RAF. Vne on it is 110 mph. I think this is too high. I believe it should be a Vne of 100. One of the members stated one time that if you want to go fast then buy a jet. This is good advice. I also think the throttle should be used slowly. The high drag on the cabin could cause the rudder to be pushed into the rotor when the higher thrust is cut too quickly. This is a good time to thank God for the H/S on the back of the keel. Now it isn't the perfect solution but it helps. One of the ways I came to this conclusion is because I am a compond bow hunter. I have shot arrows with different types of fletchings and have even tried some without. The difference is absolutely amazing. With the fletchings the arrow is true and can be fired at the bullseye with accuracy. With out the fletchings then there is no telling where it will hit. It provides consistancy in the shot groups and is a beautiful thing to see. I would not recommend shooting an arrow without fletchings and I do not recommend flying a gyro without a H/S.
The last mod I will be doing is the NCLT mod. With this and some flight testing I should know what the effect is. I will conduct Greg Gs test both ways. Sorry to have taken so much time.

Fly with all this in mind.

StanFoster

11-19-2006, 05:25 AM

Chuck: That was very entertaining reading. I will never experience the life you have and are living...but am very content just reading about it.

Thanks for posting that....and I am sure you could fill volumes with more adventures of yours. I am listening,...:hail: :)

Stan

Screw

11-19-2006, 06:13 AM

Screw-In

Then does not go out and do a maneuver or fly in conditions they were not trained for. The same goes for any aircraft.

Steve,

I wonder how you plan with all your planning not to run into at least 1 snag at least one time in 100 hours...?

That snag called Mother Nature ? You know the one where that freak wave, that amazing gust of wind that comes out of nowhere and turns your arse on its end ?

If you can fly in perfect, predictable weather and wind at all times, I need to know what your using cause I want some of that for my flying.....

Jonathan

Very good post and point Johnathan. "Safe" doesn't describe RAF or any other gyro for that matter. "Stability" is the issue. Iether an intentional Maneuver, or unpredicable burst of weather, your machine's "Stability" can take you home "Safely," or KILL YOU.

RAF's are not "Stable!" Many RAF owners have modified thier gyros with Horizontal ect....in an attempt to "Stabilize" the machine.

Too many fallen RAF pilots believe in your above statement Steve. Please note the word FALLEN.

Screw-Out

PW_Plack

11-20-2006, 12:14 AM

Guys, I've worked with statistical research over the last 30 years, and the number of crashes available for evaluation is too small to be called more than "anecdotal" evidence of any one theory.

John Stahl said: Flight training didn’t make as big of an impact on the number of fatal crashes as I thought it would...

Papa Smurf said: I started a statistical look at the RAF to try and separate the different mods and rate them, but ran into too many time consuming variables...

The most use we can get out of the NTSB reports are probable causes within a particular make/model, and see if there's a pattern there. By "probable cause", I'm not necessarily talking about the NTSB's official finding. If the tail was chopped up by the rotor, and NTSB called it "Pilot's failure to maintain control", the truth may be between the lines, much to the chagrin of the widow's lawyer.

I still believe the biggest issue with the gyro accident rate is the machine's tendency to attract daredevils. Open-cockpit (or doors-off) thrills, very low cost, vestiges of Bensen's self-training culture, and maybe other factors.

Where else in aviation would you EVER find an accident report like this one?

THE PILOT OF AN UNREGISTERED GYRO-COPTER WAS MAKING TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS IN CONDITIONS CONDUCIVE TO ICING. HE MADE A LANDING AND COMPLAINED OF ICE ON HIS GLASSES TO A WITNESS. WHEN NO GOGGLES COULD BE LOCATED HE STATED THAT HE WOULD MAKE ONE MORE TAKEOFF AND LANDING. ON THE DOWNWIND LEG OF THE FLIGHT THE AIRCRAFT WAS OBSERVED BY WITNESSES TO DEPART CONTROLLED FLIGHT, TUMBLE, AND IMPACT THE TERRAIN. WITNESSES STATED THAT DURING AN ATTEMPT TO REVIVE THE PILOT HE HAD AN ACCUMULATION OF ONE QUARTER INCH OF ICE OVER HIS EYES AND FACE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE PILOT-IN-COMMAND'S ABRUPT MOVEMENT OF THE FLIGHT CONTROLS WHICH RESULTED IN LOSS OF ROTOR RPM AND EVENTUAL DEPARTURE FROM CONTROLLED FLIGHT. A FACTOR CONTRIBUTING WAS ICE ACCUMULATION ON THE PILOT'S FACE RESULTING IN PILOT INCAPACITATION (VISUAL DEFICIENCY).

Steve McGowan said: It's not the gyro that kills the person... The person also kills the gyro.

dragonflyerthom

11-20-2006, 01:37 AM

Great Post Paul

I would love to have talked to the witnesses. This daredevil mentality does seem to run thru the NTSB reports. Is this the mentality of the NTSB in regards to gyros and the gyro pilots?

ben

11-20-2006, 03:45 AM

here some more numbers for ya'll to fight about
now these are all incidences with fatalities some more then one
from 1990 to 2006

cessna 1770
helicopter 541
gliders 86
gyroplanes 69
balloons 24

GyroRon

11-20-2006, 04:03 AM

Ben, there is more Cessnas flying on any given day than all gyroplanes in the USA fly in a year. There should be more accidents in them strickly due to the numbers of them out there and hours they are flown annually.

Same thing with Helicopters. I would even say there is more gliders being flown than gyros. Ballons and gyros..... This I would think would be a close match, or if anything there would be more gyros flying than ballons.

dragonflyerthom

11-20-2006, 04:30 AM

Ben

I was just wondering what the percentages are for each craft here in the US of accident per registered type.

Good information tho. Even if it is off the Gyro topic. I personally feel that the number of accident for gyros per number would be low.
I only see a problem with the gyro when the pilot is hot dogging it.

C. Beaty

11-20-2006, 06:21 AM

The number of people killed in Cessnas, the number of people killed in automobiles or the number of termites in your house in no way excuses design flaws in gyros.

The RAF-2000 is a flawed design and no amount of rationalization can change that.

The nearest automotive equivalent to an RAF-2000 was the rear engine Corvair. I owned 3 of the things so came to know and understand their characteristics quite well.

Tail heavy automobiles, especially those with swing axles at the rear are unstable and are constantly trying to swap ends. Driven past its limit, the Corvair would spin out and go through the fence tail first.

Such automobiles oversteer; a steering input results in a greater heading change than commanded, no different than tail heavy aircraft.

Various patches were applied to the Corvair that tended to mask its oversteer behavior. The rear tires were inflated to 30 psi while the front ones were inflated to 15 psi. Later models incorporated something called a camber compensator, a leaf spring that that tied the rear wheels together is such a way as to force the front tires so supply most of the resistance to body lean and to run at a slip angle more nearly matching that of the rear tires (Pneumatic tires with a side force travel at an angle to their fore/aft line, the “slip” angle; underinflated tires have a greater slip angle than properly inflated tires).

The RAF patches; add on stabilizers, “stabilators” and the like are reminiscent of the Corvair patches, tending to mask the instability but in no way addressing the basic problem.

GM had deep pockets and paid out a bundle in liability settlements before killing the Corvair.

RAF doesn’t have deep pockets so is unlikely to be a target of product liability litigation. They’ll remain in business because there’s an endless supply of gullible people who can be beguiled by cute fiberglass sculpture and fancy paint schemes.

Ga6riel

11-20-2006, 07:38 AM

i can attest to the dangers involved with a number of rear engined swing axle vehicles

problem number 1 is the CG of the car is toward the rear, if you look at the jacking point on the VW, you will find it some 8" or so infront of the rear wheel. this is meant to jack up one side of the car. any analysis of this cars dynamic stability will conclude that is most stable path was while going backwards.

problem number 2 is the swing axle. a hard cornering car will tend to push its rear (remember the CG location) out on the turn. the car can do this if it rides up that outside axle, which raises the CG, further impressing the problem, and reduces the contact patch of the tire also adding to a major control issue.

in this country the most usual accident scenario would be a fast bend, car is cruising at speed. at the point where the road builders stopped making the straight part of the road and joined with the curve, there is an uneveness at the seam, and sometimes a marked bump.

cars that are in a cruising condition, perhaps low fuel, with luggage on the rear seat rather than in the inconvenient front boot and just a driver are most vulnerable. because this load condition further exaserbates the rear CG bias

the approaching car is pushing on its rear and with the shock of the bump at the seam being met the car jacks on the rear axle, reducing contact patch, rear end loses adhesion and swings suddenly and violently out. driver either panics and decelerates which precipitates an instant rollover or; catches the car and recovers but cannot centre on the road (overcorrects) and rollover occurs but on the other side. very lucky or very skillfull people will regain control

the flimsy seats and poor seat belts are no match for the many various angles the driver and car will encounter in a rollover. the many hard contact points are close to the head. rollover virtually guarantees they are even closer. inevitably the situation is fatal

i fought against people buying these things all my life
i have heard every story, every justification
i will never accept they have a place on our roads i consider them so dangerous
dont ever let your children or your friends have one
if you must destroy the thing to do this, so be it

John Stahl

11-20-2006, 08:39 AM

Doug Riley

11-20-2006, 08:59 AM

It's grade-school-level stuff to point out what accident "rate" means. It is a percentage or ratio: the number of crashes PER something. The "something" might be per flight-hour or flight-mile or even per registered aircraft.

Obviously, the raw number of crashes is absolutely meaningless. There might be a fleet of a million gyros the year of that particular number -- or there might be only three. The fleet might fly a millon hours a year, or ten hours.

The Brits have worked up fatality rates per flight-hour for gyros. Greg Gremminger took a shot at it for the U.S., too. These statistics have been thoroughly discussed here in the past. The fatality rate for gyros runs up to ten or even twenty times the rate for certified aircraft. It's higher than other homebuilts, hgher that ultralights in general, higher than any coldly rational person would tolerate.

Gyros may be "Experimental" but they are not experimental. That is, they're registered (in the U.S.) under the fiction that we are doing some down-home research as we home-build. That is almost 100% nonsense. By 1940, the aerodynamics of autogyros was researched farther than we all have taken it since. We only recently realized that Cierva had addressed the issue of CLT in his original patents. We still don't use the mu-ratio guidelines for rotor RPM established for us by NACA in 1934.

The aerodynamics of H-stabs was established by WW I.

We are still catching up, or maybe treading water. Homebuilt gyros certainly break no new technical ground. The fact that many of them are erroneously designed, even by the standards of 70, 80 or 90 years ago is embarrassing. It shows us a couple things:

First, even in the age of the Internet, good information can be hard to find. In the era of instant answers, we may not have the patience to plod through old NACA papers even if we do run across them.

Second, people are not exclusively rational beasts; much of the time, we act on our emotions. Good marketers know how to GET us to act on our emotions... we buy the car because of the pretty girl we see in the ad, we buy the sizzle instead of the steak, and we buy a metalflake-sparkling cabin instead of the underlying engineering. Or (more often in gyroland) the utter lack of it.

John Stahl

11-20-2006, 12:35 PM

We still don't use the mu-ratio guidelines for rotor RPM established for us by NACA in 1934.

Why haven't I heard of this before?
can you give us more info?

gyromike

11-20-2006, 01:58 PM

John,

I believe this is the report that Doug referenced, "Wind Tunnel Tests of a Ten Foot Diameter gyroplane Rotor" (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930091608_1993091608.pdf).

Although there are others to be found on the NASA Technical Reports Server (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp).

Doug Riley

11-21-2006, 04:54 AM

Actually, it's the one on the full-scale wind tunnel tests. NACA TR-515.

gyromike

11-21-2006, 05:31 AM

Gotcha Boss.

Here it is:

Full-scale wind-tunnel tests of a PCA-2 autogiro rotor (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=160726&id=1&qs=Ntt%3DNACA-TR-515%26Ntk%3Dall%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchall%26N%3D0% 26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c1)

Abstract: This report presents the results of force tests on and air-flow surveys near PCA-2 autogiro rotor in the NACA full-scale wind tunnel. The force tests were made at three pitch settings and several rotor speeds the effect of fairing protuberances on the rotor blade was determined. Induced downwash and yaw angles were determined at low tip-speed ratios in a plane 1 1 2 feet above the path of the blade tips. The results show that the maximum l d of the rotor cannot be appreciably increased by increasing the blade pitch angle above about 4.5 degrees at the blade tip that the protuberances on the blades cause more than 5 percent of the total rotor drag and that the rotor center-of-pressure travel is very small.

GYRO J

11-21-2006, 12:57 PM

each brand of gyro has its own flight envelope fliyng outside of it will get you in trouble, stay within it and you should be ok

Doug Riley

11-21-2006, 01:12 PM

The safe "flight envelope" of a machine with a severe high thrustline and inadequate horizontal tail EXcludes operation in more than slight vertical turbulence (=fair-weather thermals).

It also excludes all flight at high throttle settings, especially rapid climbing flight at full throttle, until and unless the pilot has mastered the special control techniques necessary to halt incipient power pushovers.

The envelope is quite similar to the envelope of a gyro whose rotor is attached only with an open hook. Float up for a second and the hook comes off and you die.

This restrictive and not wholly safe envelope can be expanded to that of a normal small aircraft simply by applying basic design principles. Why anyone settles for less -- when it's completely pointless to do so -- is beyond me.

C. Beaty

11-21-2006, 03:45 PM

If you nibble at the cheese very, very carefully, you might not spring the trap.

gyroplanes

11-21-2006, 09:17 PM

I just don’t understand why RAF is so reluctant to offer CLT and HS options for there aircraft. There may be a legal reason to be so inflexible. But from a business point of view, with out these options RAF is sealing there demise.

Because they don't believe it.
It's not "for legal reasons" they have made many improvements to the RAF over the years.

Hognose

11-22-2006, 12:05 AM

It's grade-school-level stuff to point out what accident "rate" means. It is a percentage or ratio: the number of crashes PER something. The "something" might be per flight-hour or flight-mile or even per registered aircraft.

All of Doug's post is great, but this is the key bit. Remember that one accident turned the Concorde from the safest airliner to have ever flown, to the least safe jet, in terms of flights or hours flown to fatalities.

I'll run the numbers for one way of looking at the data: percent of accidents per registered airframe.

Let's assume that the stats that Steve Osborne posted are accurate for US prangs (they don't match the NTSB fatals, but we can use them). And let's compare the rate of fatal mishaps to the number of a/c in the FAA registry (we're talking about US accidents here). To name an accident that we all are aware of and is not on the site Steve found, the mishap at Bensen Days 06 in which Terry Eiland and Bill Finnegan perished is not included.

Note that this approach has some limits:

1. The FAA registry includes machines that don't exist.
2. This approach weights all a/c as equally exposed to risk; some fly and some don't sit.
3. The FAA registry makes it hard to hunt down one-off gyros. So I can't address the group that Steve's link calls just "experimentals."
4. The FAA registry either doesn't contain Air & Space or codes them in such a way that I can't find them. Accordingly, they are not included (one fatal).
5. A gyro doesn't need to be registered to fly. It doesn't need to be registered to crash fatally, either. And the FAA registration folks have no visibility into two large gyro populations: the ultralights, and the outlaws.

To refresh one's memory, here are the fatals that Steve found in recent years:
Air & Space 1
Air Command 4
Bensen 5
Dominator 1
Experimental 7
RAF 11
Rotordyne 1
Snowbird 1
Sportcopter 1
Vortex 4

(Sorted by alphabetical order).

Again in alphabetical order, here are the numbers of registered planes:

Air & Space ?
Air Command 170
Bensen 761 (I bet a lot of these are history)
Dominator 55 (I bet the same number are flying as ULs).
Experimental ?
RAF 2000 246 (I expected more in RAF's neighboring market)
Rotordyne 4
Snowbird 13 ("snobird")
Sportcopter 35
Vortex 45 (note that the Sportcopter and Vortex counts overlap extensively).

OK. So let's run the percentages, and see how they look. We'll sort the results by percentage.

Make Fatals FAA Reg 11/20/06 Fatals as %reg

Rotordyne 1 4 25.00%
Vortex 4 45 8.89%
Snowbird 1 13 7.69%
RAF 11 246 4.47%
Sportcopter 1 35 2.86%
Air Command 4 170 2.35%
Dominator 1 55 1.82%
Bensen 5 761 0.66%

Hmmm. Not at all what we might have expected.

I do note that this methodology is NOT valid as scientific proof of anything. It is an attempt to look at the data for the 36 fatal accidents Steve identified in this period versus the 1,329 gyros of these types that I can find in the reg database today.

One interesting point of data that emerges is that Air Command has a large number of registered a/c but far fewer of them involved in accidents than RAF. Since Air Command's biggest production period was under Dennis Fetters, it's possible that the registration number represents many aircraft that do not exist, or if they exist, do not fly. RAF's heyday came a decade or so after Air Command's. It is probable that some similar situation exists for Bensen. Many Bensens date to the sixties and seventies, and hundreds of these machines must be lying fallow in barns, sheds and hangars (at best).

However, the "many-air-commands-are-not-flying" theory is only one. Another plausible theory is that, when Air Command redesigned their machines for greater safety, they eliminated some causes of fatal mishaps and prevented some fatal mishaps, that otherwise would have occurred.

To add in the AAI Sparrowhawk, FAA lists 50 Sparrowhawks. A careful read indicates that at least 13 are other aircraft named Sparrowhawk, not the AAI/Groen gyroplane. Ergo, Terry and Bill's mishap indicates 1/37 or 2.70%.

One thing that we can say with confidence, looking at these numbers, is that the disparate numbers of fatal accidents from one airframe to another, is more than can be accounted for by the different populations of the various machines.

Apart from that, these statistics are very grainy and hard to get a solid grip on.

One thing we can all agree on, I hope: everybody, fly safe. For my fellow Yanks, have a good Thanksgiving.

cheers

-=K=-

Ralph

11-22-2006, 04:30 AM

Good one Chuck! The beauty of it is that any surviving mice automatically have the experience/training to nibble a little harder the next time!

Ralph

dragonflyerthom

11-22-2006, 05:11 AM

Chuck

I applaude your attempt to put a handle on things. Thanks

Happy Turkey day to you also

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-22-2006, 06:31 AM

When doing comparisons on the numer of fatal accidents involving gyros what would the statistics show if the cause were shown?

For instance how many were the result of bunting?

Would that make any difference between gyro types, and would it tell us something?

Doug Riley

11-22-2006, 07:02 AM

Chuck E., you know what I, for one, suppose. However, the sad fact is that the investigations are so poorly done as a rule that the assigned causes are useless, non-information. "Failure to maintain control" covers a lot of ground, from design defects through pilot intoxication.

The only time I've seen the FAA (sort of) cite a design defect leading to a PPO was in the report covering Roger Benjamin's Air Command crash here in Vermont in the summer of 2005.

Lots of Air Commands PPOed, BTW. Fetters marketed them as Part 103 legal, so many of the crashes were not investigated.

C. Beaty

11-22-2006, 08:06 AM

Kevin, the FAA aircraft registry is such a mess that statistical analysis based on it isn’t much better than flipping a coin. My old Bensen hasn’t been flown in 20 years but is still listed. My fault of course for not requesting delisting.

Some countries have an easily accessible list of currently valid certificates of airworthiness or permits to fly by manufacturer or model number which slices through the manufacturer’s hype; “thousands are being flown daily.”

The South Africa CAA registry lists 5 RAFs holding a currently valid C of A, not at all what one would expect from reading posts on this forum.

Almost certainly the FAA maintains a similar database but I can’t find it.

Hognose

11-22-2006, 08:14 AM

Chuck Ellsworth is probably right that, if we selected accidents by cause and type, we would likely find disparate rates which might differ from the overall rates.

The devil, however, is in the details. I can think of two RAF mishaps that were probably PPO/PIO related, but that also had Stupid Human Trick aspects.

One involved a student who was scheduled for a flight with his instructor to explore the RAF's handling with doors on (which RAF pilots tell me differs from handling doors off -- I have only a 1+ hour demo flight in a factory RAF). The instructor was indoors and heard a bang -- student had decided to just take the machine up (IIRC, it was his machine).

The second, fatal, accident involved an experienced gyro pilot (low-riders) and CFI who wanted to become an RAF dealer/instructor. He flew for eight hours with a factory CFI. That instructor said that the new CFI did not have the hand-eye skills he would have expected with that many hours, and advised the new CFI that he needed more dual. Time and money was tight and the new CFI went home and began scheduling students. The morning of his first lesson, he took a run around the patch to check out the machine and PPOd fatally with his first student waiting on the field.

Both of these mishaps have something in common with many, many aircraft accidents: they result from failures of judgment.

Something Doug said about Air Commands above struck me as key to an insight. They were marketed as Part 103 legal. I do believe that the marketing and promotion of gyroplanes does its part in selecting the individuals who fly these unusual machines. This might also be a factor in the disparate mishap rates of different makes. After all the disparate rates are a correlation, and both the significance and the causation of this correlation is undetermined.

One thing we can do is always, always, assess risk and try to make mature judgments. This morning, I was scheduled to fly to Laconia and Moultonboro, to see an old war buddy (at LCI) and then go see a potential new house (at 5M3). Somewhere in there Scotty and I were gonna go grab a hundredburger. If time permitted, there was something I wanted to see in Nashua. It's a radiant fall day, great for flying, and I was scheduled in a simple VFR plane with absolutely nothing to go wrong. But when I woke up (late) I felt like crap. My nose is running, my sinuses hurt enough that I'm squinting a little, an old wound is draining fluid -- it never does that any more. So I cancelled, even knowing that I'm in the sim Friday and my best shot at actually flying a real aircraft is probably not till next week (and this unusual New England good weather will not last that long).

There's a 99.99% probability that I'd complete the flight with no problems, and probably feel better for having done it. (Flying is highly curative of most things that ail a person). But I planned the flight without the added risk factor of feeling a bit crook. The sky isn't going anywhere, and the Government hasn't ordered the Final Solution to the private flying problem. So I grounded myself until I'm feeling 100%.

I am a human being and cannot control the fact that I must die some day. I can exercise some control over the manner, however, and I do. I will not die at the controls of an aircraft and bring scorn upon my craft and my sport.

And if anybody remembers me when I was nineteen, well, "Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment." I was fortunate to survive a lot of bad judgment. I no longer rely on good fortune to keep my pink body from being dashed against the terrain -- I'd rather have this head cold (or whatever it is) than deceleration sickness.

cheers

-=K=-

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-22-2006, 09:04 AM

Kevin, good call on not flying when you feel down.

" You can learn to fly in hours, but it takes years to learn when not to "

There was a bunt fatatility here in my area several years ago, the pilot had taken training from a RAF approved instructor and one day he and the gyro disaappeared and the next time he or the gyro was heard from was the sound of the bunt over when he was flying it on a good weather day.

Aside from the fact that he was flying a stolen gyro the question that needs to be answered is had the gyro been a properly designed stable design would it have PPO'ed?

Back to the instructor who died here in Canada, what does it say about the difficulty of flying that design when a flight instructor with sufficient time in gyros to be approved as an instructor could not control it with eight hours of dual instruction?

If an instructor needs that much training to control this machine how about the every day normal student who is just learning for a hobby?

Interesting questions that I personally would like to see more discussion on.

Chuck E.

Ga6riel

11-22-2006, 09:26 AM

fooling with raw data that by admission is inacurate can be treacherous
but i applaud that someone has at least tried to measure the accident rate

a better field of comparison would have been to test each type against the total in your sample. then make some assumptions that compares each type against one another. this has the tendency to level the data for you are comparing against a mean. then a simple t test will assume if a machine is more or less around the mean or not.

i am surprised that bensens seem comparitively low, but i guess i shouldnt be
tho all of them are appauling accident stats

Hognose

11-22-2006, 10:10 AM

i am surprised that bensens seem comparitively low,
Rob, I think that's an artefact of the large number of Bensens in the reg database (like Chuck B's) which are NOT flying. This causes the denominator in my ratio to be excessively large. I don't know how to measure just *flying* Bensens (or any other make), which are the only machines that truly belong in the denominator.

The denominator problems include:

1. Inclusion of retired machines
2. Inclusion of registered but uncompleted kits/plans
3. Exclusion of machines that are registered under made-up names
4. Typographic errors (you do not need to spell to work for FAA or be a DAR).

The numerator problems include:

1. Ultralights (as I have said, I believe this would double some machines' numerators) which need not be registered in the USA
2. Outlaw operators flying unregistered experimentals
3. Nomenclature and typo errors

And that's just from this, "number in existence as the denominator," analysis, which I think we all agree would be less accurate than a "per FLYING machine" or especially a "per hour flown" basis. My principal reason for doing these numbers was this: to show that a lot of our assumptions about safety depend on anecdotal evidence. While much can be learned from anecdotes they make a poor basis for public policy, IMHO.

For the record, I do not believe that the FAA has any better database than this. They are keenly aware of the deficiencies of the registration database, and are working to purge it of machines that should have been deregistered, but are not. There are both security and policy implications to the bad database, as well as the safety-statistic problem we're seeing here.

Tho all of them are appauling accident stats

Amen, brother. We can do better. We must do better.

Finally, here are some graphs of those stats I posted, to give those who think visually a way to look at it. Two show Steve's original fatal-count data (the pie charts), and the bar chart shows fatals as a percentage of FAA-registered machines. Note that the zero values for Air & Space 18A and generic experimental are not because those values were zero, but because I could not determine a denominator, producing a divide-by-zero error (the rates come out to be greater than infinity! This is not real, but a consequence of lack of data).

cheers

-=K=-

Ga6riel

11-22-2006, 10:28 AM

about bensens
yes i do understand that
but it still remarks a lower rate, even if the data if of examples over time

when i get some time i might rejig the data as accidents per the total population, instead of accidents per type, and see what that brings

in the mean time, if someone can fill in the data gaps, even approximately that would help

its 6am and im off to my bed :)

Doug Riley

11-22-2006, 10:49 AM

I joined the PRA in July 1969. Back then Bensens were just about the only gyros around.

The accident rate was awful. The PRA mag reported many of them. Bensen described them as "negative G" or "porpoising" accidents. These terms helped to muddy the waters and shift the blame away from the design and toward the pilot. We'd call them PPOs.

The rate seemed to be about one per issue of the magazine, which is six per year, which is about right. The all-time record of gyro carnage for a single year -- 12 fatalities, I think -- was set around 1967.

(The "fun aviation" community is composed mostly of us geezers over 50. They remember those days, and those statistics, and many of them aren't interested in hearing how things have changed for the better. They know what they know, and that's that.)

There are some Bensens still flying, but not that many. They certainly don't overwhelm other brands in numbers of real, flying aircraft, as the registry might indicate.

I still have N88770's tail in my garage, but I did finally de-register it 10-15 years ago. Its last flight was in 1975, when I ran out of money and started selling off the best parts. There must be many others in the same boat.

Ga6riel

11-22-2006, 07:51 PM

well as accidents against the population of gyros
as flukey as the raw numbers are, i used the same data as Kevin for consistency
in the order of 2.107% were involved in fatal accidents

and it looks like the pie chart below

Ga6riel

11-22-2006, 10:58 PM

i think this is indicative of what you were looking for
what we have now is an accident rate of 2.107% (28/1329)

in the far right column is the 'rate for that type' expressed as a multiplication factor.

ie. Rotordyne is 11.87 times the average rate

now for such a low sample for that type the data set will be most unreliable and would be considered a flyer (as data)
on the otherhand, the larger samples are much more reliable

magilla

11-23-2006, 07:31 AM

Folks - I applaud the attempts at trying to make sense of these horrible statistics;

However, the data is severely flawed, and the results are hopelessly skewed.

At the same time, we are applying rationality and common sense to the interpretation, which easily leads to vindication of one design over another.

I think the best way we can interpret the data is as an aggregate total of accidents and fatalities for the gyro community at large.

There are also a huge number of unreported accidents to unregistered aircraft and outlaw pilots...

Kind of like trying to find out which brand of gun kills the most people...:laser:

I think we can ALL rationally agree that training is important. Heck, it took me a year of every day flight school at Fort Rucker, AL, and 179 hours to get my helicopter license (Rotary Wing Instrument) - and when I was released from there, I was still a newbie...took me two and half years and 300 plus hours to earn Pilot-In-Command as a commissioned officer in one of the most forgiving helicopters ever produced - the venerable UH-1 Huey. (Could be I'm a bad pilot too...but I now have over 2000 hours and am a UH-60 Instructor Pilot and Maintenance Test Pilot :puke: ). Bottom line is that there is no replacement for good training. I had 500 hours total time before I was alloweed to be a PIC. I realize that is not practical in the case of recreational gyro pilots, but the point remains - there is no substitute for flight hours, training, and experience.

So, I consider any fatal accident with even 100-hour pilots as nothing less than "Pilot Inexperience." PIO, PPO, Stupid Human Trick (That icing story is classic) - all are a direct result of, or induced by, pilot inexperience.

On stability, there is no way you can argue rationally that a HS is not required. Not beating up RAF, but WTF, over? I'd think that they would at least put their acft in a virtual wind tunnel and test what has already been proven by those of you willing to admit there are flaws in the design. There is no excuse for RAF not promoting safety.

Lest you think that HS's don't have much impact, look at the UH-60 and the Stabilator problems they had in the mid-eighties. They weren't called the "UH-60 Lawn Dart" for nothing - uncommanded movement of the stab due to EMI made 16,000 pound acft dive into the ground with no way of correction. Not even aft cyclic and full collective (22,000 lbs of vertical thrust) could overcome the pitch-down momentum.

After doing numerous test flights with acft rigged incorrectly, a 10 degree departure of the stab makes for a HUGE difference in CG and stability.

So, where does that leave us?

Too little training, and some designs that make the former more apt to result in fatalities. Ugh.

Obviously there are more stable designs than others out there - the point is that if there are mods available, install them. If not, at least understand the limitations of your aircraft, and don't defend a poor design.

Fly safe.

There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots...

It's better to be on the ground wishing you were up there than the other way around.

And I don't fly VFR when the birds are walking.

PS: Mine is an experimental tractor, so I am looking at the results with an eye towards re-evaluating everything before I fly. One-off designs are rather high on the results list. :twitch: Will that make me stop building to fly? No, but will make me think twice about modifications, and safety factors. I want to figure a way to include a G-Force type landing gear, as they are the next level in gyro safety.

Just my 2 cents.

And Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Ga6riel

11-23-2006, 07:47 AM

sorry sport but i used what i could get and played it most every way i could

what is required is a more accurate and sample
that means it need not be the complete recored
for instance, the ownership record of a large group or club
a reasonableness test for cause of accident etc

what is clear is that even on the crude mean the stats are disasterous

C. Beaty

11-25-2006, 06:36 PM

UK RAF-2000 statistics.

G-INFO Record Nos.: 1 to 36
No----Registration---Status---Serial No.--------------------------valid C of A---- hrs
1-------G-BUYL-------R-------H2-92-361----------- RAF 2000-------------X------407
2-------G-BVSM-------R------EW42----------------- RAF 2000-------------X -
3-------G-BWAD------R-------PFA G/13-1254-------RAF 2000-------------X------240
4-------G-BWHS------R-------PFA G/13-1253-------RAF 2000-------------Y------138
5-------G-BWTK------R-------PFA G/13-1264-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----Y------1015
6-------G-BXAC-------R-------PFA G/13-1279-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----Y------373
7-------G-BXDD-------R-------PFA G/13-1284-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----X------107
8-------G-BXDE-------R-------PFA G/13-1280-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----X -
9-------G-BXEA-------R-------PFA G/13-1270-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----X------203
10------G-BXEB-------R-------PFA G/13-1285-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----X------409
11------G-BXGS-------R-------PFA G/13-1290-------RAF 2000-------------X------86
12------G-BXKM-------R-------PFA G/13-1291-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----X------140
13------G-BXMG-------R-------H2-92-3-59-----------RAF 2000-------------X------3
14------G-BYIN--------R-------PFA G/13-1305-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----X------73
15------G-CBCJ--------R-------PFA G/13-1331-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE----X------35
16------G-CBHC-------R-------PFA G/13-1326-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----Y-----156
17------G-CBHZ-------R-------PFA G/13-1321-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----N -
18------G-CBIT--------R-------PFA G/13-1340-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----N -
19------G-CBJE--------R-------PFA G/13-1342-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----N -
20------G-CBJN--------R-------PFA G/13-1335-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----N -
21------G-CBMJ--------R-------PFA G/13-1336-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----X----206
22------G-CCEU--------R-------001-------------------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----X----35
23------G-CCUH--------R-------PFA G/13-1356------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----Y-----8
24------G-CDJN--------R-------PFA G/13-1363-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----Y -
25------G-HOWL-------R-------H2-95-6-164---------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----Y----70
26------G-IRAF--------R--------PFA G/13-1278------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----Y----70
27------G-JEJE---------R-------PFA G/13-1352-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----Y----36
28------G-ONON-------R-------PFA G/13-1313-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE-----Y----57
29------G-PHLB--------R-------PFA G/13-1359-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE------Y -
30------G-RAFZ-------R--------PFA G/13-1295-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE------N -
31------G-REBA-------R--------PFA G/13-1334-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE------Y---174
32------G-SAYS-------R--------PFA G/13-1322-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE------Y---153
33------G-TXSE-------R--------PFA G/13-1271-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE------X -
34------G-YRAF-------R--------PFA G/13-1289-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE------X---72
35------G-YROJ-------R--------PFA G/13-1343-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE------N -
36------G-YROO------R--------PFA G/13-1341-------RAF 2000 GTX-SE------X---4

X=expired C of A; Y=valid C of A; N= C of A never issued

Of 36 RAF-2000s on the UK registry, 12 hold a valid Certificate of Airworthiness, 33% of the RAF total.

The reported flight hours total 4270 and I believe there have been 3 fatalities which is one fatality per 1423 flight hours or 211 per 100,000 flight hours. The fatality rate for general aviation in the US is about 1 per 100,000 flight hours.

The UK data base is too small to produce iron clad statistics but the data appears to be accurate and up to date. It’s a shame the FAA doesn’t have equally good data.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-25-2006, 06:56 PM

There are 25 that have reported as flown.

The average hours per aircraft is 170 hours.

However if you take the one high time machine (1015) hours out of the equasion they have averaged 136 hours per aircraft.

As I understand it in Britian they can not add a H.S.

How many have the stabilator?

I believe I have met the owner of the high time machine at Duxford when they had a gyro fly in there, and of course I met and talked to Commander Wallace, a true gentleman and extreemly friendly.

Chuck E.

Ga6riel

11-26-2006, 07:45 AM

UK RAF-2000 statistics.
The reported flight hours total 4270 and I believe there have been 3 fatalities which is one fatality per 1423 flight hours or 211 per 100,000 flight hours. The fatality rate for general aviation in the US is about 1 per 100,000 flight hours.

Chuck thanks for that

well thats an utterly appauling state of affairs
am i right in thinking that since some of these machines were certified
a different regime of littigation exists ?

C. Beaty

11-26-2006, 08:22 AM

I think Gabriel, the CAA’s C of A or permit to fly is roughly equivalent to the FAA’s “special” C of A for experimental (and “homebuilt” aircraft).

The “law” of product liability varies from one jurisdiction to the next; there is a pretty good thumbnail sketch here:

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/liabhomeblt.html

The bottom line being you can’t get blood out of a turnip.

gyroplanes

11-26-2006, 09:43 AM

USA Gyro statistics= totally worthless.
I spent the other night reading gyro accident reports, just for S&G I looked up the registration numbers of the accident aircraft. Almost every one is still on the FAA registry! It's all conjecture and for all we know the RAF might actually have the best "safety record" for hours flown. Many aircraft can not be found by recognizable make & model.

The Marchetti Avenger
Was once the "safest" gyro ever flown, with no accidents, ever, through it's entire fleet (of 6) a few years later and 2 of them have been involved in fatal accidents, 1 a nearly fatal accident and another destroyed when flight was attempted with a control lock in place.
Now the Marchetti has become one of the statistically "deadliest" and most dangerous of gyroplanes

Ultralight & illegal aircraft.
If it involves flight and certainly if it involves a fatality, it was investigated by the FAA and / or the NTSB. The FAA lists these aircraft as "Unregistered ultralights" in their statistics. I always try to pursue these "unregistered ultralight" accidents via local newspaper accounts to see if they were rotorcraft. I have not yet heard of a fatal accident, to any flying vehicle, that was not investigated by the FAA or NTSB.

Magilla,
The stab issues with the UH-60 are a lot like dynamic rollover. If you are flying along in any helo (or gyro) and something imparts a fuselage movement that exceeds the limits of your controls, you are going to be "out of control".

The RAF sees it's share of verbal abuse here, but there are a lot of other designs out there share a significant thrust line / C of G offset as well. They just don't get picked on.

The low rider Air Command is often referred to as the "Fetters era" Air Command, when in reality, historically speaking, the current owners didn't switch to NCLT until fairly recently, and I'll wager that they sold a lot more low-riders that they have NCLT. NCLT machines make up a very small percentage of the Air Command fleet.

Then you have the Brock designs. The Gyro-Kopp-Ters and a myriad of other designs that haven't been tested for stability.

The difference between a Duane Hunn, Dofin Fritz, Jim Logan and a Chuck Beatty, Doug Reilly and Tom Milton, is that the latter group have had an epiphany at different times in their gyro flying carrers regarding gyroplane stability. Unfortunately, our epiphany came 40 years too late to save many, many lives. I hope we don't have to wait another 40 years for everyone to come around.

We all built and flew unstable machines at one time. In that we are alike.

Ga6riel

11-26-2006, 09:50 AM

do the PRA keep a register ?

gyroplanes

11-26-2006, 09:53 AM

No, The PRA does not. The FAA has a registry system that is supposed to track hours flown, but it is neglected and largely unused.

Ga6riel

11-26-2006, 09:57 AM

wellllllll shoot...
what the hell kind of a place you fellas runnin out there :)

Martin Weaver

11-26-2006, 01:10 PM

On stability, there is no way you can argue rationally that a HS is not required. Not beating up RAF, but WTF, over? I'd think that they would at least put their acft in a virtual wind tunnel and test what has already been proven by those of you willing to admit there are flaws in the design. There is no excuse for RAF not promoting safety.

magilla, I take exception to the above statement. I am a retired Master Army Aviator and I do not make statements such as yours above without doing some research and fact finding. The fact that RAF started the "Ask First Society" back in the 90's to address training issues stomps out your knowledge of RAF's involvement with safety. Second, RAF, as far as I know, has been the only manufacturer who has offered rebate to builders of the RAF for the first twnty hours of training if they received that training with a factory approved flight instructor. Third, RAF accepted the stabilator as standard equipment with its kit.

Before I even considered purchasing a RAF I had the pleasure and fortunate experience of flying with most of the RAF factory approved instructors. I even flew with one that went his own way. Before I accuse a manufacturer of not supporting safety I would get my facts straight.

Martin Weaver

11-26-2006, 01:22 PM

Tom, you are right, the FAA statistics are based on those aircraft registered. Most people who have been around general aviation very long know of incidents or accidents that occur and no one is injured therefore not reported. We even had a mystery Bensen at our airport that was hidden in a hangar for years that was wrecked and put back together a couple of times.

The flight hours obtained by the FAA is whatever is reported by the owner during the bi-annual surveys. Then some geek gets the info and places it in a data base. The FAA comes out with the info but you would have a hard time finding it. The AOPA puts together a NELL report and it is probably more factual than anything I have seen. The trouble is it does not address gyroplanes. Maybe PRA could put on the membership renewal form a questionaire that asks owners how much flying they have done in the last year. Then we could stomp out a lot of conjucture (wild a.. guessing)!

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-26-2006, 01:41 PM

" The fact that RAF started the "Ask First Society" back in the 90's to address training issues "

Well please allow me to add some background information to this Marty.

I was the first flying instructor to be involved in trying to set up a training program with RAF in 1991/92.

I had to sever relations with RAF due to their refusal to accept any advice regarding flight instruction or suggestions that they would be advised to fix the pitch instability of the RAF 2000.

Transport Canada was concerned enough with the mindset at RAF that rather than risk exposing my flight school to unwanted and unneeded scrutiny from the Federal Regulator I severed my association with RAF. In my opinion I could not risk the possible problems with the regulator as I had nine fixed wing aircraft and one helicopter in my school.

My only face to face contact with RAF from that point in time was in 1994 when I was subpeonaed to testify as a witness for the Crown in a case concerning RAF falsifying legal documents. These documents were related to their seeking approval for my school and me to conduct flight training for RAF and their clients.

RAF was found guilty and I was releived that my school was no longer associated with their operation.

Just thought I would add those facts to this little discussion.

Chuck E.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-26-2006, 02:13 PM

Further to my last post, the facts that I related are of course based on what transpired in the early ninties and of course their methods and attitudes towards flight training could have changed over the years.

I do believe though that they still offer the stock RAF 2000 with no stabalizing devices on it but their instructors/ salesmen are no longer required to teach on it if they choose to use RAF's with satabalizing add ons.

So I guess they are slowly changing.

C. Beaty

11-26-2006, 04:46 PM

Some simple arithmetic:

One fatality per 1400 flight hours doesn’t mean the odds are 1400:1.

According to CAA records, 25 RAF-2000s have flown and 2 have tumbled out of the air. The odds of tumbling out of the air are therefore 12.5:1 which pretty well mirrors the US tumble rate.

I suspect the Canadian tumble rate is about the same but statistics to back it up with aren’t available.

The Canadian aircraft registry shows 75 RAF-2000s but there apparently is no way of telling how many have actually flown or how many possess current C of A. Some RAF-2000s still on the registry ended up at the bottom smoking holes. Others, like Chuck E.’s, gather dust in a barn.

One interesting datum is model year which seems to be the year of shipment from the factory. The year Chuck E. purchased his RAF-2000, 1992, was a banner year for shipments but they’ve been in decline nearly every year since. There is no listing of ‘05 or ‘06 models. Could be of course that purchasers of ‘05 and ‘06 models haven’t yet registered.

The Canadian data can be accessed here:

http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*87905284!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/search_cnr-complex.html

Type: RAF*2000 in the search window for aircraft model.

dragonflyerthom

11-26-2006, 04:58 PM

Chuck according to you guys figures there are 253 I believe RAFs and 11 fatalities which would give a little less than 25 to 1 if that is the way you are going to figure it. And since we need to look at apples it would be 75 to 2OR 3 since we can't examine the flight hours like the UK.

C. Beaty

11-26-2006, 05:14 PM

The problem with FAA statistics is there is no way of knowing how many RAF-2000s have flown or how many possess valid C of A.

In the UK, 33% of RAFs have a current C of A and in South Africa, 20% have a current C of A.

I’m giving US RAFs the benefit of the doubt by guessing ~50% have a current C of A.

If there are more RAFs flying in the US, the owners stay well hidden.

I’ve never seen more than 5 RAFs at any one time at an aviation event where there will be dozens of Air Commands, Dominators and even Bensens. Usually, no more than 2 or 3 of which 2 are dealers.

And even if all 253 have a valid C of A, the odds of 21:1 aren’t all that far from the UK rate.

If one out of every twenty one Toyotas was involved in a fatal crash, how long do you think they would be able to stay in business?

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-26-2006, 05:26 PM

Well it has been a long time since I have heard of a RAF 2000 being flown in Canada, the last time I knew of one was the stolen one that bunted in the Vancouver area, the pilot had been trained by a RAF approved instructor in Wetaskiwin Alberta but that was years ago.

I had a list of about 35 Canadian RAF owners and flight instructors that had gotten together to bring a class action lawsuit against RAF to get their money back due to the inability to get any back up for unsatisfactory or just plain junk parts on their gyros. Unfortunately I lost the list in a computer crash years ago and can't find the paper list.

Suffice to say there were about 5 to 10 instructors who went through the mill here in Canada most just quit due to being unable to deal with RAF and at least three more died in RAF loss of control accidents.

An interesting near death happened to one of the RAF instructors just before Doug Peterson got killed in the loss of control accident at the factory, he had the windshield collapse on him and the pressure of trying to hold the windshield far enough foward to maintain enough foward stick to keep it flying was almost beyond his ability to do. The last time I talked to that instructor he suggested that the windshield could have collapsed....but how could it tumble with the stick back if it was the windshield? We was also one of the people who wanted to sue RAF for crap engines and many other parts that they would not replace.

Anyhow I doubt there are any RAF's flying in Canada now, the last one I know of was the one that killed the instructor in Quebec.

Does anyone know if that one had a stabilator on it?

Chuck E.

dragonflyerthom

11-27-2006, 03:03 AM

Chuck E
Based on your statements above then my CFI who has an AAI modified RAF and I have a H/S modified RAF(which I am getting airworthy) are the only RAFs around that will fly. You have gone off the deep end. The incident you talk about caused the company to put a Vne of 100 mph on all the RAFs and to offer the new cabin to all current owners and their new kits.
It is this type of meligning statements that cause you to lose credibility Chuck. Makes me wonder how can they crash if they aren't flying. OK now lets bash RAF some more Chuck. We have lost the topic of this thread. This is supposed to be the most dangerous part of aviation. Looking at the number give me hope that I truly will live a long life as a gyro pilot. Based on the facts gyros are safer than fixed wings. Even if it is a stock RAF. Thanks Chuck and Chuck. I think of the thousands , heck millions,that have gone to their maker in FW, Autos, Motorcycles, and Boats. Steve you did good. Steve don't you fly a RAF. Then there is Harry S and Rudy G and Marty Weaver and on and on oh yea what about the ones in South Africa.
Oh by the way here is a site that must have virtual RAFs http://rafpilots.com/

C. Beaty

11-27-2006, 07:10 AM

"I certify that I have thoroughly tested my gasoline powered pogo stick and that I find it to be stable and controllable in all maneuvers."

gyroplanes

11-27-2006, 07:21 AM

Chuck E,
The McCulloch J-2 would cave the windshield in during high speed flight as well.

Chuck B,
You gotta get out of Florida more often. Kerry probably has the numbers, but I believe RAF has had the most numbers at Mentone for the last few years. I don't think were were more that 2-3 Air Commands where once there were dozens. Bensens made a strong comeback lately.

I don't know if it's a valid indicator, but RAF tops the list of new certifications I have done. I have certified many different gyros. When I get a chance I'll do a breakdown. I think you would all be surprised.

Steve Osborne

11-27-2006, 07:23 AM

So you are flying a pogo stick. Wow, got any photos?

Brent Drake

11-27-2006, 07:43 AM

All right guys, My son bent over my shoulder and seen the flying pogo stick lines and now he wants one. HAHA

Ga6riel

11-27-2006, 07:54 AM

i hear Chuck's is certifiable...

C. Beaty

11-27-2006, 08:11 AM

So you are flying a pogo stick. Wow, got any photos?

Well, yes, it flies for about 6 feet between hops.

But please note, the gasoline driven plunger’s line of action must pass through the operator’s CG; otherwise, it tumbles.

Hop Rod:

http://www.bpmlegal.com/wpogo.html

C. Beaty

11-27-2006, 11:37 AM

Chuck B,
You gotta get out of Florida more often. Kerry probably has the numbers, but I believe RAF has had the most numbers at Mentone for the last few years. I don't think were were more that 2-3 Air Commands where once there were dozens. Bensens made a strong comeback lately.

Tom, the more I look at the statistics, the more I believe my speculation is correct.

I picked page 4 of the RAF registration list at random and came up with this:

51 registered
27 issued an initial C of A of which 2 splattered.
14 entries show zero existent.
3 sold or questionable.

There is no indication of the number of C of As up to date and valid. I would be very surprised to find it’s 100%.

The RAF groupies blow a lot of smoke about the hundreds and hundreds safely flying for thousands and thousands of hours but that is wishful thinking without supporting evidence.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-27-2006, 01:58 PM

" The RAF groupies blow a lot of smoke about the hundreds and hundreds safely flying for thousands and thousands of hours but that is wishful thinking without supporting evidence. "

Well Chuck, we seem to have a few RAF owners here, so maybe someone could start a thead with their hours flown since they built it and the number of hours flown per year.

Maybe they could be seperated into Countries as well.

And of course it would be nice to see the RAF instructors post their flying times...on RAF's.

Chuck E.

John Stahl

11-27-2006, 02:26 PM

When I first put these numbers together I was more interested in seeing if the dismal fatality record the gyro has improved.
I wasn’t really intending to start a RAF bash thread.

There is a rule in the horse circles.
Never speak poorly of some ones else’s horse. For that horse is the owners pride and joy.

I’m sorry that I have spoken poorly of your pride and joy.

Hognose

11-27-2006, 05:10 PM

USA Gyro statistics= totally worthless.

Just about. The UK stats have high potential to be useful, however. We need to go beyond just RAF though. While the US stats that Rob and I crunched have their deficiencies, I hope that they at least illustrated that cherry-picking one make and comparing its stats to another make doesn't tell you about where in the continuum the two sit.

Now the Marchetti has become one of the statistically "deadliest" and most dangerous of gyroplanes

Judging from the unrecoverable flight regime that the Sy Smith/Jamie Bodie injury accident displayed, that might be a deserved rep? Not what I consider a safe or stable airplane.

Ultralight & illegal aircraft.
If it involves flight and certainly if it involves a fatality, it was investigated by the FAA and / or the NTSB. The FAA lists these aircraft as "Unregistered ultralights" in their statistics. I always try to pursue these "unregistered ultralight" accidents via local newspaper accounts to see if they were rotorcraft. I have not yet heard of a fatal accident, to any flying vehicle, that was not investigated by the FAA or NTSB.

Sorry Tom, but the fact of the matter is that relatively few UL/illegal fatals have been investigated by FAA (and fewer still by NTSB). Perhaps Marty has an inside view on this, but I have been told by inspectors that they had enough to do and as far as they were concerned, an UL accident is no different from a snowmobile or motorcycle accident -- let the police investigate it.

The RAF sees it's share of verbal abuse here, but there are a lot of other designs out there share a significant thrust line / C of G offset as well. They just don't get picked on.

That's probably true, Tom. The RAF gets picked on perhaps because it's highly visible, its instructors defend its non-stab/HTL design, even saying that that is a superior and safer design. (This is not true of all the instructors by any means, I know one who recommends a stab if no one from the mothership is watching, at least for newbies... another considers the stabless config perfectly safe but doesn't argue the party line that a stab is hazardous).

But the low-rider AC and the hi-thrust Brock, among others, have been singled out here by the same stability police.

If we looked at the planes by mean hours flown, RAF might look pretty good, thanks to instructors like Duane and Jim who have thousands of hours on their airframes, right up there with fixed-wing trainer times (remember when we'd pass on buying a plane cause it was "high-time" with 2500 hours? Geez).

But for that specific reason, I think that medians are more significant than means when we analyse this kind of statistical data.

The low rider Air Command is often referred to as the "Fetters era" Air Command

Dennis calls it the "classic" Air Command. Hey, I'm just reporting, you decide. Them's his words. You and I think the new owners and Larry Neal improved the safety and handling of the gyro. Dennis thinks they screwed up a classic! (Still, I'd love to see him as VP of marketing in a gyro company).

cheers

-=K=-

Ga6riel

11-27-2006, 05:23 PM

it is possible that other features of the RAF contribute to easier nose overs
someone already discussed the pressure on the screen

my immediate thoughts then are that at speed there is a nose down moment coming from forward of the CG via the cabin, with no stabiliser to counter it

Hognose

11-27-2006, 05:54 PM

The flight hours obtained by the FAA is whatever is reported by the owner during the bi-annual surveys.

Uh-huh. And the FAA has to cover everything that flies, from us to guys flying ex-military MiGs to 747-800Fs full of Christmas packages and A340s full of people who put blind trust in "the system" to transport them safely and on time, to SpaceShipOne and successors; so we are not their main priority.

The AOPA puts together a NALL report and it is probably more factual than anything I have seen. The trouble is it does not address gyroplanes.

AOPA's Nall reports are the source of my frequent statement in this forum, that there are about three hundred fatal accidents in a typical year, taking about five hundred lives, in all general aviation. (GA includes everything from, again, us, to flight schools (very safe) and corporate aviation (very safe), to helicopter logging, firefighting and EMS flying (not so safe). I thought that the Nall reports included gyro prangs and fatalities, but I just checked based on what Marty said, and he's right. The Nall report covers fixed-wing aircraft only!

The Nall reports from 1997-2005 are available here:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

Some generalities emerge from the Nall reports that are probably germane to all kinds of flying:

- pilot error causes most accidents (70%+)
- personal flight is the most dangerous, accounting for only half the hours but over 70% of the fatal mishaps
- more than half of pilot-error accidents occur on takeoff or landing.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nallfaq_05.html

There is much, much more good dope to be had on the ASF's page, including online safety classes, flash cards, newsletters etc. And it's all free, you don't even have to be an AOPA member... just give a damn!

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/

Maybe PRA could put on the membership renewal form a questionaire that asks owners how much flying they have done in the last year. Then we could stomp out a lot of conjucture (wild a.. guessing)!

That is a really good idea.

How much total time do you have?

How much Rotorcraft time? Helo? Gyro?

How much in your current aircraft?

I would guess Jim Logan's RAF is the high-time queen of the gyro fleet. And I'd guess that the original Baby Belle demonstrator is the high-time amateur built helicopter. But those are just WAGs!

cheers

-=K=-

Hognose

11-27-2006, 06:06 PM

in South Africa, 20% have a current C of A.

I paged through the South African prangs for the last five years and found something I thought was interesting. There were about 15 gyro prangs, mostly Magnis with a few Sycamores, but all were nonfatal accidents (despite a couple of stupid pilot tricks, when you read the synposes).

There were no reported mishaps of Bensen, RAF, or any other type, just Magnis and Sycamores. (Sycamore is local in the RSA and Magni has a strong dealer).

Dunno what this means. It was just interesting reading.

cheers

-=K=-

C. Beaty

11-27-2006, 07:07 PM

You’ll find, Kevin, that unlike FWs, takeoff and landing accidents rarely cause a fatality or even serious injury. The speed is just too low.

Gyro fatalities usually result from something going wrong at altitude; loss of control or catastrophic mechanical failure.

Thankfully, mechanical failures are quite rare; in all the years I’ve been around gyros, only 5 come to mind; two control system failures, one of which was slipshod maintenance and the other a design flaw; and two rotorhead failures, one of which was faulty assembly by the owner and the other a flaw by the owner/designer. The fifth was the recent accident in Puerto Rico where miscommunication seems to have been involved.

The remainder, mostly, have been loss of control.

One well know loss of control accident occurred in Florida in the late ‘60s. The pilot, Dick Montgomery, seemed like he could walk on water to us novices just learning to fly with chicken hops down the runway.

Dick had a gyro of his own design that was called, with affection, the Flying Anvil. It had a Continental engine, most likely a C-90 and was truly a low rider. The pilot sat directly on the keel with the propeller thrust line about in line with his head. The plywood rotor blades of about 9” chord were originals also but most likely patterned after Bensen wood blades. Naturally, no horizontal stabilizer.

Dick had sold the machine to a buyer in Orlando and was demonstrating it on a blustery day, doing high speed passes and zoom climbs.

It abruptly tumbled out of the air in a shower of blade splinters. Dick survived for a couple of days on life support.

In those days, no one had ever heard of any essential relationship between propeller thrust line and CG. We all speculated about blades going supersonic and exploding and a lot of other misconceptions.

It was nothing more or less than a bunt from unloaded rotors.

magilla

11-28-2006, 11:18 AM

Mr. Weaver:

Sorry if I offended you - it's the problem with internet bb's. Implied and inferred meanings to statements are two COMPLETELY different things.

I do NOT have an axe to grind with RAF - in fact, I could care less other than the deception of unknowing people...

My statement about RAF had to do with their refusal to acknowledge the safety factor of the horizontal stab.

It may have seemed flip, but I was intending to show that the steadfast refusal of RAF to modify their acft to include an HS as part of the standard package (no doubt because the sharks would soon swim) was bordering on criminal. Why on earth would they continue to push the original design knowing that there were stability issues (ones that still existed no matter how much training you had?)

Do we admit there's a problem with the design, or do we let the Pinto/Corvair/Explorer stay on the road and hope nobody wins a lawsuit ??? Cost - benefit analysis clearly shows that the latter is the best bet.

I personally don't have a beef with any design, and think that with the right amount of training, some defects and flaws can be overcome.

However, sometimes you gotta call it like it is... and some designs are more unsafe than others. If the shoe fits...

I really just think that its unfair for a manufacturer to sell a product that they know is unsafe, period.

On the other hand - I sit in judgment of no one. If any of you X-brand gyro flyers out there want to fly your X-brand gyro - then have at it!! Have fun, be safe, and know the limitations and tendencies of your acft!!

IF EVERYONE WORRIED ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR FIRST, AND QUIT WORRYING ABOUT OTHERS, THIS WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE...

So in a sense, it is NUNYA what other people fly...I get it.

Caveat:

Personal responsibility: If you knowingly fly an unsafe gyro, then you, and only you, are responsible for the consequences, good or bad.

If you know your gyro has poor stability, and you fly it and crash, then it is your fault, not the manufacturer's.

If you buy a gyro, and the manufacturer knows there are flaws in the design and purposely avoids telling you, then we have a different matter completely.

Spin it any way you like, but them's the apples, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION

Peace, out!

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-28-2006, 01:07 PM

magilla:

Well said.

Now lets see how this goes, the part that is iffy is this bit.

" If you buy a gyro, and the manufacturer knows there are flaws in the design and purposely avoids telling you, then we have a different matter completely."