Bensen B8MR, G-BIGU final report

[PTKay]

Taking the risk that I repeat another thread, I would like
to direct your attention to the final report of the G-BIGU
accident from last year:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_030918.hcsp

This is the best analysis, most professional I have ever seen.

I think careful lecture of this report could help settle down
some vain discussions on this forum.

PTKay

[PTKay]

I think the most dramatic part of the report is:

Safety record of gyroplanes:

The safety record for gyroplanes is very poor compared to other types of aircraft. Since 1989 there have been 15 fatal gyroplane accidents in the UK. In that period there were only between 200 and 265 gyroplanes on the UK register. Based on CAA estimates of hours flown, this places the fatal accident rate for gyroplanes at 27.1 per 100,000 flight hours. This compares to just 2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours for microlight aircraft and only 1.1 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours for light fixed wing general aviation aircraft. The fact that the fatal gyroplane accident rate is more than 13 times greater than that for similar weight microlight aircraft raises serious questions over the design of gyroplanes and the training of gyroplane pilots.

A review of the 15 fatal accidents showed that 13 of the pilots involved held a licence for fixed wing aircraft or helicopters. One of the 15 fatalities had a total flying experience on gyroplanes of 170 hours but none of the others had more than 50 hours and 6 had less than 10 hours.

[Vance]

That is a very nicely done and informative report. Thank you, Vance

[quadrirotor]

I forsee the time when tilt rotor will be forbiden for mono rotored rotorcrafts! moreover for gyroplanes! :mad: as now three wheelers are forbiden in the ATV market!... :cool: as unicycle disapeared from the street!! :rolleyes:

[Victor Duarte]

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

[quadrirotor]

Yes, Victor, when a fix-wing pilot pilots a gyro (or an helicopter) with a tilt rotor, he thinks that the stick gives him control on the pitch (and roll) of the gyro...WRONG! the stick gives you control only on the pitch (and roll) of the ROTOR!...The fuselage is hanged at the center of the rotor with an universal joint!!! :(

[Victor Duarte]

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

[Dean_Dolph]

hi andre, paul,

its not only a matter of rotor, for what i know, main accidents (in france) are due to > inexperience and swap from fixed to gyro, unsufficient training.. here, we are late compared to US, and everyone wants to fly cheaper > less lessons > cheaper instructors (when there are skilled ones) ... New enthusiasts see the gyro as a cheap way to fly. I guess it depends on what a person calls cheap but it is not cheap!

The training problem also exists in the U.S. but what is available, along with better education on stability, appears to be lowering the incident rate in the U.S. I don't have any numbers but it seems there have been fewer incident reports in the last twelve months.

[chuter]

Sounds to me like the simple, inexpensive horizontal stabilizer would help a LOT. :rolleyes:

[jucie]

It appears to me that fear played a role in this whole story. The novice pilot wasn't feeling confortable with his new machine, maybe he just wasn't able to figure why (not enough technical knowledge about gyro design and stability issues). He was trying to surpass what he judged as a simple novice fear (the test pilot assured the gyro was good enough).

Once a time, a friend of mine interrupted a gyro lesson right in the middle, paid the instructor and went home. He was admitedly afraid of flying that day. I respect that kind of decision. It's very difficult to a novice to judge if his fear is justified or not, but if he chooses not to go, he is on his own right. The next day my friend came back and got his lesson.

[quadrirotor]

beneath, you have:
gyro without stab+hlt+tiltrotor........................gyro with stab+clt+tiltrotor..
gyro with stab+clt+offsethingedblades.............simpl.sync hropter(tiltrot)+stab+elev

[Victor Duarte]

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

[Brent_Brown]

Why is it a gyro can make so many power out / dead stick landings and still fly again. I will tell you it is a better design. I have had 4 dead stick landings with no damage at all to me or the gyro. ask the old Mac flyers how many they had. other type AC can't do that and that is why I like the gyro. It gives you more outs, if need be I can stop forward flight and put it in safe.

The report aree all BS.

[scott heger]

That is the most detailed well thought out gyro accident report I have seen by any goverment official. You could take the report of many gyro non stabilized high thrustline accidents and come to many of the same conclusions. It cuts right to the chase on certain models of gyros/training/CLT//cross model training/low time pilot skills etc. and their fatal results and problems. The stats of hours flown/accidents probably is got to be one of the worst of powered flight(But they can still get insurance in England-go figure). England obviously takes their pilots falling out of the sky seriously, and is working to fix the problems. With a accident rate of more than 25 TIMES the rate of G.A.by hours flown, it would be a reasonable step to take. It appears our own U.S. gyro industry is having a hard time even aggreeing on a standard on which to get Light Sport Aircraft built. What a mess.

Scott Heger, Laguna Niguel, Ca N86SH

[PTKay]

Scott,

I am happy you share my opinion. I think this is the exact way the gyro
discussion should be continued.

After I posted, I was a little afraid, that my new thread will be again
limited to our "dreamers" sub-forum (Andre, Victor, Paul; CA, F, PL),
so I appreciate very much that somebody from US shares my opinion.

Brent,

that feature of the gyros was exactly what made me interested
in these machines, also the STOVL ability, which I need for the way
I expect to use an (my future) aircraft.
Taking advatage of the perfect analysis in the report I hope to
have a perfectly safe machine. Engine out is just one of the problems...

PTKay

[Dean_Dolph]

I forsee the time when tilt rotor will be forbiden for mono rotored rotorcrafts! Don't bet your life savings on it! It is simple, relatively inexpensive, fits the mission for a recreational gyro and it is not the problem!

[quadrirotor]

You can kill yourself with more cheaper! what's the problem?

[scottessex]

Hey I ride a unicycle, and one of those skate-bikes too.
It is all about BALANCE just like flying a gyro, find the balance.
If you really want people to be safe, you should outlaw flying, and keep everyone on the ground the way God intended.

You guys really need to go and get a ride in a gyro, or start taking lessons before you "reinvent the wheel".

Lots of people die in thier bathtubs every year because they slip. Should we outlaw bathing?

Nobody makes it out of here alive , live a little!

[Dean_Dolph]

You can kill yourself with more cheaper! what's the problem? Of course you can! Whats the problem?

Cheap means different things to different people. Making things cheaper is the last item in the chain of development. You don't start out with cost being the prime criteria.

Those that get into gyros because they think they are cheap are starting off with the wrong mind set. If costs, rather than the allure of the gyros performance features, is the the main reason to get into gyros then the stage has been set for disappointment and tragedy.

[quadrirotor]

:confused:

[Dean_Dolph]

My personal opinion is that the root of the safety problem was planted when Bensen Aviation advertised that any one that could ride a bicycle could fly a gyro.

Pilots in those days self trained and even though two place trainers are used now, there is still that old mind set among new people that the gyro is easy to fly. And why wouldn't they think that since we haven't done a good job of destroying that myth. It is my understanding that the gyro is easy to fly when compared to other aircraft but that doesn't mean that it doesn't require skill building or special skills and understanding of the machines dynamics.

Also at the heart of the problem is the fact that a Bensen style machine looks like a play toy, something that can't possibly be hard to fly. New people don't recognize that there is complexity within the simplicity. And that simplicity, without understanding the complexity, leads to modifications that can impact the performance and handling of the machine.

The apparent simplicity also leads people to buy a machine based on esthetics and the marketing hype of the manufacturer rather than features or performance specs that identify stability issues and a safe or potentially unsafe machine.i m shure, but why not test a little elevation ? just a kind of trim ;)
stabilizer adds stability but doesnt orient fuselage ... i already posted here to ask for comments on such a device.. i have not a complete answer.. its only a reflexion.. sould be tried..If the evolution of the gyro is as depicted in Bruce Charnov's book, 'From Autogyro to Gyroplane' and I have no reason to doubt it, then direct control of the rotor isn't the problem. Pitcairn, Cierva and others found a reason to use direct control as a replacement for elevator control. I don't know what Ron Herron's reasons were but he also changed from elevator control to direct control on the Little Wing. And of course the horizontal stabilizer (and vertical stab) orients the fuselage! That is exactly what is being said in the stability discussions. And, no, I won't get into a technical discussion on this issue!

I believe recreational gyro design is moving in the right direction with the development of the U.S. LSA consensus standards and the next big fix will be the training area. I suspect that this will be harder to get a consensus on. First the instructors and others have to agree that a fix is needed and that will be difficult. The end result may be even harder to sell to a gyro community that has accepted the low training hours that have been publicized and the proficiency acquired in those low hours. Again, it goes back to Bensen's promotion of easy to fly, easy to train.

In the mean time there is an on going effort that we are all part of. And that is to provide the most important part of the answer to improving the gyro safety record by using this Forum, the PRA, ASC and other organizations to educate, educate, educate!

[Dean_Dolph]

…….. It appears our own U.S. gyro industry is having a hard time even aggreeing on a standard on which to get Light Sport Aircraft built. What a mess.

Scott Heger, Laguna Niguel, Ca N86SHScott, it is not so much that there is difficulty in reaching an agreement as it is that this is a VERY large undertaking. There are more facets to this jewel that anyone wants to count. Throw in the fact that this is work that has never been attempted before in a diverse community known to be innovative and you end up with the so called mess you talk about. A good mess! Just the wordsmithing alone is a daunting task and the word count has to be astronomical.

Apparently there are several more standards to be completed by the first of the year but the biggie, the stability standard has been agreed too. I say this is the biggie because when it is disseminated and understood by us, the backyard da Vinci, then we can also build to the standards. The kit manufacturers will also have a standard that they can design too and can advertise that fact. In the end it will be good, patience, patience, patience!

[Dean_Dolph]

Meaning? You can't be subtle with me, Andre, I'm not intelligent enough!

[Dean_Dolph]

It looks like you have decided to delete your posts so my replies will be confusing to some but I'm going to leave them as is.

[Victor Duarte]

dean, you re right, we are deamers and should fly gyro before talk.. in my case i have only 2 hours with an intructor, several flying b47 , jet ranger, an ultralight..
really not enough to talk... ok i just deleted my posts as they may look unappropriate.

i just want to say how i came into gyro ... first time i saw one fly at muret-toulouse(1988), i wasnt really convinced..;appeared to me dangerous and the simplicity you tell was more a factor of fear than safety.. the "club" appreared to me like a band of "happy guys" experimenting crazy ways to fly..

when i talked to the persons flying it.. they exposed the reasons of their choice : mainly : it doesnt stall (good point) second : its cheaper to build ... believe me..

why do you think i havent built a gyro yet ? because before that i must have a complete surround view of aerodynamics, i dont like to go in anything i cant understand.. call it hesitation if you want.... be shure of one thing : i wont ever take a step in a machine i dont trust... i m going to be father, my baby needs a good and alive one..

about technical discussion, i m not engineer, just trying to investigate , then understand, thanks for your answer about elevator..thats the kind of opinion precious to me... now i ll investigate why cierva etc left this solution..

you re right, a myth has been spread about gyro .. and some must fight it.. but agree, plz, that the first gyro homebuilders were almost "experimental" and if there were serious rules about building them, lots souldnt have flown...

i promise to keep my future posts for "crazy dreamers" threads only

anyway, thanks for your opinion, i prefer read that than stay in darkness, indeed
victor

[PTKay]

OK, it seems I have not reached what I wanted.

I was sure that the report mentioning some serious
(probably first and only) ananalysis done by the Glasgow people
will calm down the emotional arguments and bring some
common sense.

Please note in the report, that Magni is mentioned as stable one. Why ?

Look back and find, that this is also a result of a professional approach
by Jukka Tervamaki in gyro aerodynamics and theory.
http://www.icon.fi/~jtki/autogyro.html

Everyting else is (except maybe CC and GroenBros) more or less
back yard experimenting with different solutions.

Which of the gyros have ever seen a wind tunel ?

OK, you will say, where should the money come from ?
But you can also try at least like CC did (see below).

""Poor Boy" wind tunnel testing of a 1/6th scale model
is accomplished by truck mounting the model on an 8 ft. boom. "

For the light gyros you can easilly mount it on top of your
huge "full size pick-ups" and chase it 60-80 mph in different
attitude around the airfiled.

Please read carefully the section on stability and the rules
in the T part in UK. It's so simple, so what is all this "wordhammering"
and diskussion on the LSA (Gyro) rules about ?

PTKay

[jucie]

My personal opinion is that the root of the safety problem was planted when Bensen Aviation advertised that any one that could ride a bicycle could fly a gyro.

If you allows me, Dean, I think that it has a deeper motivation. Gyros appeals to people in unique way. They think it's easy to ride. They are not so wrong, after all. To pilot a gyro isn't that hard. People just doens't realize how much training is needed to achieve a good level of proficiency.

Once in a while, somebody approaches the hangar (they never saw a gyro before) and asks "who rents this machine? No, I prefer that other, because it has 2 seats." Then the guy says to his wife. "What do you think, my dear? Do you prefer the blue or the yellow one?"

Believe it or not, Dean, they arent playing a joke on us. They really think they can rent a gyro and give themselves a ride, as one rent a byke at a public park and return it after one hour. I have seen scenes like this many times. They get frustrated when we explain one has to get lessons and fly at least 40 hours alone, before dreaming of giving anyone a ride. You should see his face, when we say that. I can read his mind: "Why it takes that many hours of training? I just want a 1/2 hour ride with my wife!"

[PTKay]

Jucie,

this is also a good point....

[Dean_Dolph]

OK, it seems I have not reached what I wanted.

I was sure that the report mentioning some serious
(probably first and only) ananalysis done by the Glasgow people
will calm down the emotional arguments and bring some
common sense. Common sense?! Where is the fun in that?!! :) Besides, the efforts/reports by the Glasgow people are well known here. Most seem to accept the conclusions. Please note in the report, that Magni is mentioned as stable one. Why ?

Look back and find, that this is also a result of a professional approach
by Jukka Tervamaki in gyro aerodynamics and theory.
http://www.icon.fi/~jtki/autogyro.html I admire Tervamaki and his work. It points out that there is more than one way to get there from here. However his early gyro work could still be considered a backyard venture. He started out, like most, with a Bensen, which I'm sure you know. Everyting else is (except maybe CC and GroenBros) more or less
back yard experimenting with different solutions. Sure it is and I wouldn't have it any other way! If you ignore the funding that Cierva and Pitcairn had then their efforts were also backyard. The only difference I see between backyard engineering and the 'skunk works' is the degree of knowledge. But, innovation isn't limited to the people in the 'skunk works' or those who have funding and other resources. OK, you will say, where should the money come from ?
But you can also try at least like CC did (see below).

""Poor Boy" wind tunnel testing of a 1/6th scale model
is accomplished by truck mounting the model on an 8 ft. boom. "

For the light gyros you can easilly mount it on top of your
huge "full size pick-ups" and chase it 60-80 mph in different
attitude around the airfiled. Paul, using models is recognized by most to be a good testing method. Doug Riley used the methods you describe in testing horizontal stabilizer performance. Others here also promote this. It is not always upward scaleable and sometimes raises more questions than it answers but it does have value.

But, the fact is that model building and testing is tedious and most of us don't have the talents, expertise or resources, including time, to execute this type of testing program. So the backyard builders, which means most of us that visit here, have to play follow the leader and trust that they are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean we blindly follow. We have to take personal responsibility for using what we do. Please read carefully the section on stability and the rules
in the T part in UK. It's so simple, so what is all this "wordhammering"
and diskussion on the LSA (Gyro) rules about ?

PTKay Paul, the (45 - 50? Members) LSA ASTM sub-committee on gyroplane stability & performance standards was made up of people from around the world. Obviously most of them were from the U.S. And people like Jukka Tervamaki were on the cc list. I never saw him, or some of the others, actually participate in the discussions but they were copied with the proceedings and had an opportunity to comment. I don't know if there was email being exchanged outside the Internet discussions or not but there was evidence that this could have been taking place.

People outside the U.S. that participated on the sub-committee and were familiar with, and operated under, Section T gave less than a glowing picture of it. While I believe that portions were incorporated into the LSA standard after making mods to make them fit the needs of the U.S. there were others that were rejected. outright. Occasionally there are messages posted here by those who have to live with Sections T's restrictions and it is easy to understand that there are some portions to be avoided. I guess you would have to live in the different territories and experience how the different political and regulatory systems work before an honest assessment could be made. I do know that I wouldn't be happy with the outright ban of machines that take place when a rash of incidents take place. U.S. citizens, for the most part, ask that the government(s) not decide what is best for them.

[quadrirotor]

Yes, an aircraft must be as idiot-proof as possible!!!! :D

[Dean_Dolph]

If you allows me, Dean, I think that it has a deeper motivation. Gyros appeals to people in unique way. They think it's easy to ride. They are not so wrong, after all. To pilot a gyro isn't that hard. People just doens't realize how much training is needed to achieve a good level of proficiency. Jucie, I don't think that we disagree but are saying the same think in different ways. I just pointed out the original origin of the problems we have today.

Once in a while, somebody approaches the hangar (they never saw a gyro before) and asks "who rents this machine? No, I prefer that other, because it has 2 seats." Then the guy says to his wife. "What do you think, my dear? Do you prefer the blue or the yellow one?"

Believe it or not, Dean, they arent playing a joke on us. You don't have to convince me! I interviewed Marion Springer (hope the rumor of her writing a book is true!) at El Mirage '01 in a brain picking effort to find out her thoughts on training. She told some crazy tales about people new to gyros. I won't retell because she may very well have them in the book.

[PW_Plack]

Andre,

Any time you "idiot-proof" a machine, you also risk making it "genius-proof." That is to say, you penalize people making legitimate improvements if you deny them the opportunity to fail.

In almost every aspect of life in the United States, we used to enjoy the right to choose the risks we would take. Now, we are required to buy automobiles with airbags, wear helmets when riding motorcycles, and pay way too much for government-approved aircraft. Canada seems to be ahead of the US in this trend. If experimental aircraft are next to be regulated, how will we experiment?

I suppose you could idiot proof any aircraft by denying idiots the right to fly. I'm not a big fan of that, either!

[joeheli]

Good point PW

[quadrirotor]

That's exactly the contrary, i want idiots and stupids fly as long as possible...Imagine the market, the sky the limits! You have always the choice to play Russian roulette! :D

[darrellwittke]

"Society dictates how much safety it wants built into a product and how much it is willing to pay." Tonight I am studying Prehospital Trauma Life Support (from which the above quote comes from) and I think the first chapter has some relevant information regarding this discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I am a civil libertarian and believe if a person wants to engage in high risk activities, then by all means go ahead. Please don't harm or take anyone else with you though. (I do have a nader-esque view of people who sell faulty products knowingly for money, however.)

The first chapter involves accident prevention (a field that is fairly old, well thought out and time proven that I was ignorant of.) Pioneers in the study of accidents (in the 1940's) found that in spite of the obviously different results, illness (diseases) and accidents (injuries) behave similarly. Both require the presence of the three elements of the disease triangle (Host, environment, agent) and therefore both can be treated as a disease.

In the Sixties a Dr. William Haddon developed a nine-cell matrix that (in a round-about-way) proved that an accident can be broken down into three phases; Pre-event, Event, Post-event (I know, doesn't seem like rocket science but bear with me.)

In the Eighties, Dr. Haddon's research streamlined into what is known as The Three E's of accident prevention: Education; Enforcement; Engineering.

Education is the least effective but the easiest (generally) to perform. Enforcement is more effective depending upon the receptivity of the audience. Engineering is the most effective but also the most expensive.

"A properly designed gyroplane is one of the safest forms of aviation." We are lucky in the sport of recreational gyroplanes that an effective engineering solution is not that expensive! All gyroplanes should have an effective appropriately sized horizontal stabilizer. Education and enforcement become unnecesary with this engineered approach (look at the accident statistics of the 30's.)

I hope this wasn't too boring but I wanted to point out that "government bureaucrats protecting us from ourselves" sometimes have a rational, logical and justifiable reason for their regulations, grounded in the science of accident prevention. Of course, a quick overview of many small activities reveals that self-regulation is the most efficient and effective solution. I am dissappointed that the PRA seems to lack the resources to self-regulate the rotorcraft sport.

I believe the test pilots have a much more advanced knowledge and view of accident prevention, perhaps they will echo my message, accident prevention can be treated as a disease and engineering solutions are the most effective.

As always, respectfully darrellwittke

[Vance]

I'm confused Paul. I thought that they were very specific in the report that the Magni did not meet their standards because of the high thrust line. I got the impression that they thought all gyroplanes were unsafe because they didn't meet the standards. Thank You, Vance

[pwendell]

I really think, just from being an avid reader of this board, and Norm's before it, and having met lots of other Gyro students at AAI here in Arizona, that the design issues with gyros and how they can contribute to poor longitudinal stability are becoming much more widely understood. That is a very good thing. I have met a few people, and one instructor, that seemed to have a macho attitude that less stable gyros were, somehow, more manly to fly, but, for the most part, folks understood why a Sparrowhawk is safer than an unstabbed RAF.

What has been far more disturbing to me is the major inconsistancy with gyro training, a major factor in the accident report. Since I am still a student --checkride a week from Monday--I pay a lot of attention to training stories. I have read some things on this board over the last two years that have frankly raised the hairs on the back of my neck. I have seen stories from smart, enthusiastic and well meaning pilots with, in my opinion, less than adequate knowledge of how a gyro flys -- with misconceptions or no conception of how the aircraft works and how to analyze, and correct if necessary, its behaviors. Notice that I did not say unskillful, lazy, impatient, macho, or stupid pilots, quite the opposite I believe, just pilots who had not been trained how to think properly about their flying. ( I have also been following several FW boards during my training, and I have to say that I have not seen the same kind of inconsistancy with respect to the understanding of how and why airplanes are flown the way they are as I have heard amongst gyro pilots.) I am not trying to insult or put down anyone here. That is the last thing I want to do. Nor am I trying to build myself up. For the record, it took me nearly 40 hours to solo. I had a lot of problems with landings for quite a while. I am certainly not a gifted pilot nor a genius like some of the other guys around here. I am sure that most of you are better stick and rudder men (women?) than I will ever be, but, what I have learned during my training is how and why the aircraft flys the way it does, how to determine what it is doing and whether or not its dangerous, how to make it do what I want it to (mostly), and how not to make a bad situation worse, although I've had some moments that really got my attention. My training has been very much like FW training in many ways -- certainly more fun -- and I think that will serve me very well down the road.

I don't know that the gyro community is willing to accept the same kind of regimentation that most FW students experience -- they all pretty much learn the same stuff -- but I think it would help if we did. I think we should hold ourselves to the same, no higher standards of knowledge and airmanship than any other type of pilot. And we have to start with the first lesson no matter where, or from whom, we learn. Like motorcycle riders in a world of cars, we have to be better at what we do than they are at what they do.

[PTKay]

Pwendell,

excelent point, since I have no opportunity to get a proper training in gyro
I concentrated on getting FW training for PPL(A) in the beginning.

I belive in gyros, but not the "short cut" way, but as professional as it can be.

Unfortunately, in the 40 and 50 the gyro lost its commercial (and military)
meaning and fell into the category of "freak" machines.

I hope it will reemerge from this "pit" due to the recent effords to reactivate
such findings like MD XV-1 (breaking the Mu- barier long before CC) and
the compound helicopter research by Piasecki (reactivating his Pathfinder).

Of course nobody can belive a compound heli can be something to replace
our back-yard gyros, but the efford on understanding the windmilling rotor
aerodynamics made for this kind of machines will certainly spin of some
technology to our field.

It will maybe also change the public attitude against gyros.

[quadrirotor]

In our society, that's the insurances which tell you what to do and what you don't!... :(
For the time, insurances tell you don't fly gyro, unless you pay astronomical primes; or without insurance, if you have nothing to lose!... :rolleyes: Why? because risks are too high. so the primes too high, and sometimes you don't fly because your life insurance is null if you fly, jeopardizing the financial wealth of your family... :eek:
There are technical solutions to lower the risks, to normalize the risks...It's up to us!...

[PTKay]

Good point, Andre, but not only for gyro.

Before I started my PPL training I asked my insurance company about my
life insurance.

They said it's ok with them, but if I die of natural causes (say cancer),
my premium will be xxx $, if I die in an accident (car, train, commercial airliner)
it will be 2 times xxx $, BUT if I die in a GA airplane accident, then again only xxx $.

As you said, my own choice (and my wife's, that she alowed me to do my PPL).

We wanted freedom, we have freedom ... of choice.

[Harry_S.]

Peter, you are well on your way to becoming an exceptional gyronaut. I foresee an aspiring gyro CFI. We need more of your ilk, in our community.

Welcome aboard and please continue your intelligent offerings to this forum.

Thank you.

Cheers. :)

[pwendell]

Gee, Harry, Thanks a lot. I hope I can live up to your expectations! I've been really fortunate to have an instructor like Terry Brandt and the folks at AAI so close at hand.

I just want to see gyros continue to grow and acheive the position we all know they deserve in Sport aviation.

[Dean_Dolph]

I really think, just from being an avid reader of this board, and Norm's before it, and having met lots of other Gyro students at AAI here in Arizona, that the design issues with gyros and how they can contribute to poor longitudinal stability are becoming much more widely understood. Peter, I also believe that factors affecting stability are becoming understood and accepted by the majority of gyro enthusiasts. We have Todd to thank for continuing what Norm started. Norm setup the Conference for the purpose of educating himself about gyros feeling that all newbies would benefit. I doubt that he had any idea about the impact it would have. If Todd hadn't picked up the ball then things could have regressed in a hurry. What has been far more disturbing to me is the major inconsistancy with gyro training, a major factor in the accident report. A lot of people believe that poor/inconsistent/incomplete training is the second, if not equally, important factor in gyro incidents. It seems that there are almost as many that believe that it the most important! The second group is the one that believes training will overcome any gyro instability. I'm with the first group.

Most here have seen me mention the effort to create a standardized training system. That effort is dormant at the moment but it is not dead! A standardized gyro training system would eliminate the inconsistencies.

When the team first started to work on the System, I asked for input from all instructors, pilots and students. I didn't receive the amount I was hoping for. I still collect this info so I would be interested in more detail about your training experiences and the inconsistencies to see. If you, or others want to contribute to the effort of building a better training system then Email your thoughts and suggestions. I'm especially interested in your ground school and what theory was taught. Since I am still a student --(Deleted!) --I pay a lot of attention to training stories. …..(Deleted!)…. I have seen stories from smart, enthusiastic and well meaning pilots with, in my opinion, less than adequate knowledge of how a gyro flys -- with misconceptions or no conception of how the aircraft works and how to analyze, and correct if necessary, its behaviors. ….. (Deleted!) …….just pilots who had not been trained how to think properly about their flying. ( I have also been following several FW boards during my training, and I have to say that I have not seen the same kind of inconsistancy with respect to the understanding of how and why airplanes are flown the way they are as I have heard amongst gyro pilots.) I could offer my thoughts about why this is so but would be interested in hearing yours. For the record, it took me nearly 40 hours to solo. The FW Part 41 schools in the Houston area are reporting the same number of hours for their students. Sure, there are those, that for whatever reason, solo in considerably less time but apparently it is not unusual to take considerably more.

It is my belief that people go into gyro pilot training with an unrealistic idea of long it is going to take them to solo, especially those without any PIC experience in any aircraft. As I have said before, I believe the responsibility for this lies with Bensen Aviation. The fact that it continues is ours.

I have to take our instructors word for the fact that students with prior PIC time are easier to train and solo sooner. But I do have a concern on the competency of those that are signed off to solo. I've asked here, on the Forum, for the instructors to tell us how they judge competency. The few replies were a little less than I expected since to me they were very ambiguous. It is probably because no one had asked them before. They have reasons to sign off; I just want to know what they are basing their judgment on. How do they rate proficiency for each skill? I don't know that the gyro community is willing to accept the same kind of regimentation that most FW students experience -- they all pretty much learn the same stuff -- but I think it would help if we did. I think we should hold ourselves to the same, no higher standards of knowledge and airmanship than any other type of pilot. And we have to start with the first lesson no matter where, or from whom, we learn. Like motorcycle riders in a world of cars, we have to be better at what we do than they are at what they do. In the FW world the student doesn't have any choice but to follow a regimented way of training. The only reason I see for this is that all the new FW instructors buy in to what is being taught by the Part 141 schools. Consequently even the independent CFI trains pretty much the same way the schools do.

Another factor is that FW theory and instruction methods have evolved and been disseminated to the point that it is accepted and understood by the instructors. The result is a de facto standard for FW training. It seems pretty clear, even for an outsider, that this isn't true with gyro instructors. Also there aren't any Part 141 schools for gyro students and therefore no model for the gyro instructors or a competing reason to improve or standardize their training methods.

Since Kevin Hognose probably has more and closer contact with other forms of aviation than any of us here, I would be interested in his thoughts.

[Hognose]

Paul,

This report is the best report of a gyroplane accident that I have seen. The AAIB reports are often more impressive than their US, UK or Australian counterparts.

cheers

-=K=-

[steveb]

Sorry to be a pedant, but the AAIB report is a UK one.

The unfortunate state of affairs in the UK is that we know what we need to do to make our gyros safer, we want to do it, but the regulatory hurdles which we would have to overcome in order to do it mean that most of us eventually shrug our shoulders and make do with our machines as they are.

The challenges presented by regulation in the UK aren't insurmountable, but the prospect of spending years, loads of cash and huge amounts of time on a project which may well fail just isn't that attractive.

For example - my machine (a Montgomerie Merlin) has had a CLT mod developed which has yet to be approved. The approval process has dragged on for some years for various reasons which aren't the fault of the regulators. I could grasp the nettle, modify my machine and drive it through the approval. The problem is that I probably wouldn't be able to fly the aircraft for the best part of 12 months, I'd have to spend most of my spare time trailering from one place to another for inspections, test flights etc etc , and I'd have to pay some fairly healthy fees along the way. The other option is that I stick with the status quo - I'm happy with my machine so I'll just wait for someone else to dothe work first.

Fortunately there are a few motivated individuals around who can and have taken on the system and won. A modified version ofthe CLT Air Command has recently made it through Section T, so there is hope for us yet!

[Rando]

UK Gyroplane Accident Sparks Outcry For Better Safety
Wed, 15 Sep '04

Air Accident Investigation Branch Wants More Training For Sport Pilots
Since 1989, there have been as many as 265 gyroplanes flying in the United Kingdom. Also since 1989, there have been 15 fatal gyroplane accidents in the UK. That works out to a fatal accident rate of 27.1 for every 100,000 hours of flight time. So says the British Air Accident Investigation Branch. The fatal accident rate for all other forms of aviation in Britain is 1.1 per 100,000 flight hours.

Now, AAIB has issued a report critical of gyroplane technology and the training of gyro pilots. The report, which focused on the July 29th, 2003 crash of a modified Ponsford Bensen B8MR, in which 44-year old Ian Broderick Pitt-Steele of, Gardyn Croft, Taverham, on his first unsupervised solo flight in a gyroplane, plunged more than 250 feet to his death.

Porpoising
AAIB investigators wrote:

On the morning of 29 June... G-BIGU appeared to takeoff from Runway 02 and fly a short distance to the north before turning back towards the airfield. The aircraft was seen to fly along the runway in each direction and some witnesses were aware of G-BIGU gently "porpoising" as it flew along.

Estimates of the height of the gyroplane during this time varied between 10 and 20 feet above the runway and also between 400 and 500 feet but displaced to one side of the runway. With the variation in height estimates from the witnesses, who were both pilots, it was possible that this "porpoising" occurred at different times. None of the witnesses were concerned by the maneuvers. One witness, who saw the last moments of flight, was standing by the airfield hangar looking towards the east. He saw G-BIGU in a downwind position for Runway 20 at about 250 to 300 feet AGL and at an estimated speed of about 45 kt.

The gyroplane appeared to be stable and in level flight when the witness heard a single "bang" and saw an immediate change in attitude. The aircraft pitched nose down and fell vertically to the ground. This witness also commented that he had heard a "broken" radio transmission sometime prior to the accident sequence; with no other club aircraft flying, he assumed that the pilot of G-BIGU had made this transmission.



The Cause
In its synopsis, the AAIB wrote:

[The accident] resulted from the rotor blades striking the rudder, which rendered the gyroplane uncontrollable. Witness accounts indicated that G-BIGU was flying straight and level at a reasonable speed just before this event, although there were reports of possible 'over-controlling' during the flight. The specific reason for the rotor blades striking the rudder could not be determined but a pilot induced oscillation appeared to be the probable cause.

An examination of the aircraft, and subsequent computer modelling by the University of Glasgow indicated that the aircraft could have had poor longitudinal stability characteristics. The investigation also highlighted the poor safety record of gyroplanes in general compared to other types of recreational aircraft. Accordingly, recommendations have been made concerning the approval of gyroplanes and the training and licensing of gyroplane pilots.

The test flight of G-BIGU that was carried out on behalf of the Popular Flying Association did not appear to have been flown in accordance with the interpretive material of the stability requirements of British Civil Airworthiness Regulations Section T. The flight test report did not include any data to support the opinion that the aircraft met the dynamic stability criteria of section T. The format of the form used for the flight test report was poor in that it did not include fields for recording the data required by British Civil Airworthiness Regulations Section T.



Technical Problems?
The AAIB was highly critical of the procedure by which the aircraft itself was certified as airworthy:

The test flight of G-BIGU that was carried out on behalf of the Popular Flying Association did not appear to have been flown in accordance with the interpretive material of the stability requirements of British Civil Airworthiness Regulations Section T. The flight test report did not include any data to support the opinion that the aircraft met the dynamic stability criteria of section T. The format of the form used for the flight test report was poor in that it did not include fields for recording the data required by British Civil Airworthiness Regulations Section T.

AAIB recommendations include:

Better gyroplane pilot training, especially in type and especially in flight
Differentiating between hours spent "wheel balancing" (a maneuver whereby the pilot lifts the nose of the gyroplane off the ground as he moves down the runway, but does not actually take off)
Ensuring gyroplane test pilots are trained to evaluate aircraft performance
Finally, on the issue of flight certification for gyroplanes, the AAIB concluded:

The Popular Flying Association also endorsed the recommendations and stated: "We are now working with the CAA Projects Department and Flight Department to develop a new gyroplane flight test schedule specifically to investigate ultralight gyroplanes against the Section T handling requirements, and to train selected experienced gyroplane pilots in the test methods and reporting procedures. We are of course working with the CAA on the re-evaluation of existing types of gyroplanes against Section T handling requirements which we see as a very positive step towards addressing the high accident rate on this class of aircraft".

[steveb]

It's a bit of a sloppy precis of the report, I would have thought that an aviation news organisation might have been a bit more careful.

Since when did AAIB recommendations with an endorsement from the PFA and the CAA become an "outcry"? And there have never been 265 gyros flying in the UK (nor does the report say this). There are 265 gyros on the UK register - some have been retired, some are currently not airworthy, some have never been completed. At any one time there are less than 100 (c. 70 to 80) gyros in the UK with current Permits. Unfortunately that little gem makes the numbers look even worse .....