Fatal Gyro Crash- Buckeye Township, Mich. [Archive]

GyroRon

07-05-2005, 05:28 PM

I watched the video, I have good vision and there was absolutely no Horizontal stab on that gyro.

This is sickening. It makes me want to do very bad things to the makers of his kit and the people who sold it to him and the God Dam Murderer who trained him to fly it. Such a senseless death and totally preventable.

I understand this forum can only go so far, along with the PRA as a whole. RAF the company and the ****head instructor-dealers for them will always find people who are out of our loop to sell these machines to.

Why would these people keep selling these things???? Why in the world does the dealers and instructors for this company seem like such nice upstanding people in all respects and then also sell people these death traps?

This crap is part of why I am sure our image will never get better. Can you imagine what all the people in Mr. Beckers area will think of gyroplanes now? No one understands stuff like Horizontal stabs and thrustlines, they just know the gyro was being flown successfully by a well trained pilot and then out of no where the gyro goes down and kills the pilot. How many of us, when we first started in this hobby, would have run out and bought a gyro if we had a well known, well respected pilot in our area that had gotten killed in a crash in a gyro for no good reason.... Or for any reason for that matter??? I know I would probably would not be here now if that had happened around my way.

The report says and while Becker and other pilots are skilled at flying them, it's something some say they would never try. No $hitSherlock! I wouldn't either if my close friend just got killed in one for no good reason!

Well now my question is who sold it to him and who "trained" him?

Cobra

07-05-2005, 05:59 PM

Was he gyro-trained, or just another "experienced" fixed wing PPL who assumed he already knew how to handle the craft? Or was it another in-flight part failure?

This is becomming a bad dream, same story over and over... :mad:

pwendell

07-05-2005, 06:04 PM

According to the NTSB database, Mr. Becker was a Commercial Pilot with ratings for ASEL and Instrument Airplane. He also held and Instructor rating for ASEL. The records also show that, in addition to the RAF, he owned a Cessna 172 and a Piper PA-22. He was obviousely a frequent flyer. Unfortunately, this seems to be the pattern with so many RAF fatals. Experienced FW pilots is stabless RAFs fall out of the sky. Although we can't know what happened yet, it has all the signs of a bunt or a catastrophic mechanical failure of the rotor or control system.

My thoughts go out to his family and friends.

enewbold

07-05-2005, 06:06 PM

pwendell

07-05-2005, 06:55 PM

I hate to even bring this up, but this latest accident has really pissed me off. There have been so many fatalities from high time FW pilots who are legally operating their gyros with very little or no gyro specific training, that maybe it's time to close the loophole that allows a private pilot and above to legally fly an experimental of a category/class that the pilot is not rated in. We all know it is stupid to do so. Maybe it should be illegal as well. I do not like to resort to increased government regulation to solve problems, but there seem to be enough unscrupulous or ignorant sellers and uniformed buyer that maybe the only way to ensure adequate training is to make it manditory.

Since I already hold a Gyro rating, this won't affect me, but I'd like to hear what others, particularly those who are flying without a gyro rating, think about this. I would assume that any regulatory change would have a grandfather clause allowing those who currently operate gyros without a rating to easily obtain one. Just as is being done currently to allow pilots to carry passengers in gyros they have already been flying.

This carnage of the inexperienced and uninformed has to stop.

bartc150

07-05-2005, 07:10 PM

How about the FAA making stabs mandatory. If your machine does not come with a stab you can't sell it in the USA.

PW_Plack

07-05-2005, 07:46 PM

Brian Jackson

07-05-2005, 08:09 PM

Oh, God... I'll read the above posts tomorrow, but I am so saddened by this its beyond words.

KenSandyEggo

07-05-2005, 09:15 PM

Ed, it would be nice if anyone at the NTSB knew anything about gyros, but they don't. You can verify this by reading their conclusions on accidents. They usually rely on what woefully ignorant eye-witnesses think they saw. A large percentage of accident reports (FW also) have one witness saying the engine was cutting in and out and another saying the engine was running at full power until the birth of the crater. NTSB isn't of much help, especially in gyro accidents.

GyroRon

07-05-2005, 09:31 PM

Ya know, it might just be prudent to wait a bit and see what the NTSB has to say about this crash before really bad-mouthing all these people. Just a thought....

Ed Newbold
Columbus, OH

He built it, and I am betting that he bought it from his closest dealer.... That would be Duanne Hunn. Duanne would have also been his instructor is my best guess. Any of you that are buddy buddy with Duanne want to call him and ask?

The NTSB reports are a bunch of bull$hit. I don't need to wait for it.

John Henry

07-05-2005, 09:59 PM

I know this subject generates a lot of passionate discussion but I suggest waiting till the complete report is available before comment. I lost a cousin to an aircraft accident that could/should have been avoided. His widdow went through hell with accusations, and innuendo untill the true reasons were reported. What a lot of people regarded as gross pilot error turned out to be a combination of aircraft equipment failures, repair station calibration errors, airport maintenance failures, air traffic control miscommunications and pilot overload. No one thing at fault just a chain of events that transpired into disaster. He made a bad decision based on faulty information.
This accident could be another similar situation.

PW_Plack

07-06-2005, 12:38 AM

...but if you know the causal chain has one bad link, you replace it. :(

bartc150

07-06-2005, 05:12 AM

Bart,

How about not wishing a drastic, arbitrary measure on everyone else? We have enough stupid laws designed to protect us from ourselves. The goal is stability, not mandatory stabilizers. If somebody figures out a way to achieve pitch stability without an H-stab, more power to them!

Guys, the government won't be needed here. The free market will soon have everyone but suicidal idiots flying with H-stabs in the US. It will start with more and more airports requiring liability insurance for based aircraft. You won't be able to get insurance on an RAF with no H-stab. Buyers who don't look into this issue will learn about it when they find they can't hangar where they like.

Yep - more people will die in the meantime. It may even take a sudden rash of fatal crashes to bring this issue to the front burner, the way it did in Great Britain. Now, there's a great example of being careful what you wish for in government regulation!

Bart, what we need first from the government is a recognition of the role stability plays in gyroplane safety, and the Light Sport Aircraft Consensus Standards will be a step in that direction. Why would the government consider making H-stabs mandatory, when NTSB accident reports still don't acknowledge aircraft instability as a cause in these crashes?

For that matter, all these stabless-gyroplane widows who bring liability lawsuits and lose demonstrate that there's lots more educations that needs to happen first.

I didn't mean to stir the pot, and jump to conclusions about stabs or this accident. But all the reading I've done here, at the pra, and local chapters preaches the need for a stab.

Look some thirty years ago when you could by a lawn mower with no safety system. If you fell off the machine, or let go to pick something up in the case of a push mower the motor kept running and the blades kept turning. This caused a lot of injuries and deaths.

Now look at lawn mowers. It doesn't matter if you buy a $69 push mower from you local grocery store, or a $10,000 commercial mower all have sefety systems. Seems the government saw a need and mandated that a blade, or blades must stop turning within a couple seconds after falling off a machine so the blades won't chop you into pieces. And guess what it worked. When properly working safety systems greatly reduce the chance of injury.

Yea they are a pain, and a lot of people bypass these systems, but the point is they worked. The government saw a need a made it mandatory. I'm sure there were more accidents with mowers than gyros, but there are more mowers out there than gyros.

Point being, if these unstable gyro accidents keeps happening expect the govt to jump in. just my two cents.

Rotornut

07-06-2005, 05:26 AM

Sunstate Wing & Rotor Club PRA Ch# 26 sends out its Prayers and our Thoughts to Kens Family and Friends. May he now have Wings of Gold.

I would also like to Know Who Trained Him and did he build the kit our buy it already built.

So Sad! Another Family Member gone GEEEEZ.

MJ :(

Vance

07-06-2005, 07:08 AM

Hello Bart, I understand your frustration. In your example, lawn mowers have a value that can be percieved by lawmakers, recreational flying machines don't. They could save a lot of lives just banning recreational flying. It would be hard to justify gyroplanes as usefull or necasary.

Law makers and lawers, out of ignorance, have nearly distroyed civil aviation. Many on this forum, out of ignorance, believe they know what happened. We don't have enough information at this time to determin the cause. I would hope that a recognition of this reaction would temper our desire for increased regulation.

I believe that our role as aviation enthusists is to learn as much as we can about how things fly and what causes aircraft fall out of the sky. We then need to share what we have learned with other aviation enthusiasts. There is a big sign in expermental aircraft that points out that it does not have the safty review of certified aircraft. I hope it will stay that way.

When a friend I haven't met dies in a gyroplane it diminishes us all. It puts our sport at risk. It means that we all need to work harder at learning and sharing.

It would be sad if we failed to learn from this death because we are too focused on what many of us percieve to be safty defects. The cause of the death may be an entirely unrelated to our preconception. I expect that we will never know the cause of the crash because most NTSB investigators don't know much about gyroplanes. We have failed in our mission to educate aviation enthusiasts. I believe that all NTSB investigators are aviation enthusists.

I would hope that we will all learn as much as we can about this accident and share it with other aviation enthusists. I would hope that we would not invite more regulation into our sport or leap to conclusions out of ignorance of the facts of the accident.

thank you, Vance

Heather Poe

07-06-2005, 07:42 AM

To add fuel to the fire, the new RAF website says that they are:

"The Gold Standard in Gyroplane Safety".

http://www.rotaryairforce.com/raf2000/

Udi

07-06-2005, 07:42 AM

Unless a gyro-head joins the NTSB investigation, we are not going to learn anything from this accident. For some reason, these guys cannot get themselves educated on the most common modes of failure of gyros. Do we have anyone near the accident site?

Udi

C. Beaty

07-06-2005, 08:21 AM

Sure, Udi. Duane Hunn’s home base is Saginaw, MI, just a stone’s throw from the newest victim’s smoking hole.

LGoodhind

07-06-2005, 09:42 AM

What would be required for the builders and owners of RAF machines to be considered a viable class in a civil action? The process of the advertising used to locate the members of such a class would have the side effect of informing the broader market of potential consumers about the issue.

Doug Riley

07-06-2005, 10:12 AM

My very recent experience with the NTSB and the FAA is that they are nice and well-meaning people, but that crashes of small homebuilt aircraft are a very low priority for them. They simply have bigger fish to fry. Just as most crimes don't get the high-tech CSI treatment because it's too expensive, investigations of such accidents are limited to "kicking the tin," taking a few pics and writing a limited report. They simply don't have the budget or manpower to do more.

My experience is also that they welcome assistance from experienced members of the gyro community. You have to act fast, though, before the evidence gets badly degraded through movement, tampering, salvage and so on.

Gary_in_Orygun

07-06-2005, 10:21 AM

I did a little online research on the aircraft registry. Also provided is a map on where Ken lived (NW of Saginaw).

------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Registry
N-Number Inquiry Results
N481KB is Assigned
Assigned/Registered Aircraft
------------------------------Aircraft Description--------------------------
Serial Number H2-98-9-390 Type Registration Individual
Manufacturer Name BECKER KENNETH A Certificate Issue Date 03/04/2005
Model BECKER 2000 Status Valid
Type Aircraft Unknown Type Engine Unknown
Pending Number Change None Dealer No
Date Change Authorized None Mode S Code 51366463
MFR Year 2000 Fractional Owner NO
------------------------------Registered Owner----------------------------
Name BECKER KENNETH A
Street 1037 RADOV
City GLADWIN State MICHIGAN Zip Code 48624
County GLADWIN
Country UNITED STATES
------------------------------Airworthiness--------------------------------
Engine Manufacturer SUBARU Classification Experimental
Engine Model ALL MDLS A/B Category Amateur Built
A/W Date 03/19/2005
------------------------------Temporary Certificate------------------------
Certificate Number T051343 Issue Date 03/04/2005 Expiration Date 04/03/2005

Student

07-06-2005, 10:30 AM

I'll admit I don't know much about RAFs, stabs or anything else. Any opinions have come secondhand and almost exclusively from this forum. I can only assume that you gurus are correct.

I think the issue here is determining who is at fault during an accident. RAF, as I understand it, does not believe they need the stabs and yet the majority of the forum members here beg to differ. These accidents have been becoming far too frequent lately and since I like solving problems, here's how I see we can improve the situation:

I think almost everyone can agree that RAFs with horizontal stabs are more stable than those without. The question is are they required for the machine to be considered stable? Since RAF is a business, they wouldn't be necessarly willing to openly admit that their crafts are unsafe (in fact they're claiming the opposite) until they're forced to by FAA, the government, or whomever has the authority to do so.

It would be interesting to learn how many RAF owners are completely clueless in regards to their instability. Whether it comes down to ignorance or uneducation. Ignorance will only change when A) a law is enforced or B) enough people die that the owners give their head a shake. Ignorance can also be placed in the "I'm a FW buff, so a gyro is a cake walk" pile. However, I believe the majority would be placed in the uneducated category. If you don't know the risk, you fly the craft. People don't know a lot about gyros in general, let alone the fine details such as stability.

I can see this post going on and on, so I'll try to cut to the chase. Information on gyroplanes and gyroplane safety is rare. In fact, if I didn't have this forum, I wouldn't have 90% of the knowledge I do about the subject. I had a hard time finding this website and this forum. Not all - don't shoot me please - but some older people perhaps may have a more difficult time finding it. What if they're not familiar with the internet at all?

Yes, the news crews are working against the cause because they're painting a grim picture of how gyros are deathtraps with rotors. For the general public, that's the only information they'll receieve. And that's really what it comes down to INFORMATION/EDUCATION. As was said before, even the NTSB members are in the dark most of the time. If you want things to change, those things need to change.

I realize you guys have been trying for some time to come up with some type of medium to share information. This forum works extremely well, but your audience is limited. Fly-Ins are a great place, but again, only a limited number of people will be there. If efforts are focused on one thing, it will be done.

This was a tragedy and I'm not trying to take anything away from it. Could this accident have been prevented if more information was available? Maybe. Will an increase in education prevent future gyro accidents? Of course.

I wish I had some plan to follow as I rally the troops, but I don't. However, I know if enough of us think about it - we'll be able to come up with something. Maybe that's just wishful thinking... but I know that wasting our time on prevention is more productive than shaking our heads and sending flowers after the fact.

Respectfully,

Justin Bos

Doug Riley

07-06-2005, 11:08 AM

Justin, take a look at the info that Ken J. just posted. Note who the "manufacturer" is -- the victim!

The reason we're stuck in this endless loop is that our machines are built and sold under a legal fiction. The fiction is that each of us is an "experimenter," testing some new design we've concocted. The reality is that most of us aren't doing any research, we just want to go flyin'. The "experimental" regs are a legal cover that allow manufacturers to sell designs that may or may not be proven, all the time staying clear of liability because the regs say the customer is that manufacturer. The (real) manufacturers are strictly on the honor system regarding knowledgeable design, testing and evaluation.

In one sense, this hypocrisy benefits us. We get the machines much cheaper than we would if they were certified, we can customize them if we want, and we even CAN do a little experimenting on the side if we get the itch. In another sense, it's a system that just begs to be abused. And it sometimes is, as in the case of 1980's vintage PPO-prone gyros that are still on the market.

The Sport Pilot system, for its many flaws, does intercept each buyer at the point of purchase -- something that we otherwise can't do, as you observe. Sport Pilot compliant gyros (if the FAA ever approves them) will much more accurately reflect the typical buyer-seller relationship in this game. The reality is that the buyer wants a turn-key recreational aircraft and IS depending on the seller to have done his homework and vetted the gyro for safety issues.

I don't have much hope that we can stamp out dangerous designs within the Experimental world, by education or by regulation of hardware. Such efforts run counter to the whole purpose of allowing experimentation at all.

If the FAA were willing to audit and actually mandate the content of gyro CFIs' courses, that would help as much as anything. The current FAA Rotorcraft Flying Handbook dances around the stability issue and, by default, legitimizes the RAF line about stability as a personal choice (like upholstery color).

Harry_S.

07-06-2005, 11:20 AM

I like your post, Vance. ;)

Much more reserved than mine would be.

.

C. Beaty

07-06-2005, 12:45 PM

Doug Riley said:

“The "experimental" regs are a legal cover that allow manufacturers to sell designs that may or may not be proven, all the time staying clear of liability because the regs say the customer is that manufacturer.”

Doug, do you think that subterfuge would withstand a serious legal challenge?

Vance

07-06-2005, 12:47 PM

Thank you Harry, you are one of the people that I look up to so your compliment has a lot of value to me. Thank you, Vance

Doug Riley

07-06-2005, 01:22 PM

Chuck, the courts give tremendous deference to agencies' interpretations of their own regs. If the FAA has, for these many years, allowed the "experimental" regs to be stretched to include pre-designed (and heavily pre-fabbed) kits... well, it's their regulation, so presumably they knew what they meant when they wrote it. So I don't think that a court would likely find that selling kit aircraft violated the FAR's, if the FAA said it didn't.

As to whether those regs have anything at all to do with liability law -- the relationship is loose. By default, negligence and products-liability are questions of state law unless Congress wanders in and passes some overriding law under the aegis of regulating interstate commerce. (Congress HAS done that to reduce the amount that can be awarded for pain and suffering against medical service providers. They, of course, have a huge and potent lobby both directly and through the insurance companies). IOW, who is legally responsible for injuries caused by a defective kit aircraft is not necessarily governed by the FAR's.

In the old case in which RAF won a judgment saying that the homebuilder was the manufacturer, I imagine the state court (or federal court applying state law -- same thing) referred to the FAR's for guidance. The state court COULD have decided to ignore the FAR's if it wanted to, though.

I'd argue that the degree of legal responsibility that a kit-maker has should be a function of the relationship he seeks with the customer. If he (a) sells a heavily prefabbed kit complete to the last washer, (b) uses slick advertising that speaks of his engineering, testing, experience and product safety, and (c) guides the buyer to "expert" CFI's who teach stability doctrines that clash with standard engineering but happen to favor the mfr.'s design, I'd judge that the mfr. has taken the deal out of the builder-as-manufacturer world and into the regular consumer-products world. In the latter world, the consumer usually wins.

I've long felt that this kind of fact-specific sliding scale of liability makes more sense than a universal rule that the mfr. is never, ever to blame. Craig Wall was appalled at this idea, though, as will be the EAA and most homebuilders.

pwendell

07-06-2005, 01:34 PM

It would be interesting to learn how many RAF owners are completely clueless in regards to their instability. Whether it comes down to ignorance or uneducation. Ignorance will only change when A) a law is enforced or B) enough people die that the owners give their head a shake. Ignorance can also be placed in the "I'm a FW buff, so a gyro is a cake walk" pile. However, I believe the majority would be placed in the uneducated category. If you don't know the risk, you fly the craft. People don't know a lot about gyros in general, let alone the fine details such as stability.

Justin,

I think this is THE big problem. There have been too many high time, career pilots that have met their ends in an unstable gyro. What are we to make of this? Part of the problem, I believe, is that these high time, FW pilots probably can't even bring themselves to believe that there are people selling and designing unstable gyroplanes, and, through deception or ignorance, promoting them as stable. They assume that the manufacturer knows what they're talking about, and so does the NTSB and FAA. Airplane aerodynamics are so well understood, and every pilot is taught the basics, that it's pretty much impossible for a company to bring a dangerous design to market. Add to that the fact that a gyro may be the first uncertified aircraft that any of these folks have ever owned, and you have a group of customers whose personal experience makes it difficult for them to excersise the appropriate amount of scepticism when buying/building a gyro.

The problem isn't them, it is us. Lets face it, we are the 'Bad Boys' of the aviation community, and many gyro pilots like it that way. We seem to be the only ones who believe that the laws of physics, and in some cases the rules of the air, don't apply to us. How many of us on this forum are flying illegally? 20%, 30%, 50%? By placing ourselves outside the standards and practices of the aviation community at large, we have helped create a culture that has allowed dishonest and/or ignorant manufacturers to thrive, and has resulted in far too many avoidable deaths.

We have been getting better over the last few years. This forum, and Norm's before it, has been an important resource and a way for all gyro pilots to get together to learn and share and improve our knowledge and standards. The professionalism and commitment to honesty and quality training shown by Jim Mayfield/AAI has helped raise the standards of gyroplane flight training to a higher level. The seemingly tireless efforts of Greg Greminger and Chuck Beaty to analyse and explain the principles of gyroplane stability to the rest of us has helped raise the level of understanding and debate in the gyro community. The hard, underpaid work of the many quality flight instructors like Doug Riley, Steve McGowen, Terry Brandt, Ron Menzies(SP?) and others has produced many, many SAFE and informed pilots. The current manufactures/designers like Ernie Boyette, The new Air Command, Larry Neal, Vittorio Magni, AAI, Jim Vanek and Ralph Tagart have made stable, fun gyroplanes readily available and affordable for almost anyone. We have come a long way.

However, we have one high profile and very successful company which is preying upon the uninformed and, in the process, damaging all of us and preventing us from presenting a unified voice to the public and to the FAA about the essential principles and methods for building a stable gyroplane. This company is RAF. This is a fact. Every other U.S. and European manufacturer that I know of currently incorporates a horizontal stabilizer and tries to minimize the thrust line offset in all of its designs. (The only exception is Ken Brock Manufacturing which still sells old, stabless, Bensen clones.) It is RAF that is creating the division in the gyro community over the importance of thrust line offsets and horizontal stabilzers, and, as a result, leading to confusion or disgust on the part of potential gyro pilots. It is RAF's refusal to join the consensus that almost certainly contributed heavily to gyroplanes being excluded from receiving Special and Experimental Light Sport Aircaft airworthiness certificates. (The FAA's position seemed to be that gyros are not well enough understood since the gyro community could not even agree on the basics of stability). It is RAF and its CFIs that are innoculating their customers against the facts about gyroplane stability and hindering their ability be well informed.

I have no problem with anyone flying anything they want to as long as it is an informed decision. I have no problem with anyone on this forum who is currently flying an RAF, even Larry who really ticks me off sometimes :) I have no problem even with Eban who insists on flying a stabless RAF. He has been given the facts and has made his choice. I am very disturbed, however, by the number of pilots who may never have a chance to learn the facts about gyro stability, about husbands and wives and sons and daughters who are flying what they believe, and have been taught, are safe aircraft. Can we, as a family, accept this? Are we comfortable with 'buyer beware' when the price is the death of our own? Should a pilot face a much greater risk than he/she was told because they were not sceptical enough or were simply used to an aviation industry that had been, in their experience, very safety conscious? If the answer to these questions is "No!" then we have to, as a family, do something about it or we become complicit.

Let's be honest, anything we might do will be difficult and painful. It might cost the PRA and some others money. It may cost friendships. It will certainly cause a lot of anger and sleepless nights. But it is a Moral issue and the determination of what is right, not what is easy, must determine what we do. Whether or not this most recent accident was caused by a bunt, catastrophic mechanical failure, or severe illness (these seem the only likely possibilities) is not really important. These issues have been here for a long time.

C. Beaty

07-06-2005, 01:49 PM

Doug, one of the reasons I ask is that 5 or 6 years ago, I was contacted by an engineering consulting firm in the UK that had been retained by the survivors’ solicitors in the case of a lowrider AirCommand tumbling out of the sky. They were looking for an expert witness but I declined.

I suppose the CAA does not maintain the fiction that the twit twirling the screwdriver is the manufacturer.

In this country, I can’t imagine a state court viewing an aircraft kit as much different than a bicycle purchased from Walmart in knocked down form.

Doug Riley

07-06-2005, 01:50 PM

Peter, one small footnote: RAF had a rep on the Light Sport Aircraft drafting committee. They agreed to the stability standards the rest of us came up with. At the FAA's instruction, a "design prescription," such as requiring a HS, was NOT to be included in the standards. The standards require the gyro to pass certain stability tests. The FAA will not agree to any standard that requires a specific stability device.

As I understand it, the FAA said they'd consider allowing LSA gyros if we could clean up our safety record. I don't know if they're willing to separate the sheep from the goats -- to toss out any stability-related accidents that occur to obviously unstable craft, like the two recent ones. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they didn't lump all gyros together when doing safety statistics.

Chuck B., you probably know of the case 6-8 years ago in which a court did hold that an RAF victim was his own manufacturer and RAF got a free pass on this issue. EAA (and I think PRA) intervened with some of their own legal and expert help on RAF's behalf. I suppose they did this to protect the "integrity" of the homebuilt-kit "movement" (damn, I hate that expression). They carried the day. EAA trumpeted it as a great victory for the "movement," blah, blah. I quit EAA a few years ago, partly over political stances of this sort.

Interesting discussion, lads, but I'm off to the Yankee Ultralight Flyin.

PW_Plack

07-06-2005, 02:19 PM

Peter,

"Are we comfortable with 'buyer beware' when the price is the death of our own?"

In experimental aviation, if the builder knows what he's getting into, I say yes - but the problem is the "beware" part. There is no "beware" even reaching these high-time fixed-wing career pilots before they build or fly a gyroplane. They're not going to hang out on a gyroplane forum on the internet because, after all, what could we teach them?

"Should a pilot face a much greater risk than he/she was told because they were not sceptical enough..."

Experienced pilots have spent years questioning the safety of aircraft systems during their pre-flights, looking for defects caused by mistakes in maintenance. Why this indoctrination doesn't translate to due dilligence in evaulating the performance envelope of a kit being considered for purchase escapes me, especially when buying a kit from a manufacturer which employs no engineers or even pilots.

Wilson

07-06-2005, 03:16 PM

When I first joined the PRA in the early 90s there was talk about the need for a HS. My first logged dual instruction was in an RAF with Duane Hunn in 1993. I like the machine a lot and thought Duane was great. However, now days the HS is not a new idea and has been well proven.

Now for a frightening thought about why RAF might not accept the HS. Lawyers :mad: . They (RAF) have claimed the HS is not needed for so long, if they now say they need one, RAF would be inundated with law suits. They would be throwing away their defense and admitting their design was at fault.
Just a thought :confused:
Wilson

pwendell

07-06-2005, 03:26 PM

Peter,

"Should a pilot face a much greater risk than he/she was told because they were not sceptical enough..."

Experienced pilots have spent years questioning the safety of aircraft systems during their pre-flights, looking for defects caused by mistakes in maintenance. Why this indoctrination doesn't translate to due dilligence in evaulating the performance envelope of a kit being considered for purchase escapes me, especially when buying a kit from a manufacturer which employs no engineers or even pilots.

Paul,

Perhaps it's because it doesn't even occur to them that a kit manufacturer wouldn't employ engineers and professional test pilots. In the airplane world that is the norm. If they have only flown certified aircraft, they have never had any reason to doubt the fundamental design of any aircraft they've ever flown.

I'm not saying that the pilot's attitudes may not be partly responsible. I suspect that there are many experienced FW pilots who would not hesistate to have a CFI check them out in a new type of airplane, but who take gyroplanes much less seriousely. Unfortunately, however, there are also those who do seek training and end up with CFIs who promote unsafe designs through greed or ignorance. I think this may be especially dangerous for the experienced FW pilot who is confident in his skills and whose confidence is reinforced by his instructor's emphasizing how safe his machine is. When this pilot gets in trouble, he is likely to fall back on his FW instincts which are to add power and lower the nose. This is not a problem in a stable gyro, but in a stabless, HTL gyro, it can be deadly. Of course after the fact, the manufacturer is always ready to blame the pilot.

I am just becoming less and less comfortable standing by and seeing people die while waiting for good sense and the Market to take care of the problem. I don't support the FAA regulating the design of our machines. I'm afraid they will simply say, 'O.K. We already do that under Part 23 so from now on all gyros will need to be certified if the experimentals are so unsafe and you guys can't police yourselves.'

There may be some things, however, that the PRA may be able to do in association with the FAA. One might be to change the Gyroplane Training syllabus and update the Rotorcraft Flying Manual as well as the gyroplane specific knowledge test questions to emphasize pitch stability. Another may be to ask that gyro pilots be required to hold a gyroplane category/class rating even when flying solo in an experimental. Perhaps current private pilots should also be required to take a gyroplane specific knowledge test emphasizing the unique safety concerns of gyroplane pitch stability in order to get the addon rating. These are just ideas. I don't know if they are good ones. If we, the PRA, go to the FAA and say that these, or others, are the tools we need to improve our safety record, it will at least show that we are working to police ourselves. I just feel that a pilot should not be able to build, receive instruction in, and fly a gyroplane without, sometime during the process, having to learn about gyroplane aerodynamics and pitch stability. This forum is a tremendous help, but it does not reach enough people.

Ron R

07-06-2005, 05:26 PM

banaari

07-06-2005, 05:57 PM

I don't know, but I've been hanging around gyro's now for about 3 1/2 years, and it seems like people, even experienced people, are meeting doom at an increasing rate. And to be honest, it's giving me some very serious second thoughts about things. I love to fly, but maybe this just isn't a stable way to cure the "crave". My new blades are ready and somehow I'm lacking the gumption to even stick them on my 'Bee. A bad case of nerves, for sure.

Ron, IMHO, understanding leads to confidence. No one's ever died or even been seriously injured in a Gyrobee. The recent crashes have involved high-thrustline, unstabilised aircraft. That doesn't make me nervous - it just makes me bloody angry at the unnecessary death, and the damage to the overall gyro reputation.

Brent_Brown

07-06-2005, 06:22 PM

Doug said "Peter, one small footnote: RAF had a rep on the Light Sport Aircraft drafting committee. They agreed to the stability standards the rest of us came up with. At the FAA's instruction, a "design prescription," such as requiring a HS, was NOT to be included in the standards. The standards require the gyro to pass certain stability tests. The FAA will not agree to any standard that requires a specific stability device."

I would like to know. can a RAF as it is from the factory pass all the standards set by the committee? We need to know what/who is going to hold us back from ever getting LS gyros.

GyroRon

07-06-2005, 07:56 PM

Thank you Harry, you are one of the people that I look up to so your compliment has a lot of value to me. Thank you, Vance

Vance I may be one of those Ignorant people you refer to. I guess we can wait to see the report in a few months and then we will know what really happened.....

Yeah right!

You should know by now that unless it was a medical condition, it was either a power pushover or some part that failed on his ship. And you ought to know by now that the accident report will simply blame the pilot for loss of control. What will we learn from that?

Imho it doesn't matter what happened. The STOCK RAF is dangerous and outdated. It should not be sold to newbies period. I am personally sick of these crashes taking place when they could easily be prevented.

automan1223

07-06-2005, 08:37 PM

This past 4th of july holiday which started on friday and ended monday, over 600 people went home in a body bag from auto accidents.

You guys are worrying about 1 raf driver.

Something is seriously wrong here.

Jonathan

pwendell

07-06-2005, 08:47 PM

Jonathan,

The RAF pilot was one of our own, even if none of us knew him. He died doing what we love to do, and, presumably, left behind friends and family who will never hear the word Gyro without grief. I don't see anything wrong with being upset about that.

automan1223

07-06-2005, 08:57 PM

I agree, I just dont like the legal talk that thinks you can legislate every problem to death or life in our case. All you have to do is turn on todays tv news and tell me how any laws save our society.

I too am saddened by this news. I bet that guy just like every other victim thought his machine flew just fine, just great in stock form. Until it augered in. Who knows what the truth is. Like doug said you have to have a crack gyro team ready to go other that they cut up and haul off the wreckage and leave you a pile of polaroids to gloss over. Stay tuned.

Jonathan

Vance

07-06-2005, 09:01 PM

Hello Ron, we are all ignorant as to the cause of this particular accident. The post was not directed at you. There are plenty of accidents that most of us believe are pio or ppo.

I believe that opinions not backed up by fact reinforce opposing views.

I have not come to your conclusions.

I believe that a high thrust line is a poor design for a pusher gyroplane and contributs to pitch instability. I believe that a generous horzantal stabilizer located on a long arm is usefull for dampening pitch oscillations.

I don't know if this had anything to do with this particular accident.

Thank you, Vance

C. Beaty

07-06-2005, 10:01 PM

600 body bags, eh?

One percent of RAF pilots died over the 4TH of July weekend; guessing there might be 100 RAFs actively flying.

A wild guess is that there are 25 million Chevys on the road. If one percent of them died, there would be 250,000 body bags from Chevys alone.

Everyone has the right to be stupid but some abuse the privilege.

Dean_Dolph

07-06-2005, 10:11 PM

....I believe that opinions not backed up by fact reinforce opposing views.

I have not come to your conclusions.

I believe that a high thrust line is a poor design for a pusher gyroplane and contributs to pitch instability. I believe that a generous horzantal stabilizer located on a long arm is usefull for dampening pitch oscillations.

I don't know if this had anything to do with this particular accident.

Thank you, VanceVance, there are times when something needs to be corrected but only a small sample size is available to make a judgment call. In these cases it is not unusual to use empirical data to make a decision or come to a reasonable conclusion. I'm sure you have had to do that during your racing career.

We all know that certain design deficiencies result in an unstable and dangerous gyro. Since the RAF design has been identified as having those deficiencies and has a past history of fatal incidents; I don't think it is unreasonable to come to the conclusion that another fatality has occurred because of the design. It seems that we can't trust the NTSB to perform a proper investigation so we may have to accept the empirical info. It could turn out that there was a medical problem but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Vance

07-06-2005, 10:49 PM

Thank you Dean. I am very familiar with the concept of statistical regretion to smooth data points. I don't feel that it has value in this case.

I have found on many occasions that a preconception can cause me to miss a chance to learn something or teach something.

I feel that there are enough accidents that can be reasonably linked to a high thrust line and a lack of a horizantal stabilizer that leaping to conclusions on this accident only helps the non beliver to continue to ignore facts because they can point to an unsubstantiated claim.

I believe if you read the posts that disigree with your point of view you will hear them point to these kinds of claims and ignor the evidense. I feel that sharing this knoledge is so important that great care must be taken to not make claims without facts.

Thank you, Vance

Dean_Dolph

07-06-2005, 11:11 PM

.....I would like to know. can a RAF as it is from the factory pass all the standards set by the committee? We need to know what/who is going to hold us back from ever getting LS gyros.Brent, that is a good question but since LSA gyros aren't being produced yet that means no one is forced to self certify to the consensus standards. I haven't checked AAI's ads lately but I suspect that they, and some other manufacturers, could advertise that they meet the LSA gyro consensus standards. If they start doing that then it will be interesting to see if RAF follows suit. If they do then they are leaving themselves open to serious scrutiny the next time there is a fatality.

I tried to find the name of he RAF rep that set on the ASTM consensus standards committee but haven't come up with it yet. In all fairness it seemed that he was interested in doing the right things and provided some reasonable observations. I'm not knowledgeable enough to judge if he was on target.

What is interesting is the fact that we've been told that a fairly high profile FAA employee will retire this year and intends to become a sport pilot instructor. His intent is to use a modified RAF. How modified no one has said. I don't think it is any big secret since I think it was posted here but since I'm not sure; I don't want to mention a name. But I understand he will be giving a forum at Mentone on Friday at 1:00 p.m. so the subject may very well come up.

Brent_Brown

07-07-2005, 04:45 AM

Dean you don't need the manufactures to do the tests and say they meet it. I'm asking if anyone knows if it will neet them. Do the test yourself. I think that is what the FAA is hoping we will do. If we the flyers show what gyros pass and what ones do not it will up to the manufactures to do the test and post the resalts. I read all the time mt RAF flys great hand off. So what lock the sick fixed and fly it then tell us how great it flys.

Rotornut

07-07-2005, 05:38 AM

So Chuck, Did Ken build this kit? And who trained him.?? MJ :)

C. Beaty

07-07-2005, 06:25 AM

MJ, the FAA database lists Kenneth A. Becker as the “manufacturer” of the gyroplane in question.

Those who would know whether Mr. Becker availed himself of the assistance included in the kit purchase price and whether or not he received instruction and from whom have remained silent.

Rotornut

07-07-2005, 06:31 AM

Thanks Chuck. MJ :)

ptope

07-07-2005, 06:57 AM

C. Beaty

07-07-2005, 07:26 AM

Learning to control an unstable aircraft is not unlike learning to perform tricks on a skateboard. Best left for teenagers; Mother Nature compensates the absence of mature judgement with better reflexes.

By the time a pilot has become an airline captain and accumulated 15,000 hours of flight time, he’s unlikely to still be a teenager.

Anyone past 40 learning to fly a gyro for the first time should stick to stable designs.

The claim of “negative transfer” is a red herring.

automan1223

07-07-2005, 08:20 AM

almost fair take on the situation.

600 body bags, eh?

One percent of RAF pilots died over the 4TH of July weekend; guessing there might be 100 RAFs actively flying.

A wild guess is that there are 25 million Chevys on the road. If one percent of them died, there would be 250,000 body bags from Chevys alone.

Everyone has the right to be stupid but some abuse the privilege.

Dean_Dolph

07-07-2005, 10:31 AM

.....Do the test yourself. I think that is what the FAA is hoping we will do. If we the flyers show what gyros pass and what ones do not it will up to the manufactures to do the test and post the resalts. I read all the time mt RAF flys great hand off. So what lock the sick fixed and fly it then tell us how great it flys.Brent, I don't know if anyone can actually answer your question at the moment. Although you are right, the owners can do their own tests, I don't think the FAA cares one way or another!

Greg G. has asked anyone and everyone to test their machines using the stability tests that came out of the ASTM consensus standards effort. He can use this data to substantiate what we have come to believe about gyro stability, or instability, as the case may be. He has warned everyone to do the 'static stability' test only! The dynamic test requires more diligence and is a true test pilots job according to the experts.

Stan Foster can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he has performed the static tests and found that his particular machine exhibited the proper profile. However, there is just enough of the 'Show Me' (Birth state!) state left in me to question the results of any individual test unless it is supported by instrument recorded data. And that includes any tests that Greg G. has done.

Al_Hammer

07-07-2005, 10:39 AM

im wondering is there a habbit / training that would become second nature to a fixed wing pilot that could get them in trouble in a gyro? kinda like a high time helo pilot might instinctivly flare too high, which would be normal in helo, but bad in a gyro...

Yes, the prime directive for all airplane pilots is Never Stall the wing. If in doubt, shove the stick forward. That one instinct alone, can get you killed in a helicopter or a gyro. A student and instructor were killed, fairly recently in a R22 helo, when they tried to avoid a kite on climb out. The rotor was seen to depart the aircraft.

You're right, that the flare in a helicopter is often begun at a higher altitude, say 40 ft, as part of the recovery from a practice autorotation, which might end up with the aircraft leveled off at 10 ft. in a "power recovery." In a gyro you flare much lower and hold the flare until , ideally, the tail wheel touches down first.

I flew gyros before beginning helicopter lessons. I was told that it was always better to learn helicopters without having had fixed wing experience first.

I do think my gyro experience was a plus, although I recall the odd look on my instructor's face when I suggested we might try approaching at 60 mph in the R22 and flaring to a landing so that we could stay in autorotation the whole way down for safety. He had noticed my gyro-instilled tendency to hold a bit of airspeed on approach and I had to get used to to slowing up gradually and transitioning to hover in one seemless motion involving control of collective, anti-torque pedals, airspeed, vertical descent rate, pitch attiitude, application of carb heat, cyclic trim off, making a radio call, checking for traffic, and getting out my checkbook.

Harry_S.

07-07-2005, 01:28 PM

You're sumpin' else, Al. :D :D

.

PW_Plack

07-07-2005, 02:12 PM

Al,

"...and getting out my checkbook..."

Only the most aggressive of Part 141 flight schools include this item in the pre-landing checklist. Most group it with post-flight, immediately following "...execute 90 degree bend forward at the waist..." :)

Lotchik

07-07-2005, 02:32 PM

Not sure what you guys were looking at but the RAF on the trailer sure looks like it has a Horizontal Stabilizer. Not sure what kind, how big or how effective but it LOOKS to be there. Obviously not one of those with the winglets. Look at the level of the side rails and at the bottom of the Vertical fin.

This brings up the subject of speculation and heresay. I think I read every post in this discussion looking for facts on the accident and couldn't find any. I am waiting for more info and so should everyone else before accusing anyone or anything.

I grieve and Pray for Ken's family and friends and hope that as I get more into this hobby myself, I can help work out ways to make this a safer sport since I love too flying.

I still feel that the one common answer for all gyro designs is proper training in the aircraft of choice. As I prepare to retire from the Army that is where you will see me in the future. Training and demonstrating what I love to do.

Ken Cerney

GyroRon

07-07-2005, 03:18 PM

Watch the video again Mr. Ken! If you take a closer look you will see the gyro is sitting on a trailer that is not long enough for the gyros tailwheel to sit on. A Raf gyro sits on it's tailwheel when no one is sitting inside it. It looks like he has a board running from one side of the trailers rails to the other side that goes under the keel to support the gyro from flipping over backwards off the trailer. Look again at the video and tell me you still think it had a stab on it.

Besides all the aftermarket stabs for the RAF mount at or under the rudder and you can clearly see there is no stab back there.

KenSandyEggo

07-07-2005, 05:13 PM

"I still feel that the one common answer for all gyro designs is proper training in the aircraft of choice."

God, another Ken. (Oh no!) Many RAF drivers who were killed had been signed off to solo by their CFI. Is it the CFI's fault for not insisting on more training and signing off unprepared pilots? The RAF CFI's continuously preach that the answer to flying the unstable RAF is proper training. How come so many of their students are dead after being trained by them? It can't go both ways.

MichaelBurton

07-07-2005, 08:21 PM

im currious, and am in no way implying that this is the problem, but i too have read a lot of ntsb reports and there seems to be a high number of high time fixed wing pilots that are part of the accidnt statistics. i am not a fixed wing pilot and have only taken one lesson in fixed wing ( uh borring, hehe) but im wondering is there a habbit / training that would become second nature to a fixed wing pilot that could get them in trouble in a gyro? kinda like a high time helo pilot might instinctivly flare too high, which would be normal in helo, but bad in a gyro... again im not implying that that was the issue here i am just currious.... thanks..

1. Part of the problem for a FW pilot is that an airplane is usually quite stable in pitch and roll. The stability is both dynamic and static in nature if not over controlled. A plane like a ball in a dish it will return to the trimmed state after being disturbed.

2. Another problem is in the delayed reaction to the movement of the control stick.

3. A third is that the body of the aircraft is not rigidly connected to the lifting surface. This causes a perception problem during the control of the craft.

4 I have also noticed the tendency of FW pilots to pitch down to descend and to push the stick forward too quickly in a pitch up event.

All of the above items can cause a serious problem for a FW pilot that does not get well trained. I am a FW and Gyro CFI. I continue to fly FW and to teach in both. I find each to have excellent merits. It is obvious to me that it is easier to get a gyro rating after getting a FW rating and that there are some areas of negative learning. However a good pilot of a FW aircraft can be educated and become a good gyro pilot.

I love flying and hope to continue my education in all areas of flight. I regard all pilots as part of the family and am sad to hear of another loss. I hope that all will give those that know the time to investigate and report so that we may all learn and become safer.

Perhaps the PRA should spend some time and monies to educate the public about the need for stability and give reports on the stability of popular gyros.

I am not sure how to solve the problem.

GyroRon

07-07-2005, 08:45 PM

I don't think the PRA wants to really become active in the right ways Mike. It is too bad cause I think they could make a difference.

Dean_Dolph

07-07-2005, 09:49 PM

I don't think the PRA wants to really become active in the right ways Mike....First of all Ron, you are forgetting, again, that the PRA is us! If the PRA isn't active in the right ways it is our fault.

You ran a poll to find out how many Forum members were PRA members. I don't recall the number of members who participated but I think it was only around 10%. That doesn't sound like a large number but the professional polltakers work with lesser numbers. From that 10% there were 74+% who were PRA members.

If we have confidence that the sample size was representative then we can say that there are somewhere between 1000 & 1100 PRA members who are members of this Forum. That is close to 40% of the PRA membership based on the last figures I heard. That is a pretty good chunk! This means if we, the PRA, want to get something done, we have the numbers here to do it. The question then comes up on who manages the process, who chooses what gets targeted and etc. & etc. But the real problem is that we, the PRA, talk the talk but we don't walk the walk!

There is nothing to stop Chapter 13, or any other chapter, from working the issues at a local level. In fact to be effective that is where the issues will have to be worked. It would help if there was some coordination between the chapters and this is where the chapter coordinator's participation would be valuable.

When you are ready to lead this grass roots movement then let us know!

pwendell

07-07-2005, 10:36 PM

I don't think the PRA wants to really become active in the right ways Mike. It is too bad cause I think they could make a difference.

Ron,

I think you're right, but there are some great candidates for the board this time who really know how to get things done. At least one of them is more than capable of running big projects.

Dean is right. In the end it's us that make the difference. Maybe the wind is changing...

GyroRon

07-08-2005, 04:39 AM

If the PRA - speaking of the main board and officers - cared, why invite the two instructors to Mentone to fly in races and other events in their dangerous machines? The two instructors are great pilots, but the fact that they are a invited participant at a PRA Sponsoned event, in front of the crowd... to me shows that the PRA doesn't care what they fly.

Some newbie will be on the ground at Mentone watching this race and taking note of the fact that two of the many gyros in this competition do not have horizontal stabs and have high thrustlines. This newbie may get the impression that this type of machine is okay since it is here racing in front of them. Just imagine if one of those instructors wins.... I would consider banning machines from flying at the convention that don't have horizontal stabs mounted.

This is just one example. I know that I am a PRA member and it is up to me to make a difference. Okay, then I say these two instructors should not be welcome in the PRA race or other competitions at Mentone. Let's see how effective that is.

enewbold

07-08-2005, 05:34 AM

I know that I am a PRA member and it is up to me to make a difference. Okay, then I say these two instructors should not be welcome in the PRA race or other competitions at Mentone. Let's see how effective that is.

Ron, you are obviously a terrific proponent of gyro flight in general and safety in particular. You are also well known throughout the ranks of gyro pilots. Why not prepare something like a "petition" or a "letter of protest" or some such document we can all sign at Mentone, and then present it to (a) the Mentone organizers, (b) the PRA, and (c) the pilots operating the dangerous machines?

It probably wouldn't have much effect on this year's gathering or operations, but it might be a solid first step in the right direction at both bringing awareness of the issues to everyone AND possibly help prevent them from flying in future events.

Passive words and actions never accomplish anything, but proactive actions can sometimes have a snowball effect, garnering attention and support from more and more people and organizations, until something positive happens!

Any thoughts about this?

Ed Newbold
Columbus, OH

Dean_Dolph

07-08-2005, 05:54 AM

If the PRA - speaking of the main board and officers........ It would always clarify these discussions and reduce them if everyone would use PRA BOD instead of PRA when that is what they mean. The officers are part of the BOD and not separate........This is just one example. I know that I am a PRA member and it is up to me to make a difference. Okay, then I say these two instructors should not be welcome in the PRA race or other competitions at Mentone. Let's see how effective that is. Again, you can be effective on a local level. Will ROC ban flying by gyros without a horz stab?

One thing we all have to remember is that we are designing/building/modifying/ experimental aircraft. And for some of us that is one, if not the main, reason we are members of the PRA. Its the Da Vinci gene at work! For that reason banning machines because they don't meet certain safety criteria puts a clamp on innovation that may lead to even better safety solutions.

The exchange of info at PRA gatherings is a resource and inspiration for innovation. Lets be careful in putting limits on it. The FAA would not accept prescriptive solutions such as the horz stab in the ASTM consensus standards for the very reason that to do so would throw up barriers to anyone that invented something that would do that job of the horz stab. It isn't likely but......

If you ban one thing then where do you stop. It is starting to become evident that while the horz stab may offer the most bang for the buck there are a host of other factors at play when it comes to stability and safety. We may accept in a few years that some of these factors are just as important as the horz stab and can't be treated separately. This may be a case where there is a string of things all working together. And disturbing anyone of them may upset the whole system.

I do understand your concerns about the newbie. The newbie is a potential PRA member and recruiting them into a chapter where they can be presented with correct info should be an organization priority. I doubt that all of them will join the PRA even if they participate in a chapter. But, we need to remember the following that was extracted from the PRA by-laws. The general public can mean a non-member newbie.

PURPOSE

A. To encourage, aid and engage in scientific research for the improvement and better understanding of the art of flying by an individual and the science of vertical lift aeronautics.

B.To foster, promote, and popularize education in rotorcraft among it's members and the general public.

Have you ever contacted the BOD and voiced your chapter's and personal opinions/observations? I'm not talking about individual BOD members.

Douglas Riley

07-08-2005, 05:47 PM

Wouldn't banning gyros without horizontal stabs have a perverse effect? It would imply that all you have to do to fix an RAF or early Air Command HTL machine is to stick some eyeball-engineered flat surface out back. The record shows that at least these two brands can still PPO if the only fix is a HS. We wouldn't want to mislead people with such a dangerous half-truth.

As an event organizer, you have to be VERY careful if you get into public evaluations of the safety of a design.

GyroRon

07-08-2005, 05:54 PM

Dean and Doug, no I know it is a unrealistic request that machines like Stock RAFs be grounded or not welcomed at events. It would cause the loss of those members and would probably upset many others. And for us, Chapter 13, we couldn't ban those machines even if we wanted to at ROC because ROC is held at a public use airport and the no stabs guys have every right to be there.

I am just saying that the PRA is not the cure and will never be with the way things are run and the thought process of those in charge. It would be better to keep us a big happy family and live with the turmoil hidden just under the skin than to just get it out in the open and dealt with and on to better times.

Ed, I don't think many people would sign something like that.... Not a bad idea though

Jimmy

07-08-2005, 07:51 PM

Change takes time. During the past 2 years that I've been involved in gyros I've seen a significant change in attitudes and awareness. I think momentum will continue to increase with the release of the new standards, addition of a new board member(s) and continued discussion on this forum and elsewhere. I feel the PRA is critical to eventually pulling things together. I appreciate what the PRA has done for me and I anticipate more good things things in the near future. Every organization has challenges and heated debates.

pwendell

07-08-2005, 09:57 PM

What about the idea of excluding from flyins and expelling from the PRA those who make their living from teaching in and promoting known unstable designs?

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-08-2005, 10:20 PM

pwendell

07-08-2005, 10:46 PM

" What about the idea of excluding from flyins and expelling from the PRA those who make their living from teaching in and promoting known unstable designs? "

That is a no brainer, any flight instructor that has sufficient knowledge and morals would never teach their students anything that endangers their life.

They should be shunned and banned from the group, with no instructors teaching people to fly dangerous machines the fatality rate would decrease.

Chuck E.

Chuck,

This is the third time I've raised this issue in the last few days and NOBODY has directly responded to it. If we, the PRA, are really commited to gyroplane safety, we can no longer accept those who profit from selling or promoting for pofit unstable, dangerous machines. Many of these guys are nice and charming and maybe even our friends or our mentors, but there is no longer any excuse for any CFI or salesperson to push dangerous gyroplanes. We all, now, know better. Accepting those who do promote dangerous designs as members of our family is giving tacit approval to their actions. It is time to make a painful choice, in my opinion, and take a divisive stand against those whom we know are doing wrong in order to preserve the integrity and the future of the sport we love.

Thanks, Chuck, for being so clear.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-08-2005, 11:35 PM

Peter:

In the world of aviation that I work and live in we are governed by strict rules that are designed to ensure "safety".

It would be impossible for me to work in my industry if I were to teach that I have found a way to circumvent the known laws of physics, aerodynamics and safety...sure, I may be able to conn some people into believing that I somehow have the ability to train them to fly with disregard to common sense and fly a known defective machine or a machine loaded out of its center of gravity limits and I could teach them the skills to avoid losing control of said machine...

...But , if I were to do that I would lose my licenses to teach and no flight test examiner would accept my recommendation for the flight test.

In the gyro world you do not have these safeguards and consequently the RAF Ask First Society can ply their trade of deception leaving behind a trail of dead bodies as a testament to their success.

Until this loophole in the safety chain of flight instruction is closed we will keep on reading of more and more accidents where people have died because they wrongly were taught that they could be trained to fly a dangerous design and they could control it under all circumstances....

..So my advice is shun these people and ban them from your group. To accept them is to accept responsibility for the results that keep happening, over and over.

I almost fainted dead away when I read that one of these instructors was voted man and machine of the year, that is truly astonishing and indictive of the ignorance that is allowed to fester within the gyro community.

Chuck E.

route66

07-09-2005, 01:00 AM

With all your expertise and knowledge I am amazed that your simple solution is banning the problematic. Is it really the RAF problem or is it the builder’s problem. I realize the basic RAF has a lot of glitches that need to be corrected, yet this past year in my pursuit to purchase a gyro I looked at over 20 for sale and all had a lot of builder problems. I see everyone is quick to point out the alarming #'s of incidences with RAF in comparison to others, but are all the facts correct? I came close to purchasing an AAI modified RAF in Florida this last year that had a lot of build issues as well as it was registered as a Dominator. I can think of 3 mishaps with AAI machines which are registered as RAF. The way I look at it is RAF has done a remarkable feat by designing and producing their RAF 2000. It is not perfect and I am not promoting it, but it was produced to give us that 2 seat enclosed convenience. Jim and AAI enjoyed what RAF produced and identified some flaws and made a carbon copy with a lot of convenience and safety issues addressed to become the Sparrow hawk. In other worlds this would be a copyright infringement, but not in this business. With our," it was their problem and the ease of lawsuits I understand why Companies can't claim responsibilities. I had the pleasure of flying with Dwayne Hunn at Benson days in his RAF with the stabulator and have to say with not so favorable conditions I was impressed. It seemed to handle as well as the Sparrow hawk I had flown before.
To make a long story short I did buy an RAF and have added the AAI Modification. It was a matter of my choice given what I know and what I have learned. Banning a certain aircraft will not win the war, tolerance and education will! The PRA is an organization for rotorcraft enthusiasts with no bounds as I see it. If there is as much heart to have a safe organization for the same group it needs to be formed. My first thought was Safety First, but we all know that’s wrong. If everybody is serious about changing things, let's start fresh! Don't spend all your time trying to change it, Start Fresh!
I nominate Gyro Ron to be our spokesperson. Hell, he likes to type. A lot of us have the same opinion as far as airworthiness and what is safe. Sometimes you can't change what is there, you need to start fresh and make it work.
We need to build an organization & website to show not only the fun, but the problems and give guidance to overcome them. It's harder than you think, but we can do it. Anybody have a good name for us? Who is in?

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-09-2005, 02:44 AM

"The way I look at it is RAF has done a remarkable feat by designing and producing their RAF 2000. "

The present management of RAF did not design anything, they only took a machine that their uncle built and copied other parts made by others until they had a good looking machine that they can market with slick advertising. I have had the missfortune of not only personally knowing these crooks but worked in their factory when they first opened it, so my knowledge is first hand and credible.

No one in management at RAF have any background in aircraft design nor flying same. The only one in RAf that could even fly one was Dan Haseloh and he was a self taught bone head that had an accident record with gyros that was appaling until his last one which killed not only him but two others in another RAf that he flew into through either ignorance, carelessness or a stability issue that caused the accident...take your choice, it was still his fault.

I personally could care less what you think of me or my experience because I am not presently directly involved in your world of flying, but I am qualified to make the statement that the Ask First Society, as run by Don LaFleure and his minions such as Hunn and Logan are a disgrase to the world of flight instruction, just examine the facts, and I defy you to find another group in aviation that teaches such rubbish as training can overcome the actions of an unstable aircraft, especially instability as exibited by an RAF.

Chuck E.

Rotornut

07-09-2005, 04:57 AM

And for us, Chapter 13, we couldn't ban those machines even if we wanted to at ROC because ROC is held at a public use airport and the no stabs guys have every right to be there.

So True Ron! Sunstate also would not be able to enforce this at BD Days either.
But thinking back to others that I heard Charlie tell they could not fly and wondering how he got away with it. Respect For His Ability as AirBoss. He could pull it off, but for me to say that to a pilot attending BD Days I would be laughed at. MJ

Udi

07-09-2005, 09:16 AM

We need to build an organization & website to show not only the fun, but the problems and give guidance to overcome them. It's harder than you think, but we can do it. Anybody have a good name for us? Who is in?
I've been kicking this idea for a while, Brandon. I am mostly interested in creating a website that will provide accurate information to new and old gyroheads. In time, it can become a membership organization. I have no intention of replacing the PRA, but rather having another organization with the sole purpose of making our sport safer and improving our standing in the eyes of the General Aviation.

Udi

pwendell

07-09-2005, 09:35 AM

I just want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that we ban unstable gyros and their pilots from PRA events, but that we exclude those with a commercial interest in the promotion of unstable designs and/or the teaching of known dangerous practices. I have no problem with what individuals choose to fly as long they have all the information they need to make an informed decision. I do have a problem with those who knowingly endanger others, or who should know they are doing so.

I HATE the idea of excluding anyone, but what other choice do we really have? It really is a moral issue. How can those of us who are absolutely convinced by the physics, the accident data, and our own experiences, that a high thrustline, stabless gyroplane is much more dangerous than it needs to be, and that this dangerous design has been partly, if not wholly, responsible for several deaths, accept among us those who have and will profit from these machines? How can we possibly allow them to do business at our events when we know that a normal part of that business is telling their customers and students lies that might get them killed? I guess these are questions we all have to answer for ourselves.

enewbold

07-09-2005, 09:39 AM

I've been kicking this idea for a while, Brandon. I am mostly interested in creating a website that will provide accurate information to new and old gyroheads. In time, it can become a membership organization. I have no intention of replacing the PRA, but rather having another organization with the sole purpose of making our sport safer and improving our standing in the eyes of the General Aviation.

Udi

I am too, Udi, and have the resources available to do it. If we put our heads together and come up with a good, clean, easy-to-read non-profit site that takes the slant the we will inform, educate and be advocates for the safer gyrocopter designs, rather than attempt to ban any particular person or company, that we could start making some progress at solving the problems.

Including lists of instructors who will provide good, safe instruction in good, safe machines would be one little step in the right direction.

Including lists of recommended kits/plans should be there, with no reference whatsoever to the poorly designed or unsafe machines. This would accomplish two things: (1) Inform possible buyers and pilots of the safe kits/plans available; (2) Avoid any possibility of litigation by not making any references (publicly) of the bad machines.

Providing unbiased and sound builder's and pilot's reviews of the various safe gyros could be another little step.

Recommendations and suggestions of things to do or not to do in the world of gyros could be an invaluable resource to beginners.

I'm game. Let's get started with the planning phase of this project.

Ed Newbold
PRA#40633
Columbus, OH

http://enewbold.com/
EdNewbold@enewbold.com

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 09:56 AM

"In other worlds this would be a copyright infringement, but not in this business."

Not necessarily true. If so, Bensen would be in violation because there were pusher gyros in existence way before his. Look at all the low wing, tractor prop fixed-wings there are. You can't copyright or patent flight technology unless it's really something unique. Everyone after the Wright brothers would be in violation.

Wish I had an answer to help in this discussion. I too was shocked at that award, especially after he was exposed here for using plagiarism and context shuffling to preach that it's safe to push over a gyro at the top of a climb.

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 10:53 AM

From the NTSB prelim report. Looks like he was taking instruction and was signed off to solo....if they got the info correctly. Evidently the CFI thought he had enough training to solo and signed him off. Bold-face is mine.

"On July 4, 2005, at 1900 eastern daylight time, a Becker RAF 2000 ametuer built gyrocopter, N481KB, collided with the terrain following a loss of control while in the traffic pattern at the Gladwin Airport (GDW), Gladwin, Michigan. The commercial rated pilot was fatally injured. The gyrocopter was substantially damaged. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 solo instructional flight was operating in visual meteorolgocial conditions without a flight plan. The local flight originated from GDW shortly before the accident."

Brian Jackson

07-09-2005, 11:39 AM

Perhaps this is a stupid idea, but I am NOT a fan of ostracizing anyone from a group. Lord knows we're small enough already, and it's not the PRA's job to legislate this.

I even thought about a "sticker" or "endorsement" of some sort... kinda like those UL or EPA stickers you see when buying a product. If a group were established and recognized to grant a "SafeDesign" endorsement, whom would be chosen and what criteria would be used? What gray areas would be covered, and how would one guard against personal bias? Could the sole purpose of this new group be limited to a "Consumer Reports" for gyros role?

Finally, how would any such Seal Of Approval be made known? Would a manufacturer take it seriously whether they approved or not?

Just thinking out loud.

Thanks,
Brian Jackson

pwendell

07-09-2005, 11:47 AM

Harry_S.

07-09-2005, 01:06 PM

Let's just wait and see the total hours he had in the RAF...OK?!

And...another thought...maybe I shouldn't *mention* this...did he receive any dual?!

.

C. Beaty

07-09-2005, 01:38 PM

Does “solo instructional flight” mean a flight conducted under the supervision of a flight instructor like a student pilot’s first solo?

Harry_S.

07-09-2005, 02:00 PM

I know what your saying, Chuck...and I figured someone would call me on that specific.

This is terminology used in the preliminary NTSB report.

I am self taught. Every one of my flights :eek: was a *solo instructional flight*, in a sense. I think you were self taught as well, right?!

So, let us see what was what!

.

C. Beaty

07-09-2005, 02:32 PM

I don’t understand Federalese, Harry.

I really miss Charlie Presnell on occasions like this. Charley was fluent in government language and would have known whether “solo instructional flight” means, necessarily, under CFI supervision.

The fact that Mr. Becker did not need a solo endorsement could simply mean that he was considered a student in a gyro until the requisite number of hours had been logged.

However, I infer from the silence of Duane’s many supporters and admirers in the area that Mr. Becker was in fact receiving instruction

Udi

07-09-2005, 03:11 PM

“solo instructional flight” means that he was signed off by a CFI to fly solo, under the supervision of this CFI.

14 CFR Part 61.3 Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, no person other than the holder of a flight instructor certificate issued under this part with the appropriate rating on that certificate may—

(i) Give training required to qualify a person for solo flight and solo cross-country flight;

(ii) Endorse an applicant for a—

(A) Pilot certificate or rating issued under this part;

(B) Flight instructor certificate or rating issued under this part; or

(C) Ground instructor certificate or rating issued under this part;

(iii) Endorse a pilot logbook to show training given; or

(iv) Endorse a student pilot certificate and logbook for solo operating privileges.
When my flight instructor signed me off to solo, he asked me to call him before every flight. He said that his butt, and his CFI privileges, were on the line if something were to happen to me "under his signature".

Udi

Udi

07-09-2005, 03:32 PM

I am too, Udi, and have the resources available to do it. If we put our heads together and come up with a good, clean, easy-to-read non-profit site that takes the slant the we will inform, educate and be advocates for the safer gyrocopter designs, rather than attempt to ban any particular person or company, that we could start making some progress at solving the problems.
I understand your concerns re litigation, Ed, but I have no intention sparing criticism from RAF on any other manufacturer. We are doing it here all the time, and nobody is suing us. There are many organizations who's sole purpose it to review consumer products. The website I want to create will review the good, the bad, and the ugly of every type of gyro. I have nothing to worry about as long as I stick with facts and scientifically acceptable principles. Besides, I don't think RAF will want to draw any additional attention by suing a public service.

Udi

PW_Plack

07-09-2005, 05:19 PM

Chuck,

I don't know how long it's been this way, but all solo flight by a student pilot between the time he is signed off for solo and the time he either passes the practical test, or gets another 90-day solo endorsement are considered solo "instruction." The student is limited by the CFI to specific conditions, areas and airports, and the CFI is held jointly accountable for violations by the student during that period. FAR 61.109(d) terms the minimum required solo experience as "...10 hours of solo flight training..."

Where it gets muddy is whether "solo flight training" can exist for someone who does not hold, and is not eligible to hold a student pilot certificate. This guy had all the certificate he needed to fly anywhere he wanted in his RAF, so long as he didn't carry a passenger. He was not, legally, limited to any guidelines from his instructor.

Papa Smurf

07-09-2005, 05:56 PM

The consumer review styled website idea is good. I hope it can be put together.
This forum is full of very good information but there is a lot of "mud' to wade through to get it.

C. Beaty

07-09-2005, 06:01 PM

Like I said, PWP, I don’t speak Federalese. Words that mean one thing in Standard English may have a distinctly different meaning in Federal Speak.

Take category and class:

cat·e·go·ry (katÆi gôrÅ, -grÅ), n., pl. -ries.
1. any general or comprehensive division; a class.

My dictionary says those two words are synonyms, dependant upon usage; enough to cause apoplexy in an FAA bureaucrat.

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 06:02 PM

I'd think you'd have to have dual to be flying an "instructional solo flight. Doesn't that come after a CFI endorses you to fly solo after sufficient dual?

What difference does it make as to how many hours he had in the RAF? If he was signed off for solo, his CFI considered him a safe enough pilot to fly alone. This is all assuming that's what happened, since we really don't know. Depends if the NTSB info is correct or not, which it often is not.

C. Beaty

07-09-2005, 06:29 PM

As I understand it Ken, Mr. Becker wasn’t required to have a solo endorsement by a CFI; and likely didn’t.

His log book may show a few hours of dual instruction so we know what the response from RAF and their groupies will be.

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 09:11 PM

Yep. I figured it would be muddled.

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-09-2005, 09:24 PM

O.K. I will ask the question direct.

To D. Hunn , J. Logan or any other instructor.

Did the pilot that died in the RAF a few days ago receive a solo sign out from a gyroplane licensed instructor?

Chuck E.

KenSandyEggo

07-09-2005, 09:30 PM

pwendell

07-09-2005, 10:13 PM

Let's see...if he was going for a rotorcraft rating (gyro), wouldn't he still have a student/solo status, even though he could fly his experimental with just his FW ticket if he desired? Can you be a "student pilot" for the purpose of training more than once if you're transitioning into another class/category?

Ken,

I think you're right. Just imagine for a moment that he was training in a certified gyroplane. He absolutely would need a solo signoff in order to act as PIC since he would not have the appropriate rating until he completed the check ride. A certificated pilot can certainly be a solo student flying under the supervision of an instructor when training for a new rating.

route66

07-10-2005, 12:37 AM

Udi, Thank you for reading between the lines of my posts. I am all for anything we can do to educate! If you are thinking a website count me in. I will help in any way needed. I too would never want to replace the PRA or any other group but would like to give them a place to use with the facts and the answers they need for their members and I am sure we can all work together. As I said it is not easy, but we have You, Ed & Me and I a sure Peter, Ken, Chuck, Harry & Brian have the same feelings. It is a start,Lets see if we can make it happen... I look forward to moving forward.

Gerhard

07-10-2005, 02:31 AM

Couldnt say it better than Papa Smurf: "This forum is full of very good information but there is a lot of "mud' to wade through to get it."

An online resource of information for the homebuilder drawn up by the experts will be of great benefit.

Heron

07-10-2005, 06:08 AM

After many years in the forums and seen people die and the despair and anguish of their friends and relatives I understand the frustration show here (you may see it as mud) so get a filter and make good use of the info and content, many lives were saved here.
More than a huge discount they deserve applause.
The only way to stop those kind of accidents is grounding the aircraft, dont mind the cringe and teeth grind.
Heron

Rotornut

07-10-2005, 12:14 PM

Yes Harry Thank You. Lets wait and see all that we can learn before we assume. Just wish there was a easier way of getting the info quicker and faster. But Truth.

MJ :)

gyrogreg

07-18-2005, 12:33 PM

First, I am completely disappointed that we are still having these unnecessary fatalities in gyros. I believe that among the gyro people who have been exposed to the stability issues, we have made great inroads in stability safety - no PIO or Buntover accidents among "educated" gyro pilots. The problem is getting the word to those who either assume or get their information from mis-informed sources! I am pressuring the EAA to help us disseminate information about the new, safer generation of gyroplanes. It is unfortunately EAA SEL type pilots, even high-time pilots, that are now having the unnecessary stability accidents!!!! Look for an article in EAA Sport Pilot magazine soon - I hope. Or call the Sport Pilot Editor and request she expedite printing articles that would help to "educate" their non- PRA members. Too many pilots at the EAA events get exposure to pretty machines and poor technical information. We need these people to at least be "educated" enough to ask the right questions!!!

what we need first from the government is a recognition of the role stability plays in gyroplane safety, and the Light Sport Aircraft Consensus Standards will be a step in that direction.

Paul, I completely agree with you that we should be promoting stability, not a specific configuration or color that sometimes might make a gyro more safe!

That is exactly the intent of the ASTM Gyroplane Design and Performance standard. The standard does not "prescribe" how to make a gyro stable, it shows how to determine, through flight testing, if it is adequately stable. There will be a series of articles in Rotorcraft soon - detailing what the standard says about stability and how to determine the static stability margins of any gyro.

A little background on the reason we have developed the gyroplane standard. Several years ago, after a particularly bad summer spate of gyro fatalities, as the gyroplane Sport Pilot interface with the FAA, Sue Gardner asked me what was going on!!?? I told her we think we know what is "going on", but too many people do not agree and the incessant argueing discourages widespread understanding of the issues involved.

Sue Gardner asked us to tell them what we thought was wrong. I agreed to do a study of the NTSB accident reports - applying insight into what the NTSB reports were not really saying but were making obvious - stability issues. This study showed that about 40% of gyroplane serious accident were from lack of training. Another 40% could be attributed to poor gyroplane stability. In many cases, the combination of both of these root causes shared the blame! See the report at: Gyroplane Accident Report to FAA (http://www.pra.org/index.php?module=article&view=23) (This original report to the FAA did include exact manufacturers and models. The report Attachment A published in Rotorcraft and on the PRA website substitutes "Model Codes" at the request of the FAA - this report is the property of the FAA and they did not want the exact report published.)

The FAA, after receiving this report, asked how many gyroplanes in the U.S. were flying and how many flight hours - was the accident rate statistically significant? We did a very rough survey and guestimate that, even if it was off a factor of 10, implied that gyroplane fatalities were several orders of magnitude beyond acceptable!!!!

The FAA, after digesting all this information - all couched with a lot of uncertainty because of poor data - got back to us and said "we've got to do something! This is unacceptable" The FAA admitted they would have no idea of what to do, that if they did something on their own, it would probably not help matters. The FAA suggested that if the PRA and gyroplane community did not take action, the FAA would be forced to take "some kind of action" - that could not be good!

They asked for our advice. We recommended the development of a standard. The FAA agreed that they thought a real "consensus standard", one with the credibility of development by the gyroplane industry and community, might best "influence" manufacturers, designers, purchasers and fliers to fly safer gyros. Since we were just starting the ASTM LSA "Consensus Standards" project, this is what we did.

We are now in the process of disseminating the important aspects of this Gyroplane standard. Note, the gyroplane standard is not a "requirement" for any gyroplane - except for a gyroplane manufacturer who would want to sell a Special LSA gyroplane - which isn't even allowed at this time! The FAA feels a credible and accepted gyroplane standard would, rather than "force" compliance, would instead "influence" market pressures for manufacturers to provide safer gyroplanes. The standard would also increase the "knowledge base" of customers and gyro fliers to make better decisions about what to purchase, build and fly.

The project now is to get this information to the gyro community and fliers and to prospective gyroplane pilots. "An informed customer is a safer customer." We should encourage everyone to ask: "does it meet the standard?" Or, at a minimum ask: "Does it meet the stability criteria in the gyroplane ASTM standard?"

We (and the FAA) had thought we had been positively influencing a better gyroplane accident record over the last several years - probably just from spreading more credible stability technical understanding. We thought we might be getting over the hump. This latest spate of accidents poors cold water on this notion! But, looking at these recent accidents, one common thread is lack of exposure to these important gyroplane stability issues. That tells me we need to do a better job of communication beyond the gyroplane sphere of pilots. How about some "Letters to the Editor" to the EAA magazine editors - relating how important it is to expose their fixed-wing community to these gyroplane issues - before they just assume or buy into a good sales line!

There soon will be articles in Rotorcraft explaining the stability criteria in the standard.

Thanks, Greg Gremminger (I will not be able to further respond on this post until after Oshkosh now - leaving for Mentone now!)

Chuck_Ellsworth

07-18-2005, 01:25 PM

Anyone know if the pilot of this latest RAF 200 fatality had training on the machine, and if so was it a Ask First Society type?

Funny how silent that group gets on these issues.

Hey Ben how about giving Jim a call and see what you can find out?

Chuck E.

gyrogreg

07-18-2005, 01:46 PM

Sorry for getting in this thread late, and I'm not sure I was able to read everything in it.

It appears that this RAF did not have a HS, but, does anyone know if this RAF had a "Stabilator"?

I have been hearing reports that the "Stabilator really works". It may, I don't think we have even any Static Stability flight test data on it. I think all these reports are "subjective" feel. Can't objectively determine stability by "feel"! I can see how the "stabilator" can provide a degree of static gust load and airspeed stability - maybe even a large postive static margin! My question would be if this is enough to overcome any G-Load static instability. G-Load static instability is the response of the gyro to a G-load disturbance - it should always be in the stable direction to reduce the G-Load disturbance and start it returning back to 1G. The way this is tested in the ASTM standard is to put the trimmed gyro in a bank and assure that it takes aft stick pressure and displacement to maintain the original level trimmed airspeed. (If the CG is "effectively" forward of the RTV, an increased G-load in the banking turn should pull the nose lower and require aft stick pressure and displacement to prevent higher airspeed in the turn.) G-Load instability is the root of buntovers - a disturbance to less than 1G starts a rapid pitch / G-load divergence to less and less G-load, nose down pitching! Does the Stabilator provide G-Load stability?

A second question would be how well does the "Stabiliator" provide the DYNAMIC stability criteria. Unfortunately, we insist that this DYNAMIC testing should only be accomplished by a professional test pilot - testing it can be dangerous if that gyro is not dynamically stable. There are good technical arguments that good DYNAMIC stability is readily achieved by use of an effective HS placed well aft of the CG. In otherwords, if STATIC stability is achieved with the use of a HS, it is very likely that the dynamic charactertistics would be very docile - PIO insusceptibility.

We have always maintained that there may be other ways to achieve acceptable stability in a gyro - other than the (now pretty-well understood) use of HS and balanced thrust and draglines.) Use of a HS to achieve good STATIC stability may well also assure good DYNAMIC stability as well - therefore our emphasis on STATIC stability criteria which are safe to test. However, if static stability is achieved by means other than a HS, DYNAMIC testing would be required to assure that DYNAMIC stability is also acceptable.

If anyone knows if this RAF had a "stabilator", please let me know. Also, if you are conducting the static tests, please let me know the results.

Thanks, Greg Gremminger

GyroRon

07-18-2005, 01:49 PM

In the picture of it in the parade before the accident tok place the gyro appeared to be a bone stock RAF with no stab of any kind.

MGman

07-18-2005, 05:42 PM

Greg - I realize that we can't enforce the standard on a manufacturer unless they actually build and sell their Gyro as a completed unit, which no manufacturer now does.

However, isn't there some way to require the manufacture to certify that their gyro will pass the standards, if assembled in accordance with their specific directions and materials? They could put in any disclaimer they want, as long as they provide a copy of the standards with their kit. (I know - some of the kits probably won't pass the standards, as designed and sold - but at least the purchasers would have all the information available to make their own decision). If the manufacturer refused to provide the information, could they be censored, sanctioned and/or fined in some way by the FAA? Just a suggestion - I know it is probably unenforceble at this time.

How about requiring all manufacturers to provide a copy of the standard to their customers (actual and prospective) along with their literature, along with information about training requirements (or at least recommendations), and include references to web sites and personnel with phone numbers and/or email addresses for additional information (probably the PRA, EAA or FAA contacts). - Even if they don't certify their gyros will meet the standards. The PRA could also put together a package specifically related to stability and training issues that could be mailed to anyone calling or writing for information.

I agree that somehow getting gyro stability and training information in the hands of all prospective gyro pilots will be a major step in reducing accidents, especially fatal ones, but we do need a way to get the info to the people who are obviously not now getting it. It would seem the FAA, EAA and PRA could lean on the manufacturers to provide this information, as they (the manufacturers) obviously now aren't doing so. I think it is a real crime (and immoral) for the manufacturers to not be required to provide stability information about their kits to prospective purchasers.

Thank you for your efforts in helping to put together the standards, and for working on gyro safety as much as you do. You and others working on the standards have provided a valuable tool for gyro pilots to use in making their build decisons. I am not a pilot (yet), but I have really learned a lot over the past 1 1/2 years that I have been following this forum. We have some very savy and concientious people on this list - even when they disagree, they always seem to be saying the same things, just from different perspectives.

Thanks also to all of you on this list for helping to promote the safety, as well as the fun, of gyros. Somehow the word will get out and gyros will become much more respected when others see how seriously most gyro pilots are taking their hobby.

Dave Bohler

PW_Plack

07-18-2005, 07:22 PM

Dave,

I think if the kitmakers test a "conforming example," built to spec, and it meets the standard, they've done all they can. The accident reports don't suggest problems caused by user modifications. On the contrary, at least one kit which makes news often becomes safer after important user modifications.

gyrogreg

07-18-2005, 07:26 PM

Dave, I don't see any way to make the ASTM standard a "requirement", or make any other requirements on manufacturers unless they would be selling aircraft under the SLSA rules. This has always been a dilema. The dilema is more than just regulatory. There have been so many differing opinions on gyroplane stability; and even on the stability side of the argument, it is difficult to get agreement on what should be "required". It has been a long, hard road to get beyond the "prescriptive" arguments - red, blue, this or that HS or thrustline, etc. That is the reason that our gyroplane standard, and all aircraft standards, avoid the "prescriptive" solutions and set criteria based on testing "results".

The FAA is certainly endorsing the new gyroplane standard. At Mentone I will be proposing that the PRA "endorse" the new gyroplane standard - but, I've even got my doubts that will be possible because there are still so many people who truly do not understand the technicalities of stability or the differences between "prescriptive" and "results" criteria. It has been difficult getting a number of the "good guys" to get beyond "prescriptive" solutions, or beyond the clamor for just outlawing certain configurations and models. The FAA and most of the PRA knows you can't just "outlaw" by restrictive configuration "prescriptions" (HS, thrustlines, draglines, etc.) because the combinations of all the factors cannot be "prescribed" in a practical specification unless you specifically require exact and limited configurations. (For instance, It is probably easiest to meet the stability criteria in the standard through employing a HS. But, the standard does not "require" a HS. Any way a designer can meet the "results" stability criteria (testing) is acceptable and should provide the necessary safety margins.)

So, the ASTM LSA gyroplane standard tries to avoid "prescriptive" criteria, and instead sets the end results as the criteria - this is just difficult for some non-technical people to swallow. Therefore, it is a political problem, on even the side of the "good guys", to reach a consensus.

The FAA and others recognized the political problems of the "prescriptive" solutions. So, we moved one step above "prescriptions", to the level of results. Now, anyone can design or modify any way they want, but if they want to comply with the standard, it will have to test to meet the standard. if they modify the standard design, they can perform some simple tests to assure their modified configuration still provides adequate stability margins.

Since we cannont "force" manufacturers, or builders or fliers to comply with the standard, the best way to "influence" the community, industry and users is to create a credible standard and "educate" the community and users on that standard and what it means and how it protects them. Then, an "informed" market can put market pressures to bear on the manufacturers.

What we want to encourage every prospective gyro purchaser to do now is to ask informed questions when they are shopping. Ask specifically:
"Does this model meet the ASTM LSA standard. If not, where does it not meet it?
Specifically, "What are the test results on the three static stability tests. Can you provide a test report that verified the static stability."
"What are the test results for dynamic stability? Can you provide a test report?"

If you start getting excuses or answers that show they are trying to snow you, go somewhere else! Most likely, if they really don't have the engineering expertise or testing