RAF version of Quebec accident [Archive]

KenSandyEggo

11-26-2005, 05:42 AM

I was sent this by an acquaintance:

On the Quebec instructor story, I heard about it last week for the first time from Dave Armstrong who gets the story from Don Lafleur, and he says that Don was approached by the CFI in question to become their agent in Montreal. Don asked him for his credentials and received photocopies of his logbook stating a great experience in helicopters. The CFI ordered a kit and built it. Another mate of Don went for the check-up and tried to convert the CFI who apparently was barely qualified to taxi. He never managed to handle a straight and level flight. Not qualified yet, somebody else requested the CFI for a demo which he tried to do. He rolled the aircraft on take-off with the pax in it, without having pre-rotated enough. Then he called Don to say that he would leave the project there because he could not afford the spares. Don says that he supplied him with the necessary spares on credit and asked him to rebuild the machine and not to fly it until inspected and fully converted. According to Don, he still flew his aircraft and went into massive PIO and killed himself. Don says to Dave Armstrong that the local newspapers now mentioned that "a RAF agent is killed in RAF accident". That's the end of the story.

Doug Riley

11-26-2005, 06:07 AM

I hope that those who knew Michel best within the Quebec gyro community will set the record straight. Helo experience is nice, but is somewhat beside the point in gyro flying. A properly-designed gyro flies more like a draggy FW plane than like a helicopter.

Rehan K.Janjua

11-26-2005, 11:40 AM

Hello Ken.

Thank you for the story. Sad ending.
I bet it didn't have a H/S.

Most of older Helli do no have a H/S.
Auto landings in reality are with tail rotors hitting the ground first.(Flare)

Dough: Well said.

Regards
Rehan Janjua
Air Command. Pakistan

ventana7

11-26-2005, 01:01 PM

Was he a heli or gyro CFI. If he was a gyro CFI the story does not quite make sense.

Rob

Timchick

11-26-2005, 02:43 PM

Someone in another thread said he'd trained with an RAF instructor and even posted a photo of him with the instructor.

PS. Glad to see you back on the forum, Kenny J. Bring on the stories (with photos).

Udi

11-26-2005, 03:06 PM

Hognose

11-26-2005, 05:46 PM

The photos showed CFI Jim Logan helping someone, presumably Michel, set up a RAF rotor system. I don't know the source of the pictures and what they mean. Obviously, those who were involved (and the dead) are not talking.
http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6635&page=6

Udi

I think in that same thread it says Michel formerly owned an Air Command and had been a member of a PRA chapter (Ken Brock's) while living in the USA some years ago.

EDIT> Yep,
He was flying gyros since abouth 1990,he started in Italy where he assembled his air command and flown it there for abouth 3 years ,after whitch he flown it in California for abouth an other 2 1/2 years ,where he was a member of Ken Brooks PRA chapter .He then came back to Quebec where he has been flying ever since ,and i know he became the only CFI in Quebec ,
in 2004.

So I guess I get to weigh Don Lafleur's credibility against someone whose credibility is, unlike Don's, an unknown quantity, because I don't know Line Richer and Jean Belair. YMMV. I personally don't trust Don as far as an RAF can tumble. Some of his instructors are good people. All of them have a blind spot about stability. Yet they do promote instruction, you have to give them that, none of this "you can teach yourself to fly it" nonsense.

cheers

-=K=-

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-26-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

" All of them have a blind spot about stability. "

What a stunning statement...

...so in the gyro world you can be a flying instructor and be blind about stability...

No wonder I can't understand the gyroplane segment of aviation.

C.E.

Doug Riley

11-26-2005, 07:05 PM

Line and Jean are long-time gyro enthusiasts. They are solid and honest people. I trust them to have their facts straight.

Aussie_Paul

11-26-2005, 10:46 PM

A properly-designed gyro flies more like a draggy FW plane than like a helicopter.
.....that takes a bit of getting through to people who have only flown gyros with varying degrees of instability!!!

I guess some of us are lucky to have some fixed wing experience and lots of both unstable and stable gyro flying, and even luckier to have instructed students in both unstable and stable.

I just love this sport.:D

Aussie Paul. :)

birdy

11-27-2005, 12:39 AM

Yet they do promote instruction, you have to give them that

Theres money to be made in instruction.
Yes, i'm a synic.

Dean_Dolph

11-27-2005, 04:44 AM

.........so in the gyro world you can be a flying instructor and be blind about stability...

No wonder I can't understand the gyroplane segment of aviation.

C.E.Chuck, you can't blame me, since I'm a member of the 'gyroplane segment of aviation', for this problem.

Instructors are certified by the various governments. And that is where the accountability resides. If the certifying agencies don't require (or understand themselves!) this knowledge then there will be instructors who won't understand it or choose to ignore it.

Gyro instructors are just people, like any other aviation instructor, and need a reason to do anything including, acquiring knowledge about and, teaching stability theory. If they aren't given a reason then they won't. The most respected instructors have acquired this knowledge on their own because they have found a reason to do so without a certifying agency giving them one.

Fortunately, the majority of gyro instructors accept stability theory as it has been presented to date. If they didn't then I believe you would see a lot worse incident situation than what we have. Having said all this, it is not a good when a small number instructors and one major manufacturer are either ignoring stability theory or passing on the incorrect info. I don't think the U.S. RAF instructors are passing on incorrect info (I could be wrong). But, by flying/instructing in a known killer they are setting a bad example and putting questions in the minds of students about what they hear from the majority of the gyro community.

Get off the gyro community's case, Chuck, we don't deserve it.

Doug Riley

11-27-2005, 05:56 AM

I think that RAF and all of its instructors have at least some inkling of the truth about stability, but intentionally turn their backs on it for business reasons.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-27-2005, 06:17 AM

" Get off the gyro community's case, Chuck, we don't deserve it. "
__________________

Why should I get off the gyro community's case Dean, I'm one of the community with as much right to comment on this as the rest of you.

I will agree that there is no real oversite from the regulators in the USA and Canada, which is the root of the reason that small groups of instructors can continue to ignore the simple fact that flying a properly designed gyro will solve the stability issue.

But having been a member of this group for many years I am not suprised that some of the instructors remain outside the circle of professional, knowledgeable and credible instructor pool.

I remember about a year ago reading that the people at RAF are honest individuals who have safety as their main focus.

And this statement came from a gyro DAR that posts regularly here, so I guess we will just keep reading about these fatal accidents over and over...

...as long as there are enablers who for what ever reason choose to go against the mainstream of aeronautical and aerodynamic science that has been accepted in the rest of aviation for many, many decades.

C.E.

KenSandyEggo

11-27-2005, 02:15 PM

"I don't think the U.S. RAF instructors are passing on incorrect info (I could be wrong). "

Dean, you are. Doesn't anyone recall when I caught one of them posting that there was no problem with pushing the stick forward at the top of a powered climb? How many deaths have resulted from this action? This CFI then went out to prove his point by plagiarizing and rearranging sections between the heli and gyro sections of the FAA gyro manual. He was also caught changing and rearranging sentences from the manual so as to appear to prove his statement. He also took credit for certain statements that were directly out of the manual, except he rearranged the order of the sentences. This was a blatant attempt to convince people of the safety of this maneuver with outright lies backed up by plagiarism. To me, this bordered on criminal activity. After I exposed him, he never made any attempt to answer my accusations or set the record straight, nor ever posted here again.

Yet he's still considered a "good" instructor, even though just a little "misguided." He possibly "misguided" some innocent people that believed his lies straight to heaven or hell, depending on their lifestyles. It wouldn't surprise me that Michel believed some of these lies and wound up as he did. Any CFI that advocates pushing the stick forward at the top of a powered climb in a stabless RAF, and attempts to prove that misconception with published lies, shouldn't be able to remain a CFI. Yet a few years later, here he still is, seen in a photo "helping" Michel out just before his unfortunate death.

Aussie_Paul

11-27-2005, 02:23 PM

Ken, I am glad I woke up and did not take his advice. I would surely be in Hell !!!!!!

Aussie Paul. :)

KenSandyEggo

11-27-2005, 02:27 PM

You and me both.

gyroline

11-27-2005, 04:15 PM

Line and Jean are long-time gyro enthusiasts. They are solid and honest people. I trust them to have their facts straight.

Thank you Doug .
At this moment i am so angry ,i dont think i whill reply any furter for now. probably some other time .

Line

GyroRon

11-27-2005, 04:35 PM

What the heck does - YMMV - mean? I see it in posts from time to time and I am clueless to it's meaning.

Rando

11-27-2005, 04:38 PM

What the heck does - YMMV - mean? I see it in posts from time to time and I am clueless to it's meaning.Your Mileage May Vary?

Timchick

11-27-2005, 05:38 PM

I'm glad you cleared that up. I thought it went something along the lines of "Your Mama...."

ben

11-28-2005, 02:45 AM

Altitude, Power , Trim That's the Way All Things Fly!!!!!!

C. Beaty

11-28-2005, 08:17 AM

My first insight to Don TheFlower’s character was gained when Norm, the owner of the original Rotorcraft Conference, said that Don offered to lay some money on him if he’d pull posts that didn’t reflect well on the RAF-2000.

Norm was operating a server and offering space for lease as well as other Internet services. Don offered to purchase services if given the opportunity to censor posts on Norm’s Conference. Norm, of course, told Don where he could put his money.

ben

11-28-2005, 11:34 AM

Chuck ,
Then Norm's Alright In My BoOK !!!!!!!HE STANDS BY WHAT HE BELIEVES!!!!!

ventana7

11-28-2005, 01:26 PM

Dean,

I appreciate your support of the "gyro community". The voice of the community of course is the PRA of which you are such a big supporter. The PRA should be the ones to take on theses issues but they are incredibly inept.

In 30 years of business I have been involved in dozens of organizations like PRA but never seen one so incompetent. PRA membership has dropped nearly 50% in the last few years yet they do nothing about it. I took the time to send a 4-5 page letter to PRA with supportive suggetions. My letter went to every board member individually yet I did to even get a response. You would think SOMEONE might have sent me even a 1 line email at least thanking me for showing interest but not even that.

In many organizations it is the commercial interests that support the group organization but clearly every gyro manufacturer has washed their hands of PRA for good reason.

AS A LIFE MEMBER AND BOARD MEMBER YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF THE GYRO COMMUNITY.

Rob

Aussie_Paul

11-28-2005, 01:57 PM

I took the time to send a 4-5 page letter to PRA with supportive suggetions. My letter went to every board member individually yet I did to even get a response. You would think SOMEONE might have sent me even a 1 line email at least thanking me for showing interest but not even that.

Rob

....I guess that sums it all up. Rob a simple acknowledgement of recieving your letter would have made you feel part of a team.

I dislike people picking on "my" organisation, as I did at the beginning with people picking on "my" company Raf. Eventually you have to seee the light, and change your views when you are supplied with the truth. The truth always hurts, BUT, accepting and learning from the truth is the most important issue.

Aussie Paul. :)

Schrambow

11-28-2005, 06:19 PM

kensandyeggo,
you seem to know Jim L. well and have had some bad experiences with him. You said that he used to Post on this site at one time?
I have only met him 3 times when he comes to Oshkosh to demo his machine. I was very impressed with his machine and flew it with him in the machine as well and thought it was a well built and good machine to fly(with the stablizer on, a stable machine too.)
I won't get to talk to Jim L. until August again when he comes to the airshow, but i will ask him why he doesn't visit here and post here once in awhile.
Just being a Newbie on this site for 3 months, i have seem alot of hostility towards RAF & their supporters. It has definitly made me stop and reflect to give the whole process of choosing a 2 seater more time. I am almost thinking about maybe just keeping my one seater, and getting a 2 seat fix wing ultraulight.
Any other information you could share about Jim L. and your past experiences would be appriciated, as i have used him as the expert for the RAF in the past without really knowing him.
I will definitly get a ride in the Sparrow this August to give it a try. However there are three things i would have to overcome though if i like it to purchase.
1.) Take medication (not sure which kind) to overcome the looks of it.
2.) Cut out 3 feet of the only building i have to accept more height(the building may collapse). Major modification here.
3.) Rob a bank without getting caught to pay for the 40 grand machine.
I would though not worry about PIO though, as most have said on this site. But i do have to give the machine a fair chance i realize. If it were just myself i believe it would be a no brainer, but if i am going to be taking people up who are scared of flying to begin with! I have to be honest with them knowing that the machine is a safe one.
Long winded as my post are, again, Ken i won't use any names as sources for anything when i confront people in the RAF Comunity, I will use this site though for the source of information, dealings with Jim L. that you said you have dealt with in the past would be appriacated.
Corey

KenSandyEggo

11-28-2005, 06:50 PM

Corey, I basically laid it out in this thread. Go back and read my post in this thread. I thought I made it pretty clear about what happened regarding pushing over at the top of a powered climb in a stabless RAF as advocated by Jim and then using lies and plagiarism to justify it. I don't know Jim well and have not had any "bad experiences" with him. I basically loathe his misconstrued advice that could have and may have gotten people killed.

Is there any other CFI in the world that thinks it's O.K. to do a pushover at the top of a powered climb, especially in a high-thrustline gyro with no stab? He advocated this way before the Stabilatror was even thought of.

Dean_Dolph

11-28-2005, 07:11 PM

……..AS A LIFE MEMBER AND BOARD MEMBER YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF THE GYRO COMMUNITY.

RobWell first of all Rob, I’m not a BOD member! I’ll plead guilty to being a life member. But that doesn’t make me ‘,,,,..directly responsible for the current state of the gyro community’.

I do remember your letter and I thought that you had posted it on this Forum but I haven’t been able to find it. If you sent it to me via email because you thought I was a BOD member then it is possible that is where I saw it but I can’t find it. I built a new computer and when I transferred files I ended up losing some.

I can assure you that if I received your letter and was on the BOD that you would have received an acknowledgement. I have made it clear many times that all problems, that I’ve been aware of, have at the core, a communication issue. I don't think it would have made much sense for any individual BOD member to have made a response since it would take a consensus of the BOD before any action could have been taken anyhow. But, yes, I do believe the BOD should have responded to you if only to say thanks for your views but no thanks.

I did run for the BOD and I made it clear that communication was an issue that needed to be improved. See the following post I made.
http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=73777#poststop

I would say that PRA members don’t care about communication and that is why I didn’t get elected. However, I don’t think that is true and there could be a number of reasons I didn’t gather enough support. I wasn’t, and I’m not, politically savvy enough to have asked who else would be running. If I had known then I would have had second thoughts about accepting a nomination. I accepted because I thought may be they were having a problem finding someone to run. That wasn’t the case. I was asked at the ’05 life members meeting if I would accept a nomination for ’06. I said I would but that doesn’t mean I will be nominated.

The reason(s) for the decline in PRA membership over that past several years is pure speculation. It has been discussed here several times and while a case could be made that there is a consensus, I still say it is speculation. And I’ve also said I’ve seen the membership go up/down many times during my membership. Has it stopped declining and is it ready for an up swing? Who knows but review the following post by Tom Milton.

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=73330#poststop

ben

11-28-2005, 08:16 PM

ken you got that power push over thing all wrong !!!!!! best get it right we were talking of leveling out after take off and you get to Altitude 1) you push stick foward to level out at your altitude. 2) you pull power to cruse.3) then trim .

ps: Altitude, Power , Trim That's the Way All Things Fly!!!!!!

ppss= ken got a question for ya?? if want to go to 1000ft Altitude when do ya start to pull power to level off if a pull it at 925, 950, 975 then you never get to 1000 ft

ventana7

11-28-2005, 11:04 PM

Dean,

I apologize if I unfairly lumped you in with the BOD of PRA

Rob

ventana7

11-28-2005, 11:10 PM

Greg Mitchell

11-28-2005, 11:53 PM

Ben,
Down Under we are taught the same thing as what Rob is indicating. POWER BEFORE ATTITUDE.
Shave the power back and then make fine stick adjustment for pitch attitude/airspeed.
I was going to do my cross country ticket in a Raf 200 with stab (training machine) but I will wait and do it in a upgraded Raf/Sparrowhawk converted craft or a tandem. Just my personal preference. I've already used up half of my nine lives.

Cheers.
Mitch

Aussie_Paul

11-28-2005, 11:55 PM

..,..fixed wing in the mid 60's and the PAT (Power Attitude Trim) was used for entering climbing and descending. For levelling off it was APT )Attitude Power Trim). This was to allow the airspeed to build up to cruise quicker. For proceeding to s/l after a glide it was ATP again, so as not to end up with excess airspeed.

In gyros I always taught PAT, until I started to have truly stable gyroplane trainers. There is no problem at all in a truly stable gyroplane with lowering the nose to gain airspeed and then reducing power. IT CAN BE A REAL PROBLEM THOUGH WITH AN UNSTABLE GYRO!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see why I should have to teach as though all gyros are unstable!!!! I know the difference, and make sure my students do as well. That is my job.

I will not train people into unstable machines, and go to a lot of trouble to point out the difference. I trained a student 18 months ago helping to convert his single seat 503 powered gyro into a stable machine. He flew a lot during the next 12 months. He has since bought a HTLM and rang me the other day to tell me that he does not like the unstable feeling and is converting it to a stable design. I have done my job.

The fact that the gyroplane industry allows unstable gyros to be built, sold, registered, and flown is a disgrace to aviation.:eek:

I will go and don my fireproof suit while I work on Firebird !!!!!!;)

Aussie_Paul

11-29-2005, 12:04 AM

KenSandyEggo

11-29-2005, 09:48 AM

Ben, pull whatever you want whenever you want.

Who was talking of leveling out? What does your quiz of Mental Mas*****tion have to do with the lies that were perpetrated? Did you ever read the plagiarism and scrambled text that was posted as the truth? Ben, there was a clear attempt to deceive everyone. Get your story straight, you old Walden Walrus. The post was an attempt to "prove" that it was O.K. to push over at the top of a powered climb in an unstabbed RAF. Maybe Al Hammer has it in his historic archives. Probably not, as I believe it was on Norm's Forum.

Al_Hammer

11-29-2005, 11:34 AM

Maybe Al Hammer has it in his historic archives. Probably not, as I believe it was on Norm's Forum.

Nope, I didn't save those particular posts from Norm's Forum, Ken.

ben

11-29-2005, 12:39 PM

ken,
you give jim to much cedit when it comes to computers he's as dumb as a stump when it comes to computers , he couldnt have done it, he wouldn't have known how to scramble text.

ken i see ya moved to N.C. hope to see ya at roc 2006

Timchick

11-29-2005, 04:52 PM

Ben,
You coming to Bensen Days 06?

KenSandyEggo

11-29-2005, 05:16 PM

Sorry, Ben, but he did a very skillful job of cutting and pasting parts of the heli section into the gyro section and then posting this very verbose statement to attempt to prove his point logically. It all sounded kind of familiar, so I started looking at the manual, and sure enough, I could pick out everything he said from both sections of the manual. He attempted to move a word or 2 here and there, but it was all there. That's called plagiarism, because he tried to pass it off as his own thoughts. Shuffling sentences from one part of the book to another to attempt to prove that a deathly maneuver is O.K. to perform is called lying.

I didn't know New York is near North Carolina. Probably see you there if I'm not broke before then.

Hognose

11-29-2005, 11:21 PM

I think that RAF and all of its instructors have at least some inkling of the truth about stability, but intentionally turn their backs on it for business reasons.

Doug, and all,

perhaps I am being too generous, but I do not think there is any intention of turning their backs. I think it is more a matter of psychological denial, the avoidance mechanism of pretending what isn't, is, in order not to have to face the unpleasant implications of what is.

Putting the pop psychobabble away for more clear words, I believe that people like Jim and Dofin and Duane can't let themselves think that they and their mentors have been wrong about this. They know they're decent and honorable men, they know they're good pilots but not supermen, and they've mastered flying the stabless RAF and flown it anywhere from hundreds (Dofin) to 8,000+ (Duane) hours.

A number of RAF pilots don't come here because of our negativity towards their machine. Why? Because they spent a decent amount of money, they often worked their asses off building the machine, and they put their pink body into it and go aviate. Any suggestion that they're one gust away from a tail strike is perceived as a personal attack, and so they leave.

I don't know the right way to engage RAF's people in meaningful discussions about stability and safety. I only know that we have not yet found it. I have spoken a little or a lot to each of the guys I name. They do sincerely want the sport to be safe and grow. They literally can't believe there is anything amiss with the design of their machine.

But there is....

cheers

-=K=-

Hognose

11-29-2005, 11:46 PM

he did a very skillful job of cutting and pasting parts of the heli section into the gyro section and then posting this very verbose statement to attempt to prove his point logically.

Two comments:

1. To talk gyro stuff based on the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook you always have to refer back to the helicopter (first) section, because all the basic rotor theory is in there.

2. It is possible that he was pasting something that he didn't make himself, but was made for him by RAF Marketing... that would square the circle of his computer literacy (or lack of same) and his posting this pastiche.

Anyway, these are speculation. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but perhaps there are some reasons he did what he did on Norm's forum.

cheers

-=K=-

ben

11-30-2005, 12:49 AM

kevin
comment#1 is how he explained it to me ,thanks kevin

KenSandyEggo

11-30-2005, 05:14 AM

He didn't "refer" to the heli section. He plucked sentences from the heli section and inserted them into the gyro section and then posted it in an attempt to deceive everyone that pushing over at the top of a powered climb in an unstabbed RAF is a safe maneuver. He deliberately manipulated the text to attempt to show this. A dangerous deed that may have cost some lives or at least the potential was there for anyone who read that garbage and believed it.

He also took paragraphs from the heli section, rearranged some words and sentences and attempted to pass them off as his own statement as to the safety of the maneuver in gyros. Maybe he doesn't beat his wife and kids or kick the dog and goes to church 5 times a week, but that doesn't excuse his attempt to convince us that a deadly maneuver is safe and using rearranged text and plagiarism in an attempt to convince us that a maneuver that has cost several gyro pilots their lives is safe, even in an unstabbed RAF.

Aussie_Paul

11-30-2005, 05:19 AM

Yes, I remember that Ken. I have flown with Jim and Duane and I like them both, but I was embarressed by what Jim did when he was backed into a corner.

Aussie Paul. :)

GyroRon

11-30-2005, 05:32 AM

Ken, good buddy.... Who cares what he wrote? and BTW I should be over in a hour or three with my leaf blower!

ben

11-30-2005, 07:05 AM

tim
i sure hope to be at bensen day and roc this year

C. Beaty

11-30-2005, 07:06 AM

One thing that has been consistent about RAF has been their reckless disregard of the truth.

(1) The fabrication they issued about the death of their company CFI when his RAF-2000 tumbled out of the sky is illustrative.

They claimed this pilot, who had 17,000 hours of helicopter time, only had a couple of hours in a gyro, was flying the company machine without authorization and was trying to loop it.

The Canadian TSB accident report told an entirely different story. The pilot was fully qualified to fly an RAF-2000, had quite a few hours and the flight was authorized. Witnesses on the ground were reported as having observed porpoising prior to the machine tumbling out of control.

(2) Dan Hasseloh’s crash into a parked van: Dan was flying in violation of Canadian regulations by taking off from an airport parking lot and during turbulent weather, ducked down between two buildings, lost his airspeed and pancaked into the van.

The local newspaper, quoting Pete Hasseloh, stated that Dan hadn’t intended to fly, was running up the engine when a gust caught him and lifted the machine into the air. Dan was hospitalized with a back injury. Chuck Ellsworth posted a copy of the newspaper article on Norm’s forum.

From that crash, evolved the story that Dan was “testing” a horizontal stabilizer which prevented him from flaring and he ”flew the damned thing right into the ground.” The fact is, their CFI in the San Francisco area had sent RAF a horizontal stabilizer but it was tossed into a corner and never tried.

(3) The next RAF CFI to die in an RAF-2000 was inspecting and test flying a customer’s new machine in Canada; I don’t remember exactly where.

The story released by RAF was that an improperly installed rudder cable pulled loose. That’s a conclusion that’s difficult to make when examining crumpled bits of aluminum that have fallen from 1,000 feet.

I personally know several people who have had rudder cables break and survived. I had the complete vertical tail fall off a Bensen I was test flying for a friend and survived without injury to myself but the gyro was severely injured when it flopped over on the rebound from a vertical descent.

I’ve not seen the Canadian TSB report of this accident; their site is difficult for me to navigate. Perhaps Chuck E. can locate and post it.

(4) Until I see the Canadian TSB’s report on Michel Vallière’s crash, I’ll take the comments by RAF and their agents as disinformation based on their well established track record.

I have no doubt as to the veracity of comments made by Line Richer and Jean Belair, both friends of Michel Vallière. I’ve known Line for a number of years and concur with Doug Riley’s assessment.

animal

11-30-2005, 07:33 AM

Ben,
You should review some fixed wing books.
Of course we know you can level the aircraft with stick or throttle and you can also change speed with stick or throttle. BUT
Most CFI's teach power is altitude and pitch is airspeed. You level off by reducing power from climb power to cruise power.
You trim for airspeed.
If you are trimmed for 100 knots and add power you will climb if you reduce power you will descend -- all at your trimmed airspeed.

Rob

Yep thats what I was tought in the RAF I flew in. if you don't keep cruise power R.P.M. you desend. to climb add power.at all times I was told to keep my hand on the throttle,as the machine I was flying the power would creep down on ya from time to time. and you really did not have to lose much r.p.m. to desend at a slow rate.

Chuck_Ellsworth

11-30-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote from Chuck B:

" One thing that has been consistent about RAF has been their reckless disregard of the truth.

(1) The fabrication they issued about the death of their company CFI when his RAF-2000 tumbled out of the sky is illustrative.
"

Even though I am seen by many in this gyro group as an evil tormenter of RAF and their company flight instructors I have at least had personal dealings with RAF since 1991 when I had an agreement to set up their training program through my Transport Canada approved fixed and rotary wing flight school.

To best demonstrate their dishonesty one only has to get the record of their testimony in a Transport Canada court case against them for falsifying legal documents.

I was subpoenaed as a witness for the Government. Not only were they found guilty but their testimony was so dishonest that the members of the tribunal commented on same.

When their instructor died, Don LAFleur and Dan Haseloh made very quick statements to the press claiming that the instructor was trying to do aerobatics against the company policy etc...We in the helicopter buisness were horrified and sad because the instructor left behind a wife and young children who were also horrified to see such allegations about their dead husband / father in the press before any official investigation had even began.

...I have also known Jim Logan since 1992, when I left RAF due to their dishonest methods of dealing with their clients and employees Jim stayed and took over the training program.

Jim also tried to convince me that the dead instructor was attempting a loop when he bunted.

Dan Haseloh was in my opinion to dangerous to fly with and I refused to take training on the company machine with him, TC had given him a temporary instructor rating to train me, that temporary rating was cancelled when I refused to fly with him...Dan had a long history with T.C. with his many accidents flying the RAF.

The wreck in the company parking lot was only one of many wrecks Dan had including the final event that took two other lives.

I may bee seen as evil and a basher by many here, however the foregoing is fact. And not only my opinion, these issues are well documented.

Chuck E.

Hognose

11-30-2005, 08:59 AM

...in an attempt to deceive everyone that pushing over at the top of a powered climb in an unstabbed RAF is a safe maneuver..... attempted to pass them off as his own statement as to the safety of the maneuver in gyros.... doesn't excuse his attempt to convince us that a deadly maneuver is safe... a maneuver that has cost several gyro pilots their lives....

Ken,

I was only a very casual visitor to Norm's forum. I have to defer to your first-hand (and Paul Bruty's, as he backs you up) knowledge of that.

Everybody,

Just in case anyone is thinking that this is a disagreement about the substance of whether that maneuver is safe: It is not.

It is an extremely hazardous maneuver in any rotorcraft (even helicopters) equipped with a teetering semirigid rotor system. You are taking tremendous risks attempting this in a Bell 47 or Huey, Robinson, Rotorway or Helicycle, for example, and in autorotation -- i.e. in a gyro -- it is nothing short of a sui cide attempt.

I don't know of anyone deliberately tickling the tiger's tail in a gyro, but occasionally young bucks attempt to approach these parts of the envelope where the helicopter manual says not to go. Either they have the scare of their lives and become eager to warn their comrades off it, or they have the scare of their lives, followed in two to three seconds by the end of their lives.

I think Ken understates when he says "several gyro pilots." Worldwide, dozens or scores of gyro pilots.

Many of them are experienced fixed-wing pilots whose ingrained reflex response to an uncommanded light-in-the-seat event can be instantly fatal.

cheers

-=K=-

Mayfield

11-30-2005, 09:06 AM

I no longer have my copy of Dr. Bensen's manual. Did he not specifically warn against pushing over at the top of a climb?

Jim

C. Beaty

11-30-2005, 09:51 AM

From a 1967 edition of the Bensen manual, page 45:

….Avoid making sharp pullups after high speed passes, as this may lead to “zero G” condition after the pushover and to unintentional inverted flight…..

ben

11-30-2005, 11:46 AM

kevin and jim

to the best of my knowledge the topic was how to level out at altitude after takeoff but i could be mistaken. (altitude, power, trim)

ventana7

11-30-2005, 12:36 PM

Aussie_Paul

11-30-2005, 02:47 PM

Yes, I remember that Ken. I have flown with Jim and Duane and I like them both, but I was embarressed by what Jim did when he was backed into a corner.

Aussie Paul. :)

...it was interesting to read Jims report of flying with a stab that, we stab supporters, had floating around the US for non believers to try. I think it was a Gary Brewer stab.

A couple of Jim’s comments after he tested the stab fitted machine through the maneuvers for the commercial gyroplane rating:-

1) at 110 mph (10 mph past the Raf flight manual VNE of 100 mph) When he snapped the throttle closed there was no uncommented rising of the nose as there is without the stab. I thought great, he is being honest.

2) that the autorotation descent rate was 1000fpm without the stab and 2000fpm with the stab. We had conducted the descent rate tests and there was no appreciable difference with or without the stab.

I guess Jim had to appease Don the flower somewhat.

in 1997, at the insistence of Raf I bought a guy called Tony Melody out from the UK to help me get going with the Raf. We had a ball together and found that we had been doing the grass roots gyro thing on different sides of the world. Tony was a great friend of the UK agent, dentist Mike Goldring (SP).
Mike had bought his daughter out with him and she was a similar age to out some and daughters, They all had fun together and re developed more than a professional relationship.

Tony was very clear with two things that he told me about operating the Raf.

1) never quickly close the throttle for a simulated engine failure at speeds higher than 70 mph or you will end up 300' higher.

2) when you cut power for a simulated power failure, be over the strip because the engine will probably stop. The Raf had major icing problems and we had the engine stop on the base leg. Until we put the carby heat on during early down wind we had this problem.

That is why I love my fuel injected engines!!!

It was a very worth while exercise to bring Tony out as he had experience the little problems with the brake lining and pre rotator lining glue failing. This of course has been fixed, but I would have taken me quite a while to work out what Tony already knew.

When it was Dofins turn he contacted me. We were friends at this time as I was vice president of the ASK First Society and Dofin was the treasurer.

Dofin was almost paranoid at what he would find having to operate with a stab. It appeared to me that he was so brain washed into thinking it would be dangerous. I guess Don had told him as he told everyone that Dan ended up in hospital after testing a stab. I am sure he did not tell people that silly Dan did a test flight form the car park in 35 kt winds and blamed the stab for his misjudged attempt to miss the van!!!!

I explained the differences that he, Dofin, would find and he was appreciative of my help. I never did get to find out what he thought of it, as Raf and I were gradually falling out over this very important safety issue.

I have flown with Duane and loved it as Duane flew differently to Jim. Jim was the procedure type guy where Duane was the "grew up on Macs and VWs and flew the machines as a sports car. I loved flying with him. Unfortunately Duane’s report of the stab was that it decreased the electrometric properties of the "magic" bush!!!!

These reports were documented, but I suppose it was on Norm’s forum. I found these reports very fascinating as to how these guys, who were backed into a corner, handled don the Flower at Raf!!!

Jims was a good report other than the ridiculous change in decent rate.

This is a little background for the new comers to see where some of this has come from.

I was a great supporter of the ASK First Society for better training, and a strong supporter of Raf until I proved them wrong. The relationship with Raf and the men in question deteriorated quickly after I stood up against Raf!!!!

C. Beaty

11-30-2005, 04:07 PM

I believe that stab “expose” was on the Ask First Society web site; the members only section, Paul.

I might have a copy of it somewhere, if I get some ambition, I’ll hunt for it.

Duane said the gyro wouldn’t “levitate” as it should with stab installed; confusing gyros with tales of flying carpets from the Arabian Nights.

Jim’s claim of increasing the rate of descent from 1000 fpm to 2000 fpm was the most outrageous departure from reality.

Mayfield

11-30-2005, 04:22 PM

Jim,

As an experienced CFI and DE would you care to comment on how you teach and prefer to see a level off from a climb done?

Stick, Throttle, trim
or
Throttle, stick, trim

Do you teach power is altitude and pitch is airspeed?

Thanks.
Rob

Rob,

I teach:

1. Fixed wing: slightly before reaching the desired altitude in a climb, begin to lower the nose to a cruise pitch attitude. As cruise speed is achieved, reduce power to a cruise setting.

2. Gyroplanes: When reaching the desired altitude after a climb, *reduce power to a cruise setting and then lower the nose to a cruise pitch attitude. trim as required.

*In truth, with most gyros, the power is reduced and the nose lowered almost simultaneously.

This sequence is far less critical in a gyro that does not have a high thrust line, but since it is far safer this way, I seem to find myself teaching this technigue in SHs also.

kevin and jim

to the best of my knowledge the topic was how to level out at altitude after takeoff but i could be mistaken. (altitude, power, trim)

Ben,

This is what confuses me about this thread. Altitude, power, trim is what I advocate. Apparently you agree; probably for the same reason.

R/S

Jim

Mayfield

11-30-2005, 04:39 PM

This is not the right thread, but needs to be said here.

If you (rhetorical "You") are absolutely intent on a testosterone moment, and you insist on leveling off from a climb still at climb power, at least load up the rotor system with a turn as you level off.

Jim

Hognose

11-30-2005, 06:05 PM

kevin and jim

to the best of my knowledge the topic was how to level out at altitude after takeoff but i could be mistaken. (altitude, power, trim)

Ben, Jim, Ken and all:

I spoke to Jim Logan today. We covered a very wide range of subjects. Jim clarified that in the old Norm-forum thread he was talking about the round-off from climb to level flight, not as I had understood from Ken's description of the old thread, a deliberate pitch over from a zoom. I dunno if the misunderstanding was at my end or at Ken's but for communication to take place the same idea must be expressed, and understood, and it didn't make it all the way through.

He teaches it in gyros the same way, generally, as it's generally taught in fixed wing. Establish pitch for level flight, and then reduce throttle to cruise throttle when you are established in level. Done properly this is not going to -G anybody's rotor system. (His explanation is longer, and it involves keeping track of your altitude and rounding out the climb gradually, etc. He is not describing a mechanistic way of doing it).

As far as recommending forward stick after a zoom: "Come on, do you really think I would tell anybody to do that?"

Jim does agree that the pilot comes to be the stabilizing element in a gyro, as in any other kind of plane. It's normal to be making lots of little motions -- the air moves and you move with it, after all. Just like people don't drive down the road with their hands locked on the steering wheel in a car.

He does not plan to come on here and post himself. It becomes a feeding frenzy (my words) of bashers (his word). In my opinion that is unfortunate because he's a very experienced pilot and instructor.

We talked about a couple of high-profile accidents including Mike (as Jim called him) Vallière's (sp?). Jim has talked to the TC investigators. Mike had eight, I believe, hours of dual in the RAF and he had students waiting for him in Quebec, mostly guys who were single-seat gyro guys trying to get a legal license. Mike told Jim he had 900 prior hours in gyros, all, I think, in a single-seat Air Command.

We talked about the forum. In Jim's view it could be a greater resource than it is, and he deplored some of the bad information put out here (he cited specifically individuals who encouraged or permitted non-gyro-qualified friends to fly their machines). Jim believes that the forum is hurting RAF, but more than that it's hurting the sport as a whole. (He didn't say this but I suspect it is also hurting his own business). I think Rob Dubin might have made a similar point about the forum carping in his open letter, but it's been a while since I read that.

As far as his post on Norm's forum, he offered to find it and fax it to me, so Ben's right, Jim's behind on technology (I don't have that 1980s technology here! Fax? Didn't that go out with TELEX?)

In any event, what the underlying dispute in this particular case is, seems to be a difference of opinion among instructors as to how to teach rounding out to level flight after a full- or climb-power climb. Simply adjusting pitch, power, trim (a la fixed wing) instead of power, pitch, trim (as Jim Mayfield teaches) seems unlikely to produce an upset, and it is broadly similar to that taught in helicopters (pitch, collective, trim).

Once they've got some hours under their belts, most pilots adjust pitch and power simultaneously and instinctively without even thinking about it -- whatever they fly.

cheers

-=K=-

ventana7

11-30-2005, 07:09 PM

Kevin,

Thanks for the great post.
I am going to start a new thread to continue this discussion of pitch vs. power
Rob

ben

12-01-2005, 02:01 AM

kevin

oh-no wait till ken and chuck e. reads that post lol lol lol

kevin i'm glad you took the time to talk to him !!!! did he breath fire and crap thunder for ya lol lol lol because to some people here think he is satan himself lol lol lol

look all jokes aside, my point is this , if you want to know what jim logan thinks about hozs. stabs or the way he teaches, or what he thinks of raf or how one flys or anything else, please do dont take kennys or chuck e. or my word on it for that matter.i think you might be pleasently suprised!!!! call him, his phone # is 516-746-3427 or when ya see him at bensen days, SnF or mentone walk up to him and ask anything you want about gyros or just say hi.

C. Beaty

12-01-2005, 11:15 AM

Loopholism

“The victim had only 8 hours of dual and wasn’t signed off for solo” (900 hours or whatever in an AirComand doesn’t count?).

“The victim was not an RAF CFI/agent”. “Don says that he supplied him with the necessary spares on credit and asked him to rebuild the machine” (KJ: post #1) Would Don have supplied the parts to me on credit? Or for that matter, anyone he had not signed up as an agent?

Obfuscation

Change the subject; paw the dirt; fake a punt

Wring your hands over how some people are encouraging others to go fly without training. That’s a totally false accusation but self-training following the Bensen syllabus to the letter was an acceptable, perhaps better, considering some of the instructors I know, substitute for dual instruction.

“he cited specifically individuals who encouraged or permitted non-gyro-qualified friends to fly their machines” (KOB post #60)

Ron Awad and I are the only individuals to have confessed to that transgression but neither of us has blood on our hands. Neither one of us would have permitted a Joe Klutz C-150 pilot to fly our gyros. Furthermore, if I owned a machine as unstable as a stabless RAF-2000, I wouldn’t have allowed Chuck Yeager to fly it without specific in type training.

Jim Logan and others who feign apoplexy over the thought of a non-gyro pilot flying a gyro have never flown one that is stable and haven’t the foggiest notion of how easy it is to fly if it’s truly stable.

But that’s not the point; the real purpose is to obfuscate; to change the subject.

Then we have the brigade of RAF camp followers bemoaning the deduction some of us have made that this crash was quite clearly a bunt; pilot incapacitation, mechanical failure, yada, yada, yada. “Let’s wait until we find out what’s in the bottom of that smoking hole.”

Doug Riley

12-01-2005, 11:52 AM

Chuck, I see your B.S. detector is in tune and working well.

The ability to spot standard logical fallacies and propaganda techniques is really crucial in our society. For one thing, we have a take-no-prisoners consumer culture. B.S. in advertising is expected and passes without objection. For another, we have a political system in which bamboozling the voters is a high-stakes sport. Success in either political B.S. or consumer B.S. carries rewards measured in the tens of billions of dollars for the bamboozlers and their friends/clients. IOW, we're flooded with bull all the time. You need a bull-detector just to survive.

No one has been able to provide a coherent technical defense of the RAF gyro design. It's just an old, amateurish mistake that never got fixed. (Fortunately, Dennis Fetters's identical amateur design mistake got fixed by the Smiths when they took over Air Command. PPO problem solved.)

A few of us defend the indefensible RAF because of personal connections with one or the other of the RAF insiders. Personal loyalty to one's friends is admirable (and getting scarce). OTOH, blind loyalty when the friend does something wrong is no favor to anyone, though -- including the friend.

Friends don't let friends drive drunk, but they also don't let friends persist in misguided, unethical behavior without calling them on it. You're a truer friend if you do call them on it than if you don't.