RAF Crash Killing two

[Bart098]

I am a deputy on the Eastern Shore of Virginia and my LT. just called to inform me that one of our local pilots has just been killed with someone else.  They were flying a Rotary Air Force.  The craft was fairly new. Probabaly about 6 months old.  The crash occured in Nelsonia Virginia on the Eastern Shore.  I will post more information on this as i get it.

[Heron]

:-/<br>Hate to hear this . . .feels like grabbing a gun and go shoot some bastards . . .<br>Well, maybe I am just paranoid and this one has a different cause!<br>Sad . . .very sad . . . <br>Heron

[schipperke]

Very sad. &nbsp; :'(<br><br>The AP reports one fatality , Richard Northam.<br>Witnesses saw parts departing the aircraft, then invert and fall. &nbsp;The airworthiness certificate was issued last July, so yes a very new gyroplane.

[Al_Hammer]

Richard Northam's RAF gyro web page<br>http://www.eaa.org/homebuilders/list/RAF%202000_Northam.asp<br><br>And the &nbsp;news photo:<br>http://www.wmdt.com/images/topstory/C798DD0E-687F-44B0-9C7B-A0428D7F0FAC/topstorypic.jpg

[GyroRon]

I see a red Parham style Stab on it on that link with the picture.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

This must be the first RAF fatality with a stab.<br><br>I wonder how much training he had and with who?

[Bart098]

This is the news clipping off of the internet<br><br>Helicopter Crash <br>(NELSONIA, VA -- WMDT) CAROLYN SUMA *11/16/2003 <br><br>Photographer: Sean Smith<br> *<br><br>An American airline pilot dies in a crash on the Eastern Shore. The helicopter crashed happened in Accomack County early this morning. The victim was 51-year old Robert Northam Jr. of Virginia. One witness says the gyrocopter seemed to be having engine problems. Phil Nielsen was out in the field picking corn near his house when he witnessed it crash into the ground. &quot;It just pitched over sideways and dropped like a rock, just right out of the sky. As soon as it hit it burst into flames, I saw a little smoke. If he didn't jump, there's no way he's getting out of that and I guess he didn't get out,&quot; says Nielsen. A gyrocopter is tiny version of a helicopter that can only hold person and police says it's covered by FAA regulations. <br><br>*For More WMDT TV TopStories, Click Here <br><br>http://www.wmdt.com/images/topstory/C798DD0E-687F-44B0-9C7B-A0428D7F0FAC/topstorypic.jpg

[Screw]

It is always sad to hear when someone is killed doing something they love.<br><br>My prayers go out to him and his family. &nbsp;God Bless.<br>

[Bart098]

My initial report of two people is obviously incorrect. &nbsp;That was how it was reported to me initially. &nbsp;Sorry for the misleading information. &nbsp;I met this man once and he was quite excited about owning his gyro. &nbsp;The excitement he showed while explaining the simple workings of the prerotater filled me with excitement of one day doing the same. &nbsp;He was, based on what i learned about him from talking to friends, &nbsp;a fine pilot and a good decent man. &nbsp;I cant imagine what his family is going through right now. &nbsp;To die doing something he loved so is quite a tragedy in itself. &nbsp;It has made me decide that i should not persue building my own gyro. &nbsp;I have decided to wait untill something FAA aproved and prebuilt comes available. &nbsp;The risk is too great for someone so inexperianced. &nbsp;If there is a god then i hope that he is looking over the family this man has left behind to help them get through what will be a most empty holiday season and trying times ahead. &nbsp;

[GyroRon]

Bart as sad as this is, don't give up on rotorcraft. There will certainly be a good explaination for the accident and in a nut shell, these machine DON&quot;T just fall out of the sky for no reason.<br><br>Being FAA Approved means nothing. Your much better off being here on a forum like this to find out before hand which kit is best and to get good info to start with. The RAF is not a good kit IMHO and besides the high thrust line there has been known flaws in the blades, the control rod ends, and several engine related items. There is a slew of things that could have put this pilot down and likely it is related to something very preventable had the pilot known better. <br><br>Anyway I could go on much longer about this, but bottom line this crash is very sad, but as we will see, it didn;t happen for no reason.

[schipperke]

Bart, you write<br><br>&quot;I have decided to wait untill something FAA aproved and prebuilt comes available&quot;<br><br>Like Ron writes, do not at all consider experimental gyros as not FAA approved, they are real aircraft and inspected. &nbsp;Some of the best aircraft you can fly are deemed experimental, and designed by real engineers, etc. &nbsp;Don't be fooled by FAA stamp of approval vs safety. &nbsp;This sad event has not been investigated. &nbsp;From many past gyroplane accidents, witnesses observing parts departing from the gyro in the air is due to a rotor strike, but again lets wait and hear.

[Kevin_Richey]

Bart098:<br><br>I agree with what Ron said. *We all feel sorrow whenever we hear of an aviation accident that has these consequences, even the fixed wing ones!<br><br>But ALL types of aircraft experience fatalities, whether they are FAA certified or not. *Fixed wing aircraft have manuevers that have fatal results, if the student didn't learn enough from their instructor to prevent entering into a non-recoverable situation.<br><br>The weather plays a role in some accidents. *It all is a risk. *Hopefully, the pilot takes a very calculated risk when making his decision whether all the conditions are right before he flings his aircraft up into the sky.<br><br>Rotorcraft have their danger areas of operation, too.<br><br>Proper training and adherance to training is the key, just as it is in law enforcement. *<br><br>If a law enforcement officer freezes when a perp points a gun at him and pulls the trigger, instead of re-acting with what his training should have prepared him for, then he most likely suffers the consequences of not being prepared enough to save his own life.<br><br>There are many who believe that the RAF factory-authorized training by certain instructors was/is not sufficient to save the lives that have been lost in that style of aircraft.<br><br>When someone dies while driving an automobile because they failed to drive safely enough, (or even if external circumstances caused their demise) we don't refrain from driving our automobiles because someone else was foolish in their actions. *It's the same in flying.<br><br>I do have a couple of questions about the accident:<br><br>1. *Isn't there a way we can find out the weather conditions at the time of this accident? *This might give some clues about the possibility of severe up or downdrafts being present that have been tied to other RAF accidents...<br><br>2. *According to Mr. Northam's website, he had only six hours of flight time, at least when he posted that. *It would be very interesting to find out if he was signed off for solo work, and by whom!<br><br>There are many instances where fatalities have occured in gyros where no training, little training, or insufficient training was taken before the guy caught buck fever and went flying in his gyro before being signed off to do solo work.<br><br>Side note here to Chuck Ellsworth: *I find your record of many decades of accident-free flying extremely admirable!!!! <br><br>I have a dinged rotorblade taxiing-incident on my gyro-flying record, and hope that is all I'll ever have happen to me in my flying. *It still won't be as spotless as yours, but I'll sure try!<br><br>Although you have beat the Anti-RAF drum loudly and repeatedly, you most likely have saved some from rushing headlong into RAF's arms by buying, building, and flying their product in it's stock form out of Kindersley, Saskatchewan.<br><br>Most of us on this forum though, *are not the cowboy airheads about gyro safety that you have labeled us of being. *<br><br>Please Chuck, remember that the more silent majority do not usually agree with the more vocal minority, and are too busy or don't care to do battle with their opinions and actions.<br><br>I appreciate your stories and safety warnings and hope to live a long flying life like you have done, eh?<br><br>Kevin

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Kevin:<br><br>Thanks for the comments.<br><br>I have been very, very fortunate in not having had an accident during my career, a big part of it is due to just blind luck as there were many times I should have had one. As close as I can figure I have flown around 30,000 hours to date.<br><br>The only real input that we have for accident prevention is learning from others and learning from our own mistakes. Then assuring we do not make them again.<br><br>Before every flight I have all the factors figured out and plans for diversions if needed...also I will not fly any aircraft that I feel or know is unsafe or poorly manitained. Also I do not ever fly aircraft over their allowed gross weight. ( Except for the very rare long over ocean ferry flight such as Africa to S. America. ) then when we do fly with an overload of fuel it is done with FAA &nbsp;/ CAA / TC or whomever approval and the permit is on board.<br><br>Safety is a state of mind.<br><br>Please do not mistake my comments about idiots demonstrating poor airmanship as being the norm for gyro pilots.......However it is the idiots that the public forms their opinion of gyros on, not the safe pilots because they do not draw attention to themselves.<br><br>My long rants regarding RAF and their Ask First training group was, is and will always be a legitimate position. I am really surprised they have not been driven out of business yet.<br><br>With regard to this last accident hopefully enough details will be posted to allow us to understand what exactly happened this time.<br><br>You will note that a lot of hight time very experienced pilots have been involved in RAF fatals, that in its self is signifigant.<br><br>As to the few who are so quick to jump on every post I make trying to discredit my opinions they can print my suggestion as to what they can do to themselves and put it by their computer.<br><br>Chuck Ellsworth

[Heron]

The Great Chuck Pepper!<br>You only do this to make us green with envy don't ya? ;D<br>But I have some questions . . .<br>1- How strong of a gust would start a bunt in a stabed RAF?<br>2- Could an accidental stick shove cause it?<br>3- CAn the folding mast move in flight and mess it up?<br>4- What happens (possible?) if the &quot;donut&quot;break in pieces?<br>5- What would be the cost to buy and close RAF?<br> . . . and last but not . . .could the pilot be &quot;porpoising&quot; and have bunted for been inexperienced?<br>Thanks<br>Heron

[GyroRon]

Chuck if you go back and read the last several posts you have made, and then keep the tone of future posts in that manner, NO ONE I think will give you any grief. Your opinion and presence here is important to all of us, me included. The only time anyone, me included, has a problem is when your posts are NOT like the last several. Just be nice and respectful and that is what you get in return. Simple and sweet. No one is out to discredit you.

[mceagle]

Heron,<br><br>My mame is not Chuck but I will add my opinion to your queries anyway.<br><br>1 - Too many variables to answer that one - more information required.<br><br>2 - Yes.<br><br>3 - No, not unless something was previously wrong.<br><br>4 - What donut? - If drive donut then a normal power-off landing could have been executed.<br><br>5 - I imagine it will close by itself before much longer. <br><br>Last - Yes. *

[PW_Plack]

Bart,<br><br>You're applying the risks of one bad design to all gyros. Only insurance agents get to do that!<br><br>The issues with the RAF are well documented. High-time fixed-wing pilots with little gyro experience are another high-risk category, and this may have been one of those. Get second opinions from experienced builders during your project and get the right training, and you'll be just as safe in your own machine as in a store-bought one. <br><br>If you can't find a local gyro guru, get with the nearest local chapter of the EAA. They're more oriented toward fixed-wing, but they have an excellent mentoring program, and any experienced builder can make a contribution.

[Aussie_Paul]

Tim, I think Heron meant the Raf &quot;magic bush&quot; in the mast.<br><br>Heron, that bush is encased in timber that fills up the top couple of feet of the mast. I have never seen a &quot;magic bush&quot; fail. Prior to my involvement with Raf in 1997, that bush was rubber and would gradually split. The bush used since then is more of a softish neoprene.<br><br>The most that the 1/2&quot; bolt, that passes through the bush, can move upwards is a 1/2&quot;. During normal flight the bolt would be compressing the bush approx 1/4&quot;, as all the weight under the bush is supported by t hat magic bush&quot;. It works safely and does rather well as a *shake reducer for the larger diameter rotors.<br><br>Aussie Paul.

[Heron]

The picking was on Chuck . . .<br>questions to anyone that dare answering . . .<br>Thanks McEagle and Aussie Paul<br>So the &quot;donut&quot;will never be a cause?<br>and here is something to dream:<br>The Babitonga Bay in Southern Brazil, I use to live there and if I could only show you the rest of it . . .<br>My homage to Chuck E. the Indiana Jones of Aviation (kinda anyway)<br>I miss that place and hope to set camp inthere again!<br>thanks<br>Heron

[rehler]

That photo shows what gyro flying is all about! *Nice slow flight seeing the beauty of the world from a great perspective. *The fruits of all the labor of building a gyro!

[Hognose]

This must be the first RAF fatality with a stab.<br><br>I wonder how much training he had and with who?<br><br>I can think of at least one other fatality in a stabbed RAF, ZK-RAG in New Zealand. This mishap was not related to a stab, though... poor aeronautical decision making; pilot flying beyond his training and ability; conditions unsuitable for safe flight. &nbsp;<br><br>I'm also curious about poor Northam's training. <br><br>cheers<br><br>-=K=-

[MMorgan]

No new posts since 11-23.......anyone heard anything about the cause of this accident??

Mike

[Hognose]

I just checked NTSB (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp) and searched on &quot;gyroplane&quot; category/class for 2003. The most recent accident the system finds is on 11/6... but it's a rotorway exec. (True, it spun around several times before it hit, but that's not what &quot;gyro&quot; means -- even Feds should know that). By the way, we can joke about that one cause no one got hurt... except financially.

Seriously, NTSB does not have a preliminary up for this mishap yet. That will probably contain pretty much what we've discussed in this thread (minus the nonsense from the first always-wrong news reports, like &quot;killing two,&quot; which lives on in our thread title. Unfortunately).

After the preliminary, the next step will be a finding of fact. That will take at least six months in a mishap like this. (Actually, it might be shorter, just because the fire left them with relatively little to go on). Not much changes, in GA mishaps, between the factual report and the final report. The final report is usually just the factual, given a probable cause and anointed by the Board in a public hearing.

It works this way because the investigators, techs, experts all put their work into the factual report. The Board Members are political appointees and may or may not know diddly about aviation (remember, they do trucks, trains, and boats as well). Not to say that they are not able people -- they usually are, or some politician would not owe them enough to appoint them! They just aren't aviation, or transportation, experts. The people that prepare the factual report ARE aviation experts.

cheers

-=K=-

[Kevin_Richey]

What photo are you talking about, Ken?

Am I missing something here that others aren't?

I'm not talking about the crash photo, but the one that you said is what gyro flying is all about?

Also, what's with the December 1969 thing when edited posts are mentioned on the forum?

[rehler]

Kevin,

Apparently the photo has been edited out. It was a beautiful shot from a gyro, showing the beauty we see when flying. Sorry it was removed.

[Al_Hammer]

Yes, I see what you mean Kevin:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:11 pm by -1 »

Someone named &quot;-1&quot; was able to edit the post.

[ToddP]

The photo didn't get edited out. The links got dropped when I converted to the new board.

I promise not to mess with anything for awhile
I promise not to mess with anything for awhile
I promise not to mess with anything for awhile
I promise not to mess with anything for awhile
I promise not to mess with anything for awhile

;D

Todd

[ToddP]

I think this might be it:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/rotary/attachments/italo_1.jpg

[WN]

Here's what I was able to get on the crash:

Aircraft: Northam RAF 2000, registration: N999GC
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On November 16, 2003, at 1119 eastern standard time, a homebuilt Northam, RAF 2000 gyroplane, N999GC, was destroyed when it struck the ground in Nelsonia, Virginia. The certificated airline transport pilot was fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal flight that originated from Accomack County Airport (MFV), Melfa, Virginia. No flight plan had been filed for the local flight that was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to records from the departure airport, the accident flight departed at 1028. There are no known witnesses for the flight after it departed, until a few minutes before the accident when it was observed maneuvering near the accident site.

One witness stated, &quot;...witnessed helicopter heading southeast, flip upside down, and nose dive straight into ground. Copter immediately burst into flames....&quot;

A second witness stated, &quot;...I noticed a small helicopter heading southeast with helicopter going straight up and down and inverted flip, and doing a nose dive straight into the ground. There was something that flew off the aircraft just before it crashed....&quot;

A third witness reported that she observed the gyroplane maneuvering up and down before it crashed.

According to a wreckage diagram drawn by a trooper from the Virginia State Police, the debris trail was on an approximate heading of 150 degrees, and extended for 575 feet. The first items found were pieces of styrafoam, followed by red fiberglass, a piece of propeller blade, and then the main wreckage. The gyroplane had burned. One main rotor blade was straight and intact, while the other blade was bent up about 1/3 of the distance from the hub to the tip.

The pilot had recently built the gyroplane with the assistance of a friend. The builder modified the kit with the addition of a fixed incidence horizontal stabilizer. A representative of the kit manufacturer reported that they do not recommend this modification.

The pilot's flight experience was reported to be in excess of 14,550 hours. He held ratings for airplanes single and multi-engine, and instrument airplane. He did not posses a rotorcraft, gyroplane, category and class rating, nor was it required under existing rules from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

[PW_Plack]

Interesting that, despite all the scientific evidence, they still quote the company line on H-stabs.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Its even more interesting that they get away with it.

[barnstorm2]

Lots of irony in the details of this sport. ::)

Sounds like PIO they way they talk about him going up and down before the apparent bunt-over.

Has anyone ever made a rotor-tack-alarm? So that when the rotors are below a certain RRPM or when decreasing RRPM quicky it sounds a audible warning like the stall warning in fixed wings??

[Hognose]

Thanks, Steve Weston, for posting this NTSB prelim. Wasn't there when I last checked. FYI the URL is: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031216X02040&amp;key=1. When they conclude the fact-finding phase of the investigation and go from &quot;Prel&quot; to &quot;Fact&quot;, and when the board finally assigns a probable cause, they will all be at that link. (When the cause is final, the narrative will be linked from the cause page).

Chuck and all, I'm a little blown away at the chutzpah of RAF suggesting that the stab might have been a cause of this mishap. For that is how I read that line.

Finally, consider this:

&quot;the debris trail... extended for 575 feet. The first items found were pieces of styrafoam [sic], followed by red fiberglass, a piece of propeller blade, and then the main wreckage.... the other [rotor] blade was bent up about 1/3 of the distance from the hub to the tip.&quot;

I take that as conclusive evidence of a blade strike while in flight. The foam and glass are probably parts of the tail structure. The blades will not strike the tail nor the propeller blade while the rotor has normal flight loads on it, i.e. centrifugal force from rotation at sufficient RPM, and positive G.

Now the question becomes which of these scenarios it was:
PPO PIO decayed rotor RPM fixed-wing pilot's negative-transfer response something else?
We might not get the answer to this question, but it's worth trying for.

cheers

-=K=-

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Hognose :

It has always been RAF's style to lay blame anywhere but where it belongs.

They have gotten away with selling a very dangerous unstable machine ever since they first started in business.

Their success of course comes from the last word in their company name &quot; Marketing &quot; if nothing else it shows a very disturbing fact in sport aviation and that is that if you so desire you can market a machine that will kill the operator everytime the wrong set of circumstances come together.

I do not know of any other product in our society that could have been sold for so long with such a proven flaw.

If they were sellling lawn mowers that could get out of control and behead the operator they would have been forced out of the market years ago.

But sooner or later someone will sue these people and win.

By the way I wonder when Hunn and Logan will spout their propaganda on this latest tragedy for the Gyro group?

Chuck

[Udi]

Kevin,

The witness reports and the field of debris suggest that this was a very typical PIO-PPO accident. You've asked:
Now the question becomes which of these scenarios it was:

PPO
PIO
decayed rotor RPM
fixed-wing pilot's negative-transfer response
something else?


The answer is “all of the above”.

This is what probably has happened:

1. The gyroplane is entering a nose high or nose low attitude, most likely due to wind shear, updraft or downdraft. This condition is made worse by the natural RAF lack of static stability.

2. The pilot makes an immediate cyclic correction, which results in overshoot and a pitch excursion in the other direction. The overshoot is made worse by the RAF natural G-force instability. This is the beginning of porpoising.

3. The pilot is fighting the porpoising, only making the oscillations larger (PIO). This was clearly observed by the witnesses.

4. Eventually, as the aircraft is transitioning from a high-nose attitude to a nose-low attitude (zoom over the top with negative G), the rotor is unloaded, the RTV moves back and, at the same time, rotor RPM decay is causing the rotor thrust vector to diminish. The high engine thrust line bunts the aircraft forward (PPO). The witnesses also observed this happening.

5. As soon as the blades are unloaded the aircraft bunts forward; the rudder and the propeller are hit by the rotor and depart the aircraft.

I can tell you right now what &quot;probable cause&quot; the NTSB will find. It will read like this:

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

The pilot's failure to maintain control of the gyroplane during cruise flight. Additional factors were the gusty wind condition and the pilot's inexperience in rotorcraft.

There will be no mention of the aircraft instability.

Udi

[gforgyro]

There is no way to determine what happened exactly. The witnesses are unreliable as they had no experience with aircraft, much less a gyroplane. It is all conjecture and purely individual interpretation. When I read the NTSB report, and the witness accounts, it sounded to me like the pilot was doing zoomies and had insufficient altitude to recover from his last dive. The wreckage was left in a straight line path over 575 feet. This would indicate some horizontal component, not straight down. If parts are strewn from a vertical, or near vertical impact the wreckage is in a circular or maybe egg shaped pattern. The fact that one blade is straight and the other bent doesn't mean anything either. I have experienced a blade strike that stopped the rotor, bent one blade.

One witness stated that the machine went straight up and down several times then inverted and came straight down. Depending upon the persons point of view, a hammerhead like manuever could look like it went upside down. Inexperienced witnesses produce unreliable reports. Anyway, the machine had the fabled horizontal stab on it so why would you think that it was PIO? Could it be that you guys all now have awoken to the fact that any machine can be PIO'd, hence the name - Pilot Induced Oscillation? That a horizontal stab does not CURE ALL?

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

gforgyro :

How much did RAF pay you to post that crap?

I'ts people like you who make the gyro group look really stupid in the eyes of the rest of aviation.

The RAF is a flawed, dangerous potential killer...period.

For you to post that a professional Airline Pilot was flying dangerously in his new gyro is not acceptable as far as I am concerned, unless you have proof of your allegation you have zero credibility.

Chuck E.

[GyroRon]

In a Bunt over accident which this clearly was, the wreckage will NOT be in a circular or maybe egg shaped pattern in all cases. As long as the gyro didn't come to a complete stop in the air before bunting over, the gyro will still be traveling forwards as it tumbles out of the sky. In this accident I believe he did PIO and then got too negative and Bunted over. He was still moving forwards at a reasonable speed and the wreckage was spread out over a distance of several hundred feet.

I also flew in the area this pilot was flying in recently. It is a gusty windy area and would seem easy to get into a PIO with a low time gyro pilot in just about any machine.

I also found it interesting that although I was only in the air for a few minutes and I could not see hardly a soul outside due to the cold windy weather, Quite a few people saw me flying. I knew this because the person who lives there - who is also a gyro pilot - got flooded with phone calls from neighbors and friends in the area that wanted to know why he was flying in such high winds. So my point is the people in that area watch these light aircraft was they fly by, and I am sure their statements are close to if not exactly what happened.

Also I should mention that a Horizontal stab on a RAF 2000 is by no means a fix for the high trust line. It can still easily bunt over and kill. All the stab does is dampen the airframes movement in pitch. It just makes it a little tougher to get a PIO started and helps to dampen the PIO. But it will never stop a PPO. This is why AAI came out with the Sparrowhawk to cure the problem and make a RAF 2000 type gyro that is or is near impossible to bunt over due to the thrust line being on the center of mass and drag.

[gforgyro]

I made my previous post to point out:
Nothing is clear about the accident. It is futile and unintelligent to argue anything without hard facts. It is abhorrent for people to rant and condemn without evidence.

It is also immature to react to a difference in opinion with threatening to delete posts.

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

You also speculated that it sounded like the pilot was doing zoomies..... whatever zoomies are..

I take it you do not feel that it is abhorrent to speculate that this pilot was flying recklessly?

[Thumpernator]

Without having knowledgeable witnesses, there is no way to tell if the pilot was flying recklessly.

A normal maneuver in a gyroplane could be viewed as a dangerous act by the general public.

Hell, I had a bunch of fixed wingers wail on me when I just pulled the power to idle at 200' and landed that way. WOW, really dangerous!! They said I shouldn't auto-rotate all the way to an actual landing.

BTW, I'm NOT defending RAF nor the pilot, but I agree with Glenn.

[ToddP]

Please refer to my post regarding real names:

http://www.rotaryforum.com/rotary/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=265

[GyroRon]

Sorry if I came off the wrong way, I was not trying to be threatening, I just feel everyone has the right to know who is the real person behind the posts, that is all. Thank you for signing your name to the posts.

And yes your right no one there was a gyro pilot except the guy who was killed in the gyro. So for all we know the accident was from him watching the crazy Ivan video or Jim V's loop video and him wanting to go out and loop Roll and hammerhead his new RAF...... But I see bunt over written all over this one. And that is my two cents.

[Hognose]

I made a long post yesterday, citing a bunch of stuff from Glenn's post, but something else I was doing nuked my browser...eh, technology.

I did think some of the swipes at Glenn were a bit over the top. C'mon guys -- there are plenty of reasons to post, but as far as RAF paying anybody to do so, they don't have enough flippin' money. Nor does AAI/GBA, or Aero-News, or anybody in the world who gives a damn about gyros. We are a small, mosstly unprofitable, hand-to-mouth branch of aviation, and there it is. A guy can honestly hold an opinion different from yours without money changing hands, gents... so when we disagree, let's attack arguments, not people.

&lt; Henry V voice&gt; This is a small enough sport as it is. We simply cannot afford to have it fragmented. At the same time, we can't have new enthusiasts like Richard Northam fragmented either. Let's honour his death, let's make it a worthwhile sacrifice by learning from it so it doesn't happen again.

That will require us to pull together. All of us. &lt; /Henry V&gt;


There is no way to determine what happened exactly.


All in how ya define &quot;exactly.&quot; Accident investigation is not a black art, it is a science. NTSB and FAA were able to go through over 150 tons of bits dredged up from the sea and come up with 40 meaningful, life-saving ADs and a number of procedural changes, and that particular accident will never (touch wood) recur.

Aircraft do not crash for no reason. There is always a reason, and there are always clues left behind. When a layman looks at a crash scene he sees chaos. When an investigator looks at that chaos, he starts testing what he sees. Indeed, you use the acronym TESTED: if you can find Tips (of wings and tail, or rotor and tail for a gyro), Engines and props, primary and Secondary control surfaces, the main Tail assembly, any External parts (stores for a fighter, landing gear for a gyro) , and the Doors, then you probably have a machine that was intact until impact. (The Northam crash flunks the TESTED test).

The witnesses are unreliable as they had no experience with aircraft, much less a gyroplane.

Witnesses tend to be unreliable, period. What is interesting is that both described a craft inverting before it fell, and one claims to have seen parts depart. This witness testimony is only significant in that it confirms what the physical evidence (which, unlike humans, can't get confused or have faulty memory) tells us.

it sounded to me like the pilot was doing zoomies and had insufficient altitude to recover from his last dive.

Er, what's a &quot;zoomie&quot; and how would I draw it in Aresti notation? Okay, joking aside, if an a/c hits the ground under power, the parts are all there, between the first impact and where the main body of the wreckage comes to rest (TESTED). Some parts can be thrown a little further, but this depends on the amount of the energy in the collision (in a collision all energy is conserved but may go in new vectors, high school physics).

A 1000 lb. gyro does not have the oomph to throw bits two football fields. Moreover, various weights of bits would not be found 575 feet back along the flight path.

I don't know if you saw the photos of the gyro. The bulk of the structure seems to be present in that field and there is no noticeable scar in the turf as there would be with a crash with significant forward motion.

The wreckage was left in a straight line path over 575 feet. This would indicate some horizontal component, not straight down.

No, the wreckage was found mostly in one spot, with some individual elements hundreds of feet away. This only means one thing -- those parts departed inflight. Even a gyro that lost its rotor or had the rotor stop would not come straight down exactly as it has some inertia or &quot;forward throw.&quot;

I have experienced a blade strike that stopped the rotor, bent one blade.

What did you strike? I thought the report of where the blade was bent was as important as that the blade was bent. The 1/3 point is just about where the propeller is. A propeller tip is one of the parts found separately from the main wreckage.

Had the rotors been turning at impact, at least one would have had spanwise distortion.

a hammerhead like manuever could look like it went upside down.

It could, but is a guy with a handful (still unknown) of hours in gyros and tens of thousands in fixed-wing gonna do a hammerhead? It's not impossible but it's very unlikely. Especially when you had a guy who was concerned enough about the stability rap on his gyroplane to modify the machine. Which brings us to the most interesting part of your post, IMHO.

the machine had the fabled horizontal stab on it so why would you think that it was PIO?

Who says a stab is a cure for PIO? Stab helps the static instability of the machine and helps damp the transient overturning moments that come with throttle application and gusts that reduce acceleration/gravity forces on the rotor. Stab can't help dynamic instability much.

Could it be that you guys all now have awoken to the fact that any machine can be PIO'd, hence the name - Pilot Induced Oscillation?

A machine that is statically AND dynamically stable is going to resist PIO. Certain machines have a divergent dynamic stability mode which encourages PIO. This is true in fixed wing a/c as well but the consequences of f/w PIO are usually less severe.

That a horizontal stab does not CURE ALL?


Now here, I'll agree with you -- in spades. Adding stabilizing control surfaces, increasing control surface areas or moments, these are long-standing engineer tricks that can tame an unstable aircraft, but they are not a substitute for designing a machine to be stable in the first place.

The Benson B-8M flew without a horizontal because (1) nobody knew any better, (2) if you built it according to plans it was centreline thrust, and (3) with the old Mac it hardly has any horsepower. STILL there are a lot of buntovers in the early years (the NTSB started tracking gyro accidents in 1966 or 1967, not before, and early fatals in the database include a number of very familiar bunt-over, PIO, zero-G mishaps. No PPOs, because of #2 and #3 above).

In the most comprehensive academic study of pusher gyro stability ever, the University of Glasgow (Scotland, UK) used an instrumented gyro with removable control surfaces and adjustable thrustline for dozens (hundreds?) of flights. Everybody flying a gyro ought to read the abstracts of those papers at least (the papers themselves are a bit mathy). But the conclusion was, the #1 thing you can do to have a stable and safe gyro is to make the thrustline run through the vertical centre of mass. Most other stuff didn't matter much, but the next most important thing is to add a horizontal stabilizer.

The Glasgow study was funded by the CAA (Britain's equiv of our FAA) after an epidemic of fatal accidents in (high thrustline/Dennis Fetters) Air Command machines. The CAA and PFA (Britain's EAA, which micromanages experimentals there) wound up banning Air Command. (I have to say, so no one gets the wrong idea, current Air Command machine are NOT like this, they are safe machines).

Stability is a complicated matter, as is gyro aerodynamics in general. But it is more clearly understood now than it has ever been in history.

cheeers

-=K=-

[Hognose]

[to suggest] that a professional Airline Pilot was flying dangerously in his new gyro is not acceptable as far as I am concerned


Chuck, and guys,

Glenn makes a good point -- not a lot is known about this mishap. When NTSB posts their findings of fact, that will be a lot more information.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of airline pilots or other very experienced pilots who get in an experimental aircraft or ultralight and do resoundingly stupid sh... stuff. It's hard for a guy who's got 25,000 hours in Boeings, or 2500 hours in F-15Es, to understand that the guy with 100 hours in the gyro has stuff to teach him.

Same thing in helicopters. Look at the guys that died in the Mini-500 debacle and you see some real experienced guys. Funny thing, none of them had a lot of time in helicopters with low-inertia rotorblades. One guy had something like 35k helo hours -- almost all in turbine Bells. He died trying to stretch an auto over some wires. In a Huey or JetRanger, you can do that. In a Robbie or Mini, you can't.

Doing what your training and experience tells you to do can kill you! At least, if it isn't training and experience pertinent to the machine at hand. It's what training theorists call &quot;negative transfer.&quot; The classic gyro example is the guy who pushes the stick forward when he gets light in the seat (kids, don't try this at home...)

I do believe that flying time is to some extent fungible, that some stuff you learn in a Cessna does transfer to a Boeing, to a gyro, to a Jet Ranger. To a point. But I think it's very dangerous having tens of thousands of hours of experience in one category and class of aircraft compared to mere tens of hours (and maybe not that) in another.

Let me give you a somewhat nonpertinent comparison, by way of illustration. In the military, I jumped static line, and never jumped HALO (freefall). Not even once. I always looked up to the guys who did; they were obviously better jumpers than me. One night (&quot;It was a dark and stormy night&quot;) I found myself in a C-47 with a bunch of guys who were HALO jumpers. We were going to jump at 800 feet AGL, and they were scared witless. It was not what they were accustomed to doing, everything looked all wrong, and the ground was, in their view, WAY too close to be exiting the plane. I had been jumping at 500 feet from C7s, 123s and 130s, so I thought we were plenty high enough... and their nervousness made me leery of jumping with them. I still believe that they are better, more skilled jumpers, but that night they were in a dangerous position and no one would have been surprized if we'd had injuries.

You instruct multiple cats/classes, Chuck. What do you think?

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Well Hognose, first allow me to say I think I like your attitude and reasoned approach to these very perplexing matters.

I like most in this group become very upset every time another human being is killed flying what should be one of the safest flying machines avaliable........and therein lies the problem.....

They are safe only when three factors are present.

(1) The machine is stable and well constructed.

(2) The pilot is properly trained and current.

(3) The pilot does not exceed his experience, skills level with regard to flying manouvers.

I can relate to your example of jumpers and their comfort zone or lack there of when exposed to something they have not been trained and experienced in.

You are also right on with the example that lots of flying time can be detrimental to you if the time is in one disipline such as airline flying for example.....because ingrained habits produce a reflex action in times of stress or uncertainity such as uncommanded pitch excursions in a new kind of flying machine such as an unstable gyro.

Yes I do instruct in a wide variety of flying platforms some of which are very demanding with regard to proper handling such as large flying boats during water operations....... What I do is pre plan every trip, lesson and probable circumstances such as weather before I ever get in the machine. I have very strict perimeters that I will not exceed during the training sessions.....

When unusual attitudes and emergency actions are to be taught and demonstrated they are done with much pre briefing and structured in a safe manner. I do not randomly demonstrate any manouver that was not pre briefed.

Very few pilots are mentally or physically wired to move from one type of machine to another, such as a Cessna 172 to an unstable gyro on a random basis, however with enough exposure to different types it can be safely done.

I guess I was fortunate during my early years in aviation because it was routine to switch from fixed to rorary wing randomly day after day and one learns to dicipline ones thought processes to the task at hand.

Hell I am rambling all over the place here...........but we are communiocating in what I believe is the proper way to share ideas and experiences to make flying safer.

With regard to my comment about that airline pilot who was killed in his RAF, I would like to think that he would not intentionally fly in a reckless manner....so I am giving him that respect.

Chuck E

[Hognose]

I agree that airline pilots, especially pilots for the majors (which would include the mishap pilot whose misfortune started this thread), tend to be conservative, methodical, responsible pilots. (Military pilots also, &quot;Top Gun&quot; notwithstanding).

The problem with preventing a pilot from exceeding his experience is this: until you have some experience, you're inexperienced, but you don't understand that you're inexperienced.

Like Rumsfeld's famous speech about unknowns: there are known unknowns (things that you know have a value of some kind, but you don't know what the value is) and unknown unknowns (things where you don't even understand that there is a gap in your knowledge). Lots of pilots have had their heinies kicked by unknown unknowns over the years.

The sad thing is, most accidents today, you can find an example of a parallel accident from before 1939... looking at a comprehensive dump of NTSB's data on gyro mishaps I was struck how we're still having the kinds of accidents that we had when they first started recording gyro prangs (mid-sixties). The implication is that as a community we haven't learnt a blessed thing in forty years.

cheers

-=K=-

[PW_Plack]

Could a 14,000-hour airline captain become so trusting of the well-engineered, professionally-maintained equipment which fills his world, that he doesn't even think to question that an aircraft could be dangerously unstable?

How else can we explain these guys who have long aviation careers, then build and start flying dangerous machines without even doing a Google search to learn the concerns raised by others?

[Hognose]

Paul and all,

I don't know if being a line pilot has anything to do with it.

It is true that the guys and gals that fly the line have very good equipment maintained with rigorous precision (as long as they are flying in the Anglosphere or Europe).

With any experimental aircraft you don't have that. On a Part 121 airliner hundreds of eyes look at it all the time. On a regular Part 91 plane, at least a pro mechanic gets a shot at it, at least annually.

On an experimental or ultralight, often the builder does the annual condition inspections and the preflights. No other eyes look critically at that machine (I don't think that was the case with Capt Northam -- I think he had help from the excellent EAA Advisor program -- I'm talking generalities). To me, this is an often overlooked risk factor.

We know that he was somewhat aware of the issues, because he bought and installed the stab. Now, RAF is insinuating that the stab killed him. They talk about how they are the designer, they know the most about the aircraft... if so, do what scientists do: publish the data. Apply for a patent on the rotor stabilator if you must, and publish the data.

My suspicion is that the testing hasn't been instrumented or documented. In plain English, the reason they keep their data secret is that there are no data.

cheers

-=K=-

[Scooter]

A few years ago, how many I won't say, I operated heavy equipment. One backhoe I operated had a slow bucket curl. I operated it so long that I automatically compensated for the slow curl as it became an extension of my hands, with no mental thought being used. Then they fixed it without telling me and it really screwed me up for quite a while, I actually thought something was wrong with it.

My point being that people like Duane and Jim have flown unstable machines so long and so efficiently that changing anything, positive or negative, disrupts their no thought process. And therefore in their minds it is negative because it doesn't behave as to what their automatic processes are trained for. So, their reports are negative. Might explain why they can't see the light and pass that opinion along to Don. Just a thought.

[CLS447]

Larry, along the same line. It's like having a dirt bike with bent handlebars. You get so used to it ,that when you ride someone elses bike with unbent bars it feels totally wrong!

Note 3 soobs in background:
1- 1981 EA-81 Cost $900 ouch but AC is still ice cold
1-1988 EA-82 Cost $800 4WD Unstoppable in the snow
1- 1991 EJ-22 FI Cost $600 Shar's everyday driver All have over 150,000 miles . Looking for newer Baja or Outback in same price range...........coming soon I hope!

[gyroman]

Here's the factual report from the NTSB on this crash:

NYC04LA035
On November 16, 2003, at 1119 eastern standard time, a homebuilt RAF 2000 gyroplane, N999GC, was destroyed when it struck the ground in Nelsonia, Virginia. The certificated airline transport pilot was fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal flight that originated from Accomack County Airport (MFV), Melfa, Virginia. No flight plan had been filed for the local flight that was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

Personnel at the departure airport reported that the pilot had initiated a takeoff, and then aborted the takeoff for unknown reasons. He pulled clear of the runway and stayed there for about 10 minutes with the engine idling. He then pulled back on the runway and departed about 1028. That was the last he was seen at the airport.

The gyroplane was next observed by a witness, who was located about 2 miles northwest of the accident site. The witness reported that when she first observed the gyroplane, the nose was oscillating up and down. The oscillations smoothed out, and the gyroplane continued in straight and level flight to the southeast. Shortly after the gyroplane disappeared from view, she observed a rising column of black smoke coming from the direction the gyroplane was headed.

Additional interviews of witnesses in the area revealed that three of the witnesses reported that the gyroplane was in level flight when it rolled left to the inverted position, and then descended in a nose down attitude and impacted the ground. One other witness thought that the gyroplane had first pitched up to a near vertical attitude, and then reversed course and impacted the ground in a nose down attitude. The witnesses agreed that the gyroplane burst into flames after the impact.

The examination of the wreckage revealed that both main rotor blades had red paint transfer marks on the top and bottom side of the blades, 67 inches from the end of the blade straps, consistent with the location of the vertical stabilizer. In addition, there were strike marks on underside of both blade tension straps, consistent with the location of the engine propeller.

One main rotor blade was straight, while the other was bent up about 20 degrees at the mid-span location. There was no evidence of rearward bending of the blades.

A portion of the rudder was consumed in the fire. However, the upper portion of the rudder was separated from the aircraft and found outside of the burn area. There was impact damage on the left side of the separated piece.

The gyroplane was equipped with a fixed incident, horizontal stabilizer, which had winglets that were canted 20 degrees outboard of vertical. The condition of the right winglet was consistent with a main rotor blade strike.

Flight control continuity was not confirmed due to impact and fire damage.

In addition, the main mast was separated below the rotor hub, and one propeller blade was found separated from the remainder of the blade.

Re-examination of the impact site revealed that all items found away from the main impact area were light items and subject to lateral movement from wind. The direction of movement of the objects did not match the flight path described by witnesses.

The gyroplane had been modified with the addition of a fixed incident horizontal stabilizer. This was not recommended by the kit manufacturer. However, the experimental airworthiness certificate of the gyroplane did not preclude additions, deletions, or modifications from the original kit design.

The pilot was reported to have accumulated about 70 hours in make and model. This included 20 hours of dual instruction in another RAF 2000, and then 50 hours in his own RAF 2000.

The pilot's flight experience was reported to be in excess of 14,550 hours. He held ratings for airplanes single and multi-engine, and instrument airplane. He did not posses a rotorcraft, gyroplane, category and class rating, nor was he required under existing rules from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Toxicological testing conducted by the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, revealed the following:

17 mg/dl ethanol detected in urine
2 mg/dl acetaldehyde detected in urine
2 mg/dl n-propanol detected in urine
86.36 ug/ml acetaminophen detected in urine
452 ug/ml salicylate detected in urine
No ethanol in lung
No ethanol in brain

The toxicological report also noted that the samples were received in putrefied condition.

The toxicological report received from the State of Virginia reported an alcohol content of 0.01 percent ethanol by volume. In addition, ethanol was not detected in vitreous fluid.

On November 18, 2003, an autopsy was conducted by Wendy Gunther, MD, Assistant Chief Medical Examiner, Tidewater District, State of Virginia.

According to the FAA-H-8083-21 Rotorcraft Flying Handbook, Chapter 21, Gyroplane Emergencies, pilot induced oscillations (PIO) can occur in both the longitudinal and lateral axis. The publication further stated:

"...As with most other rotor-wing aircraft, gyroplanes experience a slight delay between control input and the reaction of the aircraft. This delay may cause an inexperienced pilot to apply more control input than required, causing a greater aircraft response than was desired. Once the error has been recognized, opposite control input is applied to correct the flight attitude. Because of the nature of the delay in aircraft response, it is possible for the corrections to be out of synchronization with the movements of the aircraft and aggravate the undesired changes in attitude. The result is PIO, or unintentional oscillations that can grow rapidly in magnitude...."

"...the stability of a gyroplane is greatly influenced by rotor force. If rotor force is rapidly removed, some gyroplanes have a tendency to pitch forward abruptly. This is often referred to as a forward tumble, buntover, or power pushover. Removing the rotor force is often referred to as unloading the rotor, and can occur if pilot-induced oscillations become excessive, if extremely turbulent conditions are encountered, or the nose of the gyroplane is pushed forward rapidly after a steep climb."

"A power pushover can occur on some gyroplanes that have the propeller thrust line above the center of gravity and do not have an adequate horizontal stabilizer. In this case, when the rotor is unloaded, the propeller thrust magnifies the pitching moment around the center of gravity. Unless a correction is made, this nose pitching action could become self-sustaining and irreversible. An adequate horizontal stabilizer slows the pitching rate and allows time for recovery."

"Since there is some disagreement between manufacturers as to the proper recovery procedure for this situation, you must check with the manufacturer of your gyroplane. In most cases, you need to remove power and load the rotor blades. Some manufacturers, especially those with gyroplanes where the propeller thrust line is above the center of gravity, recommend that you need to immediately remove power in order to prevent a power pushover situation. Other manufacturers recommend that you first try to load the rotor blades. For the proper positioning of the cyclic when loading up the rotor blades, check with the manufacturer."

"When compared to other aircraft, the gyroplane is just as safe and very reliable. The most important factor, as in all aircraft, is pilot proficiency. Proper training and flight experience helps prevent the risks associated with pilot-induced oscillation or buntover...."

[PW_Plack]

Since when does an airworthiness certificate have to mention modifications from an original kit design? I thought the builder was the manufacturer, and the origin of the original design was essentially irrelevant to the determination of airworthiness.

[Hognose]

Toby, thanks for the post. Note that Capt Northam had many more hours in the RAF (including significant dual) than we thought. Plus he added the stab. He was trying to do it right.

The eyewitness testimony (as usual) is all over the place. PIO? PPO?

You can disregard the ethanol, this is clearly postmortem production. The investigator probably hasn't actually got the pathology weenies to say those magic words yet, but you see enough of these you know how they work.

Paul, you ask, "Since when does an airworthiness certificate have to mention modifications from an original kit design?" You're quite right, it doesn't, and your other points are also correct.

The author of the actual report merely said, "[The stab] was not recommended by the kit manufacturer. However, the experimental airworthiness certificate of the gyroplane did not preclude additions, deletions, or modifications from the original kit design."

I think he said it mostly because many people who aren't deeply clueful about aviation read this (including the five political appointees who make up the actual Board) and he wants them to know that while Northam was disagreeing with RAF, he wasn't violating his certificate's limitations or any FARs by doing it. The author is also being very cautious -- he is making sure that RAF's viewpoint gets expressed while at the same time making sure that all grasp that it is not an official viewpoint.

The extensive quotes from the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook? The author knows most of the readers are going to be ignorant of gyros. He may or may not be aware of the stability debate -- probably is -- but safest is to quote from official information.

One piece of data usually present in a factual report, and missing here, is the power setting the machine was at, or the factual indicators to what the power setting might have been.

It's clear from this that he bunted over, had the blades strike the tail and propeller, and that the blades were not rotating significantly on impact. What's not clear is what we most want to know: why?!?. Experienced pilot, with type-specific training, decent weather. Sure the board's going to call it pilot error, failure to maintain rotor speed, something similar, but,... why?

cheers

-=K=-

[PW_Plack]

Kevin,

Sorry...read it too quickly on my lunch hour. I skimmed "preclude" and my brain saw "include."

This report is very encouraging to me in its form. In so many of them, the investigators seem either ignorant or hurried. This guy was careful not to cross any lines, but left enough raw information in the report to allow those of us with less limited freedoms of speech to figure out what really happened.

[Hognose]

Paul,

if you can figure out what really happened you are one up on me. We know Robert Northam bunted over; his rotors struck the airframe and decelerated to effectively zero by impact. The aircraft was ballistic within seconds -- maybe a second -- of the unload event.

What we can't tell -- at least I can't tease it out from this set of data -- is why he went over. And that is the question we need to answer, to make the death of Robert Northam mean something. Everyone wants gyro flight to be safe and popular -- including the owners, staff and CFIs of Rotary Air Force Marketing.

cheers

-=K=-

[automan1223]

If he had engine troubles and as the report stated he was sidlined for a while, then he took off. Why not stay around the airport if you have engine troubles. Why not go tie it down and run it up and see whats going on.... Take a hint guys. If its not running right dont fly it in the first place.

It is quite possible that the engine power output started the oscillations with the pilot chasing the throttle and the stick. Who knows. my 1.9 cents

[Chopper Reid]

Just my two bob's worth from an "ignorant old time mustering pilot" . :)
I feel that FW pilots made very ordinary gyro pilots cause a FW is so far removed from a gyro [handling wise] FW stuff is so stable, you can become a bit ham fisted .In most aircraft, full control deflections dont cause too much excitment and the nose can be pushed over without any major worries except for a rapid rise in airspeed which if controlled correctly isnt life threating .A gyro is totally differnt as you all know. My belief is that the more FW hours and low gyro hours [particularly under 100hrs ] , the more likely a stuff is going to happen .
I put it to all the readers here that high time jet jockeys dont give gyro's or ultalights the respect that they deserve. That is just my opinion.
We all know a light hand on the controll is needed and a flighty machine [which may be partl due to the rotors]needs a very deft touch . [specially in challenging conditions]
Prior to learning to fly gyro's I had about 2000 hours of FW flying and I thought it would be so easy to learn to fly a gyro and I received a nasty shock.

[Aussie_Paul]

....the stable gyros, like I now operate, are as easy to fly as a FW. Your post tells me exactly what sort of gyro you fly. In the early days of training in HTLM it was easier to train a non pilot than a FW pilot. Now I teach the same as I would teach if I was teaching in a FW. The only difference is the stalling characteristics of a FW are not related to a gyro, and I have to teach the things to watch for when flying a gyro that are different to a FW.

Brian, you said, "A gyro is totally differnt as you all know." What you really mean without knowing it is, "A HTLM gyro is totally differnt as you all know."

I much prefere to train a FW pilot than a student starting from scratch any day.

A stable gyro flys, using the same principles of flight as a FW, BUT with the sensitvity of a helicopter.

Your post was exactly my feelings up until Hybrid, in which I put the theory of my Yank mates into practice. Your post Brian was very educational, it told me a lot. Thanks.

Brian and Birdy, please don't take this the wrong way. All it says is that you, and probably 90% of Oz gyro pilots have never flown a truly pitch stable gyro, as I had not until hybrid. No shame in that.

As I always say, "It is just as easy to build correctly as to build a incorrectly. The hard part is to realise the difference." To do this you have to experience both or trust the experts!!!!! Not always easy.

Aussie Paul. :)

[mceagle]

Paul,
I am sorry but I would have to totally agree with Brian on this one.

You quoted: -
"Brian, you said, "A gyro is totally differnt as you all know." What you really mean without knowing it is, "A HTLM gyro is totally differnt as you all know."

If your CLT machine is the same to fly as a Cessna or Piper then I would never want to fly one. As Brian said - "full control deflection in a FW don't cause too much excitment" - If CLT gyros are as docile as that then they wouldn't be much fun to fly and would probably be no better to muster in than a FW. I believe that all Gyros should be able to be controlled with a light hand on the stick and not require the sometimes "ham fisted" inputs required of GA aircraft in rough air at low altitude.
I believe that this was all that Brian was trying to say.

[Aussie_Paul]

.....read my post properly!!!!! :eek:

I said, "A stable gyro flys, using the same principles of flight as a FW, BUT with the sensitvity of a helicopter."

A stable gyro is the ultimate cross between the FW and the helicopter. :D

I am sorry to Tim, I am afraid you are incorrect on this one!!!!!!!!!! ;)

Aussie Paul. :)

[birdy]

Kevin,I ask the same question,WHY. :confused:

But I reckon Brian and Tim are close to the money.

And paul is way off line. :mad:

Paul,you keep saying that a stable gyro is like flying a FW with the senceativity of a chopper.
That's the hole problem.You seem to for get the one big difference.
The effects of negative G.
And to keep on crapp'n on about the ease of fly'n these stable machines,your being very irrisponsable and giving these high time FWers the impression that you can fly it like an old cessna.In a cessna ,if you go negative,you bump your head on the roof.A high time FWer won't even react,unfortunatly.And if he dose ,it will probably be an overreaction.

Old habits die hard,especialy reactionary ones.

[Chopper Reid]

Yep Tim, you got it right there .
Paul, I have never flown your machine [true ] and I have no problems with the CLT as a more stable gyro to fly but I wish you would really listen to what I'm saying here and I give you an example of exactly what I'm talking about Paul, I asked you in the thread "mustering blades " "were the rotors you used at Avlon the mustering one you were talking about " ...You immediately started talking about stab RAF's . No offence Paul, but you are simply not reading whats being written in a lot of cases. I wasnt being smart , it was a straight question as I watched you fly twice and wondered then what rotors you were using as they seemed to have plenty of lift available.
The problem I have is this, you are obsessed with this CLT thing, we all know its good and one day probably all but Birdy and I will be flying CLT machines!There are a lot of new gyro pilots and even some thinking about gyros watching this forum and if they read your posts then they will think that any machine not CLT is a killer .You know that this is not the case as you are aware of the number of pilots around this part of the country all flying non CLT gyros I have roughly tallied up the amount of hours flown by the guys I personally know and even without the fellows who have retired and flew gyros for many years and I havent included, tallied up in the order of 73,000 hours !!! :)
If you [and any one else ] wants to instruct in a CLT gyro, thats fine. I would like to see that anyone buying or building a gyro could have freedom of choice. After all, isnt that whats flying all about ??? :)

[Aussie_Paul]

and my answer was. "No Brian,"

Yes I did continue with what I was flying. I had some one from QLD tell me how pitch unstable the aircraft I flew at Avalon was. I thought that you were on about the same thing. My mistake, BUT I did answer your question Brian.

And while we are on a point of "you are obsessed with this CLT thing,"

I posted a week or two ago that we have to be carefull about getting too pedantic with the CLT thing. I will dig it out to show you that you don't read posts correctly all the time either, Brian. :eek:

Aussie Paul. :)

[Chopper Reid]

I'm certainly far from perfect too Paul. My mistake.
I'm trying to show that despite non CLT gyros not being as stable as CLT gyro's, they arent going to necessarily bite you . The flying hours non CLT are doing are an indication that this is the case.

[Aussie_Paul]

Thats right Brian, but they are more likely to bite you than a non CLT machine!!!!!!!!

Aussie Paul.:)

[Chopper Reid]

Paul, that statement " they are more likely to bite you than a non CLT machine " is what this discussion is all about! ;)
Think about it for a minute or two or better still, chew this over for a week or two. Would be interesting to be able to match hours flown for the two types per fatalities and see the results . Will be interesting to see the future trend of fatals given that most new machines will be CLT etc [Do we agree here that most new machines will be CLT ?]
A the risk of being "a stubborn ignorant old timer " and hey, leave the old part out :mad: , I believe that reasonably trained, the fatal rate shouldnt be much different between the two types of gyro's CAUSE, human nature being what it is, will find some way to keep the fatal's coming. This will sound sour grapes and negative but look at the car industry where you have superb engineering and safety features versus the one's of say 1970 .Yes, I know there are many more cars on the road each year, but if you look at the stats in the light of the advanced safety features of vehicles and the continual safety programs being run. We really should have much less accidents full stop.
The amount of fatal's in FW in Oz here, despite much less hours being flown in better equiped aircraft is still appalling , and we are flying a stable aircraft..
In most accidents /fatals, in FW and in gyro's, the underlying factor is guess who ? The pilot ! The only way to make flying safe is to stop flying all together .Since thats not an option, lets get on with better training of students as thats where the biggest difference can be made.
I believe the gyro is an unique flying machine unlike any other requiring a "special touch " . Its not everyone's cup of tea and nor do I believe it should be made into everyone's cup of tea.
I dont say this lightly, I love Fw flying but after flying a gyro, its a bit boring really, only choppers can give gyro's a run for their money and they come at a price and they need expensive maintenance .Gyro's have a special place in aviation and we all need to try and keep them there!! There is room for CLT and HTLM machines, as you have correctly identified Paul, just teach the students the difference !

[Doug Riley]

Gyro fatalities are way down. The typical rate was a couple a month when I got into this activity in the late 60's. I think it was even higher in the heyday of the first-edition Air Commands.

[Dean_Dolph]

Doug, I think you are referring to U.S. rates; I'm not sure we have a handle on rates outside the U.S. While I feel you are correct and personally I would attribute it to better design; but playing devil's advocate for the moment, there are other possible factors contributing to the decline.

Is the falling PRA membership an indication of fewer people getting/staying involved and thus less gyros flying? Is more training being acquired to achieve a higher competency level? Has the training process evolved (I doubt it!) where what is available now is qualitatively better than what it was in the past? I'm sure that those who want to take issue with the stance that the perceived drop in fatality rate is a direct result of better design can add other possible reasons for it.

I do have a question for Brian and others that say 'better' training is needed. The question is, what is better training? Where is the training coming up short? This question isn't just for our friends in Oz but anyone else that wants to comment.

I'm not taking issue with the need for better (and more) training. Since I've been involved (so is Doug!) with a U.S. based team in an effort create a standardized training system for several years now, I would hope not! FYI the team's effort has stalled somewhat this past year for various reasons.

It has been a long time since that effort started but when the Sport Pilot/LSA issue became a priority for the PRA then, as I recall, the FAA made it clear to Greg Gremminger that they felt that along with the design issues there was a very important one with training and that it needed to be addressed. But better training is subjective and hard to define thus the questions above. For the moment the drop in U.S. fatality rates have probably kept the FAA out our hair. If I understood correctly, PRA prez Gary Goldsberry was told by the FAA that this needed to happen or the extension of the 5209 training exemption was questionable.

I hate to have to be wishy-washy and use disclaimers such 'as I recall' or 'If I understood correctly' but when I attribute info coming from a particular source some time after the fact then I don't trust my memory too be correct.

[PW_Plack]

Doug,

Isn't the total number of gyro flight hours probably way below what it was in Bensen's heyday? It's hard to draw conclusions about accident ratios if the denominator of the fraction keeps moving...

[mceagle]

In Australia, the fatality rate was something like an average of 2 per year starting from back in the sixtys. It reached a peak of 7 in one year in the Aircommand hayday which knocked the average up to 3 per year for about 4 years.
This was in fact a big reduction in fatalities when taken as a percentage of the gyros flying. The reduction is even more pronounced considering the increasing number of pilots doing large hours due to two seat instructors and the blossoming gyro mustering industry. The fatalities per hour flown now for mustering pilots would probably be better than one in 10,000 (It is hard to get an accurate figure because of the scattered nature of the mustering and the fact that some do not wish to disclose their real hours for fear of reprisal). Most of our current fatalities are low hour inexperienced pilots.
These facts definately suggest that better training could improve the fatal statistics.

There has definately been a further marked improvement in recent years that I would put down to the development of two seat instructors and two seat machines. Both are still on a learning curve.
For example, in my opinion it seems wrong to me that student pilots have to spend so much time studying for exams on things like navagation, radio, BAK and air law, and they go our and kill themselves in the first few hours of flight because they didn't know how to fly properly. Whether we like to admit it or nor, this is happening. The Instructors now are better than they were but there is still more that can be taught.

More hours are required to solo and those hours should be quality hours, not just cruising around the pattern with a take off and landing every 15 minutes.
The Gyro must be taken away from the training area and the student given the oportunity for some freestyly flying while he has the safety of the instructor beside him. He should be put through as many situations as he is likely to encounter through his first 100 hours to give him a good start in his gyro flying sport. The student must be made aware that solo sign-off is only the start of his learing to fly and from that time on both the gyro and the elements are his Instructors. The "student" finishes his learning only after his last flight. All those that preach that they know it all have got a rude awakening coming to them.

NB. I put the increase in fatal rate in the AirCommand hayday down to the fact that they popped onto the market that was waiting for an affordable and readily available kit gyro, that could be assembled in a few days and flown the next. After all, I think it was Bensen who said "if you can ride a bicycle, you can fly a gyro".
To top this off, the Aircommand had a propensity towards Pilot Induced Oscillation due to the compatitively high performance (speed) and the touchy nature of the "self pitching" composite blades. CLT probably wouldnt have saved them but in this case, maybe an effective stabilizer would have.
If then you throw these together with a low hour high bravardo pilot, it was a wonder there weren't more fatalities.

[Chopper Reid]

Thank you Tim, I agree wholeheartedly with you !!

[birdy]

Heh heh,just lurk'n.



Learn to fly the gyro as a ROTORCRAFT.

[Dean_Dolph]

Interesting, observations, Tim. And in addition to saying better training is needed; you actually identified where and what you thought was required to make it better!

………Most of our current fatalities are low hour inexperienced pilots. These facts definately suggest that better training could improve the fatal statistics.

There has definately been a further marked improvement in recent years that I would put down to the development of two seat instructors and two seat machines. Both are still on a learning curve.
For example, in my opinion it seems wrong to me that student pilots have to spend so much time studying for exams on things like navagation, radio, BAK and air law, and they go our and kill themselves in the first few hours of flight because they didn't know how to fly properly. Whether we like to admit it or nor, this is happening. The Instructors now are better than they were but there is still more that can be taught.

Agree completely! The vast, vast majority of gyro incidents don't happen because the pilot is ignorant of many of things required for a certificate but because the flying skills aren't fully developed. That is the problem with a requirement that so many training hours and solo hours have to be acquired before a certificate is issued. Just as soon as the student reaches those hours they want to quit training and I think the instructors feel obligated to sign them off unless there is obvious deficiencies in the students skills. The required hours are minimums but the student loses sight of that. I certainly can sympathize with the cost of training but we need to keep asking students what they think their life is worth.

We have a guy in our PRA chapter that took training from a very well known and respected instructor. Because this instructor wasn't moving the training along as fast as this guy thought he should, he thinks he was being held back in order to get more money and he stopped his training. He hasn't stopped to think that it is very probable that the instructor has made the evaluation that the student wasn't ready to move forward. In this case I fault the instructor for not openly discussing the situation. But cost is always in the back of a students mind.

More hours are required to solo and those hours should be quality hours, not just cruising around the pattern with a take off and landing every 15 minutes.
The Gyro must be taken away from the training area and the student given the oportunity for some freestyly flying while he has the safety of the instructor beside him. He should be put through as many situations as he is likely to encounter through his first 100 hours to give him a good start in his gyro flying sport. The student must be made aware that solo sign-off is only the start of his learing to fly and from that time on both the gyro and the elements are his Instructors. The "student" finishes his learning only after his last flight. All those that preach that they know it all have got a rude awakening coming to them.


Yep, you are right again. But getting a student to understand that the competency level reached is only the minimum required to secure a certificate and not one that allows anything else other than more learning must be difficult. Otherwise there would be more than the minimum training being given or asked for. It would be interesting to know how often, if ever, a student actually asks for more training after an instructor had made the judgment that they were ready to solo.

A while back in another thread I asked for instructors to explain how they judged competency. I didn't get any response. What I did get was an explanation of what they do while they are passing judgment on a students competency. I already pretty much knew that; what I was looking for was how they quantified their judgment. If they were to record what competency level had been reached then how would they describe it. I can't believe it is just a pass/fail situation. There must be a feeling that a student is very good, very, very good, needs a little more training, needs a lot more training on a particular skill and so forth.

I got more to say (don't I always!) but will put it in a second post

[Dean_Dolph]

Here in the U.S., I believe there are several problems with training. The first and most important is the thinking and priorities of the student. It appears that for the majority, training is an afterthought. It happens once the gyro is built and then all of a sudden, 'Gee, this thing is ready to fly and I don't know how to fly it. But I've run out of money building so what do I do now?'

So, they proceed to economize on the training and the instructors are pretty much helpless to prevent it. There have been no small number of incidents where people acquired enough training to believe they didn't need anymore and wouldn't spend anymore money. The end result is predictable. There are a few instructors that have managed to gain control of the student's gyro until after they finished the training in an effort to prevent this. The info exchanged on this forum appears to be helping in this regard but the vast majority of gyro enthusiasts do not visit here. Yet!

When it comes to instructors it is a case of where the required mind set to be an instructor works as a detriment to improve training methods. From where I set it looks like in order to be an instructor it is required that an individual have a high degree of confidence in his/her knowledge and skills and the ability to pass this on to the student. But it is this self assuredness that gets in the way of accepting the fact that their methods might be improved on.

In interviewing many, many instructors I've found their confidence to be both reassuring and at the same time frustrating. Just as soon as the suggestion is made that instruction in general, meaning ALL instructors methods, could be improved, they take it personal and a defensive posture is assumed. In so many words I've been told 'I don't want you or anyone else telling me how to instruct'. In the first place I don't have the credentials to tell anyone how to instruct and in the second place that isn't my intent. But as a potential customer of some instructor I want to be sure I'm getting the best training possible and I'm not convinced the best is available yet.

The U.S. team that was assembled to create a standardized training system is/was (we have lost a couple lately for personal reasons) made up of some of the highest profile instructors available. If they ever complete their work on the system then the biggest job is going to be getting the rest of the instructors to buy in.

[scott heger]

I understand about students "short-cutting" the training. But on the other hand when a instructor signs a solo sign off, and then lets the student use the instructors machine to solo....well thats confidence the student is ready. I am not saying that is the norm, just kind of "put your money(gyro) where your signature is". The instructor has to have confidence in himself also at that point. My instructor did it, and it makes the transition in a smaller machine much more comfortable. In a regular fixed wing or helicopter flight school situation, I believe the student almost always solos in the aircraft(s) he was trained in. That is not the way gyro instructors mostly do it, could that be some of the problem? I understand that the instructors only have one training machine, and they are out of business with a mishap. However is does leave one wondering if your instructor doesn't trust you after leaving your money in his pocket, yet still signs you off to go in another machine, that you have never put in the air before.

Scott Heger Laguna Niguel, Ca N86SH

Scott Heger

[Dean_Dolph]

Yeah, Scott, letting a student solo in the intructors machine is the ultimate vote of confidence. I didn't know any other instructor did this besides Marion Springer when she was instructing, so you were fortunate.

When I interviewed Marion in '01 she commented that she didn't understand why instructors didn't allow this. She said when the student first solos it should be in a machine that the student is comfortable in and that means the instructors.

Marion had a lot of philosophical and insightful tales to tell as well as outright humorous ones. I know she has been approached about writing her experiences so maybe one day it will happen. She passed on her training aides to Chapter 62 and with her permission I took them to Mentone this year and gave them to to Glenn Bundy to display in the museum. She is one of those I was referring to that confiscated the students gyro until the training was complete. She also collected the training money up front for the expected time to train. These two actions assured her that the student didn't try to fly before the skills were acquired.

[Aussie_Paul]

Dean, I have sent students home with a machine I sold them without the rotors just in case they were tempted!!!!! Obviously I had a feeling that some might be tempted.:)

Aussie Paul.:)

[mceagle]

"letting a student solo in the intructors machine is the ultimate vote of confidence."

The trouble with this statement I believe is that the vote of confidence by the instructor is in himself, not his student. An instructor that keeps soloing students in his own machine, will eventually lose a machine, (hopefully not a student).
If instructors are capable of having gyro accidents, then students certainly are.

Perhaps one way to identify instructor deficiencies is recognising what instructors actually teach in order to get a uniform training curriculm.
Following are some of the things that I find lacking in some instructors.

Instructors not thoroughly teaching power-off landings (and not only straight ahead)
Instructors not knowing the difference between drift and yaw on take off run
Instructors not advocating coordinated flight in turns.
Instructors not teaching correct "drift" in cross-wind flight.
Instructors not allowing time for a good discussions with the student when not flying (something like a ratio of 2 to 1 - discussion to flght.
Instructors not stressing enough the importance of Pre-Flight and prior preparation.
Instructors persevering with a machine with poor (or shocking) ground manners.
And I won't mention in-air manners because this is well and truely covered elsewhere.

There would be plenty more and I think that Instructors should initially undergo a thorough flight competency test covering absolutely every thing that they should be teaching students. There would certainly be many current instructors who would not pass a thorough flight test.


Todd - This thread has been hijacked from "RAF crash killing two", by me and others. I feel that the subject is important and I wonder if you could move the posts regarding training to the "Training" section.

[gyroguy]

FYI, the NTSB's "Factual" report follows. Draw your own conclusions, because the NTSB has not determine the cause of the accident yet.
--Kerry Cartier, the PRA Safety Guy

-------

NTSB Identification: NYC04LA035.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, November 16, 2003 in Nelsonia, VA
Aircraft: Northam RAF 2000, registration: N999GC
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

On November 16, 2003, at 1119 eastern standard time, a homebuilt RAF 2000 gyroplane, N999GC, was destroyed when it struck the ground in Nelsonia, Virginia. The certificated airline transport pilot was fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal flight that originated from Accomack County Airport (MFV), Melfa, Virginia. No flight plan had been filed for the local flight that was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

Personnel at the departure airport reported that the pilot had initiated a takeoff, and then aborted the takeoff for unknown reasons. He pulled clear of the runway and stayed there for about 10 minutes with the engine idling. He then pulled back on the runway and departed about 1028. That was the last he was seen at the airport.

The gyroplane was next observed by a witness, who was located about 2 miles northwest of the accident site. The witness reported that when she first observed the gyroplane, the nose was oscillating up and down. The oscillations smoothed out, and the gyroplane continued in straight and level flight to the southeast. Shortly after the gyroplane disappeared from view, she observed a rising column of black smoke coming from the direction the gyroplane was headed.

Additional interviews of witnesses in the area revealed that three of the witnesses reported that the gyroplane was in level flight when it rolled left to the inverted position, and then descended in a nose down attitude and impacted the ground. One other witness thought that the gyroplane had first pitched up to a near vertical attitude, and then reversed course and impacted the ground in a nose down attitude. The witnesses agreed that the gyroplane burst into flames after the impact.

The examination of the wreckage revealed that both main rotor blades had red paint transfer marks on the top and bottom side of the blades, 67 inches from the end of the blade straps, consistent with the location of the vertical stabilizer. In addition, there were strike marks on underside of both blade tension straps, consistent with the location of the engine propeller.

One main rotor blade was straight, while the other was bent up about 20 degrees at the mid-span location. There was no evidence of rearward bending of the blades.

A portion of the rudder was consumed in the fire. However, the upper portion of the rudder was separated from the aircraft and found outside of the burn area. There was impact damage on the left side of the separated piece.

The gyroplane was equipped with a fixed incident, horizontal stabilizer, which had winglets that were canted 20 degrees outboard of vertical. The condition of the right winglet was consistent with a main rotor blade strike.

Flight control continuity was not confirmed due to impact and fire damage.

In addition, the main mast was separated below the rotor hub, and one propeller blade was found separated from the remainder of the blade.

Re-examination of the impact site revealed that all items found away from the main impact area were light items and subject to lateral movement from wind. The direction of movement of the objects did not match the flight path described by witnesses.

The gyroplane had been modified with the addition of a fixed incident horizontal stabilizer. This was not recommended by the kit manufacturer. However, the experimental airworthiness certificate of the gyroplane did not preclude additions, deletions, or modifications from the original kit design.

The pilot was reported to have accumulated about 70 hours in make and model. This included 20 hours of dual instruction in another RAF 2000, and then 50 hours in his own RAF 2000.

The pilot's flight experience was reported to be in excess of 14,550 hours. He held ratings for airplanes single and multi-engine, and instrument airplane. He did not posses a rotorcraft, gyroplane, category and class rating, nor was he required under existing rules from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Toxicological testing conducted by the FAA Toxicology Accident Research Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, revealed the following:
17 mg/dl ethanol detected in urine
2 mg/dl acetaldehyde detected in urine
2 mg/dl n-propanol detected in urine
86.36 ug/ml acetaminophen detected in urine
452 ug/ml salicylate detected in urine
No ethanol in lung
No ethanol in brain
The toxicological report also noted that the samples were received in putrefied condition.

The toxicological report received from the State of Virginia reported an alcohol content of 0.01 percent ethanol by volume. In addition, ethanol was not detected in vitreous fluid.

On November 18, 2003, an autopsy was conducted by Wendy Gunther, MD, Assistant Chief Medical Examiner, Tidewater District, State of Virginia.

According to the FAA-H-8083-21 Rotorcraft Flying Handbook, Chapter 21, Gyroplane Emergencies, pilot induced oscillations (PIO) can occur in both the longitudinal and lateral axis. The publication further stated:

"...As with most other rotor-wing aircraft, gyroplanes experience a slight delay between control input and the reaction of the aircraft. This delay may cause an inexperienced pilot to apply more control input than required, causing a greater aircraft response than was desired. Once the error has been recognized, opposite control input is applied to correct the flight attitude. Because of the nature of the delay in aircraft response, it is possible for the corrections to be out of synchronization with the movements of the aircraft and aggravate the undesired changes in attitude. The result is PIO, or unintentional oscillations that can grow rapidly in magnitude...."

"...the stability of a gyroplane is greatly influenced by rotor force. If rotor force is rapidly removed, some gyroplanes have a tendency to pitch forward abruptly. This is often referred to as a forward tumble, buntover, or power pushover. Removing the rotor force is often referred to as unloading the rotor, and can occur if pilot-induced oscillations become excessive, if extremely turbulent conditions are encountered, or the nose of the gyroplane is pushed forward rapidly after a steep climb."

"A power pushover can occur on some gyroplanes that have the propeller thrust line above the center of gravity and do not have an adequate horizontal stabilizer. In this case, when the rotor is unloaded, the propeller thrust magnifies the pitching moment around the center of gravity. Unless a correction is made, this nose pitching action could become self-sustaining and irreversible. An adequate horizontal stabilizer slows the pitching rate and allows time for recovery."

"Since there is some disagreement between manufacturers as to the proper recovery procedure for this situation, you must check with the manufacturer of your gyroplane. In most cases, you need to remove power and load the rotor blades. Some manufacturers, especially those with gyroplanes where the propeller thrust line is above the center of gravity, recommend that you need to immediately remove power in order to prevent a power pushover situation. Other manufacturers recommend that you first try to load the rotor blades. For the proper positioning of the cyclic when loading up the rotor blades, check with the manufacturer."

"When compared to other aircraft, the gyroplane is just as safe and very reliable. The most important factor, as in all aircraft, is pilot proficiency. Proper training and flight experience helps prevent the risks associated with pilot-induced oscillation or buntover...."

[Hognose]

Kerry -- thanks for posting the factual. As you certainly know, they will not assign a Probable Cause until the board meets, but the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook excerpts telegraph that they are going to call it PIO (which is, to be sure, the most probable explanation. All we really know is that the pilot was trained and experienced, he was sober, and the machine suffered an inflight breakup and tumble for unknown reasons).

I'm kind of disappointed by the sketchiness of the report. There is no reference to an interview with Northam's instructor. No indication that they talked to the manufacturer to see what the manufacturer's instructions for counteracting PIO are (and whether that is what the instructor taught).

For a factual report, the description of the wreckage location is extremely vague. Perhaps there is a sketch in the complete docket. The question (in my mind) is what was the breakup sequence of the machine? Mast failure in this type of accident is uncommon; where and how did the mast fail (knowing its location lets us make a pretty good estimate of that).

On the other hand, why all the detail on the tissue ethanol, which is self-evidently postmortem production and can tell us nothing about the mishap? Sounds like one they fobbed off on the FAA to investigate, and FAA did their best, but they're handicapped investigating a gyro accident.

cheers

-=K=-

[Wolfman]

I'm sorry to hear about this. Can someone explain to a non aviation person what the report meant? I take it one of the main rotor blades hit the stabilizer and the propeller?

[Udi]

Dave - The rotors hits the tail and the prop as a result of rotor "flapping". This usually happens when the rotors are unloaded in flight and, in the case of a RAF 2000, when the strong engine is pitching the airframe nose down faster than the rotors can keep up with.

Although some may argue, this accident appears to be a classic PIO-PPO event. The unstable gyroplane starts oscillating in pitch, and the oscillations are magnified by the pilot (Pilot Induced Oscillations - PIO). The oscillations become larger and, eventually, as the gyro is pitching down at the top of the oscillation, the rotors become unloaded and the high-thrust-line engine is flipping the gyro upside down. As the airframe is pitching down, the tail goes up - into the rotors - and the rest is history (Power Push Over - PPO).

If you are considering buying a gyroplane, you want to buy a gyroplane in which the engine thrust line is in line with the center of gravity of the gyro, or a gyro that has a large enough stabilizer to cancel-out any engine thrust line offset. These gyros are called CLT = CenterLine Thrust. A few examples of such machines are the Dominator, the new Air Commands, the Sparrow Hawk, the Magni, and the Butterfly.

Udi

[Chopper Reid]

I know I shouldnt comment but I cant help myself, sorry all !
My personal opinon is that had the guy been properly trained by a competent instructor, he would have recognized what was happening and corrected the situation. It takes [I believe ] more than one oscillation to slow the rotors to the stage they will flap. It is all very well to say that had he been flying a CLT gyro, the situation wouldnt have occurred. There are a hell of a lot of pilots out there who learnt to fly non CLT gyro's and are still walking around. I admit there are some who arent here too so I think the training isnt up to scratch !!
My other opinon is that high time FW pilots, dont make good gyro pilots, for a few reasons and having been a low time FW pilot [1200 hours] and learnt to fly a gyro, I reckon I have some grounds to comment. For a start, a gyro needs much less controll input, flying a gyro is like riding a motorbike at speed,[ no big movements, just light caressing.] A gyro reacts nearly instantaneously where as a FW takes time to get the message something is required of it . In the first 100 hours it seems a lot of pilots fly the gyro very aggressively . FW pilots can have the attitude that because they are a FW pilot, they know everything so they dont take the gyro seriously. This attitude will cause problems no matter what type of gyro they fly !
Thats just my opinion.

[Doug Riley]

A closely-related problem in many gyros with large engines and Bensen-style small tail surfaces is torque rollover. If the rotor is unloaded (by a downdraft or over-control) at a time when the throttle is at a high setting, the torque reaction can roll the gyro over sideways. This is consistent with at least one of the witness reports. The end result is the same:the extremely rapid rotation of the fuselage is too fast for the rotor to keep up with, and the rotor collides with the frame.

Large tail surfaces spanning the prop diameter and centered in the propwash will solve this problem by creating a counter-tortque that's proportional to the prop torque. "Tall tails" or large-span centered HS's will serve this purpose. Without such surfaces. the rotor provides the counter-torque, but only so long as it's loaded at, near or above one full G. Go to low G and your counter-torque disappears.

Chopper Reid , you're right about FW pilots' skills being mismatched to the needs of gyros. However, FW pilots seem to me to have a much easier time of it in Dominator-type craft, such as the one I teach in. The distinct stick-centering pressures and more familiar reactions to G loads mean that there's less un-learning to do.

You still have to keep reminding them to use smaller inputs, mind the lag, flare lower and quit trying to "lift a wing" with the rudder pedals, though.

[C. Beaty]

Chopper, I suppose that you and Birdy do most of your flying at 100' and below.

It has been my observation that flying low with trees, scrub and whatever in your peripheral vision and with a loaded rotor from dodging around that stuff in an unstable gyro is less worrisome than flying the same machine straight and level at pattern altitude where your attitude references are less well-defined.

I don't have statistics to bear me out, but I would bet most airframe/rotor collisions occur at altitudes of 500'-1,000'.

Perhaps unstable gyros are OK for cow catchers; all others should fly stable machinery.

But if you seriously tried out a stable machine, I'm sure you'd prefer the crispness of response of a Dominator even for cow catching.

[Wolfman]

Wow. So I take it by being "Unloaded" it means that the rotor hits a gust of wind and no longer supports the gyro in the air. I am planning on building a "Gyrobee". I have heard it is very stable, but I don't know if it is a "CLT" type. I was thinking, maybe I could put a stabilizer on it, but I have no idea if it is possible or even where to begin. So, if that PIO does happen, how would one regain control fo the aircraft?

[Doug Riley]

Wolfman, the Gyrobee is not perfectly CLT. The small thrustline offset is well-compensated for by the Watson horizontal stabilizer (see appendix to the plans) or something similar.

I have inadvertently unloaded the rotor in my Watson-equipped Gyrobee (not recommended!) at wide-open throttle and experienced no movement of the nose. With an inadequate or non-existent HS, the nose would have dipped sharply in these conditions and might have kept going all the way to inverted. That is what a PPO consists of: a deadly flip caused by a design defect and a pilot not wary enough to compensate for the designer's error.

Admittedly, there lots of wary pilots out there who say "Defect? What defect?" In any event, the tendency to PPO can be eliminated by appropriate frame layout and tail surface design.

[rehler]

Wolfman, doesn't the Gyrobee already have a horizontal stabilizer on it, and isn't it very close to CLT? I think so.

[Harry_S.]

OFF on the power and center the stick, NOW....

When stabilized, recover with throttle and cyclic.

[Shadow]

The first Horizontal Fatality In a stabbed RAF?


FYI, the NTSB's "Factual" report follows. . . . . .

The gyroplane was equipped with a fixed incident, horizontal stabilizer, which had [B]winglets that were canted 20 degrees outboard of vertical[/B. The condition of the right winglet was consistent with a main rotor blade strike.

...."

[Dean_Dolph]

Dave, it appears that you are at the earliest stage of your gyro education like we all were at one time. So, I would suggest that you secure access to, or acquire, a couple of books that will provide you with a lot of the fundamental info needed while you continue to hang out with us here. The books will answer a lot of your questions but will probably raise even more.

Visit Paul Abbott's web site http://www.abbottcompany.com/ and you will find 'Understanding the Gyroplane' and 'The Gyroplane Flight Manual' for sale. Also get your hands on the FAA (FAA-H-8083-21) Rotorcraft Flying Handbook and look at Chapters 15 thru 21. People here say is available to read on line from the FAA web site but I don't have the link.

[birdy]

Well,there you go,I learned another obviose thing today.Thanx doug. :)
Rolling from prop torque with unloaded rotors.Wunder how many times I'v been close to do'n that??? :eek:

Another plus for the immersed rudder ay. ;)