gyrogreg
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2003
- Messages
- 1,000
- Location
- Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, USA
- Aircraft
- Magni M-16 Gyroplane
- Total Flight Time
- 3000 total, 2000 Gyro
To a point, but what manufacturer of fixed-wing LSA has had to petition the FAA to allow his entire category and class a fair hearing? To the extent that individual exemptions are even necessary, that's a valid role for PRA.
Regardless, I wish you success. I think this is hugely important.
Paul, Originally the FAA disallowed gyroplanes completely in the SP/LSA NPRM. It was by quick and effective action by the PRA (Gary Goldsberry, etc.) at that early date that changed the minds of the NPRM Project Manager. It was an unfortunate internal political discontinuity within the FAA (with the Rotorcraft Directorate that did not support SP/LSA at all) that prevented SLSA. The RD had a veto on the aircraft portion (SLSA) of the new rules. It was the PRA involvement at that time that got the "good guys" in Washington to do all that they could do without the RD approval - SP and LSA for gyros. Also, the road to SLSA was set out in the rule - this is the road we are now persuing. Until we had manufacturers willing to meet the ASTM standard, there was nothing the PRA could really do with the FAA - a path was at least set, in many ways because of the PRA involvement. That path requires individual exemptions as detailed in the rule.
The RD hard line against SLSA gyroplanes came from the internal arguing within the gyro community about stability, HSs, etc. That arguing, and some screwy aerodynamics lobbied on them (by an un-named but prominent producer at the time) convinced the RD that the gyro community could never agree on a "consensus standard". The way the community appeared to the RD at the time was total disarray and very faulty understanding of what it takes to fly gyros safely. The PRA stepped up and assisted and promoted the ASTM standard that we DID achieve. It was a hard road to climb, but, I believe the highly visible work on the ASTM standard, especially all the stability discussions, raised the awareness of the community and did help reduce PIO and buntover accidents since then. There is ready acceptance of reasonable prop thrustlines and HSs as a result.
The RD has lately been making noises that they "like what they are seeing". This may be a reason they have now decided to put some priority on these exemption requests. Unfortunately, most of what they are liking is not American born. But, we are getting there - look at the new Sport Copter II. We need American stats now on "compliant" gyroplanes to possibly correct all the bad PR gyros have had - especially with the RD.
And the RD is not dumb! Their simple and patronizing remark to us back at a meeting in early 2000 with them - trying to convince the RD we knew what we were doing was: "We know what is wrong with gyros - there's not enough back here for what's up here!" - pointing to a beautiful picture of an RAF! That remark came after one of our prominent gyro proponents tried to explain in faulty physics that gyros were unsafe because they had high thrustlines. After about 30 seconds at the chalk board, the RD Engineer asked that person to "Please sit down - we know what is wrong -----"!)
It was very difficult to dig out of the hole the gyro community had been digging for itself! The arguing did not help! The PRA is showing full support for what the manufactureres and ASTM committee is now doing - but it is in the manufacturer's ball park right now.
Right now it is in the gyro communities ball park too - tons of comments to the fAA will likley move things along! Post your comments on regulations.gov.
- Greg