Promoting...or killing the sport?

[Resasi]

Perhaps a thought for the day.

As many may be aware from various previous posts on the Forum there was a move in the United Kingdom to do away with single seat training. This was set into motion by a group who for various reasons felt the way to go was with the big new factory built two seat machines.

This may be of no interest in the US, or in Europe, where the movement seems very vigorous indeed, but I am getting concerned for what may just be beginning here.

It has not taken very long for various, perhaps un-forseen side-effects to begin making themselves felt. The big new machines are pretty costly, and although quite a respectable number have been sold, the market is of necessity a limited one. Throw in a recession, and a worldwide economic crisis, and things get a bit sticky.

Training on them is expensive, and as for insuring them for training, that has been rising alarmingly. Thing is in the past you could throw in some single seat training, it was quite cheap to insure the singles, and if they did have accidents it was generally a set of rotors or at worst a bit of frame damage that really didn't set one back an major amount. That being the case you didn't claim from insurance and the premiums on them remained fairly static.

But there has been a disturbing increase of accidents however, on the big factory builds. And those accidents are claimed on. That being the case, the premiums, already high, have been heading skywards quicker than the students. Suddenly not only are machines not being sold but there are less people ready to come up with the money to even begin training.

When you have a low time PPL on a single he/she can afford to take a few minor mishaps while they learn where the pitfalls are and build some time. Not so on the bigger machines, those same little mishaps cost thousands and we now seem to be moving to a situation where the insurance company premiums may just kill the sport for all of us.

The grassroots of any movement is where the majority can get started cheaply, affordably, while having fun and working their way up, according to their abilities and financial means to the more expensive kit. If that section of any sport, for whatever reason gets removed, sometimes that may just end up killing that sport altogether.

Let us really hope that we are not seeing that begin to happen here.

[GyroDoug]

Leigh,

I certainly can see your point. While the nice two place machines have their place and I am glad they are here as they add a lot of credibility to our sport, there is still a need for for light and simple single place machines. We still need an affordable avenue for entry into the sport. While there are still people thinking they can start flying for a couple thousand dollars, most people realize those days are gone forever. But there still needs to be a low cost alternative in the 10K to 20K price range if we want to be able to attract the common middle class enthusiast. Right now that is still doable but it is getting harder and harder to do.

[fara]

Leigh,
I just did some visiting and contacting in various clubs in Europe and by my estimate a low ball number of 2-seat gyroplanes being manufactured and sold from Europe is 550/year for the last 2 years

The accident stats are very good. In France for instance, all microlight category related deaths in 2011 amounted to 8. None seem to be in gyros. The accident rate per flying time represented in 100k hours is on par or better than French light GA aircraft.

In Britain stats are even better. In Germany, I think there was someone recently who ran their gyro into a chimney but stats seem very good on serious accidents.

In Italy, it is very hard to gauge the stats but I am trying to get some information but I doubt I can call it accurate ever. Its the wild wild west over there.

In Spain I heard of a fatal accident with a German citizen last year in a gyroplane that was previously badly damaged and put back in service a month before but I have not inquired about Spanish stats so can't be sure if there were others last year.

I am going to get stats from Poland and Slovenia soon.

So where are your stats from and what are they about these accidents. Everyone I met seem to agree that gyroplane accidents in Europe were high in the 80's when certification was not there. Finland has not had a fatal accident since the last Brock gyro in 1969 (?) and then they started using HS on long arm tails. Though Fins don't have a tremendous number of gyroplanes flying

[bpearson]

Complete economic breakdown will eventually happen across Europe killing off most of the unnecessary elements of the state that continue to micro manage every aspect of our lives.

[CLS447]

Now that is the way to be optimistic !

[steveb]

Originally Posted by Resasi

Perhaps a thought for the day.

As many may be aware from various previous posts on the Forum there was a move in the United Kingdom to do away with single seat training. This was set into motion by a group who for various reasons felt the way to go was with the big new factory built two seat machines.

If by "group" you mean the UK CAA then you are correct. If you are trying to imply that it was the work of anyone else then you are incorrect.

[bpearson]

So let's get this clear. The recent rule amendment was not initiated by the CAA but by a member of the 'public' writing to the CAA? Surely can't be true!

[bpearson]

Why has a post been removed?

[Resasi]

No Steve, I do not mean the CAA, and I am not implying.

In a letter dared the 19th May 2011, a member of the CAA responded to a member of the BRA, mentioning various points raised by the BRA concerning the use of home builds and single seat gyros in training, and that this letter was in direct response to those concerns.

A copy of the letter given to someone, who though not party to the discussions, probably should have been consulted, and who was going to be effected by the changes that were now in motion, and who showed that letter to me.

I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting you, though look forward to doing so at some stage, Tony has always spoken well of you.

I have no wish to be seen as a rabble rouser, or anti the move to 'safer' machines/training. In fact, should I be able to downsize and sell my house I would like very much to buy of these new 'super machines' one of which is on my bucket list.

I came to gyro flying through the slow 'grass roots' single seat weekend method, having done the required portion of dual. Certainly appreciating the gradual assimilation and slow steady step by step build up of knowledge, rather than the crash course rapid PPL in a couple of months that I had fully intended to attempt. But then I had the time, something I realize that many of us do not.

There should have been room for both methods. I think it may be felt that perhaps it still should. Who knows.

Certainly recent stats, both for training, sales of new factory two seaters, and oopsie's have been cause for concern to one segment of our gyro movement. My concern, voiced at the beginning of the thread, for the cheap affordable grass roots sector, which if it does go due to being priced out by rapidly rising insurance, harms us all.

Doug absolutely, it is getting much more expensive even over in the US, where historically it has been the cheapest and easiest to get into the sport worldwide.

Sorry Brian simply trying to get it down clearer.

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ED%2002-12.pdf

In various parts of this particular report, there are statements made concerning other recent similar accidents. Specific mention made about G-CGGV , G-CGGW, G-DWDW this followed by the comment that MTOSport's UK manufacturer were aware that these sorts of accidents were occurring and that a developing trend was apparent.

[All_In]

Hi Buddy!!!

Very astute observations!!!!

[Resasi]

Hi John, really not trying to be smart here, just rather concerned at the way things seem to be heading.

There has been feed back in the last month from various sources on insurance, sales figures, recent accidents, falling figures on training being undertaken, and people struggling to keep things going.

Not sounding good for any of us.

[WaspAir]

I would appreciate a bit of clarification as what single seat "training" means in this context.

Possibility 1) people teach themselves to fly, perhaps with the Bensen philosophy, and they do it in a single seater

Possibility 2) people get dual instruction in a two place aircraft, but after endorsement for solo flight, can build required solo experience time in single seat aircraft before taking the practical test for the license

Possibility 3) people are required to do all of their pre-licensing flying in a two place aircraft, some with an instructor until endorsed for solo, and some without an instructor on board to meet solo experience requirements.

I am of the opinion that number 1 above is not generally speaking a very bright idea.

Number 2 above used to be very common for glider instruction in the U.S., where a student could be taught in a Schweizer 2-33 two place trainer but then allowed to build solo time in Schweizer 1-26 single seat glider with very similar performance and handling characteristics.

Do the new UK rules now establish number 3 as a firm requirement?
Or is there a number 4 I haven't considered?

[bpearson]

You will be required to attain a full licence in a factory built machine rather than just do the previous 20 hours. This means at some stage you will have to solo the machine and this means buying one or part of one.
When transitioning to your single place then obviously you will be back wheel balancing, hops etc. This will price many people out of their dream of flying a small gyroplane. The old syllabus taught hundreds to fly.

[Resasi]

JR, in this context 3 is now what is required with all training in a two seat factory built machine.

What had been previously allowed was a portion of the training required to be carried out in a two seat machine, and a portion allowed in a single seat machine but under the direct supervision of an instructor. So 2. fits that.

With the group I was with I did 15 hrs in an RAF 200, (having previously held a british PPL I was only required to do 30 hrs instead of 40 hrs.) the rest on a single seat Bensen where an instructor came out to the runway in a vehicle and I was in direct radio contact with him, and any other aircraft in the circuit.

We were very restricted at Henstridge where I initially began. We were low on the totem pole and had to subordinate ourselves to any fixed wing activity that went on. However when we eventually moved to Rissington not only was there a large number of runways but we we were also very fortunate in having the place to ourselves a lot of the time, as the RAF Cadet training on the Grobs only took part during the weeke-ends.

We could and did occasionally have up to six or seven students doing wheel balancing, hops and the occasional circuit with two instructors supervising at different parts of the field and concentrating on specific students.

Solo work in the local practice area was supervised and briefed going out and on return.

[Jens]

Originally Posted by Resasi

...The grassroots of any movement is where the majority can get started cheaply, affordably, while having fun and working their way up, according to their abilities and financial means to the more expensive kit. If that section of any sport, for whatever reason gets removed, sometimes that may just end up killing that sport altogether...

So true.
More activity is the key. Do before have.