Possible upcoming changes to UK CAA/BRA legislation.

[Resasi]

Standards Document 44 on Gyroplane Personnel Licensing by The British Rotorcraft association is a comprehensive and clear document containing the privileges and requirements for the full spectrum of gyro licenses available in the UK.

Intended to be a guide for personnel licensing in relation to Gyroplanes in the UK, presently governed by ANO (Air Navigation Order) 393, it contains a summery as well as additional detail and supplementary rules, and is intended to be applicable to gyroplane training after July 2012.

At present there is only one license for flying gyros in the UK, a PPL(G), with a number of ratings and authorizations that can be added and Doc 44 details this. Not yet in force it appears open to possible amendment. Until then LASORS 2010 continues to apply.

A personnel observation on reading through it, though not yet in great detail, has been that it would appear that single seat training may well be affected the most. This in turn may well mean that learning to fly a gyro will become very much more expensive for those who are limited in their budgets and may not be able to afford the rates charged for the two seat machines most flight schools have and present instruction is given on.

[helipaddy]

Hi Leigh
Have you a link to the document or is it not in the public domain yet?

[bpearson]

Whilst the economies of Europe slowly die under a sea of regulation and red tape it seems that we still have armies of work creators frantically scrabbling around looking for areas of our lives to stamp down on.
Recreational flying (especially gyroplanes) is fast becoming the preserve of the rich, where only people who can afford a $100,000.00 factory machine are deemed worthy to take to the skies. We are fast becoming a bland, stifling backwater of a country where risk and personal responsibility is deemed unacceptable on by those in power who know what's best for you!
The inevitable consequence will be people deciding to fly illegally and possibly missing out on a simple inspection of their machines airworthiness or their flying ability resulting in accidents that no doubt will convince our overlords that they were right all along.

[Resasi]

Paddy I just had a look at it but do not believe it is yet public. I had received and email from someone who was looking into training and was told by an instructor that the CAA was consulting the professionals on new rules for gyro training, and would be asking though not necessarily taking any notice of amateur opinion early next year.

The new rules look to be effective from 1st July 2012. The Gyrocopter Experience club apparently coordinating its responses, and appears to be recommending the ending of all PPL(G) training in aircraft other than factory built Section T ones. Those who wished to fly single seat gyros could then take differences training presently not available from GyrocopterExperience instructors.

There appears to be two reasons for this approach from them. One commercial, given the link with Rotorsport UK selling the aircraft, the other the belief that all gyros not compliant with section T are inherently dangerous.

They seem confident the CAA will do as this particular Gyrogroup wants. Training on other aircraft is likely to be allowed provided that the aircraft, if two seat, were individually approved for instruction before some specific date , or, if single seat, the student were already part way through their training under the present LASORS legislation.

Aviation is as we all know an expensive hobby however the ability to train and fly single seat machines has allowed this sport for many years to be withing the reach of most of us. Yes there have been accidents as there have been in any sector of aviation. I am not into statistics of any kind however I would be extremely interested to see in the UK those statistics pertaining to accidents fatal or otherwise of gyros single seat and two seat, particularly the new two seat complying with section T

If the UK insurers were to be consulted on who were the biggest claimants over the past couple of years I am pretty sure that it would not be single seat machines.

I am just sad that a group of people who do profit from the sport, and yes why should they not, seem to be oblivious to the grass roots that have sustained the sport over here for so many years, or apparently to get rid of the single seaters.

Brian, in this particular case I feel that it is not work creators as such who are promoting this particular legislation.

I know this topic may be of little interest to those outside the UK, however it will dramatically raise the potential cost of training to those here. Certainly I would say that the bulk of gyro training done in the US and probably round the world has been on single seat machines that were not compliant with section T.

I am well aware that section T was formulated for safety and that the new two seat factory machines are supposedly safer, but if the systematic and careful adherence to the single seat training standards that have evolved are carefully followed affordable gyro training for all remains within reach. This proposed new legislation to my mind will end that.

[Rotormouse]

Right on the nail Leigh.

Apparently they’re not consulting all the ‘professionals’ though. I understand that Tony (who has more skill and experience than the lot of them put together) has frequently been ignored, even though their underhand schemes directly affect his livelihood. But then he’s not part of the clique, so therefore not helping to line their pockets.
This new legislation has nothing to do with anything except avarice and ego from a tiny minority who do not represent UK gyronauts. Funny how they’re coordinating and recommending everything to their advantage innit? We’re all well aware of the motives and the source behind this greedy bunch, spouting hollow platitudes, piously claiming to act in the best interests of would-be gyronauts – providing those would-be gyronauts can be relieved of ridiculous amounts of money in the process. Should you be foolish enough to think that gyro flying should be affordable (as it was until 2006), or heaven forbid – homebuilt - they don’t give a stuff about you, peasant. You can’t fund their massive 4x4s and lavish lifestyles - go away, how dare you dream of flying an affordable gyro!
The British Rotorcraft Association is riddled with a cancerous board, its members bled dry inadvertently funding two commercial operations who used the BRA for their own promotion while blatantly disregarding everything that the BRA is supposed to stand for. The CAA are negligent in pandering to them, and it’s completely against the remit of the LAA. They’ve created a stranglehold on training, but conveniently won’t (can’t) provide single-seat instruction, so eventually affordable single-seaters will die out just as they hope. Then the supply of new students will dry up as no one will be able to afford their prices. The homebuilts will fight back.
As for Section T machines being safer – why has gyro insurance gone through the roof in the past few years? It’s not our little £10,000 machines doing it. The 1960’s designed mk1 Cricket has never killed anyone and they don’t catch fire either. If you’re not taught proper rotor handling, you’re going to wrap it up regardless of the price tag. There’s quite a trail of factory built destruction to follow.
Single and two-seat gyros used to happily co-exist until this lot came along, trying to eradicate homebuilts for their own advantage. It’s very sad what some will do for greed and ego, especially as they seem to think we can’t see exactly what they’re up to.

[EI-GYRO]

It would be a shame to see the demise of the pure single-seat bare-bones gyro.

Two-seaters are fine to train on , but there is a touch of the rotary spam-can about them.

Did Gary Layzell's machine ever get through section-T ?

[helipaddy]

Thanks Leigh and Shirley.
I'm convinced that the single seat machine I fly is streets ahead of the two seat I train on.
For pilots to be denied the chance to fly a single seat machine like the Dominator due to commercial interests or Section T is a serious shame if that is the case.

[C. Beaty]

Has a single one of the Section T approved gyros gained its approval without a waiver based on the opinion of a “test pilot?”

[Resasi]

Chuck an interesting question. I do know that Chris the CAA gyro test pilot is a graduate of the Empire Test Pilot School
http://www.etps.qinetiq.com/Pages/default.aspx
He is an extremely nice guy in addition to being a very fine gyro pilot.

Not sure how involved he was with the certification of the European two seaters we presently have operating here in the UK. I do however know that he learned to fly gyros with Tony Melody at Henstridge on the 30 year old Bensen I presently share with Tony.

Thank you Shirley yes it will effect Tony and those who cannot afford the prices presently being charged by those operating the new two seaters. I do not for one minute dispute the need for those prices, I know the costs associated. I simply am sad about the effect this proposed legislation will have on single seat training and the affordable avenue to a PPL(G) that some pilots with less money can take in order to fly.

Paddy will contact you.

Fergus, yes Gary's AV-18, formerly Campbell Cricket is designed as per BCAR section T as is I believe his Merlin, formerly Montgomery Merlin. Gary's machines can be podded or unpodded. I do think this will effect his business and know that he is setting up down in France where the authorities are not quite so controlled by special interest groups.

[Gyro_Kai]

Hello,

I may be missing the point, here. The trend is towards 2-seat training, but not against single seat flying, right? After getting your license, you may still fly in a single seater, as long as it complies to section-T.

Kai.

[helipaddy]

Hi Chuck
Are you saying that none of the CAA approved gyros are truly section T compliant and all have required some kind of waiver due to non-compliance in certain areas?

Paddy

[C. Beaty]

Every approved gyro that I’ve looked at fails to meet the Section T CG/thrustline standard of ±2 inches and has had to obtain a waiver, Paddy.

I don’t have the link handy but the waivers are posted on a CAA website.

Most likely, the only commercially available gyro made on your side of the Atlantic that would meet the standard is the Aviomania Genesis.

[bpearson]

Makes you wonder why they bothered spending so much on investigating thrustline v c of g relationship!

[helipaddy]

Maybe some test pilot could fly the Dominator and waiver the whole of section T

[C. Beaty]

I doubt if the Dominator nosewheel would meet the crashworthiness standard, Paddy.