How safe?

[jm-urbani]

Hi,
I have chosen to fly gyroplanes because unlike what can happened on a FW if the engine quits during take off the gyro won't fall like a stone
I don't want to bet my live on an engine.
I knew a FW home builder who's engine stopped during Take off @ 15m altitude, he would still be there if he had built a gyro .
regards
jmi

[Andrey S]

Old story: feeling vs statistics. Statistically, gyros are much more dangerous than FW. I know, lack of training, unstable old gyros and so on. But statistically they are not as safe as FW. That's a fact. Hopefully things will be better in future.

[BrianEsq]

Originally Posted by All_In

I do explain much more verbally than the written presentation slide show but if you are not going you can download it from here. http://www.pra31.org/Co-ownership.aspx
(See the bottom of the page to skip PRA 31's newest mission and go directly to the downloads)

See Item: 4) D. How to Select the Correct Gyroplane to Meet Individual Needs

It is in two formats for your convenience PowerPoint or OpenOffice and if you do not have the free PP viewer or the free OpenOffice Suite there is a link to download them at the bottom of the page.

All In, is it possible that the link is wrong on that page? The downloads for 4)D are the same as 2.

-edit- I actually found the article here http://www.pra31.org/How2SelectGyro.aspx

[Rusty Russell]

Dude
This struck a chord... thankyou

Originally Posted by phantom

I have been flying gyros since the 70's and I have never been killed even once, it is rare for someone to be killed by a gyro but many people have killed gyros and all to often they get hurt in the event.

Norm

[Udi]

This question comes up on the forum once in a while. Some of us ask this question once in a while - perhaps after we lose a fellow pilot.

All of the answers in the threads above might leave a newbee confused. Some people would make you believe gyros are really safer than FW and all of the bad reputation that gyros have is due to idiots doing stupid things. Isn't that a convenient way to look at it -- don't be an idiot, and you'll be fine. I'm afraid the real answer is not that simple.

In theory, both gyros and FW planes are safe. Don't stall, don't fly over places you can't land on, fly only in good weather, stay out of the height-velocity curve, get good training, don't exceed the limits of your aircraft, maintain your aircraft properly, ect. ect. ect. The evidence is there. Jetliners are flying tens, or even hundreds, of thousands times per day, every day, and only very rarely one crashes.

Back to our world. We are not comparing gyros to jetliners and we are not asking about theoretical safety. In order to answer the question correctly we need to define the question better. Are we comparing the safety of a certified, factory built, regulated C-152 to the safety of an non-certified, amateur built, experimental gyroplane? You see where I am going with this.

Theoretical safety is irrelevant when we compare the safety of a C-152 to the safety of, say, a Sparrow Hawk gyroplane. Both are a 2-seat aircraft about the same size. How do we compare the relative safety of these 2 aircraft? Lets start by asking some questions: Which engine is more likely to fail mid-flight -- a certified Lycoming O-235 or a modified Subaru auto engine powering a prop with a rubber belt? Which critical part is more likely to fail -- one that was produced in a regulated manufacturing plant or one that was produced in a non-regulated factory? These are just examples of questions that need to be asked.

If we dig a little deeper, we can ask the question - which aircraft was designed, engineered, manufactured and tested to more strict standards before it was sold to the consumer? I am not picking on the Sparrow Hawk by the way - the Sparrow Hawk is one of the better designed kit gyros. But as good as it is, the design, testing and manufacturing of this kit did not have to go thru the rigors of a certified aircraft. Therefore, it is an unknown quantity for the lay consumer. One has mostly trust and track record to make their choices.

Since some are blaming the pilots for the bad reputation of gyros, lets ask the question - are 152 pilots fly safer than gyro pilots? Are gyro pilots not trained as well as 152 pilots? Are they taking more chances?

I have been involved with gyros for only 10 years. During this period of time, quite a few gyro pilots died in accidents. Some of the accidents were understood and some, perhaps most, were not completely understood. In my opinion, some of the accidents were pilot fault and some were not. Any time we can't explain a crash we say - well, perhaps it was a medical problem... The problem with that is - how come there aren't so many medical problems with C-152 pilots? Let's face it - at least some of the crashes are the result of people flying home-built, home-maintained, unregulated, experimental aircraft, sometime powered by less reliable engines.

Obviously you can't blame a machine for a crash. A machine is a machine - any machine is only as good and reliable as the people who designed, built and maintained it. At the end of the day, it is our responsibility to make sure the experimental aircraft we are flying is airworthy. And here is the kicker. Are we all qualified to certify our own aircraft? Are we all qualified to build them, maintain them, test them? How do we know our non-TSO'd parts are safe?

Well, some of us are more qualified than others and we all trust, to some degree, the suppliers of our critical parts. If you buy a kit, you trust the kit maker for the design of the aircraft and the quality of the parts. You need to trust them because the FAA is not looking over their shoulders.

Gyros can't stall - that's the main safety advantage of a gyro. But well trained and responsible FW pilots don't stall either. If you want to think about the relative risk of flying a gyro, consider all of the other details. Are you prepared to take responsibility for the airworthiness of own your aircraft? Do you have a good understanding of what makes one type of gyro safer than another type? Do you trust the hardware? Do you trust your training? In my opinion flying an experimental aircraft requires a great deal of responsibility and understanding of what you are doing - much more so than flying certified aircraft. We have lost some very good people to this sport and, in all likelihood, many of them did not completely understand what they were dealing with.

Please don't get me wrong - I love gyros and I am not saying people should not be flying them. I just think people - especially those who come from the certified aircraft world - should be aware of the risks and responsibilities of owning and flying a non-certified experimental aircraft.

Udi

[Andrey S]

Nice post, Udi. What would you say about modern certified gyros? Is their record better? Or causes of the accidents are more understandable?

[Chopper Reid]

Most gyros are fairly safe but unfortunately people are not. This year has been a bad one for deaths & we are only a bit over halfway through.

It seems that there's not a common cause as to these accidents.

[scandtours]

I don't know if there is space for this but I will post it anyhow.
I should not comp. the safety of a Gyro with C150/172 but with a Power Hang Glider, (at least the same amount of money
to buy one.}

Dr Bensen wrote once.
IF YOU CAN FIND ANY AIRCRAFT THAT...(and he adds 26 reasons why gyros are better than FW) ... THEN BUY IT! IF NOT, MOVE UP TO INEXPENSIVE FUN FLYING... MOVE UP TO GYROCOPTER.

Pic 2, a comp. of a GYROCOPTER with a POWER HANG GLIDERS

It is ten pages and wish all could have it and read it. You want a copy?
Remember, on a gyro your landing speed is "0" to "7" mph airspeed. What do you think. For me this means a lot.
On the other hand, all Airline pilots I know got their first training on C150 or 172. I did it too and I still remember that first flight.

[Udi]

Andrey - There are no modern gyros certified by the FAA. Perhaps you were talking about gyros certified by the European authorities under the UL regulations. To that I would say that any testing and certification is better than none. What do the European UL regulations require in terms of aircraft maintenance/modifications and annual inspection? In any case, my impression is that the new crop of EU-certified gyros are heading in the right direction.

Udi

[Tom_Millican]

Originally Posted by All_In

Greetings Gerald and welcome to the Forum and rotorcraft more fun than should be legal!!
I had the same questions when I came to the forum.
It took me over 2 years of reading and copy and pasting the experts opinions from here and going to fly-in to observe how they maneuver differentially.

I took all my notes from here an created a presentation that I an giving at the PRA 50th adversity convention fly-in.

I do explain much more verbally than the written presentation slide show but if you are not going you can download it from here. http://www.pra31.org/Co-ownership.aspx
(See the bottom of the page to skip PRA 31's newest mission and go directly to the downloads)

See Item: 4) D. How to Select the Correct Gyroplane to Meet Individual Needs

It is in two formats for your convenience PowerPoint or OpenOffice and if you do not have the free PP viewer or the free OpenOffice Suite there is a link to download them at the bottom of the page.

If should answer many of your questions and explain how to test a ride.

Watch it and then come back and ask any question it doesn't answer.

All-In;
Download choices are same as Item 2 above. Still have bugs?
Looking forward to your presentation at Mentone.
Tom

[Redbaron]

In theory a gyro is much safer than a fw but it all boils down to how safe the nut behind the stick is.

[thomasant]

Although gyroplanes are considered to not stall compared to fixed wings, there are situations when there could be an abrupt drop in RRPM without pilot input. As brought out before, it is advisable to fly only in good weather.

I went flying yesterday in my tandem AC and although the weather was great, there was some turbulence that I encountered. I first ballooned up and then had a sudden drop. Although it was not a very significant drop, my RRPM decreased momentarily from 376 to 268 during the negative G period. I had no time to do anything other than reduce power a bit. The RPM picked up immediately though. This situation of the RRPM dropping is not very comfortable for one who has flown helicopters mostly, where the rotors are powered.

I believe that as long as the gyroplane RRPM continues to stay in normal operating limits, there is an inherent safety factor due to the constantly autorotating blades. However, if for any reason the rotors wind down, usually due to negative G, the rotors could lose lift with bad results. The design of the gyroplane will then be a major factor in a safe outcome. It would then not matter if there is altitude or not, as recovery may not be possible unlike in a fixed wing stall with sufficient altitude.

That being said and done, I believe that I enjoy flying the gyroplane more than any other aircraft I've ever flown. I would never fly one without a horizontal stabilizer though. Just my thoughts.

[Andrey S]

Originally Posted by Udi

Andrey - There are no modern gyros certified by the FAA. Perhaps you were talking about gyros certified by the European authorities under the UL regulations. To that I would say that any testing and certification is better than none. What do the European UL regulations require in terms of aircraft maintenance/modifications and annual inspection? In any case, my impression is that the new crop of EU-certified gyros are heading in the right direction.

Udi

I was talking about gyros certified in UK under section T: MTO, Magni and others. Does it make them safer?

[utahgyrocop]

Udi,

Great post!

Stay safe

[Udi]

Originally Posted by Andrey S

I was talking about gyros certified in UK under section T: MTO, Magni and others. Does it make them safer?

I am not familiar with the details of section T. Any certification guarantees some minimum standards for design and construction. I don't know what are the section T requirements for flight testing standards - i.e. stability. Also I don't know what are the requirements for maintenance and annual inspection.

Why is a Russian interested in section T?

Udi