Special Light Sport Aircraft

[joe6558]

My Fellow Gyroplane Enthusiasts,

It is my understanding that gyroplanes have been excluded from "Special Light Sport Aircraft" consideration, and that this means that companies such as AAI will not be able to sell ready-to-fly gyroplanes (except to governmental agencies under public use regulations).

Can anyone tell me why gyroplanes were excluded? I would appreciate the official FAA version of why gyroplanes were excluded, as well as the various opinions of the persons on this forum, and any comments that AAI is willing to offer.

Does the FAA have any plans to reconsider this exclusion at a future date, and if so when and under what circumstances would they reconsider this decision?

Thank you for any information on this matter.

Joe Larson
Sparrow Hawk Enthusiast
Lenexa, Kansas

[Ralph]

The rule excludes gyros from the certified LSA category. You will still be able to buy and build kits that will be registered as Experimental LSAs, but no certified, ready to fly gyros. Here is the text, straight from the FAA:

Paragraph (9) Gyroplane rotor system

The definition of light-sport aircraft in proposed §1.1 included gyroplanes. As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA did not propose to issue special airworthiness certificates for gyroplanes in the light-sport category. The FAA received numerous comments on the subject of gyroplanes (or autogyros or gyrocopters), including a submittal from the gyroplane trade association. Most of the comments concerned the availability of dual-instruction, and the effect that terminating current training exemptions would have on the availability of training for gyroplane pilots. The FAA included gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft definition to permit a sport pilot to fly the small gyroplanes that are currently available on the market. The FAA believes that the training exemptions have permitted some increased availability of gyroplane flight instructors because the exemptions allowed for a two-seat gyroplane to be operated as an ultralight training vehicle by a qualified ultralight instructor. Existing two-seat gyroplanes that had been operated as training vehicles under the part 103 exemptions, and which have been certificated under §21.191 (i)(1), will be permitted to conduct similar flight training operations for five years, as provided for in §91.319 in this rule. The part 61 provisions of the rule will permit an existing ultralight gyroplane flight instructor to transition to become a flight instructor with a sport pilot rating. The FAA anticipates that this 5-year transition period will permit the gyroplane flight instructor pool to continue to expand to address the concerns of most of the commenters.

Two-seat gyroplanes that have been issued experimental certificates for the purpose of operating amateur-built aircraft under §21.191 (g) may be operated in accordance with operating limitations issued under §91.319. Generally, they may be used for sport and recreation operations, including carrying a passenger, and receiving personal flight training. Receiving personal flight training (obtaining credit for flight instruction received in the aircraft that one owns) was a concern for some commenters.
Many of the commenters were concerned that the consensus standards for light-sport aircraft would add prohibitively expensive costs to gyroplanes, and would result in fewer gyroplane flight instructors. The FAA notes that there are four gyroplane designs that have been type certificated. The FAA notes that many gyroplane designs are smaller and lighter weight than type certificated gyroplane designs. One commenter stated that even with less mass, ultralight gyroplanes are not different from existing gyroplanes and could be considered similar to gyroplanes that have a standard airworthiness certificate. If it is true that existing ultralight gyroplanes are similar to gyroplanes that have a standard airworthiness certificate, then the FAA will work with any manufacturer who desires to obtain a type certificate for a two-seat gyroplane that meets existing airworthiness standards. Part 27 airworthiness standards define an internationally recognized level of safety for small rotary wing aircraft. A gyroplane design may also receive a primary category type certificate, which will be issued if the FAA finds that the aircraft complies with the applicable airworthiness requirements approved under §21.17 (f) and has no feature or characteristic that makes it unsafe for its intended use.

Many of the commenters who called for the special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate for gyroplanes referred to the simple design and operation of flight controls. The FAA acknowledges that this is a reason for permitting sport pilots to fly gyroplanes, and for that reason the FAA included gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft definition. However, the FAA does not agree that this operational simplicity would apply to design and performance criteria for the light-sport aircraft gyroplane design. Complicating design factors for gyroplanes include the location of thrust and lift lines with respect to the center of gravity; horizontal and vertical stabilizer size and location; and effects of turbulence. Larger gyroplanes have greater inertia, which makes the aircraft less sensitive to the relative effects of these factors. The FAA believes that the dynamics of a rotary wing aircraft and the light weight of existing two-seat ultralight gyroplanes require a design standard for structural integrity and aircraft stability that may add prohibitively expensive costs to gyroplanes. One commenter expressed doubt that the ultralight gyroplane industry would agree upon a design standard.

The FAA reviewed gyroplane accident statistics in the NTSB’s electronic database. The data show 70 fatal accidents in the years 1983 through 1994 with mechanical failures accounting for 12 of those accidents. Data show 20 fatal accidents in the years 1995 through 2001, and mechanical failures accounting for two of those accidents. This data tends to support those commenters who state that gyroplane safety is better served by increased availability of training rather than different standards for design and performance of gyroplanes. Refer to the discussion under “VI.5.A.viii. Gyroplanes” for details on how this rule proposes to assure better training for sport pilots seeking a gyroplane rating.

To summarize, the FAA stated in the NPRM that, for sport pilots flying light-sport aircraft, the continued use of exemptions would generally be inappropriate to allow aircraft larger than the limits in part 103 to be used for flight training. At this time, the FAA is not participating in developing consensus standards for gyroplanes, because the FAA believes that, unlike other kinds of light-sport aircraft, there are significant complex design issues for gyroplanes that are unresolved by the industry. The simplicity of operation of gyroplanes supports making this aircraft available to sport pilots. The need for dual instruction in gyroplanes, and the scarcity of gyroplane instructors, is reason for the FAA to issue training exemptions for the gyroplane community. Including gyroplanes in the light-sport aircraft definition will permit the continued construction of two-seat gyroplanes that will support increased availability of gyroplane flight instructors. If the gyroplane community is successful in developing a design and performance consensus standard, and if service experience, including accident data, demonstrates a marked difference between ultralight gyroplanes and those that are built to that voluntary consensus standard, then the FAA may revise the rule to permit gyroplanes to receive the special airworthiness certificates in the light-sport category. Otherwise, before the end of the 5-year period during which aircraft certificated under §21.191(i)(1) may be used for flight training for compensation, the FAA may consider if it will continue to keep exemptions in place to allow flight instructors to train sport pilots in gyroplanes issued

Ralph

[daveeisler]

This is not good news for us as it add's more negative publicity, We know that these are safe aircraft . I am mad.

[Brent_Brown]

This is from the above post

If the gyroplane community is successful in developing a design and performance consensus standard, and if service experience, including accident data, demonstrates a marked difference between ultralight gyroplanes and those that are built to that voluntary consensus standard, then the FAA may revise the rule to permit gyroplanes to receive the special airworthiness certificates in the light-sport category.

Do we have a design and performance consensus standard?

If the FAA is getting its info for not giving a special airworthiness certificates in the light-sport category to gyroplanes is based on the accident statistics in the NTSB’s electronic database, that is "N" aircraft. I don't see how this can be right. In this database how many accidents are in the existing two-seat ultralight gyroplanes that we use now. The ASC has a accident reporting requirement for its insturctors, why not use that as the data to see if we need more time and added wathever.

The FAA believes that the dynamics of a rotary wing aircraft and the light weight of existing two-seat ultralight gyroplanes require a design standard for structural integrity and aircraft stability that may add prohibitively expensive costs to gyroplanes.
why should they care what added expensive is needed to meet said standard. Again not a good reason not to include gyroplanes. That is like saying this new dress code at school is going to be to much for the Ohio kids so they don't get to go to school now.

One commenter expressed doubt that the ultralight gyroplane industry would agree upon a design standard.

If it takes longer so what, once we have one why not let it be used. Or is this a one time thing that if the rule is pasted and your not in it sorry you are never looked it again. If that is the case we need help. If ONE commenter said anything is that it game over. ONE for all. Army of ONE. Thanks Mr. ONE.

[Dean_Dolph]

Brent, there IS a design and stability standard! The only standard not complete, and it is one that the manufacturers need to sell ready to fly machines, is the one for quality assurance. And it is my understanding that it isn't far from being complete.

The way the ASTM procedure worked is that first the gyro sub-committee had to reach an agreement and then the entire ASTM committee for the LSA consensus standards had to agree. if there was only one, I say again, one, negative comment on one issue in the standard then it required more discussion until there was an agreement by all that everything was acceptable. That isn't my definition of a consensus but that is how it worked. Apparently there were a couple of minor negative comments on the quality assurance standard that have yet to be worked out.

An added note, I don't know of any instance where there were negative comments made from outside the gyro sub-committee. Maybe Greg Gremminger will jump in here soon and correct anything I have reported wrong and provide some clarification.

I guess not everyone reads every post like I do or Jim Mayfields post on 7/21 would have provided the answer to this question. I have faith that the gyro WILL be in the standard and I don't believe we will have to wait umpteen years for it too happen.

[Heron]

Please help me to understand:
Who is "the industry"?
Who is discussing the issues other than this forum?
Is there a lack of communication within the manufacturers midst?
Or they do not know what they are talking about?
Does this rules apply only to gyros made in USA or the "alien" gyros are included?

Thanks
Heron

[Dean_Dolph]

Heron, there were about 45 knowledgeable people from the U.S. and around the world that participated on an ASTM sponsored gyroplane standards sub-committee. This sub-committee was part of the larger ASTM committee charged with the mission of creating standards for ALL LSA aircraft. The FAA blessed this effort since they were the ones that had asked for 'industry' developed standards..

Each category had a sub-committee. This means trikes, powered parachutes, fixed wing and etc. that meet the criteria established for LSA. This was an unbelievably large undertaking involving hundreds of people. The industry refers to manufacturers of ready to fly LSA aircraft. They can be based anywhere and sell their product in the U.S. if they meet the consensus standards.

You would recognize the names of the vast majority of the people on the gyroplane sub-committee. I'm not trying to be mysterious by not providing the names but if the people want their names made public then they can do so here or chairman Gremminger can do it. I don't feel I have that right. But to further answer your question(s), just about every major gyro manufacturer in the U.S. (and at least one outside) was a member of the sub-committee. I say about, but off hand I can't think of one manf. that wasn't represented.

Without going into unimportant details/reasons why; I was invited to participate. But not being an expert I didn't enter into the discussions except at the very beginning (many moons ago!) where I offered my thoughts on how the final documents should be structured and worded. Without seeing what was taking place it is impossible for people outside the sub-committee to understand the amount of work these people put in, especially Chairman Gremminger. It is a story that warrants chronicling.

[david holmes]

What Bubba and I understand the FAA said is:

1. yes, you can, but no they are not
2. no you can't but yes they are
3. yes they are but no you can't.
4. no they are not but yes you can.

[RayPierce]

Originally Posted by david holmes

What Bubba and I understand the FAA said is:

1. yes, you can, but no they are not
2. no you can't but yes they are
3. yes they are but no you can't.
4. no they are not but yes you can.

I knew a lawyer would eventually clear that up.

Now if I can just get the ringing out of my ears and my eyes uncrossed......

[Heron]

Dean:
When (don't know exactly) the first draft came out, some guys down in Brazil read it and though: "Hmmm, this is good" so they furter elaborated and passed it along to guys from the sub-groups.
They elaborated some more and called the authority (DAC=ex military) and a meeting was proposed.
They went, roll call and start deliberating . . .
The DAC said: we have no clue about all this stuff, anda have no personnel to run it, so it up to you.
Rule: from this day forth if you want to fly you have to talk to the experts and the expert is the Such and Such Association (gyros, trikes, etc)
Rule: Now that you are the designated expert you better live up to it or we pull your ticket.
Rule: you are not a member of that association you do not Fly. And that is it?
So . . .armed with this diploma everyone went their own way, creating the associations and have them organized and prospering but one . . .
Guess who?
It is now growing slowly, but had a division that almost killed it.
And this is many years in the making, if you want to change something, you get it ready, clear and explained, the authority is there to serve you.
NO ifs, ands and Buts . . .not interpretations, not Mr.CardBearer's will, the will of the people.How long it will take for this thing be explained and used to be tested and perfected?
How pittyful all this effort, money and resources to get this iffy rule out!
Heron
P.S. I think you fit the seat just fine, I like your views and manners to adress the issues. Thanks

[Dean_Dolph]

Heron, I'm not sure what you are saying about an 'iffy' rule. But the effort certainly wasn't a waste of time and money.

My take on this is that while I will probably never buy a ready to fly LSA gyro, the efforts of the sub-committee in creating the stability and performance standards is as least as valuable to the kit manufacturer/buyer as the LSA manufacturer.

For the first time we have a standard that a homebuilder with a unique design can measure against and that alone has a lot of value. And as far as I know there isn't any reason a kit supplier can't say 'This kit was designed to meet the ASTM standards when built according plans/instructions'. As a buyer of such a kit, I would expect to get everything a ready to fly buyer would get including a pilots operating handbook. If that happens then we should see an improvement in our incident rate. In the not too distant future I expect to see kit buyers start asking the supplier if their kit built machine will meet the standards.

[Heron]

Wrong term . . .
I hoped with all this time and manpower this would be plug-n-play event, but we are going to have to get use to read it time and time again to get the real scoop.
It is long due and we all welcome it, lets see the practical effects.
Not too late to thank again all the gyroheads involved and their efforts to get us in!!
...and to you for been patient with me!
Heron

[Ralph]

Actually, things are a lot more positive then most of you guys have been letting on.

(1) At the outset, the FAA did not want to include gyroplanes in Sport Pilot, lumping them with helicopters and flying platforms. It was possible to convince them the gyros were actually easy to fly and they changed their position.

(2) It would have been nice if a consensus standard had been ready by the time the agency started to finalize the rule but it wasn't. Because of that, we don't yet have certified LSA gyros. However, now we have a consensus standard and, if we get our act together and put it to use, I have no doubt that certified gyros can be a reality in a relatively few years.

(3) Experimental gyros that meet the LSA parameters can be flown by Sport Pilots - no need to gripe about that.

(4) You can complain about the limited NTSB accident data but it is real and it is a minimal profile of accident histories with gyros. If anything, accidents are significantly under-reported with that approach. Yet the figures are horrendous compared to any other sport aviation category. We are lucky they didn't simply ground all non-certified gyros and call it a day!

All-in-all we made out pretty well on this first round. Griping about the outcome simply shows a lack of appreciation of the complexity of the NPRM process and how badly it can go astray - witness the debacle of the Recreational certificate.

Ralph

[gcrisler]

Ralph:

Your optimism is a breathe of fresh air!

Since you talk at the PRA convention I have joined the ASC rotary wing and am in the process of gettng my log book up to date, registering the copter with ASC and taking the written test. I am attempting to get all of my ducks in a row before the Sept 1, 2004 deadline.

Any other helpful hints you may have would certainly be wonderful.

Thanks

Garret Crisler

[MGman]

Ralph - Thanks for your timely updates on the new standards. You seem to be up to date on the changes and their proper interpretations. I think the reason there may seem to be griping about the outcome is that no-one has yet provided any "official" updates to us about the outcome and results of the new standards and changes. No news tends to result in rumors and uncertainties. Hopefully we will get some official input so everyone can get behind the new rules and support and implement them. Speaking for myself, I for one have seen the tremendous effort Greg G and others have put into this effort over the past several years. Many in this forum have also contributed greatly to the effort through the threads Greg recently started on the rules and standards discussions. They all deserve great praise for their efforts. Again, I think, (for myself) I'd just like to see some feedback from the people that did all the hard work as to what was approved, what wasn't and what it all means to us.

Thanks again and keep up your good work.

Dave