UK Gyro Petition.

[bpearson]

Tsunamis and earthquakes are natural disasters Leigh. European financial breakdown is caused by vain, power hungry beurocrats and is very much man made. The same sort of people who are sat round thinking up new ways to regulate a few people who want to go and fly a homebuilt plane.Excuse my amazement at the irony of the whole situation that whilst people starve others are busy thinking up ways in which to stamp down on minority pastimes such as gyro flight!
I'm obviously no help so I'll keep quiet.

[Resasi]

Brian, I removed my comment, please excuse, it was ill considered and hasty.

My petition seems long-winded clumsy and with mistakes, but it gives the gist of what I am trying to put over. To be of value to the gyro community as a whole, and to achieve a more balanced and objective legislation that does not at present appears so.

Tom, the problem will be finding the Instructor that will give you the conversion.

Yes we at the moment have Tony, when he no longer is there, it will be rather more difficult as the present legislation and requirements for a Gyro CFI to be able to check people out on 'non standard' machines is slightly convoluted and there appear to not be very many that will want to touch it.

[bpearson]

Hey Leigh my wife would agree with you. Lol.
Maybe I should start my rants with 'let this be a warning to other countries before the lawmakers stamp down on your rights'.....I do want somewhere to emigrate to that has a semblance of freedom left!
I do honestly hope that you are successful with your petition and the training regs returned to what they were. I am just basing my scepticism on years of seeing the caa stamp down on affordable gyro flight. Not to mention the failure of British projects such as the wombat, sky raider all strangled due to the heavy hand of regulation.

[Resasi]

Brian, regulation has it's place in society. It is there for the good of all and for the main part, is society's response to a perceived gap, deficiency or safety concern.

It can be overbearing misguided heavy handed and stifling.

I feel that it is through discourse, a thoughtful examination of facts by those who can knowledgeably judge, is when sensible rules that govern us emerge.

Lets hope that a sensible evaluation will produce that.

I have accepted that my ideas and views may well be the incorrect ones.

[bpearson]

Leigh, when I board an airliner I want everything about it regulated to the hilt!
Until the day comes when we are somehow forced to climb aboard home built recreational aircraft then the only regulations should concern a possible third party. The trailer you transport your gyro on has no regulations yet we merrily pass within inches of pedestrians and many innocent people have met their deaths when trailers have come adrift.

There is no logical reason for the stifling regulations imposed upon small personal aircraft other than this idea they are some mystical form of transport that has remained for the last hundred years.

We can build kit cars, design and build weird, often blatantly unsafe motorcycles. We can change car wheels by the side of the road with nobody signing our work off. I could go on but you have to agree that there is no logical reason to regulate small, home built aircraft the way we do.

Look at countries where a more enlightened approach is adopted and you will see centre line thrust. Look at Britain and you'll see stock Bensens. Want to lift the seat up ten inches and fit a HS to make it safe? No chance!

So I make no apologies if I am sick to the back teeth of job creationists scrabbling about looking for ways to stamp down on us further!

I still find the current situation of children starving in fellow European countries and possible civil unrest whilst we sit and wait for the next ream of EU regulations to arrive as perverse in the extreme.

Of course we need regulations....just not the ones that are currently trying to save us from ourselves whilst we mess about with our silly toys!

[SandL]

Great job Liegh
and all who have helped
so what exactly can we now do
do we email CAA, write an article for the LAA
... all join BRA on mass
a petition is normally signed by lots of people and boxes of signatures are presented.
For me the big items are
The accidents stats that this report is based on are out of date
diffenences training by an instructor that has flown that specific machines is impossible
single seat training after a 2 seat sign off clearly works in it's current form, single seat accidents have dropped dramatically
this legislation will mean that Gary Layzell will become uncompetitave in the UK
2 hours logged time on rotor handling and balancing is nothing like enough especially considering different weather conditions.
Peter

[All_In]

I agree great job Leigh!!!

One thing always remains true.

If you don't try there will ALWAYS be NO RESULTS from your lack of effort.

[Resasi]

Peter and others who will be writing in please note, it was explained in the reply I received from the CAA, that our origionally suggested format does not cover the situation we wish to try and influence, change or, in our opinion rectify.

Regulation 6 of the CAA Regulations 1991 provides for a statutory right of review of a decision by the Authority; but this is limited to the decisions listed in paragraph 6(2) of that regulation. In the context of Flight Crew Licensing the right to a review exists only where the Authority has taken a decision to grant, refuse to grant, validate, refuse to validate, revoke, suspend, vary or refuse to vary a certificate, licence, approval, authorisation or rating. The subject of your request does not fall within this scope.

Cliff Whittaker the UK CAA Head of Licensing & Training Policy has however said,

As you may know we have had to prepare and publish new material covering all pilot licences because of the implementation of new European legislation this year. The new material is now availiable as CAP 804, and it includes information regarding the PPL(G). CAP 804 and Standards Document 44 are therefore complementary and must be kept consistent. We are already in the process of preparing the first amendment to CAP 804, which we intend to publish on or before 1st July. It follows that the review of Standards Document 44 and the publication of any amendment to that document must be to the same timescale as the amendment of CAP 804. Accordingly, we will be looking to review your comments and reach a conclusion on them within the next few weeks. I will endeavour to respond to the points you have made and to advise of any consequential changes to Standards Document 44 within that timeframe.

Please address your concerns and feelings on the matter to him by email Cliff.Whittaker@caa.co.uk
as soon as you can, and let him know how you feel the present form of the proposed legislation might not be entirely suitable, before their deadline, and that perhaps the BRA had not put an entirely dispassionate case to the CAA.

I put my thoughts and feelings forward and hope that others who have felt that sect 44 as it now stands could do with some changes.

If we can get ourselves heard by the CAA, because the BRA has not voiced our particular concerns, the CAA may well take a look at the logic of what we are trying to put to them and see fit to consider what they hear.

Sadly I feel joining the BRA to try and do this through them, will be too little too late, and will not achieve anything for us. Possibly why so few single seat pilots felt like joining in the beginning.

[EI-GYRO]

Hi Leigh,
Briefly, I did a rapid survey of the NTSB gyro accidents between 1990-2000,
and 2000-2010.

Basically it mirrors the British experience. The great majority of fatals were in machines with inadequate or no horizontal stabilisers.
Lots of these are written off as pilot inexperience, lack of training, or, wait for it,' pilot's failure to maintain rotor rpm'.
The fact is, most of the fatals involved PIO/PPO.
The accidents in stabilised machines were mostly non-fatal, and did not
involve uncontrolled pitch excursions.
If the CAA could be persuaded to examine these reports knowledgably,
and we know the AAIB has at least one smart cookie on board, who could do this for them, perhaps they might be less inclined to remove
an effective training method from use.

There was obviously no MPD-type transition date in the U.S., so there is
no clear before/after transition, but the conclusion is quite stark.
The type of accidents happening to stabilised machines are completely
different, rarely fatal, and resemble more the current type of screwups
on uk tandems. i.e. poor or inadequate training.

It's late, I'm tired,

Cheers.

[Resasi]

Thanks Fergus more good points that we can consider.

With regard to ongoing events, have had some further correspondence with the CAA.

Thank you for your comments, which will be taken into account during the review of Standards Document 44 that is currently taking place.


Microlights and gyroplanes are currently excluded from the licensing provisions of European law through Annex II to Regulation 216/2008, but they are categorised separately. UK microlights fall within the definition of paragraph (e) of the Annex, which applies the 300kg and other mass limits to aeroplanes and helicopters, but not gyroplanes. Gyroplanes are addressed separately under paragraph (f). In UK legislation the microlight definition is limited to aeroplanes only.

It is clearly stated in the opening recitals of Regulation 216/2008 that the European Commission wishes EASA to propose common European regulations for microlight aeroplanes and for helicopters of equivalent mass - as defined in Annex II paragraph (e). This would mean at some point the transfer of microlights from national regulations to new European regulations.

I happen to be aware that some approaches have been made to EASA from individuals within the community asking them to develop regulations for gyroplane licences, including a CPL, to make provision for a commercial gyroplane operating industry for aircraft in excess of 560 kg MTOM. If that work goes ahead, and we should expect that at some point it will, it may be expected that it will include the option that the resulting licence be made mandatory for all gyroplanes regardless of mass. i.e. It may propose that European legislation is changed to bring all gyroplane pilot licensing within the remit of EASA. I would expect such a proposal to receive support from many European States, so that they do not have to create and manage their own licensing system for gyroplanes. If enacted such legislation would obviously render any UK gyroplane licences redundant.

Yes it would make UK licenses redundant, but the million dollar question is whose could end up as being the blueprint for all to follow.

It is no secret that it is the wish that it would be the UK CAA's.

It should be noted by our European friends that common legislation will mean all of us coming under one umbrella, just depends on who has what influence on what that legislation will end up being?

What are the various countries doing at present with regard to single seat training?

Would they be happy to see it removed?

[fara]

Originally Posted by EI-GYRO

Hi Leigh,
Briefly, I did a rapid survey of the NTSB gyro accidents between 1990-2000,
and 2000-2010.

Basically it mirrors the British experience. The great majority of fatals were in machines with inadequate or no horizontal stabilisers.
Lots of these are written off as pilot inexperience, lack of training, or, wait for it,' pilot's failure to maintain rotor rpm'.
The fact is, most of the fatals involved PIO/PPO.
The accidents in stabilised machines were mostly non-fatal, and did not
involve uncontrolled pitch excursions.
If the CAA could be persuaded to examine these reports knowledgably,
and we know the AAIB has at least one smart cookie on board, who could do this for them, perhaps they might be less inclined to remove
an effective training method from use.

There was obviously no MPD-type transition date in the U.S., so there is
no clear before/after transition, but the conclusion is quite stark.
The type of accidents happening to stabilised machines are completely
different, rarely fatal, and resemble more the current type of screwups
on uk tandems. i.e. poor or inadequate training.

It's late, I'm tired,

Cheers.

You may be tired but you are pretty much spot on with what I have found in both NTSB stats and what I could gather from Europe.

Horizontal Stabs may not be a must but they certainly seem to stabilize the gyroplane and the evidence of that is in the accident rates like you found.

It doesn't seem to matter if the HS is a small near prop kind or long moment arm one. Both seem effective. I have my own opinion on which seems to stabilize the gyroplane better just from some simple tests and feel as a test pilot for stability of trikes etc. Stability and maneuverability are always elements that are on the beam of compromise but a standard test regimen defines where that balance point should be.

[EI-GYRO]

While i was learning to do crowhops, I built a proper horizontal stab for
my Bensen, to replace the 'rockguard plate'.
The improvement in pitch stability and the reduction in control-lag was
quite noticeable and very welcome.
I daresay had I been doing other stuff than crowhops it might not have
been quite so noticeable, but it certainly made low-level flight along the
runway much more easily precise.
In a way, the small credit-time for crowhops is not a good thing, as it is
good for your confidence to be relaxed close to the air-earth interface,
which is where most of the expensive stuff happens.
Wheel-balancing is also good for refining pitch control reflexes. A helluva
lot cheaper, and less risky in a single-seater, too.

Re the CAA, I would be a lot happier if they looked more closely at the
reasons for accidents, rather than just count the bodybags/Mega-hour.

Good reasons produce sensible rules, usually. (Stabs, for instance.)
Unexamined statistics often produce unhelpful restrictions, as in the
case under discussion here.

[Resasi]

Another point that has emerged is that due to the better stability of the new factory two seaters it may have been thought that a different emphasis should now be followed by the instructors involved with the BRA towards hops and balancing

Since it is their recommendation to the CAA that only two hours of hops and wheel balancing should be allowed to count towards the issue of the PPL(G) they may not have fully appreciated the better understanding one gains whilst performing this exercises and why all the present accidents are now suddenly occurring.

A safety paper is being brought out by the CAA to address this issue and I am most interested to see if rotor handling is even mentioned.

A Youtube video on the Cricket taking off compared to a MT taking off seems to show how the two seat method appears a more by the numbers, automatic sequence of stick forward, prerotate to a set figure, stick full back and full power, rather than the Cricket take off sequence where the pilot seems to be very much more playing with his rotor pitch and throttle and feeling the blades.

What other regulatory authority, if any, does not allow single seat training in getting the licence?

[EI-GYRO]

Leigh, the Cricket-type takeoff is what Bensen referred to as a 'balanced'
takeoff.
The typical MT-03 takeoff I see on youtube seems more like a soft-field takeoff, i.e. takeoff at high power and low airspeed, then lower the nose and pick up speed, then climb.

Bensen advocated achieving a wheel-balanced attitude, then accelerating
steadily so that when the machine is ready to fly it smoothly lifts off at the correct attitude to allow it to accelerate into the climb, a much smoother and more fluid process, which involves less and smaller pitch control variations, but more finesse in those variations.

Having tried both methods on my own Bensen machine, I found that the
balanced takeoff consistently gave me a better height and speed going over the fence.
This may, however, be related to my relatively modest engine power.

If you teach by numbers, I think the MT-03 method is perhaps better,
as long as you do it right. If you dont watch the numbers carefully enough, it gets expensive.

Bensen's method ensures that the machine will only fly when it is ready,
which seems to me to be a good thing.

Personally, I think manual prerotation practice and wheel-balancing in a single-seater should be a required part of the tandem training programme.

I'm sure the extra cost wouldn't bother them.

[Resasi]

Absolutely Fergus. Think, if a school did have a 'standard, CAA approved single seat machine' you could give your student a few hours on the single that covered taxiing, turns, rotor handling including patting up, blade sail/flap and recovery, wheel balancing, and hops, in a far cheaper machine, then go back and finish up in the more expensive two seater if that was what the pilot was going to get, or on the single seat if that was what he wanted. The student then to my mind a more experienced and well rounded pilot at the end whichever way it went.

With regard to what was last said by the CAA, that it has been decided that there will be a European standardization of all aviation legislation, and in accordance with that aim, all European Countries are at present setting their houses in order, tying up lose ends and getting ready for implementation in stages beginning by July 1st.

At the present time it may well be thought that the UK has the most comprehensive legislation and therefore could well be taken as a benchmark and adopted by others as the standard to follow.

It is still my personal belief, from what I found out about the consultation process on sect 44, that it was not widely enough published. It did not fully gather opinion on proposed changes from a wide enough section of the gyroplane community. It may have incorrectly interpreted accident statistics, overestimated the dangers and shortcomings of single seat training as it stands today, while underestimating the value gained by single seat instruction at the early stage, in particular rotor control, which now seems to be a growing cause of accidents with the newer approved two seat gyros. Along with consultation only with an organization that may have had commercial interest in the promotion of the factory approved European two seaters they were heavily involved with.

It is my feeling that the result of removing the ability to train for a portion of the PPL(G) course on a single seat gyro could adversely impact the only remaining gyro manufacturer in the UK, who had not been involved in the consultation, the few remaining single seat instructors, and those training to be single seat instructors. It would make it difficult if not impossible to type train pilots on the various single seat machine on the UK register. Adversely impact these machines values and greatly increase the cost of obtaining a gyro PPL by removing a lower cost alternative. Then be possible that this legislation be adopted by EASSA for the rest of Europe.

This thread has been up here for discussion, feedback and opinions. I am well aware that there may be others who have very different ideas to me, and that feel that it may be a good thing. Now that it could effect how the rest of Europe trains is there any feedback from there?

How do most of you feel about doing a part of your training on a single seat gyro, or not?