Chris Lord October 31, 2018

[Tyger]

In the USA a gyroplane pilot is specifically instructed to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic.

Vance, where can I find that instruction?

 

[Kolibri]

Originally posted by Vance View Post

In the USA a gyroplane pilot is specifically instructed to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic.

Vance, where can I find that instruction?

Tyger, you beat me to it. Maybe he was thinking of:

91.126(b)(2) - "Each pilot of a helicopter or powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft."

AIM Section 3. Airport Operations
4-3-2-b
Pilots approaching to land in a helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed−wing traffic.

However, I think the case can be made for tighter and lower traffic patterns in gyros, especially by competent pilots showing ATC what is possible.
I've been cleared for inside 500' AGL patterns and to land on taxiways. This was to stay out of the way of faster FW traffic on final.
That tower had seen me land my RAF often enough there to appreciate what a gyro can do.

Vance seems to have this relationship at his home airport, so perhaps that's what was on his mind as he misquoted the CFR?

Regards,
Kolibri

 

[WaspAir]

It's no misquote. You just don't know the FAA materials in enough depth to recognize it as Vance does. Check Advisory Circular AC 90-66B:

12.1.3In the case of a gyrocopter approaching to land, the gyrocopter pilot should avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft before making a turn to final for the runway in use to avoid turning in front of another aircraft on final approach.

 

[Tyger]

Check Advisory Circular AC 90-66B

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. Although its a bit odd that the FAA use the term gyrocopter in the AC when it is found nowhere in the FAR or AIM, to include the "general definitions" in 14 CFR Part 1.

 

[EdL]

It's no misquote. Check Advisory Circular AC 90-66B: 12.1.3

I’ve seen that. What caught my attention, though, is that that paragraph doesn’t specify a pattern direction or altitude. In fact, the next section, 12.1.4, says that HELICOPTERS may fly a lower pattern (500ft) and may do it on the opposite side. Helos are specified and gyros aren’t mentioned. Plus both the pattern altitude and direction are “”may”, not “shall” or “should” (it’s permitting, not directing). I can find no comments such as this specifically for gyros.

Gyros have takeoff, landing, and cruise speeds and capabilities much closer to a Cub than a helo. Gyros cannot hover - at all (slow flight into the wind is not “hovering”). I’d be careful thinking the standards revert to a helo when not specified.

Also, don’t forget that’s an ADVISORY Circular: it is not regulatory, strictly speaking.

/Ed

 

[PJB]

Thank you for your thoughtful input Phil.

As a flight instructor you have experienced more pilot errors than most people can make in a lifetime or even imagine.

As a flight instructor when I say "fly like a gyroplane pilot" I am trying to communicate that a gyroplane may not respond well to fixed wing habits and protocol.

We are getting slightly distracted from the initial point of the Chris Lord accident which I acknowledge is partly my fault for introducing another point! So for the sake of completeness I’ll give my own view on gyroplanes more generally.

My comment wasn't aimed at you necessarily and my criticism of terms like “fly like a gyro pilot” isn’t of a technique that is forced upon you by regulation or guidance (as your flying the pattern seems to be?) nor differences simply due to the mechanics of the aircraft.

The fly like a gyro pilot phrase is usually meant that every approach is at idle and a spot landing, yet we seem oblivious to the fact most accidents are in the take off and landing phase!

The other favourite is making approaches to land across the runway to negate any crosswind, for example. Which just means a) if you make an error you fall off the edge of the runway and into what? Landing lights, soft ground etc and again it doesn’t fit well with most others in the pattern.


Particular gyroplane snake oil is the nonsense suggesting the need to turn violently in S turns to "wind up the rotor RPM" before a emergency landing?! If fact I have a YouTube clip for you to listen to the pilot narrate his own efforts and the recommendation from his instructor. In focusing on these S turns he very almost hits wires.

https://youtu.be/vk4gRGEaohY

So I think aside from the differences in technique as are required by the mechanics of the aircraft class probably best to stick what has kept aviators safe for decades. There is no need for catch phrases or snake oil so that we might hope to sell something that has been offered for free elsewhere.

Like I said Vance that isn’t aimed at you as I’ve no idea what or how you teach but we all know people that this cap fits and in a way is part of the issue we have been discussing here with the brake / flight switch. That is a fundamental feature that has very little understanding of and indeed when I raise the point I get slightly heckled by a student pilot with a confused view in a different aircraft. Same with the view on flying in the pattern in a gyroplane in the US. Same as I say with take off / landing accidents. Yet no doubt we have a bunch of fancy catch phrases we can roll out. Maybe?

I typical fixed wing pilot lands at more than 50kts of indicated air speed.

Most gyroplane pilots don't do well touching down at 50kts.

Why the focus on speed at touch down?

Pilots will touch down when the aircraft runs out of energy and the wing (in our case a rotor) is no longer flying. The number is irrelevant and most fixed wing pilots probably don't even know what that number is because by the time the aircraft is in the float they are just looking out of the window. That is the exact same thing in a gyroplane. Don't gyroplanes and aeroplanes share a common aim of - fly a stable approach at a nominated airspeed, round out, float, hold off and touch down?

As it happens I have a fixed wing aircraft, a DR107 One Design and I used to fly a Hughes 369D. I initially learnt to fly in a PA28 decades ago and I’m rated in Robinson R44, Cabri G2. I won’t bore you with a long list but they all have different speeds to fly at various times during take off, landing or maybe in the aerobatic aeroplane during a loop, roll, etc. Some even have flaps, retractable gear, manual carb heat, mixture, variable props, one is even a turbine! Yet isn’t that just part of being a pilot?

We make the effort and take the time to learn our craft and if that means remembering different things for different aircraft that is what needs to be done? I don’t ever recall my aerobatic instructor telling me to fly like an aerobatic pilot. Just fly like a pilot and remember the appropriate items for the aircraft you are in?

In a takeoff roll in a fixed wing the controls are often centered and the takeoff roll is started.

A gyroplane pilot likes to have some rotor rpm before commencing the takeoff roll.

In my experience most fixed wing pilots rotate at some specific airspeed and command the rotation.

In my opinion a good gyroplane pilot allows the gyroplane fly when it is ready at some combination of indicated airspeed and rotor rpm and commanding it to fly is in my opinion poor airmanship.

It is essential that a gyroplane has some RRPM before take off roll!

Without getting stuck on how you are using the term rotate to mean Vr or simply in GA terms a point at which you increase some back stick to climb away. Actually no fixed wing pilot needs to pull the aircraft off the runway and those that do just display a poor technique. Indeed you can read about why an F22 Raptor pilot did just that and ended on his belly.

But lets get back to gyroplanes. We absolutely DO command a climb away. Otherwise how else do you respect the height velocity curve?

It surely isn’t “some” random combination of airspeed and rotor RPM. Indeed I can give you some absolute numbers now.

If you had been taught to look at the respective instrument then you'd see that a typical Auto-Gyro Sport will want to unstick at around 300RRPM and depending upon your technique that will be around 40mph( if you have the stick more aft in a "wheel balance technique") or circa 60 mph if you unload the stick slightly in the take off roll.

In terms of climbing away (at my school circa height above 1metre or 3ft 3in in old English money) we climb out at 70mph to 300ft then adopt best climb speed which for sake of argument is circa 60mph.
Those numbers will be those numbers within a few % all the time and are repeatable - if you fly an MT you'll be able to find the same. It may not be a stand out item you'll have looked for before because you are not looking for them and whoever taught you didn't look for them either. If you look at my take off technique compared video link below then those numbers can be repeated at will.

https://youtu.be/kW65IY39MPU

But again that isn’t flying like a gyro pilot is it? It is all just trying to be sensible and fly with good airmanship to keep us safe. In terms of performance it also helps to try and fly accurately and with some idea on what one is trying to achieve. So perhaps because we are driving an aircraft we might make reference to things like angle of attack or drag. Indeed it has taken until the new rotor system 3 for there to be a realisation that drag is having a major impact on the take off and hence the new technique being suggested if you pre-rotate to 300rrpm.

Its why in the UK we have more than a fair share of aircraft failing to get airborne and crashing off the end of the runway because they have no real metric they are using to identify when flight is possible. They just put full power and hope for the best. It isn't helped by the use of "power curve" instead of "drag curve". All these things are designed to dumb down something that creates air minded people so they do not fall into simple traps.
For some reason the same people who like to use the term “fly like a gyro pilot” also like to dumb everything down and believe everyone gets mentally max’d out if you need to actually refer to a real number or instrument.

When I suggested I had changed what I teach take off wise one very experienced instructor in the UK said (and I quote him almost verbatim) "your take off technique is too complex because it means the student has to look at the Rotor RPM guage". I mean really?

In the USA a gyroplane pilot is specifically instructed to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic.

I feel a gyroplane pilot needs to be more aware of fixed wing traffic because of the speed differential and because fixed wing pilot are looking for wings and find rotorcraft difficult to see.

I agree with the need for awareness because of the performance differences but why avoid the circuit? Surely good RT and everyone in the pattern having good airmanship means we can all fly together? Otherwise you create in the minds of others that you will yield regardless.
One issue in trying to fly something unique to a gyroplane is what happens when you fly at my airfield for example? what do you do then? The guys there won't know what non-standard procedure you are using and neither will anyone else in the pattern.


In the UK its not an issue tbh but if you have to do it then I hear you but I’m not convinced it makes much sense.

I have not attached the negative connotation to "fly like a gyroplane pilot" that you have Phil. To me being considered a gyroplane pilot is a high honor.

I'm not sure you understand my point of "fly like a gyro pilot" in the way it gets used in the UK, perhaps my examples above help?

I watched both videos and did not see any confusion or inconsistencies about switching from brake to flight and back to brake again.

Chris is flying in a very chaotic environment and needs to be ready to go when he hears from the air boss.
What am I missing Phil?

I'm not saying he is confused I'm saying he has a different process. Merely to highlight that I can easily see how having no plan around the brake/flight switch opens things up to error. Nothing more, nothing less. You can read the words from prior posts its not a criticism and its not suggesting that any of the brake/ flight mode was a factor in any accident I'm just highlighting the potential snags.

As for ready to go when the air boss shouts. None of that means or should mean a degradation of airmanship or safety. If you need to line up then pre-rotate and that is your process then stick with the process. How many times has deviation from plan ended in an accident? Then nobody goes because the runway is blocked with your wreck.

I don't know any flight instructors in the USA who would not make people aware of what they thought was a problem because of a fear of missing ten dollars down the road. Several CFIs in the USA have been very vocal about what they feel are issues.

I feel you may be confusing professional behavior with greed.

I think much of this post has ventured far away from that of the accident and the point being made about stick force and the brake flight switch but it is good to exchange views.

Actually what are/ is the process for someone to be a US gyroplane instructor? Do they need much experience? Ground school? Flight time? I know very little about the US gyroplane community. Although I did teach a helicopter instructor to fly a gyro who was working in Florida for the guys that got the Auto-Gyro gig but I think it all went pear shaped quite quickly commercially? I’m not sure.I have to say from the conversations I had with this guy there weren’t very many barriers to entry. I don’t know.

In the UK the situation is quite different where people are very reluctant to speak up. I’m not sure it has that much to do with greed as it does a general fear of not being included in whatever it maybe… They all get along in order to get along. How do you feel as it happens about the rear seat and stick combination in a 2017 Sport? Do you think it has the potential to snag over time?

I have flown and instructed in many different makes and models of gyroplanes and they all have strengths and weaknesses. I don’t see the value in focusing on the negative. I do not see a particular manufacturer currently over represented in gyroplane accidents and the majority of accidents in the USA are pilot error.

Most of my clients will be taking their proficiency check ride in a gyroplane different than what I trained them in. I do not find a challenge transitioning them into the check ride aircraft. When they use the appropriate check lists the transition has been relatively easy.

I don't think I am focused on a negative, other than the point initially raised in the context of a fatal accident is by definition negative.
I would agree there are no real make/model that are stand out accident and pilot error is the major factor - but then doesn't that suddenly get to the heart of everything I've been saying?

In this case it isn't the brake/flight switch of issue as much as good communication around it and understanding how it works. I hear you on check lists but this can't be a check list item because its done just before/ as you line up and needs to be committed to memory - which is why doing it consistently and having a plan keeps you safe.

The fact that most gyroplanes get written off in take off or landing phase tells its own story and in my opinion its a training issue/ syllabus issue and despite all the PR/hype/suggestion that we are so much further on; the silly accidents we do have don't tell the same story.
Indeed the perception of what we do is very poor. We can all talk about centreline thrust and low g - good grief the PRA have been doing so since the 1960's - and of course its important to keep that understood BUT that isn't why gyroplanes crash in the main today. They crash because perhaps in the focus on engine failures and low g we forget the other things that it is good to plan for.

But look that's just my opinion and as I said we have kind of gotten away from the crux of how this started and I do not want to get into a last word contest as can happen on forums.

Also the post from Kolibri ref the picture of Cavalon controls. That is under the seat and the stick in is the fully aft position and the bearing therefore forward towards the composite body structure. Its nothing remarkable other than it creates a potential for objects to restrict control. Lets not get over focused on this – if it was a control restriction there are possibilities for that to happen – as have happened and been happening in fixed wing pilots for decades. Again did it happen in this case? Who knows and I suspect given what the NTSB have to work with I wonder if they will find a definitive cause.

 

[Vance]

It's no misquote. Check Advisory Circular AC 90-66B: 12.1.3

I’ve seen that. What caught my attention, though, is that that paragraph doesn’t specify a pattern direction or altitude. In fact, the next section, 12.1.4, says that HELICOPTERS may fly a lower pattern (500ft) and may do it on the opposite side. Helos are specified and gyros aren’t mentioned. Plus both the pattern altitude and direction are “”may”, not “shall” or “should” (it’s permitting, not directing). I can find no comments such as this specifically for gyros.

Gyros have takeoff, landing, and cruise speeds and capabilities much closer to a Cub than a helo. Gyros cannot hover - at all (slow flight into the wind is not “hovering”). I’d be careful thinking the standards revert to a helo when not specified.

Also, don’t forget that’s an ADVISORY Circular: it is not regulatory, strictly speaking.

/Ed

If a regulation or an advisory circular references rotorcraft it applies to all rotorcraft.

If they use the term helicopter it applies only to helicopters.

If they use the term aircraft it applies to all aircraft.

If they use the term gyroplane it applies only to gyroplanes.

In my opinion the use of gyrocopter is a mistake and not intended.

My Home airport KSMX is a class delta airport and usually has an operating control tower so any understanding I have with the tower is not relevant when the tower is closed.

The rotorcraft pattern altitude at KSMX and KSBP is five hundred feet lower than the single engine fixed wing pattern when the tower is open.

A lower pattern altitude is not advised for gyroplanes at a non toward airport for several reasons.

A close pattern is advised because of the poor glide ration of a gyroplane. A lower pattern altitude would exacerbate the challenge of a poor glide ratio.

A lower pattern altitude would also make it more likely to have a fixed wing descend on top of a gyroplane. A fixed wing has their nose up when on final and most airplane pilots are less likely to see a gyroplane below them.

None of the procedures at a non-towered airport are regulatory.

Acting badly in the pattern at a non-towered airport may fall under Federal Aviation Regulation 91.13.

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

1. Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
2. Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo, in a carless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

If you have a collision even if you had the right of way it is considered to be both pilots fault because their primary responsibility of the pilot in command is to see and avoid.

For Sport Pilot Gyroplane it is specifically part of the preparation for the practical test and I would be remiss if I signed off someone for their practical test without reviewing and testing them on AC 90-66B.

In order to pass a practical test a pilot needs to meet the practical test standards and a part of the practical test standards is:

B. TASK: TRAFFIC PATTERNS REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-25; AC 90-66; AIM. Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to traffic patterns and shall include procedures at airports with CTAF, prevention of runway incursions, collision avoidance, wake turbulence avoidance, and wind shear.
2. Complies with proper local traffic pattern procedures.
3. Maintains proper spacing from other aircraft.
4. Corrects for wind drift to maintain the proper ground track.
5. Maintains orientation with the runway/landing area in use.
6. Maintains traffic pattern altitude, ±100 feet, and the appropriate airspeed, ±10 knots, if applicable.

The practical test standards in their entirety can be found here: https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/faa-s-8081-29.pdf

If you want to earn a Sport Pilot Gyroplane rating these are the standards you will need to meet unless both your CFI and the examiner are carless.

If I am flying into a non-towered airport for the first time I call the airport manager and discuss gyroplane operations at length and get their preferences.

If I am flying into a towered airport for the first time I talk to the tower boss to understand their preferences and so they can understand my abilities and limitations.

I did not expect a flight instructor from outside the USA to know these procedures and that is why I mentioned it as part of what flying like a gyroplane pilot is about in the USA.

 

[EdL]

Vance

12.1 of the AC is indeed entitled “Rotorcraft” however each of its paragraphs specifies helicopter or gyro. The two exceptions, 12.1.2 and 12.1.5, provide expectations for non-rotorcraft pilots about rotorcraft and do not define altitudes, pattern direction, or anything else for the class of aircraft.

Again, I’m not finding guidance in the AC, FARs, or AIM for this. I went through this extensively with Dayton and my retired Army helicopter pilot instructor during my Comm rating. It makes good sense but is not spelled out, best we could see. Can you show me where it’s specifically stated?

/Ed

 

[EdL]

Vance

In hindsight I may have misunderstood your previous comments about rotorcraft avoiding the flow of fixed wing aircraft (12.1.1 for helos, 12.1.3 for gyros) and I extrapolated that to say you mean both should fly opposite-side patterns.

Although that statement exists for each category of rotorcraft, only for helicopters is there specific guidance for pattern and altitude (12.1.4). To me that suggests the “avoid the flow” statement is NOT implying different direction and altitude since there is a specific paragraph on the issue for helicopters and, as elsewhere in the FARs, the FAA is silent on gyros.

Also, I don’t see anything that specifies towered- vs. non-towered field operations, especially in the rotorcraft section. Local standards are permitted/expected but that’s also not towered-specific.

/Ed

 

[Vance]

Vance

12.1 of the AC is indeed entitled “Rotorcraft” however each of its paragraphs specifies helicopter or gyro. The two exceptions, 12.1.2 and 12.1.5, provide expectations for non-rotorcraft pilots about rotorcraft and do not define altitudes, pattern direction, or anything else for the class of aircraft.

Again, I’m not finding guidance in the AC, FARs, or AIM for this. I went through this extensively with Dayton and my retired Army helicopter pilot instructor during my Comm rating. It makes good sense but is not spelled out, best we could see. Can you show me where it’s specifically stated?

/Ed

No Ed; I can't show you anywhere where it is specifically written exactly how to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic.

In my opinion if they don't suggest you do something different in a gyroplane you do it the same or be prepared to defend what you do if something doesn't work out and they use FAR 91.13.

You are the pilot in command and use your judgment to fulfill AC 90-66B and are responsible for knowing what it says.

If you have a specific question I will make an effort to identify the guidance I use.

For the time being I will use a little broader brush.

There is not a single place where specific procedures are written out.

Most guidance for the pattern at a non-toward airport can be found in FAA-H-8083-3 The Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-25 Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge ; AC 90-66 referenced above and the Airman’s Information Manual which is why they are mentioned in the practical test standards in relation to traffic patterns.

Part of being a commercial pilot is an elevated responsibility to understand how to fit into and interface with the many different kinds of aviation that are found near an airport.

Local custom is a part of the process and that is why I call the airport manager. Some are disengaged and don't have much guidance and some have strong incorrect opinions so I find value in heading off misunderstandings.

 

[Vance]

Vance

In hindsight I may have misunderstood your previous comments about rotorcraft avoiding the flow of fixed wing aircraft (12.1.1 for helos, 12.1.3 for gyros) and I extrapolated that to say you mean both should fly opposite-side patterns.

Although that statement exists for each category of rotorcraft, only for helicopters is there specific guidance for pattern and altitude (12.1.4). To me that suggests the “avoid the flow” statement is NOT implying different direction and altitude since there is a specific paragraph on the issue for helicopters and, as elsewhere in the FARs, the FAA is silent on gyros.

Also, I don’t see anything that specifies towered- vs. non-towered field operations, especially in the rotorcraft section. Local standards are permitted/expected but that’s also not towered-specific.

/Ed

In my experience opposite patterns don't work well at most airports.

For example Santa Inez, CA (IZA) has gliders on the protected side of the airport and everyone else flies a left pattern for runway two six and a right pattern for runway eight. So I fly and announce flying a close pattern at pattern altitude to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic till turning final.

At Spanish Fork, Utah (SPK) the custom is for gyroplanes to fly a right pattern five hundred feet above the ground for runway three zero while the fixed wing traffic is flying a wider higher (1,000 feet agl) left traffic. I have seen this fall apart with transient pilots or when they switch to runway one two.

At a towered field ATC gives directions and in my experience it is not consistent from one controller to another.

That is why I call the tower boss before the first time I fly into a towered airport in an effort make them aware of my capabilities and limitations.

For example when departing from one five right at Santa Barbara, CA (SBA)I won’t fly the standard pattern that takes me out over the Pacific Ocean because I can’t get back to the shoreline in the event of an engine failure at the altitude I am restricted to so I say; “unable for safety”. Sometimes clearance delivery will have me disregard the noise abatement procedures and sometimes they simply need to find a way for me to depart runway seven or runway two five. It is their job to make it work.

At a non-towered airport it is my job to make it work.

 

[Kolibri]

In the USA a gyroplane pilot is specifically instructed to avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic.
Vance Breese

Advisory Circular AC 90-66B:
12.1.3In the case of a gyrocopter approaching to land, the gyrocopter pilot should avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft...

AIM Section 3. Airport Operations
4-3-2-b
Pilots approaching to land in a helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed−wing traffic.

Putting on my "lawyer's cap" I concur with EdL's general take on the matter.
Advisory Circular AC 90-66B "should avoid" is not a legal synonym of "must avoid" (as in AIM Section 3. Airport Operations 4-3-2-b).
Thus, the gyro pilot is merely advised to avoid, not "specifically instructed to avoid" with a commanding "must avoid ".

Oh, and where does our Pilot's License mention "gyrocopter" privileges? We fly gyroplanes.
I'm wondering who wrote Advisory Circular AC 90-66B.

Finally, Advisory Circulars are just that, "advisory". They are not regulatory, and haven't the force of law.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/wh...ou-care-282774
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_circular

In my opinion the use [in Advisory Circular AC 90-66B] of gyrocopter is a mistake and not intended.

Then, Vance, you've removed all support for your assertion. Are you sure you wanted to do so?


______

A close pattern is advised because of the poor glide ration of a gyroplane. A lower pattern altitude would exacerbate the challenge of a poor glide ratio.

Vance, I mentioned a 500' and tighter pattern.
With an assumed L/D of 3/1, a "tight pattern" should be no more than 1500 feet from the runway.
When I fly such a tight pattern, it is well within 1500 feet, and usually within 1000 feet.
There is no safety issue.

A lower pattern altitude would also make it more likely to have a fixed wing descend on top of a gyroplane.
A fixed wing has their nose up when on final and most airplane pilots are less likely to see a gyroplane below them.

A 500' inside gyroplane pattern which lands on a taxiway (all of which communicated to others on the CTAF) is not only visible by fixed wing traffic,
it also avoids the flow of fixed wing traffic -- just as you assert gyroplane pilots are "specifically instructed" to do.

I did not mean 500' gyro patterns directly underneath normal FW 1000' patterns, and landing directly below airplanes on the same runway.
I thought that was obvious in my post.


_________

I'm not saying he is confused I'm saying he has a different process. Merely to highlight that I can easily see how having no plan around the brake/flight switch opens things up to error. Nothing more, nothing less.

Phil, that's what I understood from Chris Lord's two takeoff videos. I.e., such informality can lead to error.
I've noticed the same with myself whenever tempted by casualness over the checklist.

Maybe before filming, Chris went through a checklist, swept the controls for free and correct movement, did a run-up, etc.
But the videos show a very informal procedure, something that I recall with him during our Calidus training years ago.


__________
Getting back to the FLIGHT/BRAKE switch, in my opinion not only is it dangerous, it is unnecessary.
AutoGyro should dispense with it.
The trim hat should always behave in normal, intuitive fashion.
Aft trim should NEVER result in forward trim, or vice versa.

Regards,
Kolibri

 

[EdL]

No Ed; I can't show you anywhere where it is specifically written exactly how to avoid the flow ...

There is not a single place where specific procedures are written out....

Part of being a commercial pilot is an elevated responsibility to understand how to fit into and interface with the many different kinds of aviation that are found near an airport..

Agree. And a big part of being a CFI is making sure students clearly understand what’s an FAA requirement and what’s an instructor’s recommendation/best practice. I’ve seen situations where instructors have come to believe in their practices so intently even they don’t know the difference.

/Ed

 

[Tyger]

That is why I call the tower boss before the first time I fly into a towered airport in an effort make them aware of my capabilities and libations.

Libations are discouraged before flying. :smile:

 

[Vance]

I stand corrected.

 

[Kolibri]

There's a key discrepancy to clear up on how the Cavalon flies without trim.

One gyro CFI posted in Nov. 2018 on Facebook:

I really wish you guys would stop. I'm not against speculation, but you guys don't know the facts or the systems well enough to be accurate.
The Cav will fly just fine with no pressure whatsoever in the trim system.

This is completely at odds with AutoGyro Cavalon POH 3.1 which describes nose-down flight if the trim system hasn't sufficient air pressure:

3.8.4 Trim runaway
(ii) High aft stick load required to prevent aircraft diving (this will be coincident with low or zero air pressure) –
check “Comp” circuit breaker, if activated push to reset then try to trim aircraft nose-up.

As I understand the Cavalon rotorhead, its gimbal offset demands a significant amount of nose-up trim.

 

[Vance]

I have often flown patterns in a Cavalon with no pressure in the system and in my opinion did not find high aft stick load required to maintain 55kts indicated air speed.

I don't know how they quantify high aft stick load.

 

[Kolibri]

Often, rotor blowback (cyclic flapping angle) at some airspeed will "trim out" the ship for neutral stick pressure.
But, only at that particular airspeed.
Slower than that, nose-up trim becomes increasingly necessary.

Within that slower airspeed range is what the Cavalon POH must refer to as "high aft stick load" without sufficient air trim pressure.

Regards,
Kolibri

 

[NJpilot]

This was a horrible tragedy and my condolences go out to Chris Lord's and Chris Brugger's family and friends.

I've been waiting for a discussion to start over this. Not sure why it took me so long to notice the thread. A fatal crash with someone as experienced as Chris at the controls shakes one to the core.

I agree with most that a loss of control is the most likely cause. Why else would he pass the golf course, 4000ft back, and turn towards a mobile home park instead of the lake shore. The only slightly plausible explanation for these decisions is that he was having intermittent engine issues and was trying to limp to the airport. There is a small clearing 400ft away at the heading of the crash. Also, the land that the poles are on does appear as a short grass strip between the mobile home park and an industrial park. Both of these would require "threading the needle" with an aircraft in distress and would have been poor choices.

If this was loss of control, the only thing that could have prevented this crash would have been a ballistic parachute. Specially the newer European models from Magnum and Galaxy who have installations designed for gyros and helicopters. Here's an animation demonstrating the novel way they solved the issue of a spinning rotor contacting the bridal by literally embracing the rotor. https://youtu.be/LRZ471dQ6rQ

Here are the specs of a 560kg (1234lbs) system designed for gyros. http://www.galaxysky.cz/grs-5-560-115m2-gyro-p35-en It's designed to save an aircraft at 260ft and bring it down at 1300 ft/min max gross.
The reason I fly a Challenger 2 today with a BRS system is because back in the 90's there was no real ballistic chute option from gyros. With these new European options I am now seriously considering a gyro with one installed. I do wish there was video of an actual gyro save. There are ground rotor tests that prove the engineering is sound. https://youtu.be/oMEaKXkr_aw

John

 

[Kolibri]

NJpilot, interesting new way to incorporate a BRS to a gyro, thanks for the links.
It's probably not very enticing for me, as I feel confident in my Sport Rotors system to never fail me (hence I'm always flying an inherent BRS).
But that BRS may be just right for other gyro owners.

__________
The key to solving the riddle of Chris's crash is his plummet from 150' AGL.
In my opinion, the only way that could have occurred is if his rotor rpm dropped below flight minimum (say, around 275).
What caused his rotor to unload that drastically, and why couldn't he reload it?
Answer that, and we'll be on the right track to unraveling this tragedy.

Regards,
Kolibri