AR-1 N923DJ Texas 15-12-18

Of course it will reach the ground if it has sufficient energy.
Hallelujah, a consensus!

It just won't reach the ground as a down draft at the same velocity as it had high above the ground.
The same velocity? Whoever said that it would?

I only stated that a downdraft could be powerful enough to smack a gyro into the runway. (I.e., no microburst required.)
That just happened to thomasant.
 
Kolibri;n1141038 said:
Hallelujah, a consensus!


The same velocity? Whoever said that it would?

I only stated that a downdraft could be powerful enough to smack a gyro into the runway. (I.e., no microburst required.)
That just happened to thomasant.

A 600 foot per minute down draft is not a 600 foot per minute down draft if it is no longer going 600 feet per minute.

The usefulness of that information is; if I am in a down draft that I can’t out climb it is not likely to push me all the way to the ground because the velocity will decrease well before it reaches the surface.

In my opinion a down draft did not smack N923DJ into the ground.

In my experience a wind shear of sufficient magnitude will make the rotor response slow making it difficult to manage the sudden loss of lift in a timely way.

Things are happening quickly during the round out and flare with the engine at idle.

I wasn’t there and I don’t know what did happen.

I have yet to encounter a down draft of sufficient magnitude that it pushed me into the ground.

I have often encountered wind shear strong enough to disrupt my round out and flare.
 
So I still have the question is it helpful to have increased groundspeed and / or power input on approach to land with either gusty conditions, or in conditions where wind shear is a possibility? As application of power is considered the correction required when one actually encounters wind shear, so it would seem logical that having more power on approach would make one less susceptible to the loss of lift if wind shear is encountered. Is there something wrong with this logic?
I do understand that this may result in a faster landing speed which has it's own hazard, but that is another matter and may be preferable to risking being slammed into the ground from an excessive height. Earlier Brent mentioned power off landings when wind speed exceeds 15mph, and I can understand this when windspeed is constant, but I'd be concerned about trying this in gusty or possible wind shear conditions.
I am not a CFI, just trying to find out what the CFI's on this forum think, and why.
 
You are asking about ground speed Jeffery and I feel ground speed is not relevant during the landing till I touch down.

I will do my best to answer what I imagine you are asking.

In my experience more indicated air speed makes for a higher rate of descent.

When I land The Predator in more than fifteen knots of gusting winds I land with power to augment the rudder and slow the descent. More power does not need to result in more indicated air speed.

I begin my round out around fifteen feet above the ground at fifty knots indicated air speed and begin reducing speed immediately.

The slower I get the more a fifteen knot wind shear is going to affect me and the less distance I have to fall.

When I encounter a fifteen knot wind shear at or below fifteen knots indicated airspeed I am essentially in a vertical descent and even with full power The Predator will be coming down fast and the rotor response will be slow and vague.

My feeling is eight knots of extra indicated air speed won’t make much difference to my landing.

My concern about carrying more speed near touch down is that in my experience having more energy to manage during the landing may exacerbate challenges brought on by gusting conditions.
 
The usefulness of that information is; if I am in a down draft that I can’t out climb it is not likely to push me all the way to the ground because the velocity will decrease well before it reaches the surface.
One hopes . . .

In my opinion a down draft did not smack N923DJ into the ground.

In my experience a wind shear of sufficient magnitude will make the rotor response slow making it difficult to manage the sudden loss of lift in a timely way.
A wind shear of vertical direction (downdraft) does not cause a "loss of lift " but actually moves the aircraft down while it is within the descending column of air.
N923DJ's lift within that column was probably constant (until power was added).
The lag time of increased engine thrust were a secondary matter.


During the third landing, my recollection is that things were fine till I was about four or five feet and yes, at idle RPM. Ground speed was normal, around 10 mph. In this situation, I felt like I was pulled down to the ground at a faster than normal rate. I opened full power. When powering out, normally it responds without problem and one can feel the climb sensation. Things happened very fast and instantaneously. I knew instinctively that I was going to touch down. When I felt the impact, which was significant . . .

Had it been an actual loss of lift (i.e., from decayed gust), he'd have probably also felt the nose dip.
He didn't mention that, but only being "
pulled down to the ground" followed by a significant impact.
To me, that sounds like a smackdown.
But, I wasn't there, either.
 
loftus;n1141040 said:
So I still have the question is it helpful to have increased groundspeed and / or power input on approach to land with either gusty conditions, or in conditions where wind shear is a possibility? As application of power is considered the correction required when one actually encounters wind shear, so it would seem logical that having more power on approach would make one less susceptible to the loss of lift if wind shear is encountered. Is there something wrong with this logic?
I do understand that this may result in a faster landing speed which has it's own hazard, but that is another matter and may be preferable to risking being slammed into the ground from an excessive height. Earlier Brent mentioned power off landings when wind speed exceeds 15mph, and I can understand this when windspeed is constant, but I'd be concerned about trying this in gusty or possible wind shear conditions.
I am not a CFI, just trying to find out what the CFI's on this forum think, and why.

Applying power is the correct response but it needs to be done at the right time and the attitude of the aircraft has to be adjusted at the right time as well. Its a very subtle and very quick thing (quick succession) but the first reaction to applying sudden power on an aircraft whose nose is facing downward is acceleration forward but also downward before attitude is adjusted and aircraft trims out (PAT - Power Attitude Trim). If you are too late applying power (too close to the ground), applying abrupt power will accelerate you right into the ground. It doesn't matter if its a gyro, trike or an airplane in this specific reference. There is a subtle but definite line where too close to the ground PAT has to go to APT (Attitude Power Trim) again fluidly in quick succession but in that order to avoid getting into the ground due to power application. I am not saying that is what happened to Tony. Its impossible for me to know without witnessing the incident. I am simply trying to make a point to Jeffrey's question and comment because thinking applying power is the answer comes with caveats like everything else.

Added Clarification: I should really emphasize and clarify that "the first reaction to applying sudden power on an aircraft whose nose is facing downward is acceleration forward but also downward" have the key words "whose nose is facing downward" at the time of power input. For a quick second a center line thrust or high thrust line aircraft will go forward (CLT) and high thrust line aircraft will actually pitch it further downward till trim equilibrium is established.

I had a call from a CFI friend who asked me for clarification on this so I wanted to really emphasize that point. Usually for sure we use PAT for initiating both climb and initiating descent or leveling out from a steady descent. APT is usually only used to regain straight and level flight from a steady climb state. This case of being very close to the ground, sinking with nose still pointed downward is an outlier and a very specific case.
 
I have had a bit of time to ponder on the accident, done a lot of research, and have also read the insightful posts on this thread. I would like to include some more details on the simulated engine out landing that ended in the hard landing. I believe there may be some useful insight.

I sometimes make very tight turns where I can feel some strong G effect, and I roll out and perform the landing without any problem. The engine is at idle. As brought out by me earlier, there were wind gusts that day. But maybe that had nothing to do with the accident. I did a tight turn during the last practice, but also was not in a hover prior to the rapid sink. I was flaring as I normally do.

There is a thread that was discussed in 2013 regarding Drag Over.

Birdy explains it thus:

"As Leigh n Doug says, its useing the stored excess rotor inertia to hover momentarily.
Obviously, if your useing it 5' off unlandable ground, or over a tree, you need to know just how much hangtime you have built up, and
snap the throttle open before the sink starts.
Light, tip weighted blades are excellant for the job, as is a reliable 912.
The bad bit [ anythn i dont understand is bad] is a short duration phase between the air over [ helicoptering] and air under [
autorotation] phases.
I cant realy explain it, mainly coz iv never been in a situation where iv had the grey cells to spare to think bout it at the time, but dureing
the transition, the stick is non responcive.All iv ever dun dureing this phase is power out. Iv never tryed to command the rotor to do anythn but backstick.
Even so, with the rotors leaning backwards, the machine "wobbles".
Its like the gyroscopic resistance is be'n transfered to the machine, instead of be'n taken up by the air.
CB could explain more wots go'n on, but to be honest, i dont, coz iv never 'studied' it."


Doug Riley explains it best. I quote from his post:

"A gyro can work like a helicopter for short periods of time. If RRPM is increased above cruising level, the stored energy in the rotor
substitutes temporarily for an engine drive. This means that the gyro can stand still in the air, drawing air down through its rotor in a
way that is inconsistent with autorotation.
But this can't last long. As RRPM decays, the gyro will settle. Specifically, it will settle into its own downwash. That is, the rotor settles
into (1) disturbed air that (2) is already travelling downward.
Just like a helicopter in a similar situation, the gyro will descend vertically very fast and can get buffeted on the way down by the
turbulent air of its own downwash.
If you have altitude, you'll recover from this predicament by nosing down and flying out of it.
If you are at, say, 20 feet, though, things will not go well for you. You will pancake in at greater than normal vertical-descent speed.
Splat."

Lots of food for thought here. My take away from the above is that sometimes in trying to perform the force landing, there is a possibility that something as described above can take place if the rotor speeds up.

Perhaps some of the more experienced folks can elucidate on this phenomenon.
 
I have no answers Antony; only questions I would ask my clients in a debriefing after an inelegant landing.

I would love a phone call or an email if you feel up to it to discuss the hard landing. My email is [email protected] and phone number is (805)680-9523. I have a lot of time flying in twenty five knot gusting winds flying at an airport where none of the windsocks agree.

My feeling is that several things combined to make a routine landing inelegant.

You wrote you were landing across runway 17-35; in which direction?

Where was the windsock in relation to your aircraft?

Where were you looking when you recognized the rapid descent? In other words; how far in front of the aircraft was you focus? I ask because I have had helicopter pilots look down at the runway when they are landing rather than ahead.

What was your first clue you had a higher than desired rate of descent.

Did the cyclic feel vague as you tried to arrest the descent?

Did you lose rudder authority?

Were you aligned with the direction of travel on touch down?

My feeling is that a wind shear started the challenge and several other factors exacerbated the event.

I have experienced excess sink and loss of rudder authority during the roundout from wind shear and feel that it is good luck and the timing of the shear that avoided a hard landing.
 
Anthony, the quote you posted from Birdy/Doug sounds like that is EXACTLY what happened due to your increased RRPM from the high-G turn just prior to 'landing'.
Brian
 
fara;n1141043 said:
Applying power is the correct response but it needs to be done at the right time and the attitude of the aircraft has to be adjusted at the right time as well. Its a very subtle and very quick thing (quick succession) but the first reaction to applying sudden power on an aircraft whose nose is facing downward is acceleration forward but also downward before attitude is adjusted and aircraft trims out (PAT - Power Attitude Trim). If you are too late applying power (too close to the ground), applying abrupt power will accelerate you right into the ground. It doesn't matter if its a gyro, trike or an airplane in this specific reference. There is a subtle but definite line where too close to the ground PAT has to go to APT (Attitude Power Trim) again fluidly in quick succession but in that order to avoid getting into the ground due to power application. I am not saying that is what happened to Tony. Its impossible for me to know without witnessing the incident. I am simply trying to make a point to Jeffrey's question and comment because thinking applying power is the answer comes with caveats like everything else.

Added Clarification: I should really emphasize and clarify that "the first reaction to applying sudden power on an aircraft whose nose is facing downward is acceleration forward but also downward" have the key words "whose nose is facing downward" at the time of power input. For a quick second a center line thrust or high thrust line aircraft will go forward (CLT) and high thrust line aircraft will actually pitch it further downward till trim equilibrium is established.

I had a call from a CFI friend who asked me for clarification on this so I wanted to really emphasize that point. Usually for sure we use PAT for initiating both climb and initiating descent or leveling out from a steady descent. APT is usually only used to regain straight and level flight from a steady climb state. This case of being very close to the ground, sinking with nose still pointed downward is an outlier and a very specific case.
Still no clear answer here; I am not questioning that the immediate correct response to any sudden loss of lift is to apply power, my question concerns the setup in approach to landing on final. My question is simple - what do gyro CFI's teach their students with regard to approach to land in unstable (gusty, suspected wind shear or whatever) wind conditions? Do you teach exactly the same approach as completely smooth wind conditions in terms of power, pitch, airspeed, approach slope angle etc or do you teach students to alter their approach in any way? On this thread it's even been suggested that a power off vertical descent type landing is the safest, this seems counterintuitive to me and contrary to what is taught in the FW world.
 
fara;n1141043 said:
Applying power is the correct response but it needs to be done at the right time and the attitude of the aircraft has to be adjusted at the right time as well. Its a very subtle and very quick thing (quick succession) but the first reaction to applying sudden power on an aircraft whose nose is facing downward is acceleration forward but also downward before attitude is adjusted and aircraft trims out (PAT - Power Attitude Trim). If you are too late applying power (too close to the ground), applying abrupt power will accelerate you right into the ground. It doesn't matter if its a gyro, trike or an airplane in this specific reference. There is a subtle but definite line where too close to the ground PAT has to go to APT (Attitude Power Trim) again fluidly in quick succession but in that order to avoid getting into the ground due to power application. I am not saying that is what happened to Tony. Its impossible for me to know without witnessing the incident. I am simply trying to make a point to Jeffrey's question and comment because thinking applying power is the answer comes with caveats like everything else.

Added Clarification: I should really emphasize and clarify that "the first reaction to applying sudden power on an aircraft whose nose is facing downward is acceleration forward but also downward" have the key words "whose nose is facing downward" at the time of power input. For a quick second a center line thrust or high thrust line aircraft will go forward (CLT) and high thrust line aircraft will actually pitch it further downward till trim equilibrium is established.

I had a call from a CFI friend who asked me for clarification on this so I wanted to really emphasize that point. Usually for sure we use PAT for initiating both climb and initiating descent or leveling out from a steady descent. APT is usually only used to regain straight and level flight from a steady climb state. This case of being very close to the ground, sinking with nose still pointed downward is an outlier and a very specific case.
Still no clear answer here; I am not questioning that the immediate correct response to any sudden loss of lift is to apply power, my question concerns the setup in approach to landing on final. My question is simple - what do gyro CFI's teach their students with regard to approach to land in unstable (gusty, suspected wind shear or whatever) wind conditions? Do you teach exactly the same approach as completely smooth wind conditions in terms of power, pitch, airspeed etc or do you teach students to alter their approach in any way? On this thread it's even been suggested that a power off vertical descent type landing is the safest, this seems counterintuitive to me and contrary to what is taught in the FW world.
 
No Title

Not all CFIs teach the same thing Jeffery. I don’t feel there is only one way to manage a landing.

My end of the year flight ended with a landing on runway zero two at SMX with the ATIS reporting winds at zero two four degrees at thirteen knots. No gusts were reported.

There was a rotor coming off the mountains to the north east and it made for some very unstable air. Runway zero two is seventy five feet wide and fifty two hundred feet long. The last four hundred feet of it are on the far side of runway three zero, the main runway so it is best for the tower to land after crossing runway three zero or things are tied up while taxiing.

One of the things I teach in strong winds is to manage the rotor on the runway before taxiing off. The tower knows this and approved a long landing without me asking.

There are hangars on both sides just past the end of runway zero two that tend to speed up a wind out of the north and create turbulence if the wind is not straight down the runway.

It was very much a by my book landing. I approached at fifty knots and descended to about fifty feet AGL to fly the full length of the runway and get a feel the winds.

The wind sock off to the left is about thirty degrees off of runway heading.

Because of this thread I monitored my ground speed and saw from twenty two knots to thirty eight knots at fifty knots indicated air speed. I had a little extra power in to give me more rudder authority as I approached the turbulence from the hangars. In my opinion ground speed is not a part of the landing till touch down.

I began my round out as I crossed runway three zero and touched down about three hundred feet later with zero ground speed and still had some power in to keep from rolling backward.

Because of this thread I looked at the airspeed and was still showing just a little less than twenty knots of airspeed at zero ground speed before turning off on taxiway Alpha.

During the round out I encountered about a ten knot wind shear that caused me to balloon up and finish with a near vertical descent.

The only time I do a power off landing in windy conditions is when I am showing off at an Air Show.

The pictures are from an engine at idle landing at the Cable Air Show.

There is no time during the round out that the nose is pointed down so any time I add power I will gain altitude.

I do not teach or recommend engine at idle landings in gusting conditions.

That doesn't make me right and other CFIs wrong; it is only a difference of opinion. I practice and teach what works for me.
 

Attachments

  • photo131404.jpg
    photo131404.jpg
    105.7 KB · Views: 2
  • photo131406.jpg
    photo131406.jpg
    79.4 KB · Views: 2
  • photo131407.jpg
    photo131407.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 2
  • photo131408.jpg
    photo131408.jpg
    68 KB · Views: 2
  • photo131409.jpg
    photo131409.jpg
    64.7 KB · Views: 2
  • photo131410.jpg
    photo131410.jpg
    75.5 KB · Views: 2
  • photo131411.jpg
    photo131411.jpg
    55.7 KB · Views: 2
I just re-read you post Jeffrey and realized I did not properly answer one of your questions.

The answer to one question is I have them do everything the exactly the same other than having in a little more power for rudder authority and options. Everything else is identical.

I explain that their angle of descent will be steeper and I tell them to use the same aiming point and add power if they are low and reduce power if they are high. With a strong head wind this results in a little more power to extend the round out.

I tell them to expect to touch down a little sooner with a little shorter round out to touch down distance.

I advise against landing with a tail wind if it can be avoided. At SMX because of their procedures I sometimes land with a tail wind in The Predator that results in touching down with a little more ground speed.

In a gyroplane with a linked nose wheel I go around if I encounter a tail wind and find some other way to land. The first sign is a loss of rudder authority.

When landing in gusting winds I prefer a long stabilized approach to get a feel for how the aircraft is affected by the current winds. My round out still begins at fifteen feet.
 
The usefulness of that information is; if I am in a down draft that I can’t out climb it is not likely to push me all the way to the ground because the velocity will decrease well before it reaches the surface.
One hopes . . .

In my opinion a down draft did not smack N923DJ into the ground.

In my experience a wind shear of sufficient magnitude will make the rotor response slow making it difficult to manage the sudden loss of lift in a timely way.
A wind shear of vertical direction (downdraft) does not cause a "loss of lift " but actually moves the aircraft down while it is within the descending column of air.
N923DJ's lift within that column could have been constant (until power was added).


During the third landing, my recollection is that things were fine till I was about four or five feet and yes, at idle RPM. Ground speed was normal, around 10 mph. In this situation, I felt like I was pulled down to the ground at a faster than normal rate. I opened full power. When powering out, normally it responds without problem and one can feel the climb sensation. Things happened very fast and instantaneously. I knew instinctively that I was going to touch down. When I felt the impact, which was significant . . .
Had it been an actual loss of lift (i.e., from decayed gust), he'd have probably felt the nose drop.
He didn't mention that, but only being "
pulled down to the ground" followed by a significant impact.
To me, that sounds like a smackdown.
But, I wasn't there, either.


Regards,
Kolibri
 
It seems unlikely to me that Antony would encounter a descending column of air of sufficient velocity to cause such a mishap four feet above the ground.

In my opinion a reduction in indicated air speed below the minimum power required air speed causes a loss of lift in a gyroplane.

A rapid change in wind direction or velocity (wind shear) may cause a change of indicated air speed and is how one quantifies a wind shear for a pilot report to the tower or flight service.

A wind shear can be a lot more than a gust that goes away. It can be a complete reversal of the wind direction in relation to the ground.

In my experience in a decent at low indicated air speed the rotor’s response to cyclic inputs becomes vague.

In my opinion this response is because the rotor is descending into air that has been disturbed by the rotor wash somewhat like a vortex ring state in a helicopter only less so.

In other words I feel what Antony posted from Birdy and Doug may have contributed to the mishap.

Antony had just finished an aggressive turn loading the rotor.

I feel the environment and the specific control inputs contributed to the incident.

I am glad the only injury was to the aircraft and am grateful to Antony for being patient explaining the mishap.

I have no doubt the very same thing could happen to me. In my opinion it is only luck and timing that has kept me from bending The Predator under similar circumstances as an engine at idle landing is it is part of my air show routine and is often done in gusting conditions in the afternoon.

Antony’s description of the mishap has reinforced my desire to land near a wind sock in gusty conditions.

Trying to imagine how I would respond in similar circumstances has made indicated air speed during the round out more interesting to me. I am trying to be more sensitive to all aspects of the round out. I have made last moment corrections during landings but I am not certain of what my primary indicators were. I am going to try to be more conscious of the indicators.

I am fortunate to fly out of a towered airport that has Automatic Terminal Information System (ATIS), Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts (TAFs) and a tower that will give me a wind check.

Because the wind is checked at only one spot on the airport the report is often unrelated to what I encounter. It is at least a starting point.

I only use the gust information as a part of the go/no go decision.

There at least seven windsocks at SMX that I pay particular attention to when doing pattern work with a client.

Part of the taxi procedure for clients taxiing to the run up area in The Predator is to carefully check the five windsocks on the way and talk about what they see and what effect it may have on our flight.

If I am coming into land and I receive a wind report with a gust spread over my limits there will usually be a nearby airport with more benign conditions that I can divert to. Sometimes just going away for a while will be enough to have better conditions upon my return. This is a part of why I land with an hour of fuel on board.

I am often amazed by how local wind conditions can be. It is not unusual to have winds 300 degrees at 15kts at SMX and winds 120 degrees at more than 15kts over Nipomo just ten miles to the North West.

Some gusts are much more disruptive than others and I know of no way to accurately predict the effect the gust will have on the aircraft.

Gyroplanes have some wonderful capabilities with some limitations. Fortunately the combination of events contributing to this mishap is rare and usually only results in an inelegant landing with no damage to the gyroplane.

The nose on The Predator does not drop with a loss of lift or a reduction of indicated airspeed during the round out.
 
"A gyro can work like a helicopter for short periods of time. If RRPM is increased above cruising level, the stored energy in the rotor
substitutes temporarily for an engine drive. This means that the gyro can stand still in the air, drawing air down through its rotor in a
way that is inconsistent with autorotation.
But this can't last long. As RRPM decays, the gyro will settle. Specifically, it will settle into its own downwash. That is, the rotor settles
into (1) disturbed air that (2) is already travelling downward.
Just like a helicopter in a similar situation, the gyro will descend vertically very fast and can get buffeted on the way down by the
turbulent air of its own downwash.
If you have altitude, you'll recover from this predicament by nosing down and flying out of it.
If you are at, say, 20 feet, though, things will not go well for you. You will pancake in at greater than normal vertical-descent speed.
Splat."

In my opinion this response is because the rotor is descending into air that has been disturbed by the rotor wash somewhat like a vortex ring state in a helicopter only less so.

In other words I feel what Antony posted from Birdy and Doug may have contributed to the mishap.

Antony had just finished an aggressive turn loading the rotor.

Actually, Antony specifically discounted that as an element to his incident. He wasn't hovering, as Doug Riley's quoted post requires for the phenomenon:

I did a tight turn during the last practice, but also was not in a hover prior to the rapid sink. I was flaring as I normally do.
During the third landing, my recollection is that things were fine till I was about four or five feet and yes, at idle RPM.
Ground speed was normal, around 10 mph. In this situation, I felt like I was pulled down to the ground at a faster than normal rate.

_____
It seems unlikely to me that Antony would encounter a descending column of air of sufficient velocity to cause such a mishap four feet above the ground.
Hmmmm, you still seem reluctant to credit the power of downdrafts so close to the ground ("which does not suck"). I don't understand you on this point.
A column of descending air with enough energy to reach the ground, will reach the ground.
In Antony's case, a mere 5 ft/sec (300 ft/min.) may have been sufficiently energetic to push him down.


In my opinion a reduction in indicated air speed below the minimum power required air speed causes a loss of lift in a gyroplane.
Well, sure.
But that's not what I've been trying to explain. I'm not talking about a reduction in AS that decreases lift.

A converse example to illustrate my point: in an updraft column one could reduce AS and still have a positive rate of climb.
In summary, inside a column of rising or falling air, to maintain altitude one must equally countermatch the velocity of the air column.
From 4' AGL, the reaction/lag time to do so could be insufficient.

I still think he essentially got smacked down into the grass runway, despite his already beginning to flare prior to the sink.
He wasn't hovering and then settling into his own downwash.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
Kolibri;n1141136 said:

In Antony's case, a mere 5 ft/sec (300 ft/min.) may have been sufficiently energetic to push him down.


In summary, inside a column of rising or falling air, to maintain altitude one must equally countermatch the velocity of the air column.
From 4' AGL, the reaction/lag time to do so could be insufficient.
I still think he essentially got smacked down into the grass runway, despite his already beginning to flare prior to the sink.
Regards,
Kolibri

Now that you have figured out just what happened to Antony how will you avoid getting smacked into the ground by a wild down draft in your gyroplane?

Why doesn't his happen more often?
 
Now that you have figured out just what happened to Antony . . .
Vance, please do not over-ascribe on my behalf. I've merely expressed my opinion, not claimed omniscience on the matter.


. . . how will you avoid getting smacked into the ground by a wild down draft in your gyroplane?
I've already explained that, both in this thread and in a previous one of yours (only to encounter your baselessly satirical derision).

To summarize: a less steep approach . . . with a bit more AS . . . to a significantly lower roundout than your typical 20 feet.
I prefer to briskly penetrate turbulent blocks of air, vs. prolong the experience during a vertical descent.
Where I then begin to fly my gyro like a gyro is to use increasing aft stick to brake from 2' and touchdown at a walking speed or less.
(Crowhops are great training for this.) If I still get any downdraft smackdown, it's not likely going to be any issue.

It's how I practice engine-out landings. Quickly get very close to the deck with ample AS, and then all the potential drama is over.

Although I enjoy vertical descents, I avoid them if the winds are at all wonky.

You may be uncomfortable with or incapable of a very low roundout with your monocular vision and compromised depth perception,
so I am not necessarily recommending my technique to you or anybody else.

Rather, it's what I prefer to do after ample consultation, training, and experimentation. It works for me.

Before encountering his sink, Antony described flaring from 4' AGL at 10mph groundspeed.
For me personally, I'd have felt that to be a bit too high and a bit too slow -- even on a calm day.
This is not to criticize him, however.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
I have had several clients use your method in calm conditions Kolibri.

When they advance to gusty conditions and discover their approach has become less precision most learn quickly to stay well clear of the ground until most of their energy has been dissipated.

Most people using your method for landing have an inadvertent touchdown at high speed and learn not to do that again without an accident report.

About a third of gyroplane accidents reported to the NTSB are landing accidents.
 
Top