S-turns

Flying like a gyroplane pilot isn't helping our accident rate is it?

Landing in a manner that is at odds with the design of the airfield you are landing at can not fail to add risk and here it is in two ways. 1) because the approach and over shoot do not offer the same level of safe escape in the event of a failure. I hear you when you say its not that extreme - but it still requires very low level turns either on the approach or any go around. 2) because inevitably the student is less able to land off a normal approach in a cross wind leaving him between a rock and a hard place because he can't fly a normal approach because he doesn't have the technique forcing him to fly this crossed approach.

All this reminds me of conversations I have with students who see a helicopter land at the airfield -Q - "Oh why do they not take off or land vertically?" A - "because the risk is greatly increased".

In the UK the pre-requisite for a flight instructor rating is 150hrs (which in itself is very low) and the course is then another 20hrs of flying. So if we round it all up to 200 hours it probably suggests that you need around 200 hours P1 to have a level of experience where you are becoming reasonably proficient.

I don't think it is unintelligent to suggest that until pilots have their own licence they fly nothing that you wouldn't be happy to see on a first solo. I personally wouldn't encourage any pushing of that boundary until they have not just >100hrs but there needs to be recency in that too. i.e. >10hrs per month. The upside benefits are very marginal to the downside risks in flying anything that might be considered advanced or different to a first solo technique.


Specifically regards landing techniques. I have given detail as to why I see it as a bad idea holding off to an extent of near zero roll and the only benefit seems so as not to touch the nose wheel until zero forward speed - but I can hold the nose wheel off the tarmac until the aircraft has stopped even with a touch down speed of (it seems) around 35mph. So I'm still at a loss as to why we are doing this unless its just to help land across a runway - which isn't without its own risks.

Sport gyroplane trainers common to 2019 are circa 500kg aircraft and as such are sensitive to yaw and drift in the landing phase that needs to be appreciated and until it is then it is difficult to allow the student to move on. If you fudge things by making landings into wind with these crossed approaches they can not learn regardless of the other negative factors I suggest.
 
EdL;n1142478 said:
In response to the last two posts, first, I realize I have far fewer hours than the posters and am not an instructor (yes, I'm bringing a knife to a gun fight). Also, as previously noted, all my time is in the Magni M-16.

The landing technique WaspAir describes appears to me to be driven by maybe three factors: one, the bent keel ALLOWS a higher nose on landing than the Magni therefore, two, it's a lot of fun to see how short one can make the landing. Three, and probably the most important, is that for many gyros the nosewheel has its axle forward of the turning point of the wheel, which means it's at very high risk for darting off to the side if one touches the nosewheel down if it's not aligned perfectly straight ahead and if there's significant forward movement.

By contrast, the Magni (and the AR-1 and the Titanium - and it even looks like WaspAir's A&S) have a trailing axle, which means the nosewheel tends to "auto-correct" on roll-out because of the craft's inertia. Which makes me wonder why other manufacturers don't do the same? So many accidents I've read about appear to be directly related to that.

Can anyone help me understand why big players such as Autogyro and ELA have the nosewheel configuration they do?

/Ed

All of the gyroplanes I have flown have had some caster (trail) built into the nose wheel geometry. That includes the MTO Sport, the Cavalon and the Calidus. I have no time in an ELA but it appears to me they have caster.

If landed on the mains with the nose off the ground until nearly stopped the linked nose wheel steering is not a problem even if a lot of rudder is in because of a cross wind.

In my experience as long as you are light on the pedals even if you touch the nose prematurely it is not a problem.

The problems happen when someone won’t allow the nose wheel to caster and they are premature in their nose wheel touch down.

A lot of trail makes the steering at low speeds heavier. I did not find that to be a problem in the American Ranger or the Titanium Explorer.

I don't recall noticing it in the Magni.

Many of my clients have taken their proficiency check ride in a Magni M16 and most comment on how much less maneuverable it is on taxi.

The Predator can be turned around in about ten feet.

I am careful to explain the difference between a linked nose wheel and a free castering nose wheel as a part of their transition training.
 
Phil

Not 100% sure I’m getting all your points and I suspect we may actually be in closer agreement than it appears - or maybe not.

“Flying like a gyro pilot” does indeed up the risks, unfortunately, and I contend too many times it’s because it’s not “flying a gyro like a gyro”. More specifically it’s not “flying MY gyro the way MY gyro is intended to be flown by the designer”. For the Magni, that means crosswinds up to 25kts are permissible and training for them is appropriate. But to your point it seems the apparent mechanical simplicity of the gyro leads especially less-experienced pilots to believe they’re more forgiving than they are. Plus stuff on YouTube, including stuff shared on this forum, seems to encourage risky behavior.

For crosswind landings, either in the gyro or my Warrior, I set up for a longer Final leg, do a stabilized descent with power, turn the ailerons or rotor into the wind until I’m tracking (not pointing) straight down the extended centerline, and point the nose straight ahead with the rudder once on short final. Once I get the aileron or rudder dialed in, the rest is easy for me. Maybe having years of experience in fixed wings just helps with confidence - not sure. I will say I like crosswinds in the gyro far better than in the Warrior, especially when it’s gusty.

An additional point: if there’s more crosswind than one is comfortable with, DON’T FLY! Not taking off with 100 ft ceilings is a no-brainer for any reasonable gyro pilot. Why is taking off in excessive crosswinds different? Ad if one’s only option is to land “non-traditionally”, such as diagonally or on a taxiway, one should rethink their preflight planning, IMHO.

/Ed
 
Philbennett;n1142483 said:
Flying like a gyroplane pilot isn't helping our accident rate is it?

Landing in a manner that is at odds with the design of the airfield you are landing at can not fail to add risk and here it is in two ways. 1) because the approach and over shoot do not offer the same level of safe escape in the event of a failure. I hear you when you say its not that extreme - but it still requires very low level turns either on the approach or any go around. 2) because inevitably the student is less able to land off a normal approach in a cross wind leaving him between a rock and a hard place because he can't fly a normal approach because he doesn't have the technique forcing him to fly this crossed approach.

All this reminds me of conversations I have with students who see a helicopter land at the airfield -Q - "Oh why do they not take off or land vertically?" A - "because the risk is greatly increased".

In the UK the pre-requisite for a flight instructor rating is 150hrs (which in itself is very low) and the course is then another 20hrs of flying. So if we round it all up to 200 hours it probably suggests that you need around 200 hours P1 to have a level of experience where you are becoming reasonably proficient.

I don't think it is unintelligent to suggest that until pilots have their own licence they fly nothing that you wouldn't be happy to see on a first solo. I personally wouldn't encourage any pushing of that boundary until they have not just >100hrs but there needs to be recency in that too. i.e. >10hrs per month. The upside benefits are very marginal to the downside risks in flying anything that might be considered advanced or different to a first solo technique.


Specifically regards landing techniques. I have given detail as to why I see it as a bad idea holding off to an extent of near zero roll and the only benefit seems so as not to touch the nose wheel until zero forward speed - but I can hold the nose wheel off the tarmac until the aircraft has stopped even with a touch down speed of (it seems) around 35mph. So I'm still at a loss as to why we are doing this unless its just to help land across a runway - which isn't without its own risks.

Sport gyroplane trainers common to 2019 are circa 500kg aircraft and as such are sensitive to yaw and drift in the landing phase that needs to be appreciated and until it is then it is difficult to allow the student to move on. If you fudge things by making landings into wind with these crossed approaches they can not learn regardless of the other negative factors I suggest.

In my opinion your two example accidents are what we refer to as stupid pilot tricks and neither of the examples was being flown like a gyroplane.

In my experience any method of flying can be done badly and people doing it badly doesn’t make the technique wrong or dangerous.

The reason I teach a touchdown at slow speed is because it works well and in my opinion it is safer than touching down at a higher speed.

Flying like a Gyroplane Pilot has worked well for me in over 3,000 landings.

I understand you feel and teach differently Phil.

I have landed across a runway because the wind came up while I was up flying. One example was at San Carlos (SQL); wind 220 degrees at 28kts gusting to 34kst on runway three zero. I feel it would be a mistake to land on the runway heading in such conditions. It was part of an airshow and the landing was completely benign using less than half of the 75 foot wide runway.

It is something I teach on request to an experienced gyroplane pilot.

The last spot landing contest I won was at two feet.

If I can learn it with one eye I feel anyone can learn to do accurate slow speed landings without undue risk.

In my opinion there are many other benefits to landing at a slow ground speed.

I get what you are saying Phil, I just don’t agree with your premise or your proof.
 
EdL;n1142482 said:
Seems like we're pulling a lot of 18A-specific attributes into the conversation here and I think we'd all agree it's an unusual gyro indeed, especially with its fully-articulated rotor.

As I posted in another thread, the Magni's published crosswind limit is 25kt, takeoffs and landings, and the procedure is "identical", with alignment maintained with the stick into the wind and the rudder in the opposite direction. 25kts is 8kts greater than the limit on my Warrior. I learned cross-wind takeoffs and landings in the Magni early on and have found them less of an issue than even in the Warrior (which itself is not an issue). Landing diagonally on a runway takes away a lot of safety margin.

Sure, "nosewheel design is moot if you have no speed when you put it down". But it's the cause of an accident if you DON'T put it down with no speed and the gyro darts off the runway because of the design. The accident reports sure seem to back this up. And when the accidents occur, they seem to be blamed on "poor pilot training/performance". I'd contend they're "poor pilot training/performance in a poorly-designed aircraft". Again, I'm at a loss to understand the benefit of the axle-forward design, especially in craft designed for low-time pilots.

As to "...[using] airplane techniques in a rotorcraft", seems like we're circling back to "flying like a gyro" (with which I personally fully agree): there is far more difference in landing and takeoff techniques between a helo and a gyro (both rotorcraft) than there is between a tricycle gear and a tail-dragger (both fixed-wing) yet everyone recognizes the differences in the latter. Gyros need to be flown like gyros - some of that is like a fixed wing (just as some of a helo's is like a fixed wing), some a bit like a helo, and some is unique to the gyro. In fact, it sounds like there are differences between the 18A and other gyros, so maybe it's better to say to fly it like YOUR gyro. I would not expect to fly an MTO Sport exactly the same as the Magni, primarily because of that nosewheel.

I'll have to take your word on the "poor airmanship" of teaching roll-on crosswind landings in the 18A. I'd say it would be very, very poor instructing to not teach that in a Magni, where the approach procedures are published to be the same for headwind and crosswind landings and up to 25kts is acceptable.

/Ed
Ed, the reason there is some 18A specific content in my posts is because I started my remarks with,"In my case, with the A&S 18A in particular, 40 mph is nowhere near running out of energy... ", which I was prompted to say as I was a bit shocked that people were landing gyros that fast, and I then attempted to defend my practice for my particular aircraft. My aircraft is not irrevocably "done flying" with that much energy still on board. But my basic premise is NOT A&S18A specific.

Landing into wind is a good thing and always has been a good thing, no matter what you fly, since the days of broad flying "fields" where nobody ever made a crosswind landing or takeoff. Aircraft that must necessarily touch down at high speed on tarmac are constrained by the fellow who paved the runway, but many, many rotorcraft are immune to that ailment and have other, often better, easier, and safer options. I remain absolutely convinced that landing slow is good and landing into wind is ideal. They are also complementary goals, one helping you achieve the other. Both are also easily achieved in many gyros. Perhaps that is not the case for the Magni, which if so, I see as a design shortcoming (if I have to take off and land like a Cub in similar distances at similar speeds down runway centerlines, I might well rather fly a Cub).

High speed on the ground is not your friend, and easily leads to many varieties of grief. And while I am happy that you have mastered and perhaps even enjoy crosswind technique in your aircraft, I would hope that readers in general might recognize that always landing into the wind makes all landings essentially the same and can actually simplify training. While we dance around the topic of airplane versus gyro mindset, I think it is valuable to consider that many of us simply don't need to approach, touchdown, and rollout at speed down a centerline and might be doing it because it is familiar, not because it is best, safest, or easiest.

By the way, my comment on "poor airmanship" was provoked by an accusation against me first using those exact words about teaching landing unaligned with the pavement. I've been doing it for 30 years without incident and take exception to the characterization.
 
I agree Ed 100% and Vance / Wasp you are not getting the point of my issue. Student pilots neither have 3000hrs or 3000 landings and most will never even see an A&S18. Neither would or do any of my students fly in 28G34!! Yet it takes a challenge to a view for it to be put in the correct context.

Nobody is taking about high speed on the ground the question was the actual speed at touchdown. The ASI is not the focus of any pilot at that stage of the flight and it took a review of a video to see a rough idea of my own touchdown speed. It is around 35-40mph and the rate of deacceleration at this point is high so 1 second later it is <20mph. By no means is that high speed and for want of a piece of film demonstrating how the nose wheel doesn't actually touch down until almost zero ground speed you can watch this film

https://youtu.be/2AFsmU2er2A

The actually touchdown is not that nose high but that can be developed once you are on the ground in order that you can stop. That is very far from having some high speed roll out which I think is a point of misunderstanding.

I agree poor piloting technique is just that but if you look at the venue and that in one case a student pilot, they get ideas from somewhere. Pilots are not pre-programmed to fly with any particular technique, that surely gets learned?

Wasp if I could come and fly in an A&S18 easily I would to learn the differences, you might find it easier to have a trip in a MTO-Sport or M16. However what you or I maybe able to do OR if your students are already pilots then that is an entirely different context to a student pilot with no prior experience or knowledge. I agree the general point about landing into wind but for very many, especially in the higher population density areas of the UK those venues just do not exist. I saw this and I can't think of very many equivalent airfields in the UK where you can operate.

https://youtu.be/EqwvfWsrkmM

Incidentally I found this film and I'm not sure that this technique is all that kind on the airframe! Hey Ho.


https://youtu.be/9oC_zJe5aAI
 
It doesn't matter to me whether anybody ever touches an 18A; I still advocate landing into wind, at minimum speed, even at busy towered airports, without thousands of hours of experience.

We see the world very differently. With my background of typical touchdowns between zero and 10 mph, 40 mph IS high speed.

Sure, you can hold off the nosewheel for a very long time from a very rapid arrival, but why would one want to land fast (in my terms) in the first place? There are reasons wholly apart from nosewheel design that make slow (in my terms) touchdowns desirable.

I see you have found images of a grass strip, where I dropped in one time many years ago. It is very, very rare for me to land on a grass strip (a few trips to 1C9 come to mind but that's about it). The sod spot on which I was landing in the previously posted video was used for compliance with requested procedures for a non-standard operation during an airport event at KE16 (EAA Young Eagles airplane rides for children) but I use the runway under all other conditions. I routinely operate at tower controlled airports such as KPAO (among GA airports with runway shorter than 2500 feet, it is the busiest in the United States), plus KRVH, KSQL, KSNS, KLVK and other local region paved tower controlled airports, where I angle into the wind to remove crosswind components and touch down with zero ground speed as a matter of course. I do the same at KSJC, a nearby international airport (served by major carriers like Alaska Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and Delta Airlines), without complaint from ATC. My point here is that I imagine my airport situation is at least as complex as what you face in the UK, and the techniques I favor work just fine there. It is not a matter of population density or airport design to make it possible, and not something to do just out in the empty wild west far from civilization. The San Francisco Bay Area is pretty dense with people. I wonder if you are imagining something far more extreme for these operations than is necessary or is actually practiced by me.

It's too bad you couldn't see the 18A landings in your clip from the outside; your opinion might be different. I imagine they're no worse than this one, which the airframe handles just fine, as designed.

https://youtu.be/_sjbmSMf1mA?t=397
 
It looks a great aircraft and it is surprising in some ways that it wasn't a bigger commercial success.

Video is nice a historical reference but seriously in the film at 6m43s I'm not interested in having students giving me a passenger ride with that pitch attitude and those teaching in a Magni you just could not achieve it anyway. When operating off over 1km of pavement I can not see the upside to the typical 20-40 hour student and a lot can go wrong the reasons I explained

That isn't all that comfortable for new guys, it also promotes ballooning as they haul back on the stick too early and because the tailplane isn't working as well lateral stability isn't as good so yaw becomes a bigger issue - especially in a crosswind as the component is larger.


All that before I mentioned wind speed!! The issue with that is because now we are looking out of the window the perception of speed is ground speed now. So now two things can bite. Either the wind stops blowing or the wind on the day is significantly less than the day before and they feel they are faster than the ASI is showing because the ground speed looks high. (it is high on a relative basis) and now the aircraft runs out of energy before they are ready and it falls out of the sky. OR the wind is high so the energy is relatively high. The ground speed is low, they haul back on the stick to flare only to balloon and loose all the energy at the top of the balloon... hard landings are assured.

Some of those issues are less for you in an aircraft 300kgs heavier, with reasonable suspension on top of the fact you are not a student pilot.

I would 100% agree that landing into wind is the perfect solution but as you say we are limited today with the guy who set the pavement in the direction he did. So what to do in a training environment where we ideally give some form of standardised solution so that we can then train instructors to deliver a standard training course that will work regardless of where he is training and the variety of equipment being used to deliver it. The student needs a technique that will work for him/her all of the time.

I hear you not having issues at major airfields and I'm sure your experience is the case. People are usually polite in aviation and if the degree to with which you are offset to the centreline isn't so extreme perhaps nobody even notices. But you start landing across runways in the UK regularly and someone will come and have a word there is no question. Indeed in the UK at some airfields gyroplanes are forbidden. It is set in that context that I suggest a freestyle approach and landing across the active runway as a standard technique is poor airmanship.

Perhaps I am overstating the degree to which the landing into wind is to be taken and I think you are overstating the degree to which the gyroplane in my landings roll post touch down. I am happy we can agree to disagree.
 
Phil, I do get your point about “flying like a gyro pilot””. Landing into the wind when there’s a crosswind appears to be a part of that culture, at least for some. And that is NOT “flying a gyro like a gyro”, especially for gyros such as the Magni and Autogyro, which have published limitations and procedures for crosswinds.

The “Flying like a gyro pilot” culture/reality is why insurance for my Magni is $4,800/year vs. $486/year for my Warrior - for identical limits but $8,000 deductible on the gyro and $0 on the Warrior - despite me having a Comm rating in the gyro and not in fixed wing.

And for the record, my touchdown speed is also quite low and ground roll with no wind is short; I just do the published procedure. Jeez - it seems like, umm, hand size inversely correlates with landing distance or something...

I’d be curious if anyone has done the “landing crossways” during their checkride and how the examiner responded. Although there may be some DPEs who would accept that, I’m not sure an FAA examiner would but I may be wrong.

If one is not ready to handle crosswinds it seems they’re not ready to solo, let alone get a certificate. That was and is absolutely true for fixed wing, even with their lower crosswind limits.

Just me....

/Ed
 
What strikes me about this discussion is that there appears to be ZERO compromise of the various positions. Irrespective of what a DAR or FAA require, the most important consideration is what is the safest way to land any aircraft. I would argue that it is with the least possible crosswind component whilst assuring there is adequate distance in front of the aircraft for any rollout, and possible go around. Just because a trainee has permission to solo does not mean he is yet an experienced pilot, able to handle more difficult crosswind situations that can arise at any time. Teaching a pilot to utilize the width of the runway in a diagonal fashion at least, in addition to the cross controlling maneuvers can be a helpful tool, rather than the rote approach to sticking directly with the centerline under all conditions.
 
Loftus, I respect your opinion on this and point out another thread I stared about "general thoughts re gyros". What strikes me is we seem to be applying "dirt bike" rules to "street bike" situations. I have ZERO PROBLEM with someone on their own property, etc. landing a gyro any place and way they want to. That's just not for me personally.

Towered fields are towered for a reason. They typically have significant volumes of fixed-wing traffic and often have big, expensive corporate jets coming and going as well. The first time a gyro lands sideways on a runway and nicks a fixed-wing on a taxiway because they overshot the runway and crossed onto the parallel taxiway, the root beer will be turned off. That's especially true if the gyro pilot is uninsured and the airport has to pay to fix the taxi lights and the jet owner's insurance pays for the gyro pilot's damage to their multi-million dollar jet. Even at non-towered fields the principles are the same. And I suspect the FAA would rightfully declare a pilot’s actions “reckless” if they had a mishap while landing diagonally on a public runway. They'd refer to the operating limitations for the gyro and ask if the pilot adhered to them either by flying the crosswind process or not flying when conditions exceeded the limits.

Again, I have no problem with people using dirt bike rules in dirt bike situations but saying those rules are the best on city streets is incorrect. Landing at a 30 degree angle on my 60ft wide home airport runway converts the runway from a 3800 foot one to 120 feet - and pointing at hangars and houses on both the approach and departure ends. And ours is not a unique place by any stretch.

Gyros are in the significant minority in the flying world and have a terrible reputation among the fixed-wing community - I'd contend in no small part because of this kind of thinking. A fixed-wing CFI would never sign a student off for solo without good, standard-procedure skills in crosswinds to at least some level; why should gyro instructors be different? Frankly, I think saying that landing diagonally into a headwind is "safer" is unproven and incorrect - and SEEMS to suggest people are nervous about doing so the correct way. And again, crosswind landings are not that difficult once they're mastered, just like any other piloting skill.

I personally may have more skin in this game than others (including possibly yourself; not sure): mine is the only gyro on the field and the last thing I want is for the community to kick gyros out because others start coming here doing non-standard things. I'm nestled in among four golf courses and have literally a 12-cable power transmission line within 500 feet of the south end of the runway I must cross. Fortunately only a small number of non-flying people want our field closed and I don't want to increase that number by having gyros coming in here doing things not safe. Incidentally, I bet there are more gyros within a 30-mile radius of me than almost anywhere in the country, and fortunately they all behave well when they come here. To be fair, I've only seen "Eurotubs" coming and going here.

I apologize if any of this seems argumentative - not my intent. I realize I'm probably in the minority on this chat but would note (again) gyros are the minority in the flying world. I'd bet my opinions are definitely mainstream in the larger flying community - for good reason.

/Ed
 
From the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook directly from the FAA:

CROSSWIND LANDING Crosswind landing technique is normally used in gyroplanes when a crosswind of approximately 15 m.p.h. or less exists. In conditions with higher crosswinds, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain adequate compensation for the crosswind. In these conditions, the slow touchdown speed of a gyroplane allows a much safer option of turning directly into the wind and landing with little or no ground roll. Deciding when to use this technique, however, may be complicated by gusting winds or the characteristics of the particular landing area. On final approach, establish a crab angle into the wind to maintain a ground track that is aligned with the extended centerline of the runway. Just before touchdown, remove the crab angle and bank the gyroplane slightly into the wind to prevent drift. Maintain longitudinal alignment with the runway using the rudder. In higher crosswinds, if full rudder deflection is not sufficient to maintain alignment with the runway, applying a slight amount of power can increase rudder effectiveness. The length of the flare should be reduced to allow a slightly higher touchdown speed than that used in a no-wind landing. Touchdown is made on the upwind main wheel first, with the other main wheel settling to the runway as forward momentum is lost. After landing, continue to keep the rotor tilted into the wind to maintain positive control during the rollout.

I have never been chastised for not landing on the centerline at any towered airport I have flown into.

The pilot community at most of the non-towered airports I regularly fly into is entertained when I fly in winds they would find disquieting.

I teach my clients to land on the centerline in a crosswind up to 15kts. My training limit is 17kts so it is unusual to allow the gyroplane I am training in to turn into the wind.

I often demonstrate this procedure when the winds come up and put a halt to our training.

For advanced training or a flight review I might teach landing across the runway if conditions permitted.

In my experience it is not possible to avoid crosswind landings beyond my personal wind limits because things change quickly and a more suitable runway is not always available.

In my San Carlos example Palo Alto had similar winds and runways (13/31) and Half Moon Bay was IFR. I don,t land at SFO. The winds had increased from 15kt to 28 gusting to 34 over about ten minutes. It is a towered airport and I made them aware of what I was going to do.
 
EdL;n1142510 said:
Frankly, I think saying that landing diagonally into a headwind is "safer" is unproven and incorrect - and SEEMS to suggest people are nervous about doing so the correct way. And again, crosswind landings are not that difficult once they're mastered, just like any other piloting skill.

/Ed

Please note I did not say land diagonally into a headwind, it's crosswinds we are talking about. But I think it's pretty fair to say that it's safer to land into a headwind than a crosswind, so if one decreases the crosswind component and thus increases the headwind component, it is safer. I am also not arguing against 'the correct way' as you say of landing into a crosswind. But there are situations where the strength and direction of crosswinds can certainly approach or exceed the ability of any given aircraft no matter how well trained the pilot in conventional techniques. I am simply saying that in any aircraft, fixed wing or gyro, angling the flight path of the aircraft to decrease the crosswind component to the degree possible can only increase the margin of safety. For example - I fly an Aircam with a stated 12kt maximum crosswind component. If I am approaching the runway and the crosswind component is 14 iks, and I can partially direct my flight path towards the crosswind so that the crosswind component decreases to say 10 -12 knots, I am clearly increasing my margin of safety. And I will still have to perform a conventional cross controlled landing, just to a lesser degree. Clearly every situation is different, and your airport situation may be much more restrictive in terms of surrounding structures. My airport on the other hand has one runway of 4000 feet and the other of 6000 feet, with no real limitations due to surrounding structures. and I can routinely touchdown and be off the runway by the first turnoff. I would also add that it is quite OK in my opinion to land with the aircraft at a diagonal across the runway up until touchdown, and then once safely having all wheels on the ground, redirect the aircraft along the direction of the runway.
It is my belief that this technique should be taught to pilots of any aircraft capable of a low speed touchdown and rollout; not suggesting touchdowns directly across the runway, simply maximal utilization of the width of the runway when necessary and possible to lower a high crosswind component and decrease the degree of cross controlling. Obviously this is not an option for aircraft that land at higher speeds and requiring longer rollouts. Just so much more sensible to me than being concerned that some external observer will see me follow the centerline of the runway precisely.
The other technique unique to gyros is the use of the rotor drag as a brake, which is really Gyro Instruction Rotor Management 101 in my opinion.
 
Vance

Not 100% sure how to take your post above. The quote you provide from the handbook seems to suggest an into-the-wind landing is reserved for when the crosswind exceeds the safe performance of the regular process they describe next (above 15mph is the figure they use); it seems to say, if only by the depth of description, that a more typical crosswind landing procedure is the norm/preferred. Do you agree?

From “On final approach...” onward the description is exactly as I understand the appropriate procedure to be, gyro or fixed wing.

I do not disagree there are circumstances where a non-traditional landing is the safest option; I disagree it is the PREFERRED option for ALL crosswind landings.

I’ve never been “scored” for how closely I land on the centerline either (except maybe in a Flight Review). Angling 20+degrees on a runway adds new risks, even if people on the ground can’t even see that it’s happening.

Again, not trying to be argumentative. We do seem to be applying processes typical for “legacy” homebuilt gyros (and therefore instructing?) to the entire category when, in fact, the newer gyros do have differences. In some ways it feels like generalizing about fixes-wings when, in fact, there are differences between tricycle gear and taildraggers, ultralights vs. a King Air, and even high-wing vs. low-wing. My understanding is some gyros, such as a stock RAF 2000, have fairly low crosswind limits (7kts, I believe). It makes complete sense safety-wise to use “extraordinary” techniques for them at lower winds than in my Magni. But the broad-brush and unsubstantiated statement that it’s always better to land into the wind in a crosswind is where I disagree.

/Ed
 
Just a final clarification, not implying that this is a 'PREFERRED option for ALL crosswind landings' simply an adjunctive technique to enhance the safety of crosswind landings in high crosswind situations, that pilots should not be scared to embrace.
 
EdL;n1142510 said:
Landing at a 30 degree angle on my 60ft wide home airport runway converts the runway from a 3800 foot one to 120 feet - and pointing at hangars and houses on both the approach and departure ends.
No, you're apparently picturing a long skewed final approach over houses and hangars that nobody here is advocating. The diagonal path limits only the on-pavement rolling to 120 feet and then only if you don't have any taxiways to aim for, but even so that's not quite the same thing as having a tiny airport with only a 120 foot runway. You still have a broad open area of airport over which to do all your approaching and descending. You can fly your final in full coordination with a wind correction angle in your heading (I hate the term crab, because it improperly suggests uncoordinated yawing to many) just on the downwind side, until lined up for your touchdown path, when you adjust slightly to point parallel to the windsock and put it down with very, very little groundspeed and no need for more rolling distance (and certainly no risk to houses and hangars). If the wind is significant enough to require that correction, you can have a truly small ground speed, and you will find that 120 feet is a pretty big target, while the hangars look very distant at that slow rate of closure.

There may be a perception problem here from never having seen it done, and from the specific aircraft you fly and touchdown speeds with which you are accustomed, which may be why you consider this to be a non-standard dirt-bike sort of operation. From my perspective, using the slip technique instead is the cowboy maneuver, needlessly risking control loss, runway excursions, rollovers, and such. Personally, I find a 25 kt. demonstrated crosswind component to be nothing short of silly for a gyroplane. If the wind is that strong, I can always land with zero roll by just pointing into it. Nobody will care about your orientation to the pavement if you're not moving on it, and you won't be thought a madman for using minimal runway.
 
loftus;n1142522 said:
Just a final clarification, not implying that this is a 'PREFERRED option for ALL crosswind landings' simply an adjunctive technique to enhance the safety of crosswind landings in high crosswind situations, that pilots should not be scared to embrace.

We’re in furious agreement! 😉
 
EdL;n1142516 said:
Vance

Not 100% sure how to take your post above. The quote you provide from the handbook seems to suggest an into-the-wind landing is reserved for when the crosswind exceeds the safe performance of the regular process they describe next (above 15mph is the figure they use); it seems to say, if only by the depth of description, that a more typical crosswind landing procedure is the norm/preferred. Do you agree?

From “On final approach...” onward the description is exactly as I understand the appropriate procedure to be, gyro or fixed wing.

I do not disagree there are circumstances where a non-traditional landing is the safest option; I disagree it is the PREFERRED option for ALL crosswind landings.

I’ve never been “scored” for how closely I land on the centerline either (except maybe in a Flight Review). Angling 20+degrees on a runway adds new risks, even if people on the ground can’t even see that it’s happening.

Again, not trying to be argumentative. We do seem to be applying processes typical for “legacy” homebuilt gyros (and therefore instructing?) to the entire category when, in fact, the newer gyros do have differences. In some ways it feels like generalizing about fixes-wings when, in fact, there are differences between tricycle gear and taildraggers, ultralights vs. a King Air, and even high-wing vs. low-wing. My understanding is some gyros, such as a stock RAF 2000, have fairly low crosswind limits (7kts, I believe). It makes complete sense safety-wise to use “extraordinary” techniques for them at lower winds than in my Magni. But the broad-brush and unsubstantiated statement that it’s always better to land into the wind in a crosswind is where I disagree.

/Ed

Thank you for your thoughtful input Ed.

For me personally flying any of the gyroplanes I have flown allowing the gyroplane to turn into the wind and touching down at near zero ground speed is in my opinion the safest way to land a gyroplane.

In my experience with most of the gyroplanes I have flown as my airspeed drops below ten knots my rudder authority becomes limited unless I have some power in. With hard linked steering I feel this is a hazardous condition because I am misaligning my steering with my direction of travel.

I have limited time in a Magni M16 so I don’t have an opinion on how to fly one well. I found the flying characteristics to be similar to The Predator and none of my clients have had trouble transitioning into a Magni M16.

Don Bradley who instructs in a Magni M16 and has done many proficiency check rinds for my clients concurs. He didn’t have any difficulties flying The Predator.

I teach to use the rudder to align with the direction of travel and on the centerline up to about fifteen knots of crosswind component because that is what the FAA wants.

It is difficult to put numbers on when I will allow the nose to turn into the wind. I land near a wind sock so I have a visual on what the wind is doing and I get a feel for what to do during my round out. In my opinion in challenging conditions this is the best approach.

It would be reasonably accurate to say that the finish of my landing rollout is almost always very near the centerline even if I allow her to turn into the wind unless I am intentionally landing on the ramp.

I tailor the approach and wind limits to the client’s experience and abilities.
 
By contrast, the Magni (and the AR-1 and the Titanium - and it even looks like WaspAir's A&S) have a trailing axle, which means the nosewheel tends to "auto-correct" on roll-out because of the craft's inertia. Which makes me wonder why other manufacturers don't do the same? So many accidents I've read about appear to be directly related to that.

Except for the nosewheel issue, I'm not sure I see an advantage of the "stop and land" technique; there is no gyro (other than maybe a Carter Copter) that can take off in less runway than it can land, so one still must land somewhere with enough runway to take off again. Disadvantages seem significant, as Phil notes (and I've noted previously), especially in gusty conditions. Seems to me, remaining as close to the bottom of the "total drag curve" (generally, around Best Rate of Climb speed) for the landing for as long as possible gives far more options.

Can anyone help me understand why big players such as Autogyro and ELA have the nosewheel configuration they do?

Sure, "nosewheel design is moot if you have no speed when you put it down". But it's the cause of an accident if you DON'T put it down with no speed and the gyro darts off the runway because of the design. The accident reports sure seem to back this up. And when the accidents occur, they seem to be blamed on "poor pilot training/performance". I'd contend they're "poor pilot training/performance in a poorly-designed aircraft". Again, I'm at a loss to understand the benefit of the axle-forward design, especially in craft designed for low-time pilots.
EdL, as I understand it, the AR-1 trailing link took its inspiration from the TAG, which took its inspiration from Jim Vanek's many excellent Sport Copter models.
I've recently been flying a lot of Sport Copters in preparation for getting my new M2, and the nosewheel difference is huge (especially compared to my RAF).

The AutoGyro and ELA "big players" find it easier to mfg. a cheap nosewheel fork, and their customers generally don't know to demand anything better or safer.
Except when that NW bites them on the butt (e.g., Mentone 2017, MTOsport).

Regards,
Kolibri
 
The "big players" clearly understand rake, trail, and offset design in lieu of using the same design of a grocery cart wheel. Properly designed, either geometry will perform quite well. I'm sure Vance can chime in on the geometry of vehicles with a forward rake front wheel. I guess the owners of millions of motorcycles, bicycles, trikes, and countless other vehicles with a single front wheel are not smart enough to demand a rearward leaning front wheel. (roll eyes)
 
Top