I agree the gyroplane accident rate is too high;

[Vance]

Where we fall down is that, although Gyro pilots often train for engine out, far more than others, we don't train at the altitudes, speeds, and terrain that we need to because that wouldn't be prudent. That training would be better accomplished on a simulator. It has been brought up a number of times but doesn't seem to go anywhere. I know John is working on it now as part of a safety improvement and possible insurance reduction plan but it really doesn't need to be all that sophisticated, it just needs to be set up in an organized fashion with a sim instructor who can induce problems at the most inopportune time, something that can't be done inflight without being too risky. If it results in an insurance reduction then almost any reasonable fee would be able to be charged. If it saved a life or even just 1 serious accident, the cost of a basic sim would be insignificant to the benefit.

Good morning John,

In the past ten years there were 24 fatal gyroplane crashes in the USA.

I could only find one where an engine out initiated the accident sequence.

I have not flown a gyroplane flight simulator that would help me with managing an engine out.

In my opinion based on my experience the most important things to do when the engine goes quiet in a gyroplane is to have an awareness of wires and fences, pick a landing zone, develop a plan and execute the plan.

It helps if you know which way the wind is blowing.

The engine at idle accurate landing in the practical test standards is there to address engine out landings.

If you can hit the spot and the spot is suitable I feel you are good to go.

I see no reason this can’t be practiced site selection without undue risk to the pilot or aircraft.

Having a discussion often about where would you land and what are the hazards is likely going to be more real world than a flight simulator.

Aborting a simulated engine out landing is generally not particularly hazardous unless the engine won’t make power that is requested.

Only one of the accidents last year was an engine out and the student pilot did everything well except select the landing site.

I have flown with students who used a gyroplane flight simulator and my impression was it helped. I have no way to know how they would have done without the simulator time. Everyone is different.

 

[WaspAir]

Where we fall down is that, although Gyro pilots often train for engine out, far more than others, we don't train at the altitudes, speeds, and terrain that we need to because that wouldn't be prudent.

If it isn't prudent to train in those conditions, perhaps it isn't prudent to fly there, either.

 

[Vance]

To kind of add to all this, I think there is a misperception as to the inherent safety of gyros. Probably the only time a gyro is inherently safer than most other aircraft is when it loses an engine, with the ability to autorotate. Depending on the terrain you are over, this could be a blessing or a curse as our glide ratio is inferior to most other aircraft. My general perception of most fatal gyro accidents is that most are not a result of an engine out. So gyros may not be inherently safer overall as we would like to believe.

Good Morning Jeff,

A gyroplane will not stall or spin and it is my observation that many of the fatal fixed wing accidents are stall-spin accidents.

When I look at the NTSB gyroplane accident reports most of what I identify as causal should have been learned in the first hour of gyroplane flight training.

We all make mistakes and what I would like to understand is how to get my flight instructor voice come into my clients head to help them manage the mistake and break the accident chain.

 

[loftus]

That's an interesting point, especially considering that when Cierva was inventing all this stuff, his goal had nothing to do with engine failures. Rather, he was concerned about the inherent fixed wing susceptibility to stall/spin accidents. Gyroplanes are indeed immune to that problem (as are helicopters and balloons) but unfortunately gyro pilots have found plenty of other ways to kill themselves and their passengers.

Gyros don't have a stall speed. But if you yank and bank at low altitude over unfriendly terrain, stall/spin is not the major problem anyway.

Good Morning Jeff,

A gyroplane will not stall or spin and it is my observation that many of the fatal fixed wing accidents are stall-spin accidents.

When I look at the NTSB gyroplane accident reports most of what I identify as causal should have been learned in the first hour of gyroplane flight training.

We all make mistakes and what I would like to understand is how to get my flight instructor voice come into my clients head to help them manage the mistake and break the accident chain.

I agree Vance in theory, but I think in practice there are a number of things that get people into trouble in gyros that are under appreciated and possibly lead to pilots, especially inexperienced pilots getting into trouble. Gyros cannot stall / spin, but they can get behind the power curve, and close to the ground the results can be as devastating as a stall spin. Gyros have the issue of rotor management and top heavy handling on the ground which fixed wing aircraft do not. Gyros are probably more dangerous than FW in negative G situations and particularly those modern gyros with significant fuselage drag are susceptible to yaw/roll problems not unlike a stall / spin. Gyros also require more ongoing active control than FW which are more amenable to being trimmed out and maintaining altitude. pitch and direction. My Aircam requires far less active input than my gyro when trimmed out, essentially allowing fairly extended hands free or autopilot flight which was not possible in my gyro. As you know Vance, I am a big gyro fan, so not trying to knock them at all, but I think there may be a tendency to under appreciate the peculiarities of gyros which make them less safe as an aircraft type than we would like to admit. In other words they are no more or less safe than other aircraft, but for different reassons.

 

[Vance]

As a flight instructor I am trying to understand how to teach people not to do things that cause gyroplane crashes in the limited amount of time I have their attention.

It means I have to prioritize things.

I feel the priorities need to be tailored to the individual client.

I have several fixed wing CFI mentors who encounter most of the same problems.

We are all trying to teach a culture of risk mitigation.

I feel that comparing low altitude stall spins in fixed wings with behind the power curve mishaps in gyroplane is not reasonable.

I don’t know why the accident rate is so high in gyroplanes.

A part of it may be that gyroplanes are so easy to fly and forgiving that people don’t take the time to learn to fly them properly and don’t respect their limitations.

I am often surprised when pilots don’t want to continue to improve their skills and expand their understanding of aviation.

My continued progress is what keeps me interested in gyroplanes.

Many times I have wondered how close to trouble I am.

Part of what I have learned as a flight instructor is that what I thought were non-recoverable events were in fact not that hard to manage.

It appears that when I was learning I was not nearly as close to the edge as I imagined.

In my opinion anything that flies is dangerous in the hands of the ignorant.

 

[anthom]

Risk management in aviation is important. This involves a thorough understanding of our own and the gyroplane's capabilities and limitations. I have noticed many pilots are quite hazy about a proper understanding of the aerodynamics of the gyroplane. Add to the fact that unlike a fixed wing, the rotating rotors can cause substantial damage if they hit any object, even if the gyroplane is at very slow speed, due to it's rotation. That is why a tip over or a roll over in a gyroplane even at slow speed is quite destructive to both machine and pilot.

Another aspect is that being highly maneuverable, it is easy to perform aggressive maneuvers and sometimes this can lead to problems, especially close to the ground.

I remember once during a fly in several years ago, five gyroplanes flew together from Anahuac to Liberty. We flew at 500 AGL and over densely wooded terrain with no landing areas below. A small deviation to the side of the wooded areas would have given some prospective landing areas in case of an emergency. I have seen flights done over expanses of water without sufficient altitude for a safe landing. If one searches old threads, it is possible to see videos posted on this forum taken by highly experienced pilots and instructors flying over inhospitable terrain, thick layer of clouds, and water. Including night flight over cities.

Each one of the above situations is a risk where the reward is small if something goes amiss.

IMHO promoting a culture of safety will go a long way in mitigating risk. I have attached a link to the downloadable FAA "Risk Management Handbook"

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/faa-h-8083-2.pdf

 

[JETLAG03]

@Vance, I probably misunderstood one of your comments, could you please explain the "engine out" training that is scheduled and used in the American training scheme.

 

[PJB]

As a flight instructor I am trying to understand how to teach people not to do things that cause gyroplane crashes in the limited amount of time I have their attention.

We are all trying to teach a culture of risk mitigation.

I don’t know why the accident is so high in gyroplanes.

Not wishing to throw spears Vance but isn't what you have written impossible? i.e. how are you mitigating a risk that you don't know? and if you do know the risk or what causes crashes then by extrapolation you know why the accident rate is so high....? no?

 

[Vance]

@Vance, I probably misunderstood one of your comments, could you please explain the "engine out" training that is scheduled and used in the American training scheme.

In an attempt to quantify what I pilot needs to know the FAA has practical test standards for each level of certificate (pilot license).The standards and the check ride procedure for Sport Pilot, Gyroplane are available here: http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/faa-s-8081-29.pdf

Just scroll down to gyroplane.

B. TASK: POWER-OFF APPROACH AND ACCURACY LANDING REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-21; Gyroplane Flight Manual.

Objective. To determine that the applicant:

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to performing a power-off approach and accuracy landing.

2. Selects a reference point in the landing area for touchdown and reduces power to a zero-thrust position.

3. Adjusts glide path to terminate approach and touch down beyond and within 300 feet of the reference point.

The applicant picks a landing spot typically from pattern altitude (500 to 1,000 feet above the ground depending on the airport) and brings the engine to idle. The reference point is the beginning of a simulated landing zone (I typically use the thousand foot marking on the runway.) The goal is to touch down and stop beyond the point and no more than 300 feet past it.

I typically train to minus nothing and one hundred feet using both straight in and 180 degrees turn (from downwind).

The exercise is basically to teach the client that you can’t stretch the glide without out power and how to judge how big a landing spot he needs with his skill level.

In an actual engine out the glide is typically further than it is with the engine at idle.

The gyroplane flight manual they reference is available here: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/media/faa-h-8083-21.pdf

The helicopter part is obsolete so it is just the forty pages about gyroplanes.

 

[Vance]

Not wishing to throw spears Vance but isn't what you have written impossible? i.e. how are you mitigating a risk that you don't know? and if you do know the risk or what causes crashes then by extrapolation you know why the accident rate is so high....? no?

I don’t understand your question Phil.

Do you teach risk mitigation?

If you know why the gyroplane accident rate is so high perhaps you would share it with us.

I continue to learn as a flight instructor and work toward a more effective training syllabus.

I find that some of the accident causes have changed over the years and need to modify my training to address the changes.

Every client is different and the better I understand the risk the more accurately I can address the risk mitigation.

I started this thread in order to learn more about why the gyroplane accident rate is so high in the USA and focus on actual accidents rather than perceived risk.

I am trying to get a better understanding of what I can do as a flight instructor to reduce the accident rate.

It is not unusual for a thread to drift.

 

[Tyger]

Add to the fact that unlike a fixed wing, the rotating rotors can cause substantial damage if they hit any object, even if the gyroplane is at very slow speed, due to it's rotation. That is why a tip over or a roll over in a gyroplane even at slow speed is quite destructive to both machine and pilot.

Plus the fact that tip overs / roll overs, as such, don't generally happen with fixed-wings...

 

[Tyger]

I remember once during a fly in several years ago, five gyroplanes flew together from Anahuac to Liberty. We flew at 500 AGL and over densely wooded terrain with no landing areas below. A small deviation to the side of the wooded areas would have given some prospective landing areas in case of an emergency. I have seen flights done over expanses of water without sufficient altitude for a safe landing.

Each one of the above situations is a risk where the reward is small if something goes amiss.

I agree all of the above sound unnecessarily risky... but what exactly was the "reward"?? I doesn't sound to me like "risk vs reward". I'd say it's either an incomprehension of the risk, or perhaps just a blithe disregard for risk in general.


This book may be of interest to some:

http://www.humanfactors.lth.se/fileadmin/lusa/Sidney_Dekker/books/DekkersFieldGuide.pdf

From its introduction –
The old view of human error:
Human error is a cause of accidents. To explain failure, you must seek failure. You must find people's inaccurate assessments, wrong decisions, bad judgments.

The new view of human error:
Human error is a symptom of trouble deeper inside a system. To explain failure, do not try to find where people went wrong.
Instead, find how people's assessments and actions made sense at the time, given the circumstances that surrounded them.

 

[loftus]

Vance I think any situation where the result is coming into destructive and lethal contact with the ground particularly during similar stages of flight, are comparable. I am not saying that getting behind the power curve is the same from an aerodynamic perspective as a stall/spin, but they can both be lethal during early takeoff, and in fact both result from incorrect pitch / power combinations. So there are similarities in terms of pitfalls during takeoff that can lead to an accident in a gyro, just as in a fixed wing.
I am simply stating that we may all be operating under a misconception that gyroplanes are inherently safer than other aircraft, when that is probably not true, and gyros have their own flying characteristics that makes them no more or less safe than other aircraft. They have their own set of characteristics that FW aircraft do not have, but yet may be just as unforgiving and lethal, and visa versa.

 

[anthom]

I agree all of the above sound unnecessarily risky... but what exactly was the "reward"?? I doesn't sound to me like "risk vs reward". I'd say it's either an incomprehension of the risk, or perhaps just a blithe disregard for risk in general.


This book may be of interest to some:

http://www.humanfactors.lth.se/fileadmin/lusa/Sidney_Dekker/books/DekkersFieldGuide.pdf

From its introduction –
The old view of human error:
Human error is a cause of accidents. To explain failure, you must seek failure. You must find people's inaccurate assessments, wrong decisions, bad judgments.

The new view of human error:
Human error is a symptom of trouble deeper inside a system. To explain failure, do not try to find where people went wrong.
Instead, find how people's assessments and actions made sense at the time, given the circumstances that surrounded them.

The reward is a successful landing in the case of an emergency necessitating a forced landing.

 

[WaspAir]

Vance I think any situation where the result is coming into destructive and lethal contact with the ground particularly during similar stages of flight, are comparable. I am not saying that getting behind the power curve is the same from an aerodynamic perspective as a stall/spin, but they can both be lethal during early takeoff, and in fact both result from incorrect pitch / power combinations.

Although they may occur in the same phase of flight, I consider these situations to be radically different in severity and ease of recovery. Aborting a takeoff in a gyro is trivial when compared to attempting a stall recovery from low altitude in an airplane.

There is no reason that being "behind the curve" early in a gyro takeoff has to be lethal or even result in damage (put it back on the ground, duh!), whereas a low altitude airplane stall is pretty much guaranteed to be a significant NTSB event.

Some gyro designs do produce their own issues, such as rotor management for the Bensen-derived systems. The articulated rotor gyros I fly most often avoid that issue completely through their design. Design choices such as that can strongly influence "potential" safety, e.g. tricycle gear reducing the chance of a ground loop over a taildragger airplane. But stupid pilot tricks still arise. You can't make anything foolproof because fools are too creative for a designer to anticipate all they might do.

The question of concern is why are gyro pilots not getting the benefit of the potential safety designed into their aircraft? The problem lies between the ears of the pilots. I share Vance's puzzlement about how to fix it.

 

[WaspAir]

The reward is a successful landing in the case of an emergency necessitating a forced landing.

I think the question was intended to be:
What reward is there in flying over dense forest (with other options nearby) to justify the risk of being unable to make a forced landing?

Did it save significant time on route? Avoid restricted airspace? Keep you away from low ceilings? Some other benefit?

Without some benefit like one of those, it doesn't seem like a risk/reward benefit driven choice, but merely a bad choice.

 

[Vance]

Vance I think any situation where the result is coming into destructive and lethal contact with the ground particularly during similar stages of flight, are comparable. I am not saying that getting behind the power curve is the same from an aerodynamic perspective as a stall/spin, but they can both be lethal during early takeoff, and in fact both result from incorrect pitch / power combinations. So there are similarities in terms of pitfalls during takeoff that can lead to an accident in a gyro, just as in a fixed wing.
I am simply stating that we may all be operating under a misconception that gyroplanes are inherently safer than other aircraft, when that is probably not true, and gyros have their own flying characteristics that makes them no more or less safe than other aircraft. They have their own set of characteristics that FW aircraft do not have, but yet may be just as unforgiving and lethal, and visa versa.

Good morning Jeff,

I am not operating under the misconception that gyroplanes are inherently safer that other aircraft and I don't tell my clients that.

I don't have enough time in other aircraft to reach a conclusion.

I do see that there are a lot of gyroplane accidents for how few gyroplanes are flying and how little they fly.

I want to do what I can to improve gyroplane safety and reduce the number of accidents.

I feel a bond with all pilots and would like to see fewer aviation mishaps.

I need to understand how a fixed wing aircraft flies so I can better communicate with clients who have fixed wing experience.

Most of my flight instructor mentors are fixed wing instructors and I still learn a great deal from them despite the different aircraft.

Every two years as a flight instructor I am required to take a flight instructor renewal course and they don't have them for gyroplane instructors so I learn how to be a better fixed wing instructor. I spend a lot of time learning about accelerated stalls, spins and unusual attitude training.

All piloting is dangerous and all flight instructing is challenging.

I just want to be a better gyroplane flight instructor.

 

[JETLAG03]

@Vance. Thank you for your reply regards the engine out "spot landing" etc. The reason I asked to clarify is because my instructor (French) did all you mentioned plus during any and all exercises, once I had attained a reasonable competence at each exercise there were surprises awaiting. He would, without warning cut the power to idle, call engine out and I had to select a site, inform him why that site whilst in managing the "engine out". This could be during take offs, finals, whilst transiting to or from practice areas, in fact, at any time except at the learning a new skill or exercise. It certainly keeps his students on their toes.

 

[Vance]

@Vance. Thank you for your reply regards the engine out "spot landing" etc. The reason I asked to clarify is because my instructor (French) did all you mentioned plus during any and all exercises, once I had attained a reasonable competence at each exercise there were surprises awaiting. He would, without warning cut the power to idle, call engine out and I had to select a site, inform him why that site whilst in managing the "engine out". This could be during take offs, finals, whilst transiting to or from practice areas, in fact, at any time except at the learning a new skill or exercise. It certainly keeps his students on their toes.

I am writing about two distantly different things Phil.

Training is where I teach people to fly and develop their skills.

The training is tailored to the individual, their machine and their mission.

Tasks are repeated until a satisfactory proficiency is achieved.

I don’t sign them off to take the test until I am convinced that they have the skills to safely fly a gyroplane beyond the practical test standards.

Every two years they need to get a flight review to see that their skills have not deteriorated and they have kept up with the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Testing is where someone else determines if that person deservers a pilot certificate.

In order to take the emotion out of the testing the FAA developed the practical test standards.

If you meet the standards you pass if you don’t meet the standards you go back for more training. My clients at this point have a hundred percent pass rate.

Hopefully a pilot will continue to develop their skills, make good aviation decisions and practice risk mitigation.

To become a gyroplane flight instructor you are expected to meet the Commercial Pilot, Rotorcraft-Gyroplane practical test standards from either seat while explaining the maneuver under any conditions you might train under.

It is good that you flight instructor presents you with challenges. The engine may stop at any time and many quick decisions may be required for a successful outcome. It is also a good reason to fly a little higher and pay attention to where the wires, fences and ditches are as well as which way the wind blows.

Navigation, flight planning and fuel management are also important. It is easy to get lulled into careless flight planning with all the features of today's GPS.

The last spot landing I won I touched two feet past the line and was stopped in six feet. I feel it is an important skill.

 

[PJB]

I don’t understand your question Phil.

Do you teach risk mitigation?

If you know why the gyroplane accident rate is so high perhaps you would share it with us.

I continue to learn as a flight instructor and work toward a more effective training syllabus.

I find that some of the accident causes have changed over the years and need to modify my training to address the changes.

Every client is different and the better I understand the risk the more accurately I can address the risk mitigation.

I started this thread in order to learn more about why the gyroplane accident rate is so high in the USA and focus on actual accidents rather than perceived risk.

I am trying to get a better understanding of what I can do as a flight instructor to reduce the accident rate.

It is not unusual for a thread to drift.

In fairness Vance when you ask me "If you know why the gyroplane accident rate is so high perhaps you would share it with us" i think I've contributed a view which was also given in a thread prior to this one on pre-rotation (which you might not agree with and it might be wrong but so far its not been disputed..) but even in this thread:-

post 25 - suggests its a training issue... seems odd to hide best practice behind a pay wall... whats taught not keeping up with the aircraft developments...and the small group of guys in the industry not wishing to speak out because putting ones head above the wall means it gets shot off...I think in aviation its known as CRM...

post 26 - all of it gives a view as to why accident rate is high

post 36 - same

post 42 - same

post 55 - gives an additional view that the focus hasn't been there with in the UK distraction to other things that have made almost zero impact.

There isn't a silver bullet but likewise it isn't a PR job either. I'm sure you are a very diligent guy good with your customers etc. BUT we aren't talking about what you do etc we are talking about the fact that with acceptance of the issue comes an ability to give it some attention and then perhaps a resolution.

Just in my view plain speaking is more effective than dancing around the issue so as not to upset anyone will be effective. The training in the UK and the US is defective - why? because so far we haven't been comfortable to grasp the nettle which is the current method you have right now is the one that aircraft are crashing under. It gets even worse when you consider that (in the UK at least) that training is then validated by a flight test with an examiner. So if you agree that the accident rate is too high then you have to agree that the current training is flawed.

If you can get over that issue then we are able to go down a better path. That better path will include more focus upon basic take off and landings rather than things that hardly ever happen or have almost no impact upon the accident rate (in the UK at least a outsized focus upon navigation). It also means recognition that training isn't done with a PPL pass and so revalidation needs to be done yearly and there needs to be much better control around differences training and some standardisation (which currently there is none). There needs to be much better conversation/feedback between manufacturer and authority because the current POHs are pretty poor especially with regard performance - so either train pilots to achieve the data OR give the data the pilots are trained to achieve. Then all of this information needs proper exchange and on TOP of the table not stuffed either behind a paywall or within / amongst a group of people who invent XYZ and snear at the rest. Contribution of valid ideas should be welcomed not punished, something of derision or pushed back against because it wasn't invented here...

I don't think any of that is too hard to achieve or a silly suggestion. Perhaps in time we will see it but as I see it in 2020 it needs a change in mindset.