Tango 2 - N8445P - Dublin Texas - wind

[Steve_UK]

Latest FAA ASIAS report another - Oct 5th 2019 - Dublin airfield, Texas, USA - Tango 2 - N8445P - FAA ASIAS states "AIRCRAFT KNOCKED ONTO SIDE BY WIND GUST WHILE LANDING, DUBLIN, TX. - injuries listed as none, damage as substantial


FAA register currently shows registration pending, cert terminated

 

[WaspAir]

I just hate that description -- "knocked onto side by wind gust" -- as if there was no pilot involved, as a completely passive response of an unmanned machine. That could be a description for an inadequately tied down parked aircraft, but it should not be appropriate for one that was in the process of landing and under the control of an aviator.

 

[Richard Anderson]

Wow. Haven’t read this section of the forum for awhile, but it is very disturbing to have accidents by new pilots flying solo. I have flown many different types of fixed wing aircraft over the years- Cessnas, Pipers, my beloved Luscombe, my also beloved Mitchell Wing, not so beloved Tierra ll. N3 Pup, Quicksilvers, etc. As far as gyros, I got my Sport Pilot Gyro endorsement in Magnis, have flown other Magnis, MTO Sport, Calidus, Sparrowhawk and AR-1. So I have experience with instructors saving me and with having to teach myself how to fly new-to-me aircraft. I felt confident in flying those single place, very light, very different fixed wing aircraft partly because in all my training with fixed wing instructors, I was allowed/required to solo the aircraft I had been training in. This provided me with the experience of controlling a machine that was lighter, more responsive, more sensitive, but still one in which I could feel comfortable. In all my training in gyros, I have never flown solo, so have never experienced the lighter, more responsive, more sensitive aspect of these wonderful aircraft. I am very hesitant to buy a light single place machine because of having no experience soloing the somewhat heavier 2 place machines. I understand that gyro training is relatively new and that having a training ship even slightly damaged can be catastrophic to a one person business. I guess my question to all the gyro instructors out there is do they allow students to solo in the instructor’s aircraft? If not, what supervision is required to help the student solo his own, especially a different single place machine? Unfortunately, you can’t fix stubborn, so if a newbie won’t seek help.....but it just seems a lot of new pilots are not prepared for solo flying.

 

[AirCommandPilot]

I read a description from a gyro pilot on the ground that witnessed the roll over. He says it was because the front wheel touched the ground before he got stopped and it caused the front to push over making the machine roll. (landing in a crosswind with rudder/wheel turned)

 

[Vance]

I had not read anything about this being a new pilot.
The final report will have the pilot's experience and the wind conditions.
When I sign someone off to solo they are typically limited to a five knot wind with a two knot cross wind component at an airport where we have flown.
I feel wind limits should be expanded gradually.
I have not flown a Tango so I don't know anything about their ground handling.
For a certificated pilot no solo time is required for a Sport Pilot, Gyroplane certificate.
A linked nose wheel steering is a popular excuse for a landing mishap.
In my experience with the linked nose gear on Magni, ELA, AutoGyro, American Ranger, Titanium Explorer, SparrowHawk and RAF; the nose wheel can be plopped down misaligned pretty hard at ten knots without mishap as long as I am light on the pedals.
I watched Alex Fling his Tango at El Mirage several times touch the nose wheel down with speed misaligned without any apparent diversion.
I would find it helpful to hear from the accident pilot about his experience, conditions and what he feels happened.

 

[GyrOZprey]

Of all the linked nose-gear/rudder new-gen gyros ...the TAG with it's front wheel suspension block and good rear-trail in the fork is probably the most forgiving in the "cocked-nose wheel" touch-down with forwards motion!
The manufacturer claims he built in an extra mechanism for super tight taxi turns by pushing rudder pedal past the normal rudder-range for flight .... also the front wheel trail is very effective in self-straightening on a cocked touchdown and will push-back against the heavy-footed very effectively!

 

[ultracruiser41]

I’ve never had an issue with a linked nose wheel. There are a whole bunch of fixed wing aircraft with linked nose gear and most have no issues. If a gyro pilot is having handling issues because of a linked nose wheel.....then I’d say they need more training. It all goes back to proper ground/rotor handling.....and the only way to get better at it...is training...practice....training.....practice....etc....etc.......

As Vance said.......it really doesn’t cause a lot of diversion when a cocked nose wheel touches down if the pilot is aware.

 

[PJB]

This incident was the result of a poor approach and a lack of a go around. And in trying to force a landing from a poor postion ended with a lot of yaw which wasn’t dealt with.

 

[Vance]

Copied and pasted from the NTSB factual report: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20191006X95852&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=CA

“The gyroplane pilot reported that during landing, the gyroplane was too high above the runway. He attempted to, "cushion the landing" by forcing the nose up as he, "gunned the engine a couple of times." The fluctuations in torque turned the nose of the gyroplane to the right, and he corrected with a hard-left rudder application. He recalled that the additional thrust from the engine gunning, increased the gyroplanes airspeed. The gyroplane was configured with the front wheel being mechanically linked to the rudder for directional control. When the gyroplane touched down, the pilot's hard left rudder application was also a hard-left turn input. The gyrocopter landed hard and rolled on to its side. The pilot reported that this accident was caused by pilot error. The nearest METAR was 12 NM to the northeast and reported that about the time of the accident the wind was from 170° at 4 knots. The pilot landed on runway 33 and would have produced a left quartering tailwind during the landing. The gyroplane sustained substantial damage to the main rotor drive system and the empennage. The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the gyroplane that would have precluded normal operation.”

“Flight Time: (Estimated) 176 hours (Total, all aircraft), 25.55 hours (Total, this make and model), 28.7 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 21.3 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 7 hours (Last 30 days, all aircraft)"

“Last Flight Review or Equivalent: 11/06/2017”

“Airframe Total Time: 67 Hours.”

In my opinion the pilots report is indicative of a lack basic piloting skills and a poor understanding of gyroplane aerodynamics..

I have talked to several witnesses and the accident pilot had made several landings before the accident landing and they were all similar. Touching down fast and letting the nose wheel touch down at speed.

I have been told the accident pilot was resistant to suggestions by two CFIs at the event.

It appears to me his luck ran out.

 

[Tyger]

If he had 176 hours of which only 29 were PIC, it seems like he had lots of dual-instruction time (but yet not much in this make/model).

 

[PJB]

Yes and this is where the NTSB could do the community a huge favour by drilling into these things a little more. Are those near 150hrs tuition in Gyroplanes? Legacy from some other training? Some advanced lessons? Navigation? Over many years or is it a case that a 70 year old comes to learn to fly and is just finding it tough to learn a new skill or just doesn’t have it in him in the first place??

You can see how things change from the initial thoughts re: linked nose wheel. It is only by really getting into these thing and looking at student training records and by looking at the instructor involved you make change.

 

[Vance]

Certificate: Foreign; Sport Pilot
Age: 70, Male
Airplane Rating(s): None
Other Aircraft Rating(s): Gyroplane
Medical Certification: Sport Pilot None

When I tried to get a client an FAA Gyroplane Pilot Certificate who had a foreign gyroplane certificate my local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) told me I needed to give him a proficiency check ride and endorse his form 8710-11 to take a proficiency check ride with another CFI. He did not meet the standards and after inquiring with several other CFIs he tipped his gyroplane over in what in my opinion was a completely preventable way flying without a pilot certificate.

I have encountered Sport Pilot Gyroplane CFIs who did not know that they could not accept log book entries as proof of meeting the practical test standards.

The FAA requires that a CFI actually see someone fly the maneuvers to the PTS before they can endorse the applicant for their proficiency check ride and on a check ride the CFI must have the applicant demonstrate flight to the PTS.

In my opinion the description of the accident by the accident pilot shows a misunderstanding of the basics of how a gyroplane flies and how it should be landed. It appears to me from his description he was not instructed or forgot how to land with a quartering tail wind.



Would a more in depth report have value?

The NTSB has a limited budget and wants to give as much value as possible. There are very few people who would find an in depth report on an experimental aircraft accident valuable.

Most of the people who work for the NTSB have never flown a gyroplane and only recently has the NTSB welcomed input from experienced gyroplane pilots.

The NTSB is not directly connected with the FAA.

The NTSB makes recommendations for rule changes that are considered as a part of the FAA rule making process and provides data for the FAA to consider. The NTSBs recommendations are often not followed.



Is there oversight of training from the FAA?

I gave a client that I had not trained a 90 day extension on their solo sign off after flying with them and seeing that they met the practical test standards for solo flight.

I got a call from his FSDO when he had a mishap to see that I had tested him appropriately and made the correct log book entries demonstrating that there is some oversight of flight instructors by the FAA. If I had simply endorsed him based on log book entries I would probably have been required to have a check ride with a designated examiner to maintain my certificated flight instructor status.

If the FAA is consistent the accident pilot will be required to have a proficiency check ride to maintain their certificate. The FAA is moving toward more consistency amongst the FSDOs.

The FAA feels enforcement is a minor part of what the FAA feels is their role and only the most egregious violation of the FARs receives an enforcement action.

I am grateful for the information the NTSB provides and I spend a lot of time with the reports learning to be a better flight instructor.

I suspect the accident pilot was taught how to land correctly and somehow managed to forget what he had learned.

 

[WaspAir]

Yes and this is where the NTSB could do the community a huge favour by drilling into these things a little more. Are those near 150hrs tuition in Gyroplanes? Legacy from some other training? Some advanced lessons? Navigation? Over many years or is it a case that a 70 year old comes to learn to fly and is just finding it tough to learn a new skill or just doesn’t have it in him in the first place??

You can see how things change from the initial thoughts re: linked nose wheel. It is only by really getting into these thing and looking at student training records and by looking at the instructor involved you make change.

It is my understanding that the NTSB does indeed carefully read logbooks and training records, but will only report the results of that research if they deem it a significant contributing factor to the accident. If you don't see it reflected in the accident summary, that's an editorial choice by them based on their duties and priorities, not a failure to investigate.

 

[PJB]

Here is my view of how things are in the UK. To Vance's point on resource - which I understand and sort of agree with - the AAIB are also limited. Indeed they have said quite publicly in a forum of the Royal Aeronautical Society that there is limited value add in spending time and energy writing up reports on (their given example at the forum) "another PA28 running out of fuel"... or similar.

Yet (and again its exactly the same in the UK)

Most of the people who work for the NTSB have never flown a gyroplane and only recently has the NTSB welcomed input from experienced gyroplane pilots.

So who do they ask in the UK? Engineering wise they might speak with AutoGyro UK and they have a CAA test pilot qualified on gyroplane. That fulfils a role but its hardly got the level of granularity that might effect change is it? Plus look at the conflicts of interest. Take the accident that happened to G-CFIT - an MT-Sport where the brake pad material fell off the backing plate during taxi and the aircraft was rolled over as it avoided a ground obstacle. Now I know and everyone who has flown an MT over the last 10 years will know that this happens (brake material falls off) indeed most have probably had it happen AND had a new set of free pads as a result - I've had several sets!

Had that happened on a Boeing 737 there would be a huge investigation and a AD to get the things checked etc etc. Gyroplanes zip. The report was just a "record only" which means a 2 line narrative reported upon every 2 months.

How does that relate to this? Well its not so much an issue of enforcing anything - after all I don't think anyone is all that interested in punishments but they probably are interested in the detail that allows them to drill down to the detail that makes a difference. To be fair it likely makes no difference how badly the pilot flew that ended in his accident because he is unlikely to share the sky with me 1000's of miles away (well actually to be correct he will share the same sky... but we will be 1000s of miles away...) and perhaps the accident pilot can be thankful of that.

Students can do all kinds of things that can't be necessarily all put into the one basket but the point is an older guy struggling to get on does fit a common narrative - and I'm not saying that is the case here - but it is common enough issue in the UK that +70s are finding increased checks and balances to get insured as student solos with some insurers.

And I don't necessarily agree Wasp - the NTSB and AAIB will write what is factually able to be substantial evidence to the material cause of the accident. They can't drift into theorems - and after all if this happened in the UK there was a tendency for the student to have struggled then having smashed it to pieces the instructor is hardly likely to say to the investigating team "Oh yes I could see this coming a mile off... he was utterly useless and thats why I sent him solo, gave him a licence.... etc"

 

[Vance]

You can see how things change from the initial thoughts re: linked nose wheel. It is only by really getting into these thing and looking at student training records and by looking at the instructor involved you make change.

In his written report the accident pilot claims that he "gunned the engine a couple of times" and “this is a common technique used by gyro pilots.”

It is not a technique I have used as a gyroplane pilot to cushion a hard landing.

I continue to feel that the linked nose wheel may have been a contributing factor in this mishap.

The accident pilot claims to have full left rudder in when he slammed the nose wheel into the ground.

A free castering nose wheel may have made the difference between an untidy landing and this mishap.

Contrary to that thought; from the pictures the aircraft appears to have rolled onto its left side.

I was not there so I don't know what happened.