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.
I looked at all the posts you referenced and appears to me we have a different perspective on gyroplane flight training Phil.
Every time I fly I find value in the training I received years ago.
Every time I fly with a flight instructor I learn things to help me be a better pilot and better flight instructor.
To be fair I learn every time I fly.
I feel that todays training has value and many of today’s flight instructors are doing a great job. Some are not.
I work to instruct well today and learn to get better tomorrow.
I don’t recall dancing around any issues or being afraid to stick my head up.
I am at odds with some flight instructors on many levels. I see no reason to make that disagreement public. I communicate with them directly if I feel there is value in the discussion.
I feel most of the POHs we have today are much better than what we used to have and there is no question they could be better. I teach the procedures in the POH for whatever gyroplane I am training in.
If something I feel is missing I try to fill in the blanks.
If someone wants to charge for the work they do to improve flight instruction or make it organized I am happy to pay for it to become a better flight instructor. I feel that is part of the cost of being a professional flight instructor.
I have received more than my money’s worth with Gyropedia. Phil Harwood and I have different training philosophies and I can’t recall him ever sneering at that divergence. He has always been open to suggestions and thoughtful in his response.
All of the flight instructors I know are willing to share their knowledge and experience with me. I recently called Greg Spicola about a client I have with an American Ranger because he has so much more experience with the AR 1. He was generous with his time and shared his experience. A client of Greg’s has a Sport Copter II in my hangar. Greg lives 2,700 miles from me.
I feel navigation and flight planning are important skills for the sort of gyroplane flying I do. I fly near restricted air space and in busy complex airspace. I feel a greater emphasis should be placed on weather, navigation, flight planning, diversion, fuel management and emergencies by flight instructors in the USA than is called for in the practical test standards and by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
I prefer to focus on making a good thing better than imagining it is defective and throwing it away and starting over.
I am not a manufacturer so I can’t change the POH.
I am not the FAA so I can’t change the rules.
I am a flight instructor doing the best I can and trying to get better.
I have lost more than a few clients because of insurance costs.
I have lost several close friends to gyroplane accidents.
I want to play forward the value I found in my gyroplane instruction and learn and improve my flight instructing skills.
I want to learn how to prioritize my flight instruction to do the most to prevent gyroplane mishaps.
....it’s that helicopter thing in the blood 
