Chris Lord October 31, 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.
Edited to add:- thanks for those links Vance i just had a look and there isnt anything in there about the risks of vertical descents and the flat spiral. In the UK a few years ago we almost lost a pilot doing a spot landing contest who got muddled. I dont know if you've tried it but climb to 1500-2000ft AGL and bring the airspeed to zero on idle power and get the aircraft into a flat rotation - you see if you pull back stick at this point you spin even faster! Add power or lower the nose to recover. Quite fun once happy with it.
I am very familiar with the Cavalon spin in a power off vertical descent. Michael Burton showed it to me.
The gyroplane I train in, The Predator won't spin in a vertical descent and I don't know why.
I have no rudder authority in a power off vertical descent and even with 3kts of wind will weather vane into the wind.

My Garmin spins even though I don’t.

Like I said it is not in the practical test standards but I test it in every gyroplane I fly and teach in and train for it if it is appropriate.

I always demonstrate a vertical descent at least once during training and the recovery I demonstrate is to lower the nose.

Many flight instructors in the USA have their own syllabus as I do.

For me it is a rough outline that invariably gets modified when I discover what a challenge is for the particular client or how they learn.

My primary goal is to get them to pass their proficiency check ride or practical test and help them to develop as a safe pilot.

The practical test standards reduce the subjective evaluation of the applicant; either they meet the standards or they don’t.

When a client has an accident and my name is in their log book I get a call from the FAA and sometimes send them copies of my log book to see that I did in fact follow the rules and prepare them for their check ride and it lines up with the subjects log book.
 
Hey Vance - thats interesting. In the UK one specific element of our syllabus is called vertical descents but one issue was that if students try and hold a position stationery to a ground feature in light winds then the airspeed gets low and even to zero. Obviously the power is at idle anyway and with no propwash or airflow over the tailplane the gyro will sprial to the right (rotax 9 series) just like in my video. The recovery is with power to create propwash or lower the nose.

A Cavalon is much easier to loose rudder authority with than say a sport because of the smaller tailplane.

If you think this aircraft lost 600ft of height in 600m or 1800ft from 90knts i dont see that as an aircraft without the ability to hold its nose on the horizon...

Edited to add:- thanks for those links Vance i just had a look and there isnt anything in there about the risks of vertical descents and the flat spiral. In the UK a few years ago we almost lost a pilot doing a spot landing contest who got muddled. I dont know if you've tried it but climb to 1500-2000ft AGL and bring the airspeed to zero on idle power and get the aircraft into a flat rotation - you see if you pull back stick at this point you spin even faster! Add power or lower the nose to recover. Quite fun once happy with it.


Hi Phil:
Actually the high rate of descent and recovery is a recognition exercise and it is not expected that you go to zero indicated airspeed. In fact going to zero IAS may denote that you did not recognize high rate of descent in time. You only have to show that you went below minimum safe speed in the POH and that should start a high rate of descent. The spin your video shows is dependent on the model and its tail effectiveness. For instance, in the AR-1 you have enough authority at zero IAS to control this spin but in others you may not. But going to zero IAS is not what the PTS is asking for to demonstrate. In fact the way I read it, going to zero IAS for this maneuver, I would expect an examiner to fail or at least complain to the student because they went well past the point to do recognition and recovery from where high rate of descent initiation happens.
 
Last edited:
Hi Phil:
Actually the high rate of descent and recovery is a recognition exercise and it is not expected that you go to zero indicated airspeed. In fact going to zero IAS may denote that you did not recognize high rate of descent in time. You only have to show that you went below minimum safe speed in the POH and that should start a high rate of descent. The spin your video shows is dependent on the model and its tail effectiveness. For instance, in the AR-1 you have enough authority at zero IAS to control this spin but in others you may not. But going to zero IAS is not what the PTS is asking for to demonstrate. In fact the way I read it, going to zero IAS for this maneuver, I would expect an examiner to fail or at least complain to the student because they went well past the point to do recognition and recovery from where high rate of descent initiation happens.
It is interesting you would focus on this Abid.

I had this very discussion with the designated pilot examiner (DPE) for my CFI practical test.

There is no standard for high rate of descent and we eventually settled on 500 feet per minute after having responded before the VSI registered a descent.

This examiner was very specific on the recover procedure and wanted the nose back up before I put the power in. He felt I was training for all gyroplanes and some can have a problem if you add a lot of power with the nose down.

DPEs tend to be more consistent than Sport Pilot CFIs who often seem to have standards of their own.

The way to discontinue (fail) a Sport Pilot proficiency check ride is to not do clearing turns or descend below 600 feet except when taking off and landing.

Most of the standards are spelled out clearly.

How round a turn around a point is and how even S turns over a road are is not well defined.
 
It is interesting you would focus on this Abid.

I had this very discussion with the designated pilot examiner (DPE) for my CFI practical test.

There is no standard for high rate of descent and we eventually settled on 500 feet per minute after having responded before the VSI registered a descent.

This examiner was very specific on the recover procedure and wanted the nose back up before I put the power in. He felt I was training for all gyroplanes and some can have a problem if you add a lot of power with the nose down.

DPEs tend to be more consistent than Sport Pilot CFIs who often seem to have standards of their own.

The way to discontinue (fail) a Sport Pilot proficiency check ride is to not do clearing turns or descend below 600 feet except when taking off and landing.

Most of the standards are spelled out clearly.

How round a turn around a point is and how even S turns over a road are is not well defined.

I guess 500 FPM is just as good a number as any.

Turn around a point and S turns are fairly standard for most categories. A little subjective I know but there is clearly a point where subjective doesn't cut it and that is when its clearly to me a failure.
 
Guys i can follow the logic for practical test purposes and no one is suggesting that you "need" to demo/test/examine/pass or fail for any licence. Then just because it isnt in a skills test doesnt mean it cant happen. (I.e no point in finding the problem only to suggest he/she should jave recovered earlier!)

But we all agree it can happen, my video shows actually an old MT03 of 2007 vintage and it will certainly happen in a Cavalon. I think we are all in agreement in that.
 
Looks as if the thread as run its course. To end on a positive post.
I received a Text from Crissa Lord, Chris's wife.
She said to all of us.
"I received the checks.
Thanks again for all your help and for putting this to together for me.
It's a huge blessing and many more donated to it too. My estimate if that your $200,000 goal ended up being around $100,000 total Which helped me pay off our business debt. I am using this money for schooling for the kids and for aviation training down the road for them. So they continue in Chris's footsteps."
 
A local witness I reached out to last year (not the pilot on the highway) wrote me this:

"Yes then it was going around one area and I thought that it looked like it was going to land but then seemed to go back up then go back down."

She said that she saw this at about 1440, so it definitely was not the local news helicopter that arrived after 1500
.
In other words the witnesses don’t agree.
Vance, that's not at all how I read it.
That witness was describing a much earlier stage of the problem, and didn't see the nose-dive from ~150' AGL.
What she saw was most likely Chris's power/pitch couplings as he first attempted to stabilize N198LT over the shoreline.


_____
Multiple in/near trailer park witnesses reported that the engine was revved up just before hitting the pole.
I believe that was intentional pilot input, that he expected a throttle increase to cause a pitch up and arrest the nose-dive.
In my experience a Cavalon pitches nose down when power is added and pitches nose up when power is reduced.

Chris probably knew this.

You RAF probably pitches nose down when power is added and nose up when power is reduced Kolibri and you should know that.
I do know that, and I'm sure that Chris knew that for the Cavalon. However, you (again) misread me.
You also left out my following sentence "For Chris to expect such, I believe that he had already applied ample aft trim."
With a high angle of attack, the HTL pitching nose-down from additional power is only momentary, and then rotor thrust line and the tail surfaces take effect.

I wasn't (mis)describing the flight characteristics of high thrustline gyros, but rather trying to suss out why he added power during the nose-dive.
I.e., he seemed to think that adding power would (or might) begin to level him out with "already applied ample aft trim".
That adding power could turn a nose-dive into a nose-up mush, and in time. Why else would he do so?
He certainly didn't intentionally add power to steepen the dive.


My concern with this thread is some of the bizarre attempts to explain this accident will become accepted . . .
< ahem >

And not a word from you about AutoGyro's clamping the control cables, and the damage such could have caused.


There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
— Henry David Thoreau​

_____
Looks as if the thread as run its course.
Before we have established a likely cause to this tragedy?
John, I think the Lord and Brugger families deserve more than that.
No stone unturned is our duty to them, aside from our generous donations which you have nicely collected.

Regards,
Kolibri
 
...

Before we have established a likely cause to this tragedy?
John, I think the Lord and Brugger families deserve more than that.
No stone unturned is our duty to them, aside from our generous donations which you have nicely collected.

Regards,
Kolibri
Kolibri without the clamped cables or the attached point of those cables in the cabin. We will never know. We picked up aircraft crashes for insurances companies for about 6 or years to learn, investigate them on scene ourselves and make money.
We never did learn what happened, for sure, when the evidence burns up. It will always remain all of our speculation without real evidence.
That is just the reality of fires and melted metal.
 
All that said and done quite frankly an aircraft that has been flown multiple times in the day, then with a pax at circa 90knts and not a million miles away from VNE just 600m from the point it hits wires..... actually aside from the Mayday call you just have a regular CFIT.

We seem to have raced to suggest something failed but actually nothing solid to suggest that. All the rumour of the aircraft being a dog melts when details get asked.
 
Is there a point at which this never-ending picking over the entrails of this sad accident becomes somewhat insulting to the memory of the victims?

I respectfully submit that after 392 posts with almost no useful additional information revealed, it is time to give it a rest.

I know some folks like to play pretend accident investigator, and generally I'm in favour of discussion regarding accidents while they are fresh in the common memory, but when it starts to look like folks are getting enjoyment out of the endless substance-free speculation, I think it is getting a bit sick.

Yes, you are right. I don't have to read it, and from here on, I won't.

P.S This is not directed at you, PB.
I completely agree. Obviously there is great value in learning from accidents but unfortunately we have way too many threads that go on and on with nothing more than conjecture. Time to lock this one down...also.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top