FAA Rotorcraft Gyroplane vs Helicopter Regulations

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
4,661
Location
Colorado front range
Aircraft
Bell 47G-3B-1 / A&S 18A / Phoebus C, etc.
Total Flight Time
stopped caring at 1000
JR I've always found this more confusing than helpful for gyros- we "should avoid the flow of FW aircraft until turning final" - does this mean we can or should do what it advises specifically helis to do in 9.a.4 ie closer in and same or opposite direction traffic? lower AGL left traffic? is it specific approval to fly opposite direction traffic?
Other than airports that have comments in the AF/D to specifically avoid certain direction traffic for noise avoidance or to avoid flying over housing how would you know what "local policy" is?
Reading between the lines, I have always interpreted this as reflecting a recognition that while helicopters don't typically need a runway, gyroplanes might need the very same strip of pavement (albeit less of it) that the airplanes are headed for, and that gyro speeds are unlikely to fit in well with the airplanes. Hence, avoid the typical pattern until you MUST join it on final to minimize conflicts and spacing problems. In practice, I fly lower and closer, inside the airplane pattern so that my time on each leg is comparable to the time spent higher, farther, and faster by airplanes, and sequencing is easier. Airplane pilots looking down toward the runway also have a better chance of spotting me that way than if I do some other avoidance method. I use an opposite side pattern only in my helicopter, not in my gyros.

Local policy is typically noise sensitivity driven, and if you don't find it in the chart supplement publication (formerly A/FD) you'll only learn it with a visit or a call in advance, or a complaint after you land.
 

Uncle Willie

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
287
Location
North Ridgeville, Ohio, USA
Aircraft
AutoGyro Calidus.
Total Flight Time
300
Helicopters get a pass because many of their missions, in fact, their whole reason for existence, is takeoff and landing in confined areas.
No such need for gyroplane operations in close proximity to people on the ground.
Powered Parachutes and Weight-Shift-Control Aircraft do not have any more need to be in close proximity to people on the ground than a Gyroplane does.
Yet, they also get the pass!
 

Brent Drake

Gyroplane Instructor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
2,059
Location
Shelbyville, Indiana
Aircraft
Pipers/Cessna's/gyro's
Total Flight Time
3,000+
There is a reason why the FAA call Gyros gyroplanes. It has plane in the wording. Just let that soak in and all starts to make sense.
 

greg spicola

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2004
Messages
1,101
Location
Brooksville FL
Aircraft
AR-1 /Dom 2 place/ Anything with Rotorblades/
Total Flight Time
2600+ in gyros 510 in helicopter
waspair I concur wholeheartedly with your explanation of rotorcraft gyroplane operations and were worded much more eloquently than I ever could ,
I have to explain this to my students on a regular basis and have also found that when entering in controlled airspace I'll be at sometimes with a little explanation after a certain approach and request to a landing I hear the music to my ears which is proceed as requested from the tower:yo:
Regards
Greg
 

EdL

Comm Rotor Gyro, ASEL
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
144
Location
Lakeway, TX
Aircraft
Magni M-16, Piper Warrior
Total Flight Time
1300
“’There is a reason why the FAA call Gyros gyroplanes. It has plane in the wording. Just let that soak in and all starts to make sense.”’

Very true. As a relatively new gyro pilot who loves the flight characteristics of these flying machines, I personally find it easy to think they’re “90% helicopters” - but they’re not. Truth is, they’re closer in most phases of flight to a Cub or other low/slow STOL fixed-wing, IMHO. And the Bensen types are pretty close in performance to “other” “ultralights”, like a Kolb Mark III or something, again IMHO.

With that frame of reference I personally find it easier to understand the “confusion”/silence in the regs, how I should behave in the pattern, etc. so as to fit in with the rest of the flyers - and at least not worsen the image of gyros among our flying peers. As a fixed-wing pilot for the past 30 years, that’s probably an easier perspective for me to adopt.

Just me...

/Ed
 
Last edited:

Kolibri

FW and Gyros
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
1,636
Location
Wyoming
Aircraft
Cessna 152, 172, 172RG, 177, 206 -- Piper 180 -- RV-7A -- Calidus -- RAF2000 -- Sport Copter II and
Total Flight Time
1000+
From a zippy thread about exactly this subject.

According to its own self-description, Advisory Circular 90-66B only "
recommends" traffic patterns.
It hasn't the force of law as the FAR does.

Also, avoiding the flow of fixed-wing traffic is only required in the FAR for helicopters, as corroborated by screenshots
of the PTS for both classes of rotorcraft.

Regards,
Kolibri


AC 90-66B.png




Helicopter vs. Gyroplane PTS traffic patterns.png
 

EdL

Comm Rotor Gyro, ASEL
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
144
Location
Lakeway, TX
Aircraft
Magni M-16, Piper Warrior
Total Flight Time
1300
Per the AC:

“12.1.3 In the case of a gyrocopter approaching to land, the gyrocopter pilot should avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft before making a turn to final for the runway in use to avoid turning in front of another aircraft on final approach.”

Seems to me, that influences “2. Complies with proper traffic pattern procedures” and “3. Maintains proper spacing from other traffic”

If something happens, good luck telling the FAA guy you don’t think the AC doesn’t have the force of law. I’ve dealt with Federal Regulations for the better part of the past few decades and documents such as the ACs are seen as how the federal agency owning the regs understands their interpretation.

I recommend deferring to a DPE for the interpretation of that AC statement.

/Ed
 

Vance

Gyroplane CFI
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
16,173
Location
Nipomo,California
Aircraft
Givens Predator
Total Flight Time
2400+ in rotorcraft
I concur Ed; it appears to me two and three are referenced in AC 90-66.

I feel one also applies to AC 90-66.

It is listed in the references so the flight instructor and the applicant know where to look because they are required to demonstrate a knowledge of the AC.

I feel that six makes flying a pattern at five hundred feet above the ground when the pattern altitude is one thousand above the ground not meet the practical test standards.
 

EdL

Comm Rotor Gyro, ASEL
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
144
Location
Lakeway, TX
Aircraft
Magni M-16, Piper Warrior
Total Flight Time
1300
Agree. And the PTS actually cites the AC as a reference for the standards.

Oops - looks like you noted that.

/Ed
 

Kolibri

FW and Gyros
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
1,636
Location
Wyoming
Aircraft
Cessna 152, 172, 172RG, 177, 206 -- Piper 180 -- RV-7A -- Calidus -- RAF2000 -- Sport Copter II and
Total Flight Time
1000+
In my opinion, it is technically impossible with any close gyro pattern to fulfill the stated purpose of AC 90-66B 12.1.3.
Any turn to base from close pattern is at odds with
"to avoid turning in front of another aircraft on final approach".

______
EdL, you're now disagreeing with yourself:
Regards,
Kolibri
 

EdL

Comm Rotor Gyro, ASEL
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
144
Location
Lakeway, TX
Aircraft
Magni M-16, Piper Warrior
Total Flight Time
1300
Kolibri;n1142166 said:
[U
EdL, you're now disagreeing with yourself:



Regards,
Kolibri





Yes, I fully recognized when you made your earlier post that you would see that as a contradiction. It is not. The AC is not TECHNICALLY regulatory yet good luck trying to talk the FAA out of it.

Not sure why you waste so much energy on trying to argue with people instead of actually helping improve gyro flying but, hey, it’s a free country. Again, IMHO, your credibility on things that really matter suffers. Your choice...
 

Kolibri

FW and Gyros
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
1,636
Location
Wyoming
Aircraft
Cessna 152, 172, 172RG, 177, 206 -- Piper 180 -- RV-7A -- Calidus -- RAF2000 -- Sport Copter II and
Total Flight Time
1000+
Advisory Circulars (ACs) are the FAA's way of explaining their regulations.
They're broken down into sections which generally match up with the FARs they're interpreting. Some ACs may rival the lengths of handbooks, but they are much more narrowly focused, generally dealing with a single topic and often much easier to understand than the legislation they're interpreting.

Advisory Circulars are informational documents produced by the Federal Aviation Administration to inform and guide institutions and individuals within the aviation industry, as well as the general public. Advisory Circulars are intended to be informative in nature and not regulatory; however, many times they describe actions or advice that the FAA expects to be implemented or followed.

Advisory circular (AC) refers to a type of publication offered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to provide guidance for compliance with airworthiness regulations, pilot certification, operational standards, training standards, and any other rules within the 14 CFR Aeronautics and Space Title. They define acceptable means, but not the only means, of accomplishing or showing compliance with airworthiness regulations. Generally informative in nature, Advisory Circulars are neither binding nor regulatory; yet some have the effect of de facto standards or regulations.


The only way to "avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic" on final is either to have joined in the flow on downwind and remained in the flow, or land on a taxiway or different runway.
To not be a part of the flow before final, and then land on the same runway as fixed-wing risks turning in front of them. It's a paradox.

Given the garbled and self-contradictory nature of AC 90-66B 12.1.3, I think a gyro pilot who acted wisely and competently would prevail with the FAA, especially since he's broken no FAR.

Not only does AC 90-66B 12.1.3 not explain or illuminate any FAR, it does not even suggest how to comply with itself.
 

NoWingsAttached

Unobtainium Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
4,849
Location
Columbia, SC
Aircraft
Air Command Tandem w/ Arrow 100hp; GyroBee w/ Hirth 65hp; Air Command Tandem w/ Yamaha 150hp
Total Flight Time
>350
If Chris Burgess reads this I invite him to comment. We routinely did air taxi operations as would a helicopter, including low fly-by over taxi ways both along the length, as well as angular crossing overs. This was 15 years ago, and in discussions with other CFIs recently it was told to me that this is considered to be an older interpretation of the regs and that in the most recent interpretations gyroplanes are no longer permitted to do air taxi over the taxiways. Bummer. That is just stupid.

To me it has always been the safest way for me to avoid incoming jets, and using the taxiway for air taxi (low fly-by) while avoiding over-flying ground traffic puts me in a place where I don't have to worry about getting run over while giving me the best vantage point to assess traffic just before turning a short 180° - which amounts to turning from downwind to base to final all in one swoop with perhaps throttle shut completely to idle and thus steep descent - is done with as much safety as humanly possible.

I have demonstrated at Wrens that I can safely and routinely do a 180 at 20 ft AGL within a ~20 ft radius, losing only about 3 ft of altitude with my 600lb tandem Air Command, Skywheels rotorblades, and 145 HP Yamaha YG4. Walk in the park. Let's see a FW do this. Helicopter? NP.

When FW pilots see a helicopter do an air taxi they think nothing of it. No one rings up the FAA and files a complaint. But when gyrocopter does it they get their panties in a bunch and call the FAA to complain and the problems start.

At untowered CJT when I spoke with the local Atlanta FAA 10 years ago they agreed it would be acceptable and safest to use the taxiway for take offs and landings when FW traffic was present, at my discretion and avoiding all other ground traffic, after I related the incident below.

Here's a story that's way too long but I am going to relate it anyway to make a point. I was flying a regular pattern, running low on fuel, and calling out each leg of my flight as I was downwind, turning base, and then final announcing experimental gyroplane on slow steep descent from 200 ft.

At one point halfway downwind a guy radioed that he was approaching (non-towered AP) from the north, 10 miles out. I tried to make radio contact with the pilot but he failed to answer as I was making my turn to final. I could not pick him up visually and heard not a peep since he called a ten mile approach. I had no idea what he was flying, how fast he was approaching, but at the late time of day it was almost always single engine slow moving FW.

Since I was unsure if I had enough fuel for another go-around (a small single seat Honey Bee), and it seemed like I had plenty of time before the plane was close enough to enter the pattern I decided to finish my intended turn to final and land, calling it out on the radio. As I passed through ~60 ft AGL a twin Seneca going very fast flew UNDER me and landed from a straight-in approach. Not nice.

Right after that incident the airport manager and members of the local EAA (one guy had a Helicycle) and I all agreed that it would be acceptable for me to use the taxi way for take offs and landings when FW traffic was present and the taxiway was clear. Everyone agreed that it made sense, it helped relieve FW pilots of stress trying to locate the tiny gyro while we were in the pattern, etc., and it was a great way to keep separation at all times.

I never had a single complaint - until one guy who had bullied me on several occasions while we were both operating our aircraft on the field at the same time took a photo of me in my gyro one day and sent it on to be handed to the FAA with a complaint that I had over flown ground traffic. In fact, I brought to the attention of the investigating parties that when you took a direct measurement of the photo of my gyro over the airplane that had just landed and was taxiing to the hangers, my gyro would have to be 28 feet long in order to have been directly over the FW. Case closed, that was the end of it.

Regs and interpretations should always be about safety first, not getting into a pissin match about whether or not a gyro can operate as a helicopter or a fixed wing. I believe the FAA in general recognizes this, and my dealings with them have always been cordial and fair.

I spoke with a local FAA rep yesterday since gyro traffic is picking up at my untowered CUB airport with a new AR1, a Tango, and my own Air Commands, and I want to be able to advise my fellow rotorcraft pilots what is expected at this facility so as not to ruffle any more feathers than we need to and to be able to depend on the local FAA to back us up should a complaint be filed.

Most of the FAA folks don't really understand gyroplanes. The gentleman I spoke with yesterday was completely unaware that not only can a gyro land vertically in an emergency, but that there is an entire breed of gyrocopters designed to routinely land vertically (Monarch Butterfly), or that a helicopter in autorotation lands exactly the same way as any gyroplane in normal flight. He admitted he was a FW pilot with little understanding of gyrocopters.

Gyrocopters sit on the runway for long periods of time pre-rotating for take off. That is more like a helicopter than a fixed wing. This extends exposure to incoming traffic which may not be aware of its presence.

Gyrocopters are much smaller than fixed wing, and are harder to pick up visually on the runway and in the air. This increases danger, much the same way a motorcyle is not noticed as easily as a car or truck and can be overlooked.

90% of gyrocopters approach to land very steeply and slowly, from any direction into the wind, and come to a full stop immediately upon touchdown - exactly the same way that helicopters do, and nothing like a FW. 90% of gyros land and stop with very little ground roll, if any at all to speak of. That is like a helicopter, and FW are nothing like the typical gyro landing in calm conditions with no head wind. You will never see a FW land on a busy RW and come to a full stop immediately, but all rotocraft with the exception of the eurotub breed do so 90% of the time.

The only thing a gyrocopter and a FW have in common is an extended roll out to take off. After that a gyrocopter operates exactly like a helicopter with but one exception: gyrocopters do not hover in place under power and maintain altitude or climb vertically. This should not be that much of a difference in safety considerations for operating from taxiways doing low-speed, low altitude air taxi ops, since the crux of safety in this case depends not on hover nor take off but rather how the machine handles in the air, and lands and stops upon touchdown. A FW has no way to turn very sharp and slow in the air or stop immediately upon landing, and is a danger to everything around it and itself until it can be braked and stopped.

More like a helicopter than a FW a gyrocopter can turn in an extremely small radius, at a very slow speed, to avoid collison.

FW aircraft stall. Gyrocopters do not. That is a huge difference.

Gyrocopters can and do land and operate - other than hover and vertical climb - just like a helicopter, not a FW. To lump gyrocopters into the same category as FW and force them to operate only from the runway when a safely separated and unoccupied taxiway is available increases the possibility for collisions and close encounters.

I am preaching to the choir?

For now I am not flying low over the taxiway, and not using the taxi for landings or take-off. I don't like it, because there is a lot of jet traffic here and it is ignorantly ridiculous that I be forced to land on the runway just because someone thinks I turn, land, stall and stop like an airplane when in fact I do not and do so like a helicopter. A taxiway is for taxiing, and I can't even do a helicopter style air taxi? C'mon now, we all know this is ridiculous.

But that is the interpretation of the regs I got from the local FAA yesterday. I have to operate under strict FW regs, even though there there is nothing about building nor flying my gyroplanes that even remotely resembles anything like a fixed wing.

I am supposed to circle back next week with him though.

Gyrocopters have been around longer than helicopters. You'd think that by now the FAA would have a clear picture of what is safest for operating in the same airspace as much larger, faster, and unstoppable aircraft like a Gulfstream or a Citation, wouldn't you? I mean, Amelia Earhart landed her Pitcairn at this airport in the 1930's. It's about time the FAA clearly assigned specific rules and regs written for gyrocopters that fit this growing segment of air traffic, once and for all. And that should include keeping us out of the way of FW traffic by letting us sensibly use the taxiways for air taxiing, take-offs and landings when the taxiway is clear.

I had always preferred the term gyroplane until now. After reading the previous comments above I have come to realize this term is actually detrimental to our cause with the FAA and their mindset regarding our unique aircraft.

Gyrocopter pilots of America unite!
 
Last edited:

Vance

Gyroplane CFI
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
16,173
Location
Nipomo,California
Aircraft
Givens Predator
Total Flight Time
2400+ in rotorcraft
If Chris Burgess reads this I invite him to comment. We routinely did air taxi operations as would a helicopter, including low fly-by over taxi ways both along the length, as well as angular crossing overs. This was 15 years ago, and in discussions with other CFIs recently it was told to me that this is considered to be an older interpretation of the regs and that in the most recent interpretations gyroplanes are no longer permitted to do air taxi over the taxiways. Bummer. That is just stupid.

To me it has always been the safest way for me to avoid incoming jets, and using the taxiway for air taxi (low fly-by) while avoiding over-flying ground traffic puts me in a place where I don't have to worry about getting run over while giving me the best vantage point to assess traffic just before turning a short 180° - which amounts to turning from downwind to base to final all in one swoop with perhaps throttle shut completely to idle and thus steep descent - is done with as much safety as humanly possible.

I have demonstrated at Wrens that I can safely and routinely do a 180 at 20 ft AGL within a ~20 ft radius, losing only about 3 ft of altitude with my 600lb tandem Air Command, Skywheels rotorblades, and 145 HP Yamaha YG4. Walk in the park. Let's see a FW do this. Helicopter? NP.

When FW pilots see a helicopter do an air taxi they think nothing of it. No one rings up the FAA and files a complaint. But when gyrocopter does it they get their panties in a bunch and call the FAA to complain and the problems start.

At untowered CJT when I spoke with the local Atlanta FAA 10 years ago they agreed it would be acceptable and safest to use the taxiway for take offs and landings when FW traffic was present, at my discretion and avoiding all other ground traffic, after I related the incident below.

I never had a single complaint - until one guy who had bullied me on several occasions while we were both operating our aircraft on the field at the same time took a photo of me in my gyro one day and sent it on to be handed to the FAA with a complaint that I had over flown ground traffic. In fact, I brought to the attention of the investigating parties that when you took a direct measurement of the photo of my gyro over the airplane that had just landed and was taxiing to the hangers, my gyro would have to be 28 feet long in order to have been directly over the FW. Case closed, that was the end of it.

Regs and interpretations should always be about safety first, not getting into a pissin match about whether or not a gyro can operate as a helicopter or a fixed wing. I believe the FAA in general recognizes this, and my dealings with them have always been cordial and fair.

I spoke with a local FAA rep yesterday since gyro traffic is picking up at my untowered CUB airport with a new AR1, a Tango, and my own Air Commands, and I want to be able to advise my fellow rotorcraft pilots what is expected at this facility so as not to ruffle any more feathers than we need to and to be able to depend on the local FAA to back us up should a complaint be filed.

Most of the FAA folks don't really understand gyroplanes. The gentleman I spoke with yesterday was completely unaware that not only can a gyro land vertically in an emergency, but that there is an entire breed of gyrocopters designed to routinely land vertically (Monarch Butterfly), or that a helicopter in autorotation lands exactly the same way as any gyroplane in normal flight. He admitted he was a FW pilot with little understanding of gyrocopters.

Gyrocopters sit on the runway for long periods of time pre-rotating for take off. That is more like a helicopter than a fixed wing. This extends exposure to incoming traffic which may not be aware of its presence.

Gyrocopters are much smaller than fixed wing, and are harder to pick up visually on the runway and in the air. This increases danger, much the same way a motorcyle is not noticed as easily as a car or truck and can be overlooked.

90% of gyrocopters approach to land very steeply and slowly, from any direction into the wind, and come to a full stop immediately upon touchdown - exactly the same way that helicopters do, and nothing like a FW. 90% of gyros land and stop with very little ground roll, if any at all to speak of. That is like a helicopter, and FW are nothing like the typical gyro landing in calm conditions with no head wind. You will never see a FW land on a busy RW and come to a full stop immediately, but all rotocraft with the exception of the eurotub breed do so 90% of the time.

The only thing a gyrocopter and a FW have in common is an extended roll out to take off. After that a gyrocopter operates exactly like a helicopter with but one exception: gyrocopters do not hover in place under power and maintain altitude or climb vertically. This should not be that much of a difference in safety considerations for operating from taxiways doing low-speed, low altitude air taxi ops, since the crux of safety in this case depends not on hover nor take off but rather how the machine handles in the air, and lands and stops upon touchdown. A FW has no way to turn very sharp and slow in the air or stop immediately upon landing, and is a danger to everything around it and itself until it can be braked and stopped.

More like a helicopter than a FW a gyrocopter can turn in an extremely small radius, at a very slow speed, to avoid collison.

FW aircraft stall. Gyrocopters do not. That is a huge difference.

Gyrocopters can and do land and operate - other than hover and vertical climb - just like a helicopter, not a FW. To lump gyrocopters into the same category as FW and force them to operate only from the runway when a safely separated and unoccupied taxiway is available increases the possibility for collisions and close encounters.

I am preaching to the choir?

For now I am not flying low over the taxiway, and not using the taxi for landings or take-off. I don't like it, because there is a lot of jet traffic here and it is ignorantly ridiculous that I be forced to land on the runway just because someone thinks I turn, land, stall and stop like an airplane when in fact I do not and do so like a helicopter. A taxiway is for taxiing, and I can't even do a helicopter style air taxi? C'mon now, we all know this is ridiculous.

But that is the interpretation of the regs I got from the local FAA yesterday. I have to operate under strict FW regs, even though there there is nothing about building nor flying my gyroplanes that even remotely resembles anything like a fixed wing.

I am supposed to circle back next week with him though.

Gyrocopters have been around longer than helicopters. You'd think that by now the FAA would have a clear picture of what is safest for operating in the same airspace as much larger, faster, and unstoppable aircraft like a Gulfstream or a Citation, wouldn't you? I mean, Amelia Earhart landed her Pitcairn at this airport in the 1930's. It's about time the FAA clearly assigned specific rules and regs written for gyrocopters that fit this growing segment of air traffic, once and for all. And that should include keeping us out of the way of FW traffic by letting us sensibly use the taxiways for air taxiing, take-offs and landings when the taxiway is clear.

I had always preferred the term gyroplane until now. After reading the previous comments above I have come to realize this term is actually detrimental to our cause with the FAA and their mindset regarding our unique aircraft.

Gyrocopter pilots of America unite!
A delay on the runway for rotor spool up is nothing like helicopter operations Greg.

A Helicopter taxies into place and takes off.

The rotor is already at flight rpm.

A gyroplane should not be approaching to land from any direction into the wind.

I would not want people taxiing at 20kts on the taxiways with anything.

It seems unlikely to me you can hover taxi your gyroplane at a fast walking speed.

At a busy non-towered airports the taxiways may be too busy for landing particularly because transient pilots would not be expecting it and would not be listening for radio calls to land on the taxi way.
 

Vance

Gyroplane CFI
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
16,173
Location
Nipomo,California
Aircraft
Givens Predator
Total Flight Time
2400+ in rotorcraft
If Chris Burgess reads this I invite him to comment. We routinely did air taxi operations as would a helicopter, including low fly-by over taxi ways both along the length, as well as angular crossing overs. This was 15 years ago, and in discussions with other CFIs recently it was told to me that this is considered to be an older interpretation of the regs and that in the most recent interpretations gyroplanes are no longer permitted to do air taxi over the taxiways. Bummer. That is just stupid.

To me it has always been the safest way for me to avoid incoming jets, and using the taxiway for air taxi (low fly-by) while avoiding over-flying ground traffic puts me in a place where I don't have to worry about getting run over while giving me the best vantage point to assess traffic just before turning a short 180° - which amounts to turning from downwind to base to final all in one swoop with perhaps throttle shut completely to idle and thus steep descent - is done with as much safety as humanly possible.

I have demonstrated at Wrens that I can safely and routinely do a 180 at 20 ft AGL within a ~20 ft radius, losing only about 3 ft of altitude with my 600lb tandem Air Command, Skywheels rotorblades, and 145 HP Yamaha YG4. Walk in the park. Let's see a FW do this. Helicopter? NP.

When FW pilots see a helicopter do an air taxi they think nothing of it. No one rings up the FAA and files a complaint. But when gyrocopter does it they get their panties in a bunch and call the FAA to complain and the problems start.

At untowered CJT when I spoke with the local Atlanta FAA 10 years ago they agreed it would be acceptable and safest to use the taxiway for take offs and landings when FW traffic was present, at my discretion and avoiding all other ground traffic, after I related the incident below.

Here's a story that's way too long but I am going to relate it anyway to make a point. I was flying a regular pattern, running low on fuel, and calling out each leg of my flight as I was downwind, turning base, and then final announcing experimental gyroplane on slow steep descent from 200 ft.

At one point halfway downwind a guy radioed that he was approaching (non-towered AP) from the north, 10 miles out. I tried to make radio contact with the pilot but he failed to answer as I was making my turn to final. I could not pick him up visually and heard not a peep since he called a ten mile approach. I had no idea what he was flying, how fast he was approaching, but at the late time of day it was almost always single engine slow moving FW.

Since I was unsure if I had enough fuel for another go-around (a small single seat Honey Bee), and it seemed like I had plenty of time before the plane was close enough to enter the pattern I decided to finish my intended turn to final and land, calling it out on the radio. As I passed through ~60 ft AGL a twin Seneca going very fast flew UNDER me and landed from a straight-in approach. Not nice.

Right after that incident the airport manager and members of the local EAA (one guy had a Helicycle) and I all agreed that it would be acceptable for me to use the taxi way for take offs and landings when FW traffic was present and the taxiway was clear. Everyone agreed that it made sense, it helped relieve FW pilots of stress trying to locate the tiny gyro while we were in the pattern, etc., and it was a great way to keep separation at all times.
Gyrocopter pilots of America unite!
Part of the value I find flying a traffic pattern is so I have a good look for straight in traffic while on downwind before turning base.

In my opinion turning in front of a twin Seneca is probably not a good idea.

Having been alerted that there could be a conflict by his radio call I would have been on high alert and carefully scanning the centerline before turning base.

I feel looking for traffic before turning base and final is an important part of landing even at a towered field.

It is easy enough to extend my downwind to make room for landing traffic.
 

Smack

Re-member?
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
621
Location
Georgetown
Aircraft
Kitfox IV / F1 Rocket / Magni M-16 / Beech 18
Total Flight Time
500+
Greg, since he admits he doesn't know, maybe offer to take the FAA man for a ride and SHOW him ?
Brian
 

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
4,661
Location
Colorado front range
Aircraft
Bell 47G-3B-1 / A&S 18A / Phoebus C, etc.
Total Flight Time
stopped caring at 1000
A proper air taxi is done in a helicopter to produce minimum downwash for other aircraft and ground vehicles/personnel nearby while providing expeditious movement from one part of the airport to another (it makes significantly less downwash than a hover taxi, and with surface taxi being impossible for skid gear helicopters, it can be the least disturbing mode). It is done at a speed providing effective translational lift and usually significantly higher than a hover taxi. It can be done safely because a helicopter pilot can do a quick-stop from that condition very rapidly, using cyclic and collective, with no advance warning or planning, terminating in a hover with no turning or lateral movement at all, and ending with no forward speed but retaining the ability to sidestep, backstep, or whatever other movement might be appropriate immediately from that hover condition. It is considered a ground operation for a helicopter, even though one is technically in flight while doing it.

The minimum wash condition for a gyroplane to taxi is with the rotor stopped and the wheels on the ground. Gyroplanes cannot do a helicopter quick-stop with recovery to a hover. Flight at low altitude along a taxiway is a flight operation for a gyroplane, not a ground operation. I would not want to see a gyroplane pilot trying mustering moves to get around an airport, attempting to simulate a helicopter's capability.

I do not object to operating a gyroplane from a taxiway if it's fine with other airport users and managers. However, I remain of the view that there is no such thing as air taxi in a gyroplane. It necessarily involves a take-off, a flight, and a landing.
 
Last edited:

rsalazar

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
51
Location
X26, FL
Aircraft
R22/R44/R66/HillerUH12B/SkyBlazer/Cavalon/MTOSport/Calidus/Tercel/AR1/ELA C07S, Scorpion/AG915/Brako
This is the new AC-90-66B CHG1




12.1.3In the case of a gyroplane approaching to land, the gyroplane pilot operating in the traffic pattern when landing on the runway may fly a pattern similar to the fixed-wing aircraft traffic pattern but at a lower altitude (500 feet AGL) and closer to the runway. This runway pattern may be on the opposite side of the runway from fixed-wing traffic only when airspeed requires it or for practice power-off landings and if local policy permits. Landings not on the runway must avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic.

Both classes of rotorcraft can be expected to practice power-off landings (autorotation), which will involve a very steep angle of approach and high rate of descent (1,500 to 2,000 feet/minute).


And there is a new one that should be published at the end of this year
 
Last edited:

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
4,661
Location
Colorado front range
Aircraft
Bell 47G-3B-1 / A&S 18A / Phoebus C, etc.
Total Flight Time
stopped caring at 1000
Gratifying to see the FAA endorse the practice I've been advocating for many years . . ..
 
Top