Fatal - AutoGyro MTOSport D-MTMZ, near Hildesheim airfield, Germany 21 JUL 2021

That photo of the broken blade looks like it's been sat out in the weather for a few months in that state. The threads don't look like a nut has been recently removed. Sceptical that this is the actual part off the accident machine in question.
Actually it is the blade off the accident machine. That bolt is rusted through. This should have been caught on any inspection or even suspected on a pre-flight. I am surprised it was not a suspected item on a good pre-flight or on a regular inspection. That would have prompted a full inspection of the blade and perhaps these cracks would have been caught
 
Last edited:
Actually it is the blade off the accident machine. That bolt is rusted through. This should have been caught on any inspection or even suspected on a pre-flight. I am surprised it was not a suspected item on a good pre-flight or on a regular inspection. That would have prompted a full inspection of the blade and perhaps these cracks would have been caught
Are you saying the main rotor failed in this flight? Or are we still unsure of the events leading up to this horrid accident as the engine appears to be not at the accident?..
 
Are you saying the main rotor failed in this flight? Or are we still unsure of the events leading up to this horrid accident as the engine appears to be not at the accident?..

obviously the main rotor broke off. Obviously there is rusted through clamping bolt. When it broke off and in what sequence, I can’t be sure. We have to wait for that. It is fatigued just from the looks of it
 
Actually it is the blade off the accident machine. That bolt is rusted through. This should have been caught on any inspection or even suspected on a pre-flight. I am surprised it was not a suspected item on a good pre-flight or on a regular inspection. That would have prompted a full inspection of the blade and perhaps these cracks would have been caught

And of course I have been just told by someone that this photograph used by DULV in their bulletin is not the accident gyroplane rotor but they show it as an example of AutoGyro rotor per the text. So there you go. Someone who knows German should read the bulletin and really confirm.
 
Yep - the text stating it's just an example of an aluminum rotor was left out of the picture....

It says: (Die bilder sind nur exemplarisch abgebildet).

No wonder, we're all confused. It's even a Type2 Auto-Gyro rotor.

Regards,
Erik
 

Attachments

  • DULV.JPG
    DULV.JPG
    85.8 KB · Views: 4
I asked further up in the thread if it was an example and was advised that it was in fact the accident blade? If you roll back a bit SARAF says with conviction it’s the accident blade. ( I asked because I had my doubts) I am not great with a pc and could not google convert the German document

nothing is obvious to me …. I’m not the genius on the forum, if the prop blade came off ( it too would not be at the accident site) this would then lead us to re construct the events.

it’s unusual to not have the engine at the crash or a distance from it so my question goes to why did it come out? ( a prop blade coming off could do it) that said the initial post suggested it was coming in to land (50 metres above the ground) this would then possibly have the engine in an idle or very low throttle state ( i teach a zero throttle once we are at the decision point and putting the nose down using the stick to control the speed) so if the engine went to idle say 1800 rpm the prop was turning at say 900 it would vibrate but at 150 odd foot with only seconds to touch down I doubt the mount would have broken up and let go? The carbon prop is also very light so it’s not unreasonable to think the mount will hold for a few minutes at idle?Then add that if I’m understanding this thread the engine went up and into the rotor blade ? Do I understand this correctly ?

the next day I went to our machine pulled the spinner off and examined the prop and hub and all engine mounts in very thorough manner, this accident and as I say the high profile fastidious instructor is very concerning does Anyone know how old this MT was and how many flight hours it recorded ?
 
Last edited:
To me it looks like a knee-jerk reaction from the German ultralight organisation (DULV).
A rotorblade is sheared off - we're not completely sure how, so everybody check your rotors.

The propeller could have thrown a blade while taking off at full power - not neccessary while landing.

And I think it's very bad form for DULV to include such pictures (that have nothing to do with the accident)
while blaming the flight instructor/owner for bad maintenance...Without any evidence!

Regards,
Erik
 
On Facebook an Austrian instructor named Edwin Fine wrote that he took his instructor course with Thomas and the DULV bulletin talking about maintenance does not at all jive with what he saw and knew of Thomas. He says Thomas would always sell his training gyro at 400 hours and get a new one.
On the other side someone thought that this accident gyro had 4000 hours with original rotor. So these are diametrically opposing views. We will just have to wait for initial factual data. DULV seemed to have reacted in a very knee jerk fashion without stating any factual data about this particular accident.
 
Unfortunately, there is no serial number data for D-MTMZ on Rotorspot
which would help date the machine (German data-protection laws - no public data, I believe)

But it looked a very clean machine to my eyes. Possibly quite recent. The earliest photo I can find is from 2019.

I suspect it is an "MTO Classic", which I understand AutoGyro GmbH started remanufacturing, after their MTO 2017 proved not so popular.
Nice fairings on the rear fuselage and a black cover for the nose storage pod.
 
Last edited:
So, if I may summarize:
  • Nobody has any idea, what happened, why there was the engine and one of the rotor blades missing in one of the photographs.
  • Dulv, one of the organizations conducting the homologation procedures for German type ULs(LSAs, has issued a general warning extending to owners of ALL gyroplanes with extruded aluminium blades, listing each and every approved type, to stick to their mainenance schedule after the accident, which hints, that the maintenance schedule of the accident machine was not adhered to.
  • The pictures in DULV paper are not related to the accident machine (according to the text), whether they are related to the cause of the accident can only be assumed.
Some years ago the first rotor system was prone to crack on the last bolt fixture, which may have been caused by the sudden stress riser from no to thick mounting plate. In the aftermath of those occurances the rotor system 2 was developed, which has mounting plates which increase in thickness from the outside in. Additionally the TBOs were reduced. I have not heard anything since.

The accident pilot, Thomas Kiggen (he is the T in MTOsport), is an institution in Germany, probably having trained more pilots and instructors than anyone else. He usually sells his training machines after 400 hours in pristine condition.
For me all this is still a mystery, but I will not speculate on the limited data available.
Link to the full DULV document:
Translation above.

Kai.
 
Last edited:
And I think it's very bad form for DULV to include such pictures (that have nothing to do with the accident)
while blaming the flight instructor/owner for bad maintenance...Without any evidence!
And what evidence do you have that DULV issued their notice without any evidence?

It has not been challenged by AutoGyro and they have subsequently issued their own statement requesting all owner/operators/pilots ensure that their aircraft are maintained and operated within the Aircraft Maintenance Manual limits and requirements.

The full advice can be found on their website.

Miles
 
Kai - Thanks for the excellent post.
 
I'm not a German speaker so have to rely on Google translate and I'm not sure of the nuances of the language but can someone who may speak German give a view on this paragraph:-

Anlass: Nach dem Unfall eines Tragschraubers am 21.07.2021 in Hildesheim wurde am Unfallgerät durch die Unfalluntersuchung ein fragwürdiger Wartungszustand und eine widersprüchliche Betriebszeitenführung festgestellt. Diese Feststellungen stellen die Lufttüchtigkeit des Unfallgerätes dringend in Frage.
Which google translates to this:-

Occasion: After the accident of a gyrocopter on 21.07.2021 in Hildesheim, the accident device
due to the accident investigation, a questionable state of maintenance and a contradictory
Operational time management established. These findings represent the airworthiness of the accident device
urgently in question.
That translation suggests to me that there was questionable maintenance and airworthiness - and something that could be reasonable established [regardless of it being causal] in the timeframes. It isn't unknown for instructors to fly or even send students solo without checking the aircraft or paperwork fully...
 
Maybe MTO are just making sure they get in first at covering there butt.

wolfy
Wolfy this is an interesting comment, AG and a certain member of there staff are normally very vocal, considering this is so close to home for them in many ways? one has to wonder why they are not giving out information. They are quick to ram it down everyone’s throat they are the best with every certificate and the largest sales numbers. In talks with one of their manager’s a while back he certainly does not mince his words that AG products are far superior to any other OEM? ( and in typical arrogant fashion bad mouth the opposition products - I found that in bad taste) Yet when I ask him if his flown anything else the answer was welll you guessed it ….no

I would have thought by now they would have been able to offer some sort of explanation
 
And what evidence do you have that DULV issued their notice without any evidence?

It has not been challenged by AutoGyro and they have subsequently issued their own statement requesting all owner/operators/pilots ensure that their aircraft are maintained and operated within the Aircraft Maintenance Manual limits and requirements.

The full advice can be found on their website.

Miles
Hi Miles.
You are correct.
I was mostly peeved about the insult: DULV using those pictures while blaming the instructor.
Giving us an impression that may be wrong...
Regards,
Erik
 
Last edited:
If those two photos of the broken-off rotorblade cross section are of another set of rotorblades not involved in this "unfall"*, and instead, the accident gyroplane was impeccably maintained and that it was indeed a low-time gyroplane (since he would sell off the each machine after 400 hrs. of use), then what does that say about their rotorblades (that are hardly used) when "unfalls"* like this occur?

(*I learned a new-to-me word as a result of this crash. The German language word for an accident.)
 
Here is one thing that should be very obvious to anyone paying a lick of attention.

Extruded blades are risky.

Rotor blades constructed with a spar and glued skins seem to be the safest type of construction available.

If you have the money to afford these expensive gyros, then spend another couple thousand dollars and replace your questionable extruded blades with a set of blades from Gyrotechic or sportcopter, then you will have peace of mind.
 
I do not claim to be an expert, and have withheld making any comments, but ...

The pocket where the blade would be inserted and held at the hub is completely empty, suggesting to me that the main rotor departed the aircraft. Had something passed through it, I would think that a piece would have remained attached to the hub, with the possibility of bending at the attachment point, which does not appear to be bent. I suspect that the sudden and violent out of balance state would have caused the engine to break off the mounts and be tossed away from the aircraft.

There was a lengthy thread about AG's extruded blades in a past post.

 
We have lost two gyroplane pilots.

I would like to learn from the accident to help others have a safer gyroplane experience.

The inflight breakup of the gyroplane is concerning.

A picture of a rotor blade that appears to me to be unrelated to the accident aircraft is not helpful.

Most know that rotor blades and fasteners should be regularly inspected and the manufactures recommendations for maintenance should be followed.

Hopefully a thoughtful person will have access to the accident information and be able to gain an understanding of the accident sequence so that valuable lessons may be learned and shared.
 
Top