FATAL - Cavalon G-CKYT, near Avoch, Scotland, UK 12 NOV 2020

[PJB]

We were quite often asked to orbit for two minutes over the water by the Tower at Inverness before turning base.

You can always decline and say you are unable to comply if it left you vulnerable, i.e. unable to glide clear of water in the event of a problem. Suggests the controller is/was unaware of the potential issues actually.

 

[loftus]

Well it may be an achievement ...but it certainly is not clever like most people who just have to do shit for admiration, they risk the lives of rescue personel and resources if they fuk it up.... the compress ( I have flown one ONCE) is not designed as a globe trotting aircraft and the man was irresponsible at the very least ....

Now I doubt he was a student pilot on a solo ?

This type of dilemma always comes up with any type of out of the ordinary adventure or act of exploration. Crossing the ocean, Ricky de Agrela's round the world trike trip, exploring the Amazon, or going to the moon. I don't have the answers, but I guess the question is why even fly if you don't have to? Friends (and my wife) ask me that frequently. One of my main objectives was to be able to fly as safely as possible over water because I want to be able fly the wetlands of Florida, and the islands of the Bahamas and the Caribbean, so the switch to a twin engine fixed wing aircraft seemed to be the best answer. If there was such a thing as a twin engine gyro I'd be first in line.

 

[XXavier]

Beautiful and noble things are always difficult. And sweet grapes use to be within the reach of few. The rest may say, as the fox, Ὄμφακές εἰσιν

 

[Greg Vos]

This type of dilemma always comes up with any type of out of the ordinary adventure or act of exploration. Crossing the ocean, Ricky de Agrela's round the world trike trip, exploring the Amazon, or going to the moon. I don't have the answers, but I guess the question is why even fly if you don't have to? Friends (and my wife) ask me that frequently. One of my main objectives was to be able to fly as safely as possible over water because I want to be able fly the wetlands of Florida, and the islands of the Bahamas and the Caribbean, so the switch to a twin engine fixed wing aircraft seemed to be the best answer. If there was such a thing as a twin engine gyro I'd be first in line.

Well if flying over water is your norm your equipment and safety gear, survival gear is normal part of your ops and pre flight, the odd water crossing seldom attracts the same level of preparation and risk expectation.

as for the guys who wish to break records and gain traction in the world record books they normally have a support team and have done meticulous planning.... and have invested a fortune in planning.
Your question why do we need to fly? Well flight when the rules are followed and an aircraft is used for its purpose of design and within its envelope actually is very safe.

 

[Tyger]

The manual available online suggests a 3:1 glide. That translates to 2200 feet altitude to cover 1.25 miles (with no margin for headwind, subsiding air, or maneuvers to land).

Thanks, but I wasn't really asking about what the manual says, I was asking what altitudes TG and others crossing over to the "training area" were looking at.
As far as a headwind, I would think you would either keep going or turn back, depending, and I was also assuming the first goal in this situation is just to get close enough to swim to shore, if one has to. As Phil has pointed out, it's the exposure time in cold water that becomes the biggest issue.

 

[JETLAG03]

This type of dilemma always comes up with any type of out of the ordinary adventure or act of exploration. Crossing the ocean, Ricky de Agrela's round the world trike trip, exploring the Amazon, or going to the moon. I don't have the answers, but I guess the question is why even fly if you don't have to? Friends (and my wife) ask me that frequently. One of my main objectives was to be able to fly as safely as possible over water because I want to be able fly the wetlands of Florida, and the islands of the Bahamas and the Caribbean, so the switch to a twin engine fixed wing aircraft seemed to be the best answer. If there was such a thing as a twin engine gyro I'd be first in line.

https://www.facebook.com/fusioncopter/photos/3310864715708344

 

[TyroGyro]

Tyger, About 1500 ft, IIRC. A calculated risk.

Rotors coming off, maybe once in 5000 machines....
Prop coming off, maybe once in 5000 machines....
Engine failure over water, maybe once in 5000 machines....

 

[loftus]

Well if flying over water is your norm your equipment and safety gear, survival gear is normal part of your ops and pre flight, the odd water crossing seldom attracts the same level of preparation and risk expectation.

as for the guys who wish to break records and gain traction in the world record books they normally have a support team and have done meticulous planning.... and have invested a fortune in planning.
Your question why do we need to fly? Well flight when the rules are followed and an aircraft is used for its purpose of design and within its envelope actually is very safe.

Not disagreeing with you, I am in support of doing things right, but shit happens even when rules are followed.
Just that the issue of wasting search and rescue dollars spent and / or wasted comes up in any non-essential human endeavor whether it's recreational flying, skiing, scuba diving or attempts at the record book. Just defining what's essential can be troublesome

 

[loftus]

View attachment 1149782

https://www.facebook.com/fusioncopter/photos/3310864715708344

Wow. I want one. How well does it fly on one engine? I went to the website, it's not clear if this is just a concept or a flying model.

 

[PJB]

Looks like fusioncopter have both ends of the market covered! @Tyro.... how well was ditching covered?

 

[JETLAG03]

Wow. I want one. How well does it fly on one engine? I went to the website, it's not clear if this is just a concept or a flying model.

I read elsewhere that ANY twin engined craft with one engine out will only manage to fly as far as the crash site

 

[Doug Riley]

Leigh, regrading your post #19: Do you know of evidence of a pushover in this case?

I don't know this model of gyro but, in general, the contemporary Euro-pod gyros (all with Magni-ish tail groups) are extremely resistant to, if not immune from, uncommanded pushovers and drag-overs. To be sure, most of them have some degree of high thrustline and low center of drag, creating the POTENTIAL for uncommanded nose-over excursions. The large H-stabs typical of the breed go a long way to making this a remote possibility, however.

There is the possibility of an intentional forward stick input, perhaps by an aggressive pilot (of the personality type described here). There is disgracefully little systematic research about exactly what the consequences of this may be. We do know that, In a craft that relies on its rotor thrust for stability in pitch or roll, there can be an uncommanded pitchover or rollover during low-G flight. With an adequate H-stab, we eliminate the pitchover risk, but we don't necessarily eliminate the rollover. The latter can be caused either by a hard side-slip in a craft with a low body pod or other low-placed draggy item, and/or reaction torque from the prop.

Persistent low-G flight may allow the rotor to lose enough RRPM so that it experiences retreating-blade stall when the load is reapplied. A flight condition of this sort is not easy to achieve: The craft has to follow a ballistic trajectory, with the rotor disk at or about zero disk AOA, long enough for RRPM to decay significantly. An intentional entry into an outside loop, with considerable airspeed, comes to mind.

 

[Greg Vos]

I read elsewhere that ANY twin engined craft with one engine out will only manage to fly as far as the crash site

You read that correctly ....

 

[Illini85]

I read elsewhere that ANY twin engined craft with one engine out will only manage to fly as far as the crash site

I can't imagine that with rudder alone you could manage the yaw forces present, operating on only one engine. But also I can't imagine a designer reaching this stage of development without considering such basic circumstances. The tail surfaces seem to be set quite far back so maybe the moment arm would be sufficient to balance a dissymmetry. Would love to hear from them on this topic.

 

[Doug Riley]

Bensen tried a twin pusher gyro with deeply overlapping props. Even with the resulting reduced engine separation, the single-engine yaw issue was pretty severe, he reported. But I don't recall if he used twin verticals.

On the pictured gyro, a completely immersed 6-square-foot vertical surface with full deflection might come close to counteracting full-throttle thrust from a powerplant putting out 400 lb. of thrust, but it would be marginal at best. The aircraft would try diligently to slip sideways as a result of the rudder's side-thrust (just as a tail rotor helo does).

 

[Tyger]

Tyger, About 1500 ft, IIRC. A calculated risk.

This summer I flew over water from Sandy Hook, NJ to north of Yonkers, NY, along the Hudson River SFRA. It was mandatory to stay over the water, between 1500 and 1800 ft, for about 40 miles total. If anything had gone wrong, I'd have had to put it down in the water.

 

[WaspAir]

I used to fly that route in an R22 Mariner, out of Linden NJ up to Sullivan County. The floats certainly added confidence

 

[Tyger]

It gives quite the view, and definitely beats flying all the way around the triple Class B!

 

[Resasi]

Leigh, regrading your post #19: Do you know of evidence of a pushover in this case?

I don't know this model of gyro but, in general, the contemporary Euro-pod gyros (all with Magni-ish tail groups) are extremely resistant to, if not immune from, uncommanded pushovers and drag-overs. To be sure, most of them have some degree of high thrustline and low center of drag, creating the POTENTIAL for uncommanded nose-over excursions. The large H-stabs typical of the breed go a long way to making this a remote possibility, however.

There is the possibility of an intentional forward stick input, perhaps by an aggressive pilot (of the personality type described here). There is disgracefully little systematic research about exactly what the consequences of this may be. We do know that, In a craft that relies on its rotor thrust for stability in pitch or roll, there can be an uncommanded pitchover or rollover during low-G flight. With an adequate H-stab, we eliminate the pitchover risk, but we don't necessarily eliminate the rollover. The latter can be caused either by a hard side-slip in a craft with a low body pod or other low-placed draggy item, and/or reaction torque from the prop.

Persistent low-G flight may allow the rotor to lose enough RRPM so that it experiences retreating-blade stall when the load is reapplied. A flight condition of this sort is not easy to achieve: The craft has to follow a ballistic trajectory, with the rotor disk at or about zero disk AOA, long enough for RRPM to decay significantly. An intentional entry into an outside loop, with considerable airspeed, comes to mind.

Doug the reason for suspicion that a push over had inadvertently occurred was based upon a couple of things. One was the local area, the second visual reports of the accident. It was a B8 with no stab.

Rissington is set in the Cotswolds, an area of rolling countryside where a common observation from pilots, and warnings in early briefings to those students when initially venturing away from the airfields, was that in apparently level flight the pilot might see unexplained acceleration and deceleration without any change in throttle setting, in apparently level flight.

This was due to the pilot, if fairly low, contour flying without realising it. This could occur up to about 1,000’. Above that and it became more apparent.

The student in question was not even doing regular circuits, had not been briefed on local area flying and was unaware of this. He was seen flying quite fast away from the airfield and had specifically enquired from another member of the group how fast the Bensen would go just before his first solo. As he was getting further away he was in an area of steeper undulation, suddenly seen to enter a descent that got progressively steeper, then appearing to momentarily level off before then dropping vertically.

A couple who had been walking nearer the accident site had heard the engine sound rising before an impact sound, then seeing the gyro seeming to tumble before falling straight down.

It was simply an assumption that it may have been a push-over type of accident, with possible rotor contact with the airframe.

 

[wolfy]

Well it may be an achievement ...but it certainly is not clever like most people who just have to do shit for admiration, they risk the lives of rescue personel and resources if they fuk it up.... the compress ( I have flown one ONCE) is not designed as a globe trotting aircraft and the man was irresponsible at the very least ....

Now I doubt he was a student pilot on a solo ?

I can say for certain that Mathew is not the type that just does shit for admiration, he did it because it was his life long dream.
He fly's everything that fly's but chose a helicopter because of the landing options. He has thousands of hour's flying Kompress's.
When he got to Oskosh he never put up a neon light saying he just flew from France, he just got there and started volunteering.
If someone didn't ask him where he came from I doubt anyone would know.
Mathew has done many amazing things, like flying a rigid wing hang glider over everest but most wouldn't know because he never did it for admiration.
I have also flown a Kompress, they are an exceptional aircraft capable of anything any other piston helicopter is.
Rotax 4 stroke engines are proving themselves as one of the most reliable piston engines out there.
In saying that I also have thousands of hours flying with 9 series rotax, but would I fly long legs over the ocean... not a chance.
Should we stay on the couch wrapped up in cotton wool and never achieve anything great in our lives... not a chance.

wolfy