FATAL - Magni M16 ZU-BDY, Laingsburg, Western Cape Province, South Africa 03 MAY 2021

TyroGyro

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2016
Messages
567
Location
Liverpool, UK
Aircraft
MTOsport G-IROD
Total Flight Time
150
Engine failure, unsuccessful forced landing followed by fire, passenger killed, pilot seriously injured.

Pilot's experience: 190 hours {looks like medical had expired]



Sincere condolences to all affected.
 
Last edited:
My condolences to friends and family. Sad news.
 
It is admirable that the SA authorities should release a detailed preliminary report within weeks of the accident.

However, it is possible that the reported ATF expiry of "31 March 2021" is a mis-print.

Elsewhere, in the body of the report, it is twice recorded as "31 May 2021", which would be valid at the time of the accident [3 May 2021]

his ATF expired on 31 March 2020 - not 2021

besides that his previous unreported nose wheel accident would have automatically invalidated any current ATF
 

Attachments

  • Capture5.PNG
    Capture5.PNG
    24.3 KB · Views: 15
OK, I see where I went wrong (forgot what year we are in !)

It does say 31 May 2020 twice though. But agreed, expired, if this is accurate.
 
No trees or other obstacles at the emergency landing spot. Would have thought it would have been possible to land there with engine out. Maybe he was landing like fixed wing given previous Issue with nose wheel?
 
No trees or other obstacles at the emergency landing spot. Would have thought it would have been possible to land there with engine out. Maybe he was landing like fixed wing given previous Issue with nose wheel?
possibly, although it looks like he hit the rock in the bottom left of picture. (see "scratch marks" label in fig5")

I'm leaning towards behind the curve, in the report he was observed from above & from the ground flying LOW & SLOW - not something you do in an engine out or emergency condition! maybe he was busy restarting engine & got distracted? he also never made a radio call?

golden rule:
aviate
navigate
communicate

1.1.8 The pilot of the ZU-RHI gyrocopter stated that he took off last. He intended to catch up with the other four gyrocopters in front of him. About 10 to 15 minutes after he took off, he spotted the ZU-BDY gyrocopter flying at a very low speed; thereafter, it suddenly went down.

1.1.10 A witness who was at his house, located near the accident site, stated the following: I was at home when I noticed the gyrocopter flying very low and, soon after, it started going down very quickly. I then heard noise and saw some smoke.
 
Preliminary Statement (from first post above) has gone AWOL, but is encapsulated in this article:-


Article


Interim Statement

"Since the release of the preliminary report on 2 June 2021, the investigating team is determining and analysing the human performance factors that could have contributed to the accident. In addition, the investigators have reviewed the maintenance records and serviceability of the gyrocopter, and the findings will be discussed in the final report. The pilot and the person who maintained the gyrocopter are not cooperating with the investigation team, as a result, they are hindering the completion and issuance of the final report. Ultimately, the final report may be released without their input."
 
FINAL REPORT


"Conclusion: Given the fact that this investigation revealed non-adherence to the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 2011 and the manufacturer’s prescripts, as well as the non-cooperation of the pilot and the AP, the investigation has been hindered. Only factual information of the investigation is presented."

"Probable Cause: 3.3.1. None. The aircraft was not maintained in accordance with the regulation or manufacturer’s prescripts."
 

Attachments

  • 9993.pdf
    985.6 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:
Louis Van Wyk was the AP and instructed the Pilot owner to go to the unqualified AP ( me) to refit the nose wheel as he did not have the time or the know how, Van Wyk was to sign out the work prior to it taking flight and the pilot was aware of this so saying I was not a qualified AP is in fact just passing the blame ..

The legal issue is around the validity of the ATF (authority to fly) that became invalid after the pilot owner damaged the nose wheel, the AP, Van Wyk should not have sold the new wheel fork to the pilot and told him to get it fixed..if he was above board? he as the qualified AP should have reported that accident to the CAA after learning about the nose wheel oopsie…but I think he was more interested in the R6000.00 he took from the pilot for the new front wheel fork he had in stock. Yet he was quick on the draw to report to the SA CAA that I had worked on the gyroplane, the very Gyro he was supposed to check and endorse the airframe logbook prior to it going on this trip, after all the agreement was I would repair it having the knowledge and the equipment needed.

Its worth noting the fork he sold was in fact the incorrect part for the Gyro in question, the Magni Gyros have two forks and they come with a Calibrated nut enabling the pin line up and the start and end point on the threads are important I doubt this qualified AP knew this ( Im not a qualified AP -that said I have worked on some really high end projects in my time and have built two gyroplanes) Add that in the past this very same AP when asked to rebuild a Panel for a GYRO ZU RDY a few years ago told the client rather go to Greg Vos let him build it and do the equipment installation as I am more polished in my work I produce than him, and he will simply inspect the aircraft and approve it in the airframe log book..and this was done ...

Im very willing to talk to the CAA or anyone else on this matter ..I’m not an AP by CAA legislation that does not take away my engineering formal qualifications ….and besides the AP Van Wyk has often witnessed my work and was happy to sign it out in other instances, one question he should answer publicly and to the CAA how did he take the trip ( he was part of the gaggale I believe? knowing his fellow pilot/client was flying with an invalid ATF? its a QUALIFIED AP's RESPONSIBILITY TO ABIDE BY THE RULES AND HE KNEW FULL WELL THIS AIRCRFAT WAS FLYING WITHOUT A VALID ATF! ….him knowing I fitted the nose wheel and he was to approve the work and he was to test fly it? The aircraft did fly almost 23 hours after it left my workshop so I doubt the reason the engine gave trouble was due to the repairs I affected? Pilot was to catch up and was last to take off ….did he over boost the engine trying to catch up ?
 
Last edited:
Don't they mis-identify the landing gear in the photo? That certainly looks like the Left gear, not the Right as called out in the photo.
 
Report stated that last pilot was the witness to the accident aircraft's low & slow flight position just prior to going down.
Thank you for pointing that out, what I was trying to say this Gyro was working hard, the Pax (RiP) was not a small person, Daniel the Pilot himself was not a small man and I was simply wondering if they had overworked the 914? OAT was almost 30 degrees @1500Ft that day.

The one question I would like to ask this AP and the Pilots instructor (same Person) is that a few days prior to them all embarking on this trip he had just done the Pilots renewal, how did he miss the engine out, engine failure procedures? an instructor is supposed to revisit these during a Licence renewal.

When Daniel flew the Gyro away from my hangar he went to Van Wyk to get his documents approved (we agree that flight was illegal having no valid ATF, the agreement was that Van Wyk was to come to my Hangar and inspect the aircraft, sadly I do not sit on the same side of the Fence as Van Wyk and he did not wish to come to me)

lets forget that for a moment...I was hovering above him when he took off and I shouted at him on the RT that he was turning out way to early and way to low, his actions were congruent for a Pilot who flies off his own strip and we see how these disciplines are eroded when they are not flying in a more formal environment.
I had a pax with me that witnessed that, I also have a video supporting this..
So back to Van Wyk who is on record in the report saying he wrote a letter condemning my work> well Sir you had just redone his licence yet a week later the same PIlot could not handle and engine out (as we know an engine out in a Gyro is a non event) the report making mention of rudder cables and other are also ireleavent as the entire Gyro was at the accident scene. The same Gyro flew from FAWN my hangar to Van Wyk then onto the Pilots farm and then onto Gariep, where it also took part in some recreational flights....if any of the cosmetic workmanship was questionable it would be reasonable to consider that a problem would have been noticed beforehand, with a proper pre flight inspection.

For me what remains a mystery is why did the Pilot not execute a normal engine out landing and it appears from what I have read and been told that it ran out of airspeed, was it shock? was it inexperience? did the Pilot freeze? the terrain in the pics certainly look as if a normal engine out landing would have been easily achievable? and survivable, the M16 is the most docile Gyroplane on the planet and lands with almost no forward speed...so what went wrong? certainly not a nose wheel failure or some cosmetic work?

Note: In another forum it was stated that Daniel was a Highly experienced pilot? really with 190 Hours?

I add that I did a duel check with Daniel years ago prior to him gaining his licence at that time (and it will be in his student file @ Van Wyk's school) I noted he was a nervous Pilot.
I also add for clarity that I worked for this AP and he is on record saying I was his best instructor, this has been told to me by more than one person...
I have nothing to do with this man any longer after him and I parted ways with him overreaching on clients repair bills and me taking him to task....now he tries to vindicate his inactions and blame it on my workmanship....he sold the fork to the client knowing full well Iwas going to fit it..

If Van Wyk and his cronies including some vindictive CAA inspectors want to sit around a table and unpack the facts they are most welcome to contact me
 
No trees or other obstacles at the emergency landing spot. Would have thought it would have been possible to land there with engine out. Maybe he was landing like fixed wing given previous Issue with nose wheel?
There were no issues with the nose wheel I fitted it, personally …the engine lost power and his inexperience (low hours) and IMO lack of discipline ( from flying off his farm strip with no duel instruction for a period of two years let bad habits creep in, add incorrect handling procedures during engine out landings were not followed IMO …as stated previously M16 is easily landed with no engine power if one follows the SoP …possibly fixation, fear, and disbelief that the engine went …terribly sad
 
My old 1946 Piper Cub J-3 engine with no starter had a tendency for the engine to shut off when pulled power on downwind when I first bought it. I can tell you when it gets quite the adrenaline rush sets in. I got good at landing without power until the mechanic finally fixed it, but this was with airport surrounded by 50-75 trees to the edge and only 1600' long. Never landed without the engine running on the SportCopter M912, but always landed with idle. Only a few times had to add more power to save the landing.
 
Last edited:
No idea what limitations apply to M16 914 in SA but in UK it’s a 500KG MAUW aircraft. So likely 2 people, fuel and stuff (maps, bags, headsets, etc etc) can only weigh around 200KGS to stay in limits. https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1300094/Magni-Gyro-M-16-C.html?page=16#manual
Phil, if the pilot and pax with full fuel ( they had just filled up for the last leg of the trip) let’s assume the pilot and pax were at 100Kg each ( this is conservative) we add in say 52kg for the fuel, then they were marginal.

In SA the M16 can be flown with a max weight of 550kg, so they are then already overweight? Now it was stated on avcom (a SA forum) by the gaggle leader ( and our celebrity instructor who claims a gyro is like a tail dragger, on that same thread he mentioned the pilot was highly experienced because in his eyes 190 hours is high time pilot) He added that at 1500ft agl that day he had an indicated OAT of 29c, so it was hot as well.

Now as I mentioned earlier back I did a duel check with this pilot prior to him getting his licence and I noted in the student file he was a nervous pilot, so if we consider this observation and the fact they were embroiled in the excitement of the trip the last leg home and his now just added pax …it could be he had taken full boost power on T/O lets mention while we are at it the runway was not great so he was possibly in a hurry to get the aircraft off the ground.
So just loaded his son, questionable runway conditions requiring full boost, trying to catch up to the gaggle who were in front ..could it be that he had worked the engine to hard for too long and it heat soaked? Or broke a ring? Or even burned a hole in one of the pistons?
In the M16 one has a yellow lamp that is not really visible at the best of times, ( TCU warning lamp) this lamp was also being hit directly from the burning sun behind it that morning… could he have not noticed that he was overboosting, did he pay attention to his T&P’s?
The guy behind and witnesses say the aircraft was losing altitude, an engine losing power is reason aircraft lose altitude, there appears to be no issue with control surfaces and other, it’s regrettable that our SA CAA seem to have concentrated on the wrong things and have focused there investigation on what they refer to as incorrect maintenance procedure?
The pilot will know and he has decided not speak, this is also unfortunate as it will help all of us understand and add to flight safety.
The AP on record ( Van Wyk) knows there was nothing wrong with the work I did, his steering the CAA investigation in the wrong direction was to blur the lines of responsibility and he could have mentioned all what I have in this post? Yet he decided to rather turn the accident into a personal witch hunt and try to get his own &@#ss out of the ding….as I say I’m happy to sit with all parties and debate this accident
 
At 550 kg (1210 pounds) a standard M16 will perform very marginally, and I am quite sure its undercarriage won’t hold up a reserve height drop test without damage. A longer rotor would help but they don’t supply a longer rotor. Calidus PC testing found that out the hard way restricting its gross weight down from what they thought/wanted it at first.
 
Last edited:
Top