Hawley, MN - Fatal - AR-1 - 11th July 2019

When a gyro smacks the ground nose first at high speed, it’s irrelevant what the tank is made from.

From the news photos, the fuel splatter shows up as burn streaks in the grass.
 
There are more pictures than what you have probably seen and yes the damage is substantial from the impact indicating a very hard hit so gas tanks at that point not holding up is a moot point. But everything including blades, rotorhead with hub bar connected to it, control rods connected to it, even the two bags under front seat, front fork sheared off completely and separate and all other components are in the same debris field. The rudder is on the ground separated from impact but did not catch fire and has no marks from the rotor hitting it at all.
 
From the NTSB preliminary accident report:
On July 11, 2019, about 1230 central daylight time, a Gibb AR-1, N14968, impacted terrain 300 ft from, and slightly to the right of, the departure end of runway 16 at the Hawley Municipal Airport (04Y), Hawley, Minnesota. The private pilot was fatally injured. The gyroplane was destroyed by impact forces and a post-impact fire. The gyroplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions existed at the accident site at the time of the accident, and no flight plan had been filed. The flight originated from 04Y at an undetermined time. A passerby driving eastbound on Highway 10 just south of the runway saw the gyroplane descend nose down and impact the ground. A fire erupted immediately. The passerby stopped, ran to the accident site, and pulled the pilot from the burning wreckage. The passerby sustained serious burns to his hands. The on-scene investigation revealed the gyroplane struck the ground on a magnetic heading of 175°. There was a 30-ft ground scar from the impact point to the main body of wreckage. All of the wreckage was contained within a 50-ft perimeter. All components were accounted for, including both main rotor blades, the engine, and all 3 blades of the pusher-type propeller. The airspeed and vertical speed indicators registered 110 mph and 910 fpm down, respectively. The altimeter and Kollsman window registered 1,580 ft and 30.08 inches of mercury, respectively.

The Hawley Municipal Airport is at an elevation of 1,210 feet MSL.
 
Last edited:
I have been able to look at some 50+ high resolution photographs of the whole debris field on my laptop. The debris field contains all the elements. Shows a clear 30 foot long skid mark. Shows the canopy frame metal part is round and intact and upright and with the main frame of the gyroplane and shows the rotors bent in direction that suggest upright hit. Nose wheel hit first clearly. Rudder was thrown to the side and has no damage from rotor, not even paint is off. Eyewitness simply saw it nose down and gain speed all the way down till the hit. No in-flight breakup is indicated and everything is within 50 or so foot debris field. I do not have permission to share the photographs. But this pretty much is the analysis so far that seems to be in line with NTSB preliminary report it seems as well
 
Any indication on why it went nose down into the ground?

If you interpret this as it went vertically down nose first, that is not what happened just to clarify. It went down at a steep angle at high speed with forward and downward velocity. There is no crater but a skid and fuel mark of 30 feet. The start of the hit shows may be 6” deep mark and front wheel and the rudder seem to be to the sides in that area.

As to why would be speculative but NTSB investigator has confirmed to me that it was right side up in a steep dive, witness saw no attempted recovery and nothing was broken on it in the air. Impact damage is all that is seen and that’s what the witness saw. The same witness also pulled him out after the fire and received burns on his hands doing it. He also confirmed that an autopsy will be done. Can’t speculate on anything else besides the facts confirmed to me so far

These are things we know for sure. I was interested in investigator and eye witness confirming to me that the aircraft did not come apart in the air so I asked that question and the emphatic short written answer from NTSB back was No, it did’nt. This I asked directly in the interest of safety for the rest of the fleet and I am sure they answered it so directly knowing why I asked that.
 
Last edited:
This is apparently something that the investigators picked up from a CFI, copied, and then redacted unrelated personally identifiable information (all the black-out) before posting. I always keep descriptive logbook records of what I've done with students, with corresponding notations placed in the student's log, and sometimes formal lesson summaries and check-off lists that correspond to progress along a syllabus (typcially for basic instruction, but generally not for fight reviews, aircraft check outs, etc. for licensed pilots). I don't keep a calendar as shown, and I can't tell from this if it is the only record that particular CFI would keep (I would hope not). It does not appear to reflect any standard practice I've encountered, so I'm hoping it's a supplement that the investigators found interesting or useful for some purpose in their inquiry.
 
Last edited:
Thanks my view entirely, except you'd think given the nature of the accident a document suggesting it was the instructors records might be a little fuller.... bit troubling if not.
 
As an aside and looking at some of the other items that are not really that well reflected in the report when i look at the ground track if pilot incapacitation is not a factor (and the turn looks almost too co-ordinated for that to be the case) a spiral dive springs to mind.
 
Sad to hear. Commiserations to family and friends of the deceased.

Our’s is a sport that does not have the best safety record. It behoves us all to pay careful attention at all times, to understand the limitations and way our machines operate, and to train thoroughly.

Seems a high speed and fairly substantial rate of descent to impact, there seem to have been some anomalies in some of the witness statements.

In Michael Helm’s statements his description of the final turn with the gyro a high speed the rotors looking like a fan facing him sound like a fairly steep banked turn.

From the track it looks as though he overshot a turn onto final? Though this may have been an airport rejoin? Any way to determine the height he was when he initiated that turn?

And yes, as Phil has postulated, if he had inadvertently overshot on a base leg to final, tried a rapid turn back onto final while quite low and in a high speed descent, say looking over his right shoulder it could well be an inadvertent spiral dive into the ground from a fairly low altitude.

Halverson sees the craft spin three times before hitting the ground?

Nelson hears engine cut in and out before the impact? Possible last minute complete power reduction by pilot just before impact?
 
Last edited:
It would sound like the engine was 'cutting in/out' during a fuselage rotation ("spin").
 
This is apparently something that the investigators picked up from a CFI, copied, and then redacted unrelated personally identifiable information (all the black-out) before posting. I always keep descriptive logbook records of what I've done with students, with corresponding notations placed in the student's log, and sometimes formal lesson summaries and check-off lists that correspond to progress along a syllabus (typcially for basic instruction, but generally not for fight reviews, aircraft check outs, etc. for licensed pilots). I don't keep a calendar as shown, and I can't tell from this if it is the only record that particular CFI would keep (I would hope not). It does not appear to reflect any standard practice I've encountered, so I'm hoping it's a supplement that the investigators found interesting or useful for some purpose in their inquiry.

I (like most of the CFI's I know) keep detailed logbook entries of all the maneuvers and the student's performance just in case they ever have to blow them up on a big screen in court... sounds macabre but I know of two CFI's that had this done to them and the lawyers pick apart ever letter, comma, period and comment. It's not only CYA but a record showing improvement of the student's performance over time as well.
 
...

From the track it looks as though he overshot a turn onto final? Though this may have been an airport rejoin? Any way to determine the height he was when he initiated that turn?

...

From what I was told based on eyewitnesses, they guessed 150 to 200 feet AGL
 
Very low, late tight turn on to final that did not go as planned?

I have always insisted on no turn onto final below 500’ as they can go badly wrong.

Holding at the threshold and watched a glider stall spin from just that. He was very lucky and got away with just a broken back.
 
Very low, late tight turn on to final that did not go as planned?

I have always insisted on no turn onto final below 500’ as they can go badly wrong.

Holding at the threshold and watched a glider stall spin from just that. He was very lucky and got away with just a broken back.

It's hard to speculate but I know he had just transitioned from flying open cockpit to enclosed AR-1. You have to develop a scan to watch your airspeed just like you would in any enclosed airplane or you could easily be at 90 - 100 mph in the pattern in an AR-1C with enclosure and not realize it as no wind is hitting you directly. You have to trim and crosscheck to make sure proper pattern work speed (60 to 70 mph) is being followed and you should trim again on final if you change power setting to be at target speed. Of course you can do it all by hand (instead of trimming out) and feel as well if you are experienced pilot but he was new to gyroplanes and it makes no sense to increase your workload when you can simply trim. In AR-1 lowering the power significantly will result in nose down and a gain in indicated airspeed (4 to 5 knots) and putting in significantly more power will result in nose up and reduction in indicated airspeed (4 to 5 knots).
It's easy to see that if you were going fast and you did your normal co-ordinated bank turn on base and then final, you will overshoot like in any aircraft and then what should be done? At an early stage as a new gyro pilot, probably a go around is the right answer specially if you are below 400 feet AGL. The very steep (sounds like almost 90 degree bank) turn described by Michael Helm is something that was not known to me before about this accident and is very troubling because that would be the turn at low altitude.
 
Last edited:
I know this is an insensitive question so ignore at leisure. Those notes that the NTSB termed instructors records. Was that it or were there some more comprehensive notes?

Of course all instructors have some simple calendar notes to record basic times flown BUT if the UK AAIB asked me for information following a fatal accident I think I'd give them the complete set of student notes and they work out the calendar info from that.

It does seem - especially because of the change in format from a paper calendar to electronic that this was it.
 
Phil. If the instructor notes question is for me, I don’t know the answer. What is presented is a calendar of when student trained not so much notes or record of training.
I usually scan in student's logbook of all the training I did and any endorsements I write. I do not do it every single time student shows up to train but as soon as I endorse them for solo, I have full scan of every hour trained plus any ground school hours we did plus every endorsement plus student pre-solo knowledge test, plus notes in students folder of their progress and any specific issues I encountered
 
Last edited:
Top