Lies, damned lies & Statistics

[Sv.grainne]

I'm going to answer in a new thread, this is totally off topic.

 

[Sv.grainne]

Thread 'Obtaining Sport Pilot Gyro Certificate'

Oct 29, 2024

For Brian.

Can't answer your question but info for the transition here:

CatClass Sport | Popular Rotorcraft Association

pra.org

So once you get your fixed wing you will need to deal with 2 Gyro CFI's then find someone who can work you thru the transition to your single place.

If the machine meets the weight limit then you won't need an AWC but you will need someone to check out the machine, test fly, etc.

Buy you will still need to do the transition.

Bobby

• Sv.grainne
• Replies: 58
• Forum: Training

• 

 

[GyroChuck]

I was told by a gyro CFI that they would credit my current flight instruction hours in the 172 towards the 20 hours necessary for a gyro sport pilot certificate. After next week I’ll have about 8 hours of logged flight time towards the 20 hours necessary. (Fortunately my current CFI says I’ve made more progress in a shorter period of time in the 172 than any other student she has instructed to date.)

If I could directly transfer those 8 hours towards a gyro sport pilot certificate without penalty it would make a lot of sense. The gyro CFI said the limiting factor is that the solo flight(s?) necessary to complete the gyro sport pilot certificate must be completed in the student pilot’s own gyroplane. I’m not certain why but maybe for insurance reasons?

Now that I have my own gyroplane I should be able to jump over that hurdle and get a gyro sport pilot certificate, or so I was lead to believe.

You also can not solo in the 172 unless you have a valid medical certificate. Your check ride also has to be in a light sport aircraft.

 

[BrianInVa]

I'm going to answer in a new thread, this is totally off topic.

Thanks Bobby. Apologies for taking the thread off topic.

 

[BrianInVa]

You also can not solo in the 172 unless you have a valid medical certificate. Your check ride also has to be in a light sport aircraft.

They have a Sting s4 LSA for the check ride.

 

[BrianInVa]

You also can not solo in the 172 unless you have a valid medical certificate. Your check ride also has to be in a light sport aircraft.

That’s changing with the new MOSAIC rules early or mid 2025. The LSA category will be expanded to include the 172 so the entire sport pilot certificate will be able to be completed in one.

 

[GyroChuck]

At the rate you are progressing. You might be ready for your check ride before then

Buy I'm also waiting for Mosaic to come out. But for another reason

 

[Mike G]

Hi Mike
We have 62 gyroplanes out there. Some not in the US.
There have been 16 accidents. Many (10) rotor blade flap right on takeoff. All but one trained by the same trainer. Partly because these pilots would pre-rotate to only 130 RRPM and start to move and partly because their stick position error because they are airplane pilots. Some of these 10 rotor blade flap accidents were by the same pilot multiple times. In one case, 3 times .
4 of the accidents were fatal. One due to water in the carb bowls in Florida flying low in cloudy marginal VFR conditions and engine out in a 914 powered AR-1. Gyro hit tall 250 foot high trees and fell to the ground. A second one in Minnesota, a new low hour pilot doing a very tight downwind to final turn while his ASI was stuck at 110 mph when it hit the ground. He kind of corkscrewed it into the ground. One in Utah right on very first solo (in AR-1) takeoff, unloaded the rotors before even clearing the runway on departure leg. One in Georgia where customer trying to land in a grass field ran into power lines.
2 accidents comprised of a hard landing and one where the engine quit and was replaced by Rotax for the customer at no cost because there was an issue with a valve. These 2 were in Texas. One accident was an Aussie student pilot in Florida whose engine quit and both carb bowls were found to be full of water. When new fuel was put in the tank and water cleared the engine ran fine. His gyroplane was repaired and he is now flying for about 600 hours and I think he checks his fuel much more now.
One gyroplane with one customer in NC I am not even going to count. He is very special. He has crashed his gyroplane I think 5 times. I do not think 4 of the times he was even rated to fly gyroplanes.

Out of these 4 fatal accident gyroplanes were de-registered because they were totalled. One more flapping accident gyroplane was totalled. All the others were repaired and flying.
In terms of number of machines in accidents because some of the flapping accidents were multiple times to the same pilot, there are 10.

Abid thanks for the feedback, it's a pity the other manufacturers aren't as open, it would allow us to get a better picture of the non fatal accidents and perhaps draw some conclusions.
Your examples would tend to validate the "training" argument for US gyros.
It sounds like a couple of your owners are pretty limited and even with a GWS would probably have crashed anyway. The AR1 having 2 pilots repeatedly making the same mistake skews the statistics. I know that both were offered a GWS, they refused and one went on to fly behind the curve into the trees. You just can't help some people.
Mike

 

[Mike G]

Not sure how 55 - 8 = 63, for MT-03 ?

I'll take a look at it, if you like, Mike. It'll be a long-term winter project, with uncertain results.

Perhaps you can convert the Excel spreadsheet to a Google Sheet, and PM me the link ?

While I applaud your efforts with the GWS, I think it's unlikely to be as effective as you think.

Two thoughts off the top of my head.

a) the warnings are bespoke, and in the heat of the moment "pilots" may mistake warnings such as "stick forward" as commands ! It seems unlikely that any body of regulators/instructors will agree on a standardised form of words for the warnings/commands, and incorporate them into any training regime.
b) there will always be a few dickheads who would use the GWS to fly as close to the edge as they can, with predictable results.

Perhaps a better way forward would be to simply abolish "credits" for converting FW pilots...

Regards

Rod

Rod typo in the table corrected, thanks for the heads up.

I'm not very computer savvy but will look at converting the Excel sheet for you or do you simply want me to put it in the google cloud for you to download?

I'm no longer naive and don't expect the GWS to be accepted by the community. Looking at the stats I'm more and more believing what someone suggested to me that the manufacturers are happy with the non fatal TO accidents it means selling replacement gyros, spares and repairs and takes machines out of the second had market.

Your thoughts:
a) The warnings are not bespoke (if I understand what you mean) the warnings in the GWS when you buy it are the ones we decided on but the owner or manufacturer can record what ever warning he/she thinks will trigger the correct response.
b) Agreed, we can't save everyone especially the dickheads, the only upside would be that we would have the flight data and be able to see exactly what they did. Personally I think that owners with a GWS should be encouraged to practice (with their CFI) stick forwards, low Rrpm take-offs, flying behind the curve with different AUWs and even some gentle low G "bunts" to practice the correct response, but that's my opinion only.

To abolish "credits" would require some sort of official (CAA, FAA, etc) rules that I can do nothing about; but as an engineer I could develop the GWS which is available and works.

Mike

 

[Mike G]

Fixed wing skills are not inherently toxic.

Some here think that newer gyroplane pilots with decadI must do that es of airplane experience will revert to airplane habits in a crisis, with bad consequences.

I fly rotorcraft, ballooons, gliders, and airplanes, and have had no difficulty making the mental shift needed to go from one to another.

WaspAir, I agree that most ex FW pilots converting to gyros manage the transition without a problem. I include myself, I haven't flapped my rotor (at least not by accident) nor crashed due to any FW muscle memory problems. In fact my very limited statistics suggest the more than 80% never have an accident. What we're trying to find is a solution for the percentage that will have an accident.

I'm still looking for and an ULM aircraft that is popular in UK to compare their crash statistics with the gyro stats. I realise that must do that to see if the gyro crash really is a problem.
Mike

 

[Abid]

Abid thanks for the feedback, it's a pity the other manufacturers aren't as open, it would allow us to get a better picture of the non fatal accidents and perhaps draw some conclusions.
Your examples would tend to validate the "training" argument for US gyros.
It sounds like a couple of your owners are pretty limited and even with a GWS would probably have crashed anyway. The AR1 having 2 pilots repeatedly making the same mistake skews the statistics. I know that both were offered a GWS, they refused and one went on to fly behind the curve into the trees. You just can't help some people.
Mike

Thankfully Mike. It is one instructor who trained pretty much all these pilots. At first they were being taught to pre-rotate to 130 RRPM and pull the stick "a little bit back" and start to move "slowly" while keeping pre-rotator engaged. These are of course very subjective suggestions and the POH asks for pre-rotating to 180+ RRPM before moving and putting the stick all the way back at 180 RRPM. Some of the repeat rotor blade flaps happened because they were never following the POH procedure. They would not pull the stick back completely and move "not so slowly" staring at 130 RRPM and wham. Anyway those guys with repeat accidents have stopped flying gyroplanes and sold their AR-1s. The owner in NC is still flying gyroplanes but last time he built a complete new frame himself (outside the factory) and is now using Sport Copter rotorhead and Sport Copter rotors. Basically the only thing AR-1 in there is the dataplate and composite body. That's the guy who went flying into the trees behind the curve.

 

[Abid]

I can tell you in a flapping accident investigation, the NTSB person in-charge of looking at two flapping accidents in AR-1s. One in Pennsylvania and one at Sarasota International airport in Florida was shown the GWS demo video we did in flight and an explanation of telltale signs of what the gyro will do in a flapping accident on takeoff, and she was extremely interested in knowing when such a device along with the logger would become available in most production gyroplanes because it cuts out pilot’s perception and gives them actual data to draw conclusions easily and objectively

I also don’t believe GWS will stop all the accidents. I do believe it has the potential of stopping a majority (not all) of the takeoff flapping and behind the curve accidents though, if the pilots train with GWS warnings and develop appropriate responses. There is no airplane out there that’s certified without a stall alarm. These takeoff accidents are a significant driver of insurance claims. It is true that even in AR-1 I have made probably $250k selling parts to repair these machines but honestly, I would rather not have that happen. If I take these accidents out the cost of maintenance of an AR-1 is generally on average $1300 per year even after 8 years of data including oil and spark plug changes. Assuming an annual costs $800. Peter Kalev (LA Gyro) is here on this forum, and I think since 2018 he has probably ordered a sum total of $500 of parts from us because he knows how to pre-rotate properly and fly safely.

 

[PJB]

Around 8 years ago I wrote a paper for the CAA & the then gyroplane instructor group for the UK, which at that time I was a member, about gyroplane accidents.

The motivation for the paper was that in the UK we had recently destroyed the once healthy British Rotorcraft Association - because many in that group had more "grass roots" interest in both homebuilt and single seat aircraft and both were being marginalised by a new ruling that stopped people from training on single seaters and made it difficult to do so on a homebuilt. The BRA leadership at that time had mis-stepped in my opinion by in effect demonising both.

In tandem with the destruction of the BRA there was a great deal of effort being placed upon both night and commercial gyroplane ratings, which were taking a lot of attention of both the CAA and the instructors who had the ear of the CAA.

I opined that neither were helpful to the on-going safety case because and I quote directly from the 2016 paper:-

the majority of accidents are as a result of mishandling during the take off and landing phase of the flight and of those all are being flown by relatively new or inexperienced pilots with little gyroplane time and recency.

My view at the time [and nothing has either changed my view nor have I seen anything that proves the points made 8 years ago wrong] is that in the UK there was a lack of motivation to provide any constructive critique because the pool of instructors was so small and the power base even smaller that nobody wished to put a head above the wall for fear of commercial disadvantage or being black balled. As example in the 2017 the CAA invited comment upon a new proposal for gyroplane training standards. It was sent to the entire CAA gyroplane license holder base and there were 27 instructors on the distribution list. The CAA had 8 [yes eight] responses! Eight, and one of those was my own.

The erosion of an enthusiasts group and focus elsewhere was not helpful to healthy debate in the UK and the summary of wider issues I suggested were:-

1) Poor or confused information around the aircraft or pilot technique
2) Casual attitude to aircraft weight and balance
3) Differences training that doesn't focus on the differences
4) A PPL(G) syllabus that doesn't focus upon the areas that are obvious issues
In the UK there has been absolute clarity since even before I wrote because the AAIB made its own views known via safety recommendations to the CAA in 2011. I highlighted this in my paper:-

Interestingly the AAIB have already made recommendation around this type of accident via safety recommendation 2011-97 & 2011-98 following the accident to G-LZED. Just to cover these recommendations for completeness I will give the AAIB recommendation and CAA response below:-

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION – 2011-097

It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority emphasise to gyroplane operators the need to consider field suitability and gyroplane specific performance, including the safety factors to apply, when planning a flight.

Response

The CAA accepts this recommendation and will in due course provide material that includes specific gyroplane guidance. Currently the General Aviation Safety Promotion specialist is working with the CAA's Flight Department to either amend the existing Safety Sense Leaflet on aircraft performance to include gyroplanes or to produce a separate leaflet aimed solely at Gyroplane pilots. Input has been received from the British Rotorcraft Association Chairman and is being reviewed to this end. This revised or new material is expected to be published by the end of May 2012.

Status - Accepted - closed

SAFETY RECOMMENDATION – 2011-098

It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority, in conjunction with the British Rotorcraft Association, review the Private Pilot’s Licence (Gyroplane) syllabus to ensure that students receive adequate tuition and examination on the takeoff and landing performance of gyroplanes.

Response

The CAA accepts this recommendation. The CAA has been working with the British Rotorcraft Association to develop training and testing requirements for the purpose of obtaining the Private Pilot Licence (Gyroplanes). These requirements will be published in CAA Standards Document 44. In preparing this document, account has been taken of recent AAIB recommendations. Standards Document 44 will be published on the CAA website in March 2012.

Status - Accepted - closed

What more can we do you might conclude, except that the 2012 safety sense leaflet directly contradicts the syllabus and neither does it give any accurate data, something the leaflet itself points out early. So there remains no data or guidance for pilots.

2011-98 talks about the 2012 SD44 which would be the current version 2. Aside from there being no specific mention of the recommendation in the revision summary of SD44 there is absolutely nothing that relates to this safety recommendation in the entire document. Indeed Appendix A refers to the 2009 PPL syllabus (and therefore can’t have any revision for a 2011 safety recommendation).

Currently in my opinion the great opportunity to capture at least some of these accidents since 2011 has been lost because we are simply not doing what we said we would do.

There in a little bit more than a nutshell is why we are where we are in the UK sadly and I do not think the landscape even commercially is all that healthy. We have very sadly got what we have got because we failed to pay attention to whats been going on around us.

 

[Mike G]

Phil it's difficult to follow the second half of your post without having access to the different documents that you're referring to. Could you supply links to them?

When you say:
"Currently in my opinion the great opportunity to capture at least some of these accidents since 2011 has been lost because we are simply not doing what we said we would do."
What do you mean by not "capturing" these accidents?
Mike

 

[PJB]

Capture was meant to be capture the root causes and therefore prevent them I think is what I was meaning.

I’ll email it to you Mike.

 

[Abid]

To me it sounds like the accident percentage is about the same in the UK for gyroplanes as in the US. Maybe there are a few more fatal accidents in the US than the UK.
My question is why would that be? UK requires double the hours for training supposedly with a more rigorous syllabus. So why do these takeoff and landing accidents happen almost at the same clip as the US? Would anyone have an educated opinion on this.

 

[PJB]

See my post above Abid and point 4 on the list… and the second half of the post that reflects upon the AAIB’s view and safety recommendations from 2011 and yet zero was done!!

 

[PJB]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422ed5ce5274a131400016f/Rotorsport_UK_MTOSport_G-LZED_02-12.pdf

That led to a safety leaflet that in itself was misleading but also couldn’t give very much by way of useful performance data because very little such data existed. The PPL(g) syllabus remained in the relevant areas unchanged. Also the AAIB refer to the BRA which got torpedoed around 2012…. And a useful collective of knowledge people fragmented.

 

[Mike G]

To me it sounds like the accident percentage is about the same in the UK for gyroplanes as in the US. Maybe there are a few more fatal accidents in the US than the UK.
My question is why would that be? UK requires double the hours for training supposedly with a more rigorous syllabus. So why do these takeoff and landing accidents happen almost at the same clip as the US? Would anyone have an educated opinion on this.

Abid
If we assume that your 2 suppositions:
1) same accident rate in UK as US
2) UK training longer & more rigorous than US.

are correct.

That would support my argument that "training" is not the main cause of these accidents.

Mike

 

[PJB]

… but it is because the UK system is training in many areas just not well enough in the areas that are snagging in take off / landing phase. Others talk of the older single seat training and they not falling over as much - that might be true but likely that’s because in the older aircraft that phase of the flight is the main / only thing to consider