Lies, damned lies & Statistics

[Mike G]

Phil my post was based on Abid's 2 suppositions. While I respect his opinions, as far as I know, we have no data to justify either of them.
We don't know how many AG/Magnis were imported/registered in US nor do we know how many had accidents. For his supposition to be just we need to be able to show that 20% of US registered AG/Magnis crashed.
Also I don't know of any real comparisons that have been made between the two training regimes to justify saying that the UK system is longer and more rigorous than the US system. I'm not saying it isn't, I simply don't know.
If his suppositions are correct (and they may well be) you are effectively saying that despite the UK system being longer and more rigorous than in US it is still even worse.
Mike

 

[Abid]

Phil my post was based on Abid's 2 suppositions. While I respect his opinions, as far as I know, we have no data to justify either of them.
We don't know how many AG/Magnis were imported/registered in US nor do we know how many had accidents. For his supposition to be just we need to be able to show that 20% of US registered AG/Magnis crashed.
Also I don't know of any real comparisons that have been made between the two training regimes to justify saying that the UK system is longer and more rigorous than the US system. I'm not saying it isn't, I simply don't know.
If his suppositions are correct (and they may well be) you are effectively saying that despite the UK system being longer and more rigorous than in US it is still even worse.
Mike

Mike
we do know exactly how many AG/Magnis are registered in the US. In 2022 there were 45 gyroplanes registered, 2023, 64 and 2024, 45 as of Oct 2, 2024. The ELA accident at Oshkosh had a big negative impact on all US gyroplane sales. Total there are 549 new style gyroplanes currently registered in the US since 2005. These do not include gyroplanes that were registered but then because of some reason like totalled due to crash or sold outside the country got de-registered. For instance there are 4 AR-1s like that. My estimation is there are 80 such machines overall roughly.
These also do not include Gyrotechnic registrations for some reason.
Gyrotechnic GT-VX1 and GT-VX2. There are 11 total.
SportCopter Vortex 38
SportCopter Vortex M912 9
SportCopter II 4
SportCopter M2 1
SportCopter Lightning 2 (?)

I could dig down and come up with pretty accurate numbers for Dominators and Air Commands remaining on the register also but this gives you an idea.

I think they tried to stick with Juka style gyroplanes in this counting.

We also have NTSB database where we can figure out how many crashed and add to that because some of the takeoff and landing accidents are simply not reported to NTSB even though by law they are supposed to be reported.
I did some rough numbers using FAA data and NTSB data and added a conservative number of accidents that I am very sure do not get reported and I am pretty sure US accidents are about the same as UK. I have not done that again in 2024.

Interesting Note: It looks like the aircraft not just gyroplanes I personally designed or co-designed have sold 153 total. Just realized that doing this.

 

[GyroChuck]

The problem l see with the NTSB database is you as the builder can name the aircraft model any name you want.

Such as my gyro as listed is a Gyroflight Tandem. My helicopter is listed as model YG1. Neither of which accurately names the kit/model of the aircraft.

Both in the database are listed as "Rotorcraft"

 

[Abid]

The problem l see with the NTSB database is you as the builder can name the aircraft model any name you want.

Such as my gyro as listed is a Gyroflight Tandem. My helicopter is listed as model YG1. Neither of which accurately names the kit/model of the aircraft.

Both in the database are listed as "Rotorcraft"

Yes but that is very very rare. Not even worth worrying about. You can simply search Rotorcraft gyroplane accidents. Don't worry about model specifically.

 

[TyroGyro]

A couple of years ago I tried extracting data from the ROTORSPOT database (a painful exercise).

Percentages listed as wfu / cnx / w/o

USA
Magni 6.1%
AutoGyro/RS 6.2%
ELA 10.3%

UK
Magni 10.7%
Rotorsport 12.5%
ELA n/a


Does that mean the US is safer than the UK?

I doubt it. The UK was about a decade ahead of the US in the market penetration of these machines.

So, many more machines and hours flown in the early days, meaning longer exposure time to accidents.

Reporting standards may be different, also.

I'll try and update these stats sometime...

The crucial variable is total hours flown, which we can only really guess at.

 

[Abid]

A couple of years ago I tried extracting data from the ROTORSPOT database (a painful exercise).

Percentages listed as wfu / cnx / w/o

USA
Magni 6.1%
AutoGyro/RS 6.2%
ELA 10.3%

UK
Magni 10.7%
Rotorsport 12.5%
ELA n/a


Does that mean the US is safer than the UK?

I doubt it. The UK was about a decade ahead of the US in the market penetration of these machines.

So, many more machines and hours flown in the early days, meaning longer exposure time to accidents.

Reporting standards may be different, also.

I'll try and update these stats sometime...

The crucial variable is total hours flown, which we can only really guess at.

Haha. Almost 25% plus of Cavalon fleet has had insurance claims. It is by far the single model that was a key in raising insurance rates of gyroplanes much more than other categories in the last 7 years. All one has to do is talk to some underwriters. Now this could be a combination of design, training, type of customer it attracts (older rich high time fixed wing pilots who think they can do it in short time), lack of CFIs for refreshers available and so on. Cavalon as I understand was never meant to be the primary trainer or meant to be a beginner's gyroplane.
Not all the accidents on these gyroplanes are reported. Many are swept into the hangar before anything is reported. Unless someone gets hurt or unfortunately die, they are likely not to be reported to NTSB. Reporting requirements are not the issue. Not actually following the regulations is. Total hours flown in the new style gyroplanes in the US are in my guestimate more than the UK. You guys have crap weather more than most places.

I have been extremely transparent and clearly stated there have been in the teens accidents/incidents for AR-1. Half of them to the same pilot/pilots multiple times. Actually after 3 of the customers kind of stopped flying, these takeoff flapping accidents have largely disappeared in AR-1 fleet. I doubt the European manufacturers would be as transparent as me but if we are interested in analyzing safety and true causes then we have to be. That is the only way to actually figure out how much is training, how much is age related and how much could potentially be a save using things like GWS warning system or a BRS chute etc. Hiding stuff will never lead to increasing safety.

 

[PJB]

Of course the number that really needs to be used is accidents per flight hour and then you can take a wider view across other aircraft types. In that we do have some reasonable data that was published in this report of 2009. https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/13979

It reflects that that the fatalities per flight hour in 1989-1991 was "6 fatalities per 1000 hours of flying time during this period for this type (compared to 0.015 per 1000 flying hours for general aviation). Given the small number of aircraft of this type registered in the UK, this was clearly an unacceptable situation" [page 1 of the report under point 1.1].

Now we might scoff that this was something of a high water mark, coming from the number of UK Air Command fatalities this being the final straw and from that point all Air Command permits to fly were suspended.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/542302b940f0b61342000aa7/Air_Command_532_Elite__G-BPFW_09-91.pdf

The accident to G-BPFW is particularly inconvenient because in that report you will read that the student pilot did training in a gyroglider and short hops, ground handling etc. although he had only 2 hours on the Air Command prior to his fatal flight. The assumption was that PIO was causal but there was some doubt over the mechanical integrity of the aircraft but nothing conclusive as regards the accident.

It was this final straw that led to a UK training syllabus and it is therefore unsurprising that the focus was upon general handling and upper airwork. There have been almost no [UK] aircraft mis-handled in the way that was more common previously, ironically the last one is still to be reported upon but happened to a UK student Cavalon pilot, also with 2 hours solo time.

What is very clear to me - and I used to train pilots in the UK - is that the syllabus is a mess, and for the accidents we are having today largely irrelevant. We spend a huge amount of time teaching cross country navigation for example with a chart, pen, flight "computer", drift, blah. All great stuff in time but when most use a tablet app, then perhaps we might be persuaded to focus on the basics first and look at the nav later.

Not saying it isn't relevant at all - because it is very relevant if you are poking off cross country - but most students can be happy within 30mins of a home airfield for the first 50hours building general handling skills.

The other confusion is our obsession [UK] with being able to exploit the full range of the gyroplanes features. I happen to be able to fly aerobatics but I don't expect my hour 1 PPL(A) pilot to be able to turn an aircraft upside down, nor do I expect he might be able to fly a single seat high performance taildragger. Yet in gyroplanes we expect our hour 1 pilot - and I say expect because it is part of the skills test - to land within a certain tolerance of a chosen point when we are landing on 1,2, sometimes 3KM long runways. We have flight into confined areas tested..

Now of course flying accurately is a great thing and at times a necessary thing but again I argue that we do not spend anywhere near long enough on the take off phase or within a range of aircraft - because in the UK perhaps I train on one aircraft, fly something different once my test is passed - and there the detail of training is certainly lost.

The other area of UK specific issue is our weather. Pretty much from now until March flying in the UK is limited because the wx is generally poor. That means our new pilots effectively have 5 months off per year. That isn't good for recency.

Finally the other huge area of issue is that flying requires a deeper commitment than passing a test and having a go once in a while. For all manner of time constraints modern life limits that.

In a nutshell UK / US is likely similar because while the US does not have the same training requirements - the UK training is so widely spread across all subjects that take offs and their specific snags are somewhat limited.

One thing we can see however is Magni take off accidents are limited....

 

[PJB]

Haha. Almost 25% plus of Cavalon fleet has had insurance claims. It is by far the single model that was a key in raising insurance rates of gyroplanes much more than other categories in the last 7 years. All one has to do is talk to some underwriters. Now this could be a combination of design, training, type of customer it attracts (older rich high time fixed wing pilots who think they can do it in short time), lack of CFIs for refreshers available and so on. Cavalon as I understand was never meant to be the primary trainer or meant to be a beginner's gyroplane.
Not all the accidents on these gyroplanes are reported. Many are swept into the hangar before anything is reported. Unless someone gets hurt or unfortunately die, they are likely not to be reported to NTSB. Reporting requirements are not the issue. Not actually following the regulations is. Total hours flown in the new style gyroplanes in the US are in my guestimate more than the UK. You guys have crap weather more than most places.

I have been extremely transparent and clearly stated there have been in the teens accidents/incidents for AR-1. Half of them to the same pilot/pilots multiple times. Actually after 3 of the customers kind of stopped flying, these takeoff flapping accidents have largely disappeared in AR-1 fleet. I doubt the European manufacturers would be as transparent as me but if we are interested in analyzing safety and true causes then we have to be. That is the only way to actually figure out how much is training, how much is age related and how much could potentially be a save using things like GWS warning system or a BRS chute etc. Hiding stuff will never lead to increasing safety.

I agree with this Abid and it is a shame the regulatory environment is such a pain and the market limited in the UK as an AR-1 here would be a nice option. I think the AAIB may report on the UK fatal Cavalon accident before the year is out and I think it will make for very interesting reading because it has been at the "consultation stage" for a very very long time - which usually means some interested party is objectional.

This statement provides an update on the ongoing AAIB investigation into an accident involving a Rotorsport UK Cavalon, G-CKYT, near Avoch, Inverness-shire on 12 November 2020.

Whilst on a general handling flight with a solo student pilot onboard, the gyroplane was seen to descend rapidly from an altitude of approximately 1,500 ft with the rotor head and blades separate from the fuselage. The gyroplane subsequently crashed on farmland and caught fire, with the pilot receiving fatal injuries.

The main wreckage was largely destroyed in the fire, but analysis of the remaining evidence has been possible. The investigation is focused on understanding the circumstances which led to the rotor head separating in flight.

The investigation is now complete and the draft report will shortly be sent out for consultation in accordance with the relevant regulations. The AAIB will then publish its investigation findings in a final report.

For clarity the statement that said the investigation was complete was Nov 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/anniversary-statement-rotorsport-uk-cavalon-g-ckyt--2

If the report is out on the 2nd Thursday of Nov - the 14th - it will be 4 years since the accident.

 

[Mike G]

Phil I've just realised that there are no Air Command accidents on my list. That's because they were not listed as Gyroplanes on the AAIB database.
A quick check shows 7 Air Command accidents that I need to add to the list.
Your explanation of the UK PPL(G) training helps me understand better your argument. I'm travelling so will look in more detail later.
Mike

 

[Mike G]

Haha. Almost 25% plus of Cavalon fleet has had insurance claims. It is by far the single model that was a key in raising insurance rates of gyroplanes much more than other categories in the last 7 years. All one has to do is talk to some underwriters. Now this could be a combination of design, training, type of customer it attracts (older rich high time fixed wing pilots who think they can do it in short time), lack of CFIs for refreshers available and so on. Cavalon as I understand was never meant to be the primary trainer or meant to be a beginner's gyroplane.
Not all the accidents on these gyroplanes are reported. Many are swept into the hangar before anything is reported. Unless someone gets hurt or unfortunately die, they are likely not to be reported to NTSB. Reporting requirements are not the issue. Not actually following the regulations is. Total hours flown in the new style gyroplanes in the US are in my guestimate more than the UK. You guys have crap weather more than most places.

I have been extremely transparent and clearly stated there have been in the teens accidents/incidents for AR-1. Half of them to the same pilot/pilots multiple times. Actually after 3 of the customers kind of stopped flying, these takeoff flapping accidents have largely disappeared in AR-1 fleet. I doubt the European manufacturers would be as transparent as me but if we are interested in analyzing safety and true causes then we have to be. That is the only way to actually figure out how much is training, how much is age related and how much could potentially be a save using things like GWS warning system or a BRS chute etc. Hiding stuff will never lead to increasing safety.

Abid regarding BRS parachutes this just popped up on a FFPLUM (French ULM federation) email.

En France, sur la totalité des accidents connus, plus de 90 % des machines étaient équipées d’un système de parachute de secours. Malheureusement, moins de 15 % ont actionné le dispositif permettant la sauvegarde des occupants de l’ULM.
translation
In France, of all known accidents, more than 90% were equipped with a rescue parachute system. Unfortunately, less than 15% activated the device to save the ULM's occupants.

I was surprised to see how many accident-ed ULMs (not just gyros) had a parachute and how many didn't use it.

I totally agree with you that a major reason we can't get a true picture of causes and numbers of non-fatal accidents is a lack of information from manufacturers. Although having said that has anyone (PRA, ASRA, SAGPA, BRA, FFPLUM, FFA, CAA, etc....) asked them?

Mike

 

[Abid]

Abid regarding BRS parachutes this just popped up on a FFPLUM (French ULM federation) email.

En France, sur la totalité des accidents connus, plus de 90 % des machines étaient équipées d’un système de parachute de secours. Malheureusement, moins de 15 % ont actionné le dispositif permettant la sauvegarde des occupants de l’ULM.
translation
In France, of all known accidents, more than 90% were equipped with a rescue parachute system. Unfortunately, less than 15% activated the device to save the ULM's occupants.

I was surprised to see how many accident-ed ULMs (not just gyros) had a parachute and how many didn't use it.

I totally agree with you that a major reason we can't get a true picture of causes and numbers of non-fatal accidents is a lack of information from manufacturers. Although having said that has anyone (PRA, ASRA, SAGPA, BRA, FFPLUM, FFA, CAA, etc....) asked them?

Mike

Hi Mike
BRS only works if activated. Like anything else including GWS you have to mentally and physically simulate your action in thought up scenarios. It takes a surprising 14 pounds of pull force to activate a BRS. The first 2 inches of pull doesn’t do anything usually. These emergency simulations should be practiced once a month. Not to pull it but the mental prep on what scenario should require your hand to go to the BRS handle and say "Pull pull pull" as you pull the crap out of the handle. It’s a tool in your toolbox. It takes one second for the BRS to deploy.

I don’t think PRA has asked the manufacturers. I don’t think manufacturers are told either. They just find out because parts are ordered from them. Then of course it’s hard to hide. There is an AR-1 out there in Idaho that was fixed by the owner himself and I had no idea. He welded the mast. I finally saw it in LA and I was shocked. It was still tweaked and the weldment looked like I did it while drunk. When asked what had happened. He said his later installed constant speed DUC propeller acted up and he thought he was having an engine out and did a precautionary landing in a field with gopher holes and flipped over. Fixed his rotor-head himself and his mast himself and ordered himself SportCopter rotors. Good luck.
So even the manufacturers don’t know every accident but generally the importer/manufacturer has a fairly good idea.

 

[loftus]

Another really big problem is that most gyros in the US, are experimental, and experimental manufacturers in general are notorious for selling a product and then walking away and simply denying problems exist. Some of this is understandable as they also have no control over how things are built and maintained. I experienced this repeatedly with my floats which were horribly underengineered and I had to spend a few years discovering all the flaws and correcting them. All the while being told by the manufacturers that there were no problems or it was my fault, even when it became evident that many others had similar problems. Not even the courtesy of some kind of email or website advisory as is the norm in the certified market. There's a reason it's called experimental.

 

[Abid]

Another really big problem is that most gyros in the US, are experimental, and experimental manufacturers in general are notorious for selling a product and then walking away and simply denying problems exist. Some of this is understandable as they also have no control over how things are built and maintained. I experienced this repeatedly with my floats which were horribly underengineered and I had to spend a few years discovering all the flaws and correcting them. All the while being told by the manufacturers that there were no problems or it was my fault, even when it became evident that many others had similar problems. Not even the courtesy of some kind of email or website advisory as is the norm in the certified market. There's a reason it's called experimental.

Are you using Full Lotus floats?
I have design and plug for amphib floats I worked on for Legend Super Cub. They are using it extensively. 1800 pounds capacity. I know for a fact they aren't under engineered and made from carbon fiber and Kevlar, although with only 8 pounds extra weight could also be built from S and E glass with same strength with carbon fiber being used in specific areas only. I have thought about putting them in production but have not worked out numbers.

In gyroplanes today though this applies very little now but it still does apply. It was very bad in the 90's and early 2000's in gyroplanes.

 

[loftus]

Are you using Full Lotus floats?
I have design and plug for amphib floats I worked on for Legend Super Cub. They are using it extensively. 1800 pounds capacity. I know for a fact they aren't under engineered and made from carbon fiber and Kevlar, although with only 8 pounds extra weight could also be built from S and E glass with same strength with carbon fiber being used in specific areas only. I have thought about putting them in production but have not worked out numbers.

In gyroplanes today though this applies very little now but it still does apply. It was very bad in the 90's and early 2000's in gyroplanes.

No Abid, thes are floats on my Aircam (Clamar). Just commenting on the fact that the experimental world is a different world for better and worse than the certified world. BTW Clamar now have a new owner which has made a world of difference.

 

[Mike G]

Hi Mike
BRS only works if activated. Like anything else including GWS you have to mentally and physically simulate your action in thought up scenarios. It takes a surprising 14 pounds of pull force to activate a BRS. The first 2 inches of pull doesn’t do anything usually. These emergency simulations should be practiced once a month. Not to pull it but the mental prep on what scenario should require your hand to go to the BRS handle and say "Pull pull pull" as you pull the crap out of the handle. It’s a tool in your toolbox. It takes one second for the BRS to deploy.

I don’t think PRA has asked the manufacturers. I don’t think manufacturers are told either. They just find out because parts are ordered from them. Then of course it’s hard to hide. There is an AR-1 out there in Idaho that was fixed by the owner himself and I had no idea. He welded the mast. I finally saw it in LA and I was shocked. It was still tweaked and the weldment looked like I did it while drunk. When asked what had happened. He said his later installed constant speed DUC propeller acted up and he thought he was having an engine out and did a precautionary landing in a field with gopher holes and flipped over. Fixed his rotor-head himself and his mast himself and ordered himself SportCopter rotors. Good luck.
So even the manufacturers don’t know every accident but generally the importer/manufacturer has a fairly good idea.

Abid as you know, that's the advantage of the GWS, the pilot doesn't need to operate it, it's always working in the background and you only hear from it when you're about to screw up.
Mike

 

[Aaron R]

thes are floats on my Aircam (Clamar).

Curious, are your comments about the bad manufacturer behavior in reference to Clamar only (under previous ownership), or also Aircam?

 

[Abid]

Curious, are your comments about the bad manufacturer behavior in reference to Clamar only (under previous ownership), or also Aircam?

I think he is only talking about Clamar and even so previous owner of it.
Not AirCam. I actually make composite parts for AirCam.

 

[loftus]

Curious, are your comments about the bad manufacturer behavior in reference to Clamar only (under previous ownership), or also Aircam?

Correct as Abid said, Clamar under the previous owner. Aircam do put out advisories on their website, though one does have to go looking for them. I think it's just a problem in the experimental market for aircraft and their components that there is no standard or requirement for the manufacturers to advise their buyers of problems and any fixes required. Rotax is an exception to that, but that's probably a carry over from their certified engines. For everything else one often has to find out from one's own experience when there are problems, only then to find out that others have the same problem.

 

[Abid]

Correct as Abid said, Clamar under the previous owner. Aircam do put out advisories on their website, though one does have to go looking for them. I think it's just a problem in the experimental market for aircraft and their components that there is no standard or requirement for the manufacturers to advise their buyers of problems and any fixes required. Rotax is an exception to that, but that's probably a carry over from their certified engines. For everything else one often has to find out from one's own experience when there are problems, only then to find out that others have the same problem.

We advise of safety directives for AR-1 also but again I have the system setup for trikes and SLSA's from before that I need to care for as well
I post them on FB and website and here and Owners Group for AR-1 about these notices.

 

[PJB]

AAIB investigation to Rotorsport UK Cavalon, G-CKYT

Rotorsport UK Cavalon (G-CKYT), in-flight structural failure, farmland between Avoch and Munlochy, 12 November 2020

www.gov.uk

Posted here because the report highlights issues relevant to those being discussed.