MT-03 Gyro accident in South Africa

Hognose

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
2,182
Location
Seacoast New Hampshire, USA
Aircraft
PA-28/J-3/various
Total Flight Time
Gyro - 2.5! FW, hundreds not thousands. Helo, 0 (some day!)
Glenn,

given the reported radio call from the passenger, and the destruction indicating a very violent impact, both of which were described up the thread by South Africans who were there (maybe you?), it sounds more like your scenario #1.

Scenario #2 is possible but it seems like even if, say, your usual ROC was 300 ft/min two-up, the downdraft is enough to force a prang but not a violent, unsurvivable one.

I have been (as a passenger) in a Black Hawk caught in a lee-side downdraft and all that machine's considerable excess lift had to be used to keep us from bouncing.

I wonder what resources the accident investigation board (whatever you call it down there!) can or will bring to bear on this case. I have noticed that South African gyro accident reports have been fairly good.

cheers

-=K=-
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
445
Location
St Augustine, Fl.
Aircraft
Dominator Tandem and single
Total Flight Time
500+
First off; Ling my condolence to you for your loss.
Thanks for the positive spin from Chuck B. and Birdy confirming my thoughts
on how I would get out of such a situation even though I never intend to
put myself into it....You always have to be ready for the unexpected.
 

reelmule

Reelmule
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
388
Location
Cave Creek, AZ
Aircraft
Beech Baron C55; Piper PA 18 Super Cub; RAF 2000 gyroplane
Total Flight Time
5,000+ hrs;
Two-stage amber sounds to be as practical for present day instrument training as the Link full motion simulator we used in 1962--essentially worthless.
 

Chuck_Ellsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,695
Location
Vancouver Island

Two-stage amber sounds to be as practical for present day instrument training as the Link full motion simulator we used in 1962--essentially worthless.


Interesting comment reelmule.

Why do you think it is useless as a vision blocking method for IFR training?

I have used most every method that has been used in instrument training from the hood to the full motion simulator at Airbus Industries and for a simple to install and use device I prefer two stage amber to any other device except the full motion sim's used in airline training.

But I guess everyone is entitled to their own preferences.

So tell me what was it about two stage amber you did not like? the fact you couldn't see outside of the airplane?
 
Last edited:

Resasi

Gold Supporter
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
7,469
Location
London/ Kilifi Kenya
Aircraft
Gyrs, RAF 2000/Mgni/Bnsn/Hrnet/Mrlin/Crckt/MT-03/Lyzlle AV18-A/Prdtor. Pax ArrowCopter
Total Flight Time
100+ gyro, 16,000+ other
Recent report Oct 2008 has indicated that even highly trained, current, commercial airline pilots in the latest aircraft fitted with multiple safety devices and the most comprehensive instrumentation have experienced loss of control and died.

In 2007 in 384 fatal accidents involving 1,311 fatalities and including six airliners 42% of the accidents were attributed to 'Loss of Control'

The chances of an inadequately trained, low time pilot, in a gyro, with minimal instrumentation, are not very good!!

Night, and instrument conditions, are a very dangerous place to be in those circumstances. Avoid avoid avoid.
 

Chuck_Ellsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,695
Location
Vancouver Island
I am still curious how you came to the conclusion that two stage amber is essentially worthless reelmule.

Having used it for years in instrument training I found it to be an excellent method for teaching pilots to fly instruments as they have no visual reference outside of the airplane.

So what did you find wrong with that method during the time you used it, assuming you have used it.
 

reelmule

Reelmule
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
388
Location
Cave Creek, AZ
Aircraft
Beech Baron C55; Piper PA 18 Super Cub; RAF 2000 gyroplane
Total Flight Time
5,000+ hrs;
Chuck E. I never sair 2 stage amber was useless--I staid it was not practical in a private AC setting. I am not aware of any triaing accademy that uses it and most probably have not hear of it. I have not used it. Blocking vision from outside the AC is the purpose of all these vision limiting devices. From my own experience, I have found brief glimpses outside the AC with the hood on to be more disorieinting than in true IFR in solid clouds.
 

Chuck_Ellsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,695
Location
Vancouver Island
reelmule:

When using two stage amber as a vision limiting device your brain is getting normal signals from your eyes because you have normal peripheral vision.

The only visual difference for the person wearing the goggles is everything is tinted blue inside the airplane.

Outside the windshield and side windows everything is black.

Whereas wearing a hood you are deprived of your peripheral vision clues....and are relying on tunnel vision sight clues.Therefore the picture the brain gets is lacking those clues that are part of the mechanism needed for normal spatial orientation.

Quote:

I am not aware of any triaing accademy that uses it and most probably have not hear of it.


Nor am I, it would be interesting to know why they no longer use such a simple to make and use vision limiting method that mimics flying in cloud so well.

Then again how many flight instructors at these training academy's can fly a simple tail wheel airplane?
 

reelmule

Reelmule
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
388
Location
Cave Creek, AZ
Aircraft
Beech Baron C55; Piper PA 18 Super Cub; RAF 2000 gyroplane
Total Flight Time
5,000+ hrs;
Chuck E., I agree with everything you have said--especially the last-- almost none of these pilots have had any tail dragger time and none are required to do spin training!!! I couldn't believe it until one of these commuter pilots confirmed this for me.
 

Chuck_Ellsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,695
Location
Vancouver Island
Nice we can agree reelmule. :D

I see you own one of the Cadillacs of twin engine airplanes.

The Baron is a real nice machine, I used to fly them many many moons ago.

In fact I will never forget one of the last times I flew one, I had an all day charter with Lee Marvin and a couple of his friends. He was a very interesting friendly guy not to mention a great actor.....that was in 1971 when he was shooting a movie in Calgary...can't remember the name of the movie though.
 

raytork

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
88
Location
Montclair, NJ
Aircraft
172
Total Flight Time
11 FW/ 4 Gyro
Instrument Flight Training (OT)

Instrument Flight Training (OT)

Mr Ellsworth, your comments on instrument training prompt me to ask a question that I have wondered about for several years.
I am one of those teckie types that used a PC flight simulator long before I ever started flight training. In my first lessons, the instructor covered the attitude indicator because I was looking at it too much. He indicated that it was important to learn 'seat of the pants' flying.
What is the reason to learn to trust your senses for VFR when they are shown to be useless in IFR? Wouldn't it make more sense to begin flight training with IFR and use sense cues as a backup?

Thanks,

-- Ray
 

reelmule

Reelmule
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
388
Location
Cave Creek, AZ
Aircraft
Beech Baron C55; Piper PA 18 Super Cub; RAF 2000 gyroplane
Total Flight Time
5,000+ hrs;
Ray,

Interesting you say this--ie start flight training in IFR and proceed to VFR--this is exactly what my training encompassed At Ohio State University in 1964. Probably some grad student's idea for his Master's thesis. Seemed to work OK. Guess what goes 'round comes 'round. PS- did flunk the check ride at 39 hrs total time-received 1.5hrs additional dual (soft/short fields as I recall) and re-took the the check ride later THE SAME DAY and passed!! Don't think he could believe I was back the same day.
 

PW_Plack

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
8,517
Location
West Valley City, Utah, USA
Aircraft
Sport Copter Vortex 582
Total Flight Time
FW: 200 Gyro: 51
Wouldn't it make more sense to begin flight training with IFR and use sense cues as a backup?

Ray, I think the premise of VFR requires using visual cues as the primary in order to (a) stay aware of other VFR traffic, which may not be transponder-equipped, and (b) be able to navigate by visual landmarks. You can't do either unless your eyes are outside the cockpit. Obviously, when you enter IMC, neither of those is possible any longer, so the panel becomes the primary.

There are several forward-looking training providers which are now doing primary and instrument training simultaneously. The Cirrus training program does this, and Cessna is reported to be working on an update to its Part 141 syllabus which does the same. Continued VFR flight into IMC is such a frequent factor in crashes by pilots that this training technique may soon become the norm.
 

Chuck_Ellsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,695
Location
Vancouver Island
Ray, I will attempt to answer your questions in as simple a manner as I can.


Mr Ellsworth, your comments on instrument training prompt me to ask a question that I have wondered about for several years.
I am one of those teckie types that used a PC flight simulator long before I ever started flight training. In my first lessons, the instructor covered the attitude indicator because I was looking at it too much. He indicated that it was important to learn 'seat of the pants' flying.


What your instructor was trying to explain was before you advance to flying by instruments it is necessary to fully understand how to fly the aircraft by visual reference to the natural horizon. The instruments at this stage of your training are used to confirm that the attitude the airplane is now in is the attitude you want...for instance during the descent to land the airspeed indicator will confirm that the attitude you are presently holding is the proper attitude for the approach.


What is the reason to learn to trust your senses for VFR when they are shown to be useless in IFR?


We were not designed to fly, all our senses are wired to receive visual clues for balance such as walking from a wide view of the world around us, for instance if you close your eyes and walk real fast and change your direction quickly and from one direction to another you will eventually fall over...this is caused by fluid movement in the inner ear which without the visual clues will result in spacial disorientation and an inability to tell up from down.

When you fly an aircraft by reference to instruments only you will be receiving visual clues from a foreign source..the instrument panel....as you change attitudes and accelerate / decelerate you can become disorientated trying to overcome the feeling of motion that your brain is receiving from one of your natural balance message centers the inner ear....it takes time to disregard these messages and use only the picture the instruments are giving you.

The new glass instruments are far easier to fly because the picture is very similar to the picture you would see looking outside.


Wouldn't it make more sense to begin flight training with IFR and use sense cues as a backup?



No.

The computer flight simulators are excellent for learning procedures, however to learn to fly by instruments you need a full motion simulator which costs millions.
 

raytork

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
88
Location
Montclair, NJ
Aircraft
172
Total Flight Time
11 FW/ 4 Gyro
E>What your instructor was trying to explain was before you advance to
E>flying by instruments it is necessary to fully understand how to fly the
E>aircraft by visual reference to the natural horizon. The instruments at this
E>stage of your training are used to confirm that the attitude the airplane is
E> now in is the attitude you want...for instance during the descent to land
E>the airspeed indicator will confirm that the attitude you are presently
E>holding is the proper attitude for the approach.

That has been understanding of the facts.

R>What is the reason to learn to trust your senses for VFR when they are
R>shown to be useless in IFR?

E>We were not designed to fly, all our senses are wired to receive visual
E>clues for balance such as walking from a wide view of the world around us,
E>for instance if you close your eyes and walk real fast and change your
E>direction quickly and from one direction to another you will eventually fall
E>over...this is caused by fluid movement in the inner ear which without the
E>visual clues will result in spacial disorientation and an inability to tell up
from down.

Yes, this, on an elementary level, seems correct as well.

E>When you fly an aircraft by reference to instruments only you will be
E>receiving visual clues from a foreign source..the instrument panel....as you
E>change attitudes and accelerate / decelerate you can become
E>disorientated trying to overcome the feeling of motion that your brain is
E>receiving from one of your natural balance message centers the inner
E>ear....it takes time to disregard these messages and use only the picture
E>the instruments are giving you.

Would this not be true regardless of whether you had first trained for VFR and possibly more true after VFR training? To your knowledge were there any studies conducted which showed that beginner pilots were more susceptible to disorientation than VFR trained pilots?


E>The new glass instruments are far easier to fly because the picture is very
E>similar to the picture you would see looking outside.

This makes sense.

E>The computer flight simulators are excellent for learning procedures,
E>however to learn to fly by instruments you need a full motion simulator E>which costs millions.

Thanks for your response, this is very helpful

Regards,
--Ray
 

Chuck_Ellsworth

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
1,695
Location
Vancouver Island

Would this not be true regardless of whether you had first trained for VFR and possibly more true after VFR training? To your knowledge were there any studies conducted which showed that beginner pilots were more susceptible to disorientation than VFR trained pilots?


Disorientation when flying an aircraft by instruments is a result of motion, many factors can cause disorientation in any pilot regardless of their flying experience.

I have become disorientated on instruments on several occasions the most severe was caused by turbulence and lightening flashes that caused me to lose all sense of which way was which. The sensation was exactly like flicker vertigo.

The cure was to close my eyes and pass control to the first officer until I regained my equilibrium, which only took a few moments.


We were flying a DC3 with no auto pilot and both of us were very fatigued which I am sure was the trigger that disorientated me, at the time I had thousands of hours of instrument flight time.

There are many instances of high time airplane pilots losing control of an airplane through loss of orientation, some regained control, some did not. Usually these events were triggered by loss of one or more flight instrument and the pilots focusing on a trend that was incorrect, usually an incorrect airspeed indication and they failed to cross scan the other instruments


I do not know of any pilots who were first trained to fly by instruments only and then once they were competent taugh to fly with reference to the outside......


.......but I don't see any real reason why that could not be done.

How in hell did you come to ask such a question? :twitch:
 
Last edited:

Hognose

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
2,182
Location
Seacoast New Hampshire, USA
Aircraft
PA-28/J-3/various
Total Flight Time
Gyro - 2.5! FW, hundreds not thousands. Helo, 0 (some day!)
What is the reason to learn to trust your senses for VFR when they are shown to be useless in IFR?
When flying VFR you have to look outside the dang airplane. With instruments you can keep it rightside up but you can't avoid traffic or navigate (well, with some instruments you can). A problem instructors often face using the currently popular "integrated method" is student fixation on the attitude indicator. The AI is a very helpful instrument but it's no substitute for a good look around, when you can take one!

On Chuck's two-stage amber: Chuck and guys, I do not think it was ever used much in the USA or in civil flight training. It sounds workable if you don't have to set up the plane for each flight, but I think it was pretty much a British Commonwealth way of doing training. The RAF used to be very big on it, not just for initial instrument training, but for proficiency flying also.

cheers

-=K=-
 

Resasi

Gold Supporter
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
7,469
Location
London/ Kilifi Kenya
Aircraft
Gyrs, RAF 2000/Mgni/Bnsn/Hrnet/Mrlin/Crckt/MT-03/Lyzlle AV18-A/Prdtor. Pax ArrowCopter
Total Flight Time
100+ gyro, 16,000+ other
The amber/blue was used in EAA for some years on the DC3's. The screens were relatively easy to put up and pilot simply wore blue lensed goggles. Not sure why they discontinued but probably because a sim was considered cheaper not that there was ever a DC3 sim.

With regard to Chuck's comment on pilots who were first trained to fly by instruments only and then once they were competent taugh to fly with reference to the outside, I did participate in a Young Eagle project with Burnside Ott in about 69 when young students, 12-15 years old, were started under the hood from the beginning.

When they got to circuits and landings the hood would be taken off when established on short final. Progress seemed to parallel normal training however when the hoods were taken off permanently after they would have gone solo ( which they could not, too young no student licence) they were fixated on the instruments and AH particularly. It was very hard to make them keep a good lookout.

We only had ten hours instruction with each so difficult to say how it might have effected their onward training.
 

raytork

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
88
Location
Montclair, NJ
Aircraft
172
Total Flight Time
11 FW/ 4 Gyro
'How ... did you come to ask such a question? '

It seemed likely to me that the reason flight training is commonly done VFR first is probably due to historical reasons rather than because of any real consideration of the most efficient process for teaching the necessary skills.

'I have become disorientated on instruments on several occasions the most severe was caused by turbulence and lightening flashes that caused me to lose all sense of which way was which. The sensation was exactly like flicker vertigo.
'

This is very illuminating, it seems what we really need is for our aircraft to be enhanced help us better handle these physical limitations as the newer instrumentation can help provide.

Thanks,

--Ray
 

bosca

Newbie
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
186
Location
Condobolin
While this is only basic I found while training under the hood(yes Chuck under the hood) it was so much easier if the AC was well trimmed and to hold the stick between the index and the thumb and not firmly grasped in the hand.
Kym.
 
Top