My synthesis of the recent accident discussions

fara

AR-1 gyro manufacturer
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
3,660
Location
Tampa, FL
Aircraft
AR-1
Total Flight Time
3600+ .. New to gyroplanes
Interesting to read this tonight, as I was wondering earlier today if there was any chance that the Utah accident occurred because he took off without latching the bubble canopy closed, and had it either open, or lost control while trying to latch it (I never looked at how the canopy is secured and where the lock is relative to the pilot/controls). I've flown enough hours with my father to know that he wouldn't just pull up and roll almost 90 degrees voluntarily or because of "lack of training".
It’s difficult to know this but the canopy latch is available to both front and back seats. It’s on the right side of each seat. The canopy is closed by first aligning the pins that allows it to settle all the way down and then moving the latch handle forward to latch it shut. It definitely was all the way down that I can see on takeoff. Whether it was latched shut or not is not possible to see. The instructions are to latch it prior to taxi. Taxi with canopy unlatched or open is not recommended. If the canopy latch was open he would have to switch hands on the stick to free the right hand. On takeoff so low on very first solo I don’t think it’s wise to take hand off. His speed seems to be between 60 to 70 mph to me. The canopy would not come off at this speed but as you go faster an unlatched canopy would open due to low pressure and very quickly disappear to the left. Tearing up large cracks on the left side of the body.

This particular gyro was trimmed very well but I never took hands off at full power on takeoff that low though just at least on downwind at 800+ feet AGL. The stick shake was minimal and it would develop a slight turn after some time that could be straightened out with a gentle push and left alone for another minute or so at cruise RPM. You would need slight pressure on right rudder and a slight left stick tilt at powered climb out and that would need to be maintained and is fairly easy to maintain. One of the biggest complaints on AR-1C in the past had been high rudder pressure required in flight. Mostly right rudder at high speed cruise. We fixed that with the balance horn rudder in 2020. The pressure was cut down very significantly making it easier for the pilot to move the rudder even at speeds of 100 mph but I would not say the pressure is not positive or too light like a Dominator with full moving tail. It increases as the speed increases. The adjustable rudder trim for fast cruise was done away with in 2020 as it was no longer needed
 
Last edited:

Steve_UK

Active Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
3,705
Location
UK
Aircraft
I'm not a pilot but have been lucky enough to fly in Mi-24 Hind, Mi-2, Mi-17, Lynx HAS3, Gliders, GA
detaching canopies have occurred in the past, an example here with the enclosed Trixy gyro - this from my Blog back in 2013

8th March 2013 - between Leidringen and Dautmergen, Germany - Trixy G4-2R - D-MIXR - c/n 016 - Fatal accident - the gyrocopter crashed into a densely wooded hillside killing the pilot approx 2,200ft AMSL. The wrecked airframe appears to be substantially complete and did not burst into flames upon impact. The Trixy G4-2R is a new gyro design and gained German Type Certification in 2012. This Trixy G4 gyro was delivered new to the pilot in November 2012. At the time of the accident this Trixy had flown just 3 flight hours.

Part of the canopy was found some 200m before the main wreckage - why ?
 

chrisk

Gyroplane CFI
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
304
Location
Round Rock TX
Aircraft
Magni M24, Turbo Mooney 231
Total Flight Time
1000
No you didn't miss it and as you have read my previous posts you know my view. The point about things being idiotic is that it doesn't actually matter what events are ultimately revealed to be causal to the accident the process that led to that point was not [in my opinion] the way forward.

When you replay things it doesn't seem the most intelligent for a pilot of limited gyroplane experience to have literally a couple of hours dual with a pilot no longer an instructor [although competent] at an airfield +5000ft within mountains and with an aircraft that was very different from those of his limited experience when further and more extensive training was offered.

There is clearly a limit to the extent of knowledge transfer that can take place in the time that was made available. I don't want to poke the bees nest and I am very sorry for the loss of your dad but for new pilots I would recommend a full program of training with an instructor in a benign environment and if there is ever a doubt then there is no doubt you keep doing more instruction. Nothing more, nothing less.

Good post. On regulation the big drum I bang is around differences training. In the UK we have some documented process and it isn't particularly overly involved. If you learn to fly in/on an AutoGyro Sport and then want to fly a Cavalon you need a minimum of 2 hours in a Cavalon with an instructor. If he is happy to sign you off then you are done. If you look at almost all of the recent accidents had that kind of process been around for the territories the accidents happened you likely didn't have the accident.

When I can watch the film and then become aware of the [frankly] idiocy around the Utah accident then short of a medical event it would not and could not have happened in the UK. FACT. I don't see the intelligence of any push back over that kind of regulation. If nothing else it protects those involved in the process who have a mechanism to tell the stubborn / wilful new owner from getting airborne.

When reading your posts, I am struck by the difference in American and European culture. Here we educate the pilot and make them responsible for their decisions. In essence, its the right of an individule to participate in risky behavior. The governments role is to ensure the individual understands the risks and at some point had minimal competency. The rules and regulations increase when an uneducated public is exposed to pilots in riskier situations. For example, a student pilot is not allowed to carry a passenger, but can put their own safety at risk. A private pilot can not take a passenger if they do not have recent currency. A private pilot needs a certain amount of experience before thay can give rides at a charity events. More training and a commercial certificate is required if you get paid to work as a pilot. And even more training and certificaion is necessary if an airline is involved.

In the video of the accident referenced here, I see no "red flags" that would suggest exceptionally poor decision making. It was not a hot day and the gyro was light , the sky was clear and the winds appeared calm. The implication that +5000 ft and within mountains had anything to do with this accident seems to be off track and training/experience is more than adequate here.

With respect to transition training: Most transition training focuses on take offs and landings, as this is where most aircraft differ and most accidents happen. And in the accident referenced, the event occurred well out of ground effect, at least a few 100 feet above the ground. This likely would not be classified as a take off accident, unless it was due to something like an improperly latched canopy. Further, training has its limitations. Most two place gyros have dramatically different performance when flown solo vs being flown at gross weight.

And on the comment "short of a medical event it would not and could not have happened in the UK. FACT" A medical event is not the only thing that could cause such an accident and there are many possibilities. Mechanical failure immediately comes to mind. As does failing to properly secure the canopy. The aircraft is also experimental and I do not know the level of testing for aerodynamic stability with a relatively light pilot. And lastly, (probably very unlikely) are external events like a bird strike or laser pointed at the pilot.

So, my question for you is: Exactly what regulation would have prevented the Utah accident? And it is my contention, until the investigation is complete, we will not know. And even when we know the cause, its not clear additional regulation is the answer. For example, we all know motor vehicles kill 1000's each year. If we limited their speed to 5mph, we could dramatically reduce the number of deaths. But that alone does not mean we should impose such a limit.
 

Philbennett

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
477
Location
London
So, my question for you is: Exactly what regulation would have prevented the Utah accident? And it is my contention, until the investigation is complete, we will not know. And even when we know the cause, its not clear additional regulation is the answer. For example, we all know motor vehicles kill 1000's each year. If we limited their speed to 5mph, we could dramatically reduce the number of deaths. But that alone does not mean we should impose such a limit.

Hello - in a nutshell the regulation that exists around differences training because when you suggest some other mechanical failure maybe but when you balance the probability of that verse the background and what we can see I think one is far more likely than the other.

You yourself already highlight the difference of single pilot operation v a dual flight, add in the general lack of experience, the lack of time spent dual, the difference between AR1 v M24/Cavalon, the comments from David suggesting he had a problem of over controlling initially and the general instability we can see during the take off roll and climb out, the seemingly complete lack of involvement with the power, the mountainous airfield - which in a different thread create all kinds of issue potential but you now say is no issue.

We can spin this around as if we are oblivious to certain things yet we are not oblivious. We can all physically see the accident develop on film and the people who are primarily involved / link to the accident have commented and they are highly likely to make the same comments to the NTSB, who are likely to do what? The NTSB will more than likely defer to people more familiar with gyroplanes than their usual staff members. It is very unlikely to involve years of forensic investigation either of the aircraft wreckage or the human factors one assumes precisely because other the huge number of freedoms that exist with this class of aircraft and pilot. Be interesting to get the pilot training records from Michael Burton and see what is recorded there.

As for failing to secure the canopy, it shouldn't [and doesn't in many cases typically aerobatic aircraft] lead to LOC or a fatal outcome. I believe there is even an incident of a canopy not being secured properly in an AR1 where the pilot ended up landing out, but safely. Although I suppose the more familiar you are with the aircraft the chances of it not happening in the first place are higher as too the possibility of landing safely.
 

chrisk

Gyroplane CFI
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
304
Location
Round Rock TX
Aircraft
Magni M24, Turbo Mooney 231
Total Flight Time
1000
As for failing to secure the canopy, it shouldn't [and doesn't in many cases typically aerobatic aircraft] lead to LOC or a fatal outcome. I believe there is even an incident of a canopy not being secured properly in an AR1 where the pilot ended up landing out, but safely. Although I suppose the more familiar you are with the aircraft the chances of it not happening in the first place are higher as too the possibility of landing safely.

I don't have experience with the AR1 aircraft. I've seen the AR1 once on the ground a few years ago and it looked well built. I've never seen the AR1 with the canopy. There have been several reported cases of doors/canopies coming off on gyro planes which have resulted in an accident. Usually because the pilot gets distracted. The same is true in fixed wing aircraft with doors coming unlatched.

As you point out, there is some roughness in the controls on take off. I'd probably attribute this to the difference in performance of the gyro being lighter when flown solo. I don't see anything that would suggest over control to the point of causing an inflight failure due to unloading the rotors, prior to the nose up and turn to the right. The questions remain. Why nose up? Why the right turn? Why no change in engine noise? I simply have trouble believing any gyro (or fixed wing) pilot would intentionally nose up and turn so steeply to the right on their first solo flight. Prior to the nose up, right turn, I don't see a lack of training as a major factor.
 

rdalcanto

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
98
Location
Salt Lake City
When you replay things it doesn't seem the most intelligent for a pilot of limited gyroplane experience to have literally a couple of hours dual with a pilot no longer an instructor [although competent] at an airfield +5000ft within mountains and with an aircraft that was very different from those of his limited experience when further and more extensive training was offered.
How do you define "limited gyroplane experience?" He sold his airplane and had 4-5 years of experience flying exclusively gyroplanes, and previously owned a Cavalon. Passed a biannual flight review in my Magni last winter. He has been flying at that airport for more than 20 years, including for all the years he was flying gyros. The DPE that did his flight review recently said to me that he thought his flying was up to standards and he doesn't believe a lack of ability was the problem. "It doesn't seem the most intelligent for a pilot" to be insulting the dead and commenting on things he isn't fully informed about....
 
Last edited:

rdalcanto

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
98
Location
Salt Lake City
As you point out, there is some roughness in the controls on take off. I'd probably attribute this to the difference in performance of the gyro being lighter when flown solo. I don't see anything that would suggest over control to the point of causing an inflight failure due to unloading the rotors, prior to the nose up and turn to the right.
Exactly. The last time I flew I slowly and carefully increased some PIOs to simulate what we see in the video. The most I could get the rotor rpm to drop was 20 rev/min. (I obviously didn't do a big negative pushover, but neither did he shortly after takeoff). There is absolutely no way the mild "PIOs" seen on the video caused significant loss of rotor rpm or tail strike. I too believe he was adjusting to the different feel of an empty back seat, or was adjusting the trim and checking stick pressure. The abrupt nose up and roll was either a mechanical, or pilot distraction from something in the cockpit. Correcting from that unusual pitch attitude probably was enough of a negative pushover to loose rotor rpm. I am NOT going to intentionally reproduce that one....
 

fara

AR-1 gyro manufacturer
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
3,660
Location
Tampa, FL
Aircraft
AR-1
Total Flight Time
3600+ .. New to gyroplanes
...

And on the comment "short of a medical event it would not and could not have happened in the UK. FACT" A medical event is not the only thing that could cause such an accident and there are many possibilities. Mechanical failure immediately comes to mind. As does failing to properly secure the canopy. The aircraft is also experimental and I do not know the level of testing for aerodynamic stability with a relatively light pilot. And lastly, (probably very unlikely) are external events like a bird strike or laser pointed at the pilot.

So, my question for you is: Exactly what regulation would have prevented the Utah accident? And it is my contention, until the investigation is complete, we will not know. And even when we know the cause, its not clear additional regulation is the answer. For example, we all know motor vehicles kill 1000's each year. If we limited their speed to 5mph, we could dramatically reduce the number of deaths. But that alone does not mean we should impose such a limit.

Chris:
I like you don't want to jump to any conclusions quite yet. Of course anything is possible. However the chance that the control circuit failed in less than 30 seconds of the last flights done with a safety pilot are rather low. The chances of bird strike looking so far at all the pictures seems low also.
The aircraft was tested by me, and flown by another two pilots before leaving Florida. It had roughly 7 hours when it left here. I have about 250+ hours in gyroplanes with about 90 hours in AR-1C canopy version and 30+ hours with AR-1C with 915iS. I wouldn't call myself high time gyroplane pilot and certainly I could fly it under normal limitation of 60 degree bank, 30 degree pitch up or down. I am 150 pounds about the same weight as the pilot in the accident and I have flown it alone a few hours at sea level where the performance was more sprightly seeing up to 1600 to 1700 FPM climbs one up. The aircraft was flown all the way to Vne down the runway 1 mile long at 120 mph at least 3 times that I remember. Obviously we do not do hard maneuvers at Vne. Climbs were performed from 45 mph climbs to up to 85 mph climbs. Maintaining the flag or the ball centered for coordination as normally would be done. That requires just a touch of right rudder pressure (sustained) and a very slight left stick (initially). Its simple enough to look at the flag r the ball and do what needs to be done as in any 3-axis aircraft. There wasn't any tremendous effort to do those things. The only other 915iS gyroplane I have flown was one of the first AG-915iS in the US. Ironically that very machine I have briefly flown (35 minutes) was actually a machine ordered by Mr. Mauro and came to Utah. However, there were some issues with paperwork and build that compelled Mr. Mauro to return the aircraft to the vendor. That AG-915iS that I flew demanded a lot more work than this gyroplane did to handle the takeoff after breaking ground. I only had 110 or so hours on gyroplanes on me at the time but there is no doubt in my mind that that aircraft as it was rigged and setup at the time I flew it was much more demanding on takeoff than AR-1C with a 915iS. Mr. Mauro had flown that aircraft though with an instructor on board. I made the comment to the owner of it and he agreed that rigging on that aircraft needed further adjustment.

Pilot had requested that I perform flight to 10,000 feet in Florida to simulate performance he may see in the summer. I did not do that. That is well beyond the testing for every machine we would do after builder's assist. Did climb close to 5000 feet sustained climb to check that temps remained well within acceptable range on 5 minute powered climb.

As per differences training, initially it was the expectation that at the finish customer would have come back to take transition training into tandem style gyroplane and in AR-1C specifically. As time went on, that idea was put to shelf with the pandemic starting to rage and given the high risk due to the age of the customer. I convinced Davey to go with customer's agreement and that took some doing to convince even Davey to travel during the surge in the cases here and he was sent as a courtesy without any charge because I simply did not want anyone who had never had any experience in AR-1 or even a tandem gyroplane to start to fly it without getting some familiarity. Customer was on board with that view. The day before (or may be two days before) the accident date me and the customer had talked on the phone about possibility of a CFI experienced in AR-1C going there to train further after new years and I was going to find out per diem rate of the instructors available and let the customer know to make the decision. Alas, it never came to that.


I did some PIOs testing carefully as well and what I saw is about 20 RRPM loss on each. Of course I did not do a steep pullup following those etc.
 
Last edited:

fara

AR-1 gyro manufacturer
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
3,660
Location
Tampa, FL
Aircraft
AR-1
Total Flight Time
3600+ .. New to gyroplanes
Exactly. The last time I flew I slowly and carefully increased some PIOs to simulate what we see in the video. The most I could get the rotor rpm to drop was 20 rev/min. (I obviously didn't do a big negative pushover, but neither did he shortly after takeoff). There is absolutely no way the mild "PIOs" seen on the video caused significant loss of rotor rpm or tail strike. I too believe he was adjusting to the different feel of an empty back seat, or was adjusting the trim and checking stick pressure. The abrupt nose up and roll was either a mechanical, or pilot distraction from something in the cockpit. Correcting from that unusual pitch attitude probably was enough of a negative pushover to loose rotor rpm. I am NOT going to intentionally reproduce that one....

You are correct in your assessment. I got about the same RRPM loss in PIOs. After two in a row I may have lost about 30 RRPM. I also would not create the steep pull up etc. either following those. One thing I would say is that there is no evidence of Mr. Mauro reducing power when this happens and that is troubling and it does make me wonder if indeed he was distracted by something. We are all grilled on if in doubt in a gyro reduce power and smoothly and slowly pull stick back just past neutral to try and get out of trouble. That's pretty much SOP in all gyroplanes
 

chrisk

Gyroplane CFI
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
304
Location
Round Rock TX
Aircraft
Magni M24, Turbo Mooney 231
Total Flight Time
1000
Chris:
I like you don't want to jump to any conclusions quite yet. Of course anything is possible. However the chance that the control circuit failed in less than 30 seconds of the last flights done with a safety pilot are rather low. The chances of bird strike looking so far at all the pictures seems low also.
The aircraft was tested by me, and flown by another two pilots before leaving Florida. It had roughly 7 hours when it left here. I have about 250+ hours in gyroplanes with about 90 hours in AR-1C canopy version and 30+ hours with AR-1C with 915iS. I wouldn't call myself high time gyroplane pilot and certainly I could fly it under normal limitation of 60 degree bank, 30 degree pitch up or down. I am 150 pounds about the same weight as the pilot in the accident and I have flown it alone a few hours at sea level where the performance was more sprightly seeing up to 1600 to 1700 FPM climbs one up. The aircraft was flown all the way to Vne down the runway 1 mile long at 120 mph at least 3 times that I remember. Obviously we do not do hard maneuvers at Vne. Climbs were performed from 45 mph climbs to up to 85 mph climbs. Maintaining the flag or the ball centered for coordination as normally would be done. That requires just a touch of right rudder pressure (sustained) and a very slight left stick (initially). Its simple enough to look at the flag r the ball and do what needs to be done as in any 3-axis aircraft. There wasn't any tremendous effort to do those things. The only other 915iS gyroplane I have flown was one of the first AG-915iS in the US. Ironically that very machine I have briefly flown (35 minutes) was actually a machine ordered by Mr. Mauro and came to Utah. However, there were some issues with paperwork and build that compelled Mr. Mauro to return the aircraft to the vendor. That AG-915iS that I flew demanded a lot more work than this gyroplane did to handle the takeoff after breaking ground. I only had 110 or so hours on gyroplanes on me at the time but there is no doubt in my mind that that aircraft as it was rigged and setup at the time I flew it was much more demanding on takeoff than AR-1C with a 915iS. Mr. Mauro had flown that aircraft though with an instructor on board. I made the comment to the owner of it and he agreed that rigging on that aircraft needed further adjustment.

Pilot had requested that I perform flight to 10,000 feet in Florida to simulate performance he may see in the summer. I did not do that. That is well beyond the testing for every machine we would do after builder's assist. Did climb close to 5000 feet sustained climb to check that temps remained well within acceptable range on 5 minute powered climb.

As per differences training, initially it was the expectation that at the finish customer would have come back to take transition training into tandem style gyroplane and in AR-1C specifically. As time went on, that idea was put to shelf with the pandemic starting to rage and given the high risk due to the age of the customer. I convinced Davey to go with customer's agreement and that took some doing to convince even Davey to travel during the surge in the cases here and he was sent as a courtesy without any charge because I simply did not want anyone who had never had any experience in AR-1 or even a tandem gyroplane to start to fly it without getting some familiarity. Customer was on board with that view. The day before (or may be two days before) the accident date me and the customer had talked on the phone about possibility of a CFI experienced in AR-1C going there to train further after new years and I was going to find out per diem rate of the instructors available and let the customer know to make the decision. Alas, it never came to that.


I did some PIOs testing carefully as well and what I saw is about 20 RRPM loss on each. Of course I did not do a steep pullup following those etc.
Hi Abid
Thanks for the update on the flight testing. It certainly sounds like the testing was reasonable. The accident remains a mystery to me.
Chris
 

Philbennett

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
477
Location
London
How do you define "limited gyroplane experience?" He sold his airplane and had 4-5 years of experience flying exclusively gyroplanes, and previously owned a Cavalon. Passed a biannual flight review in my Magni last winter. He has been flying at that airport for more than 20 years, including for all the years he was flying gyros. The DPE that did his flight review recently said to me that he thought his flying was up to standards and he doesn't believe a lack of ability was the problem. "It doesn't seem the most intelligent for a pilot" to be insulting the dead and commenting on things he isn't fully informed about....

Its likely about as intelligent as suggesting the take off process was to blame or the aircrafts rudder was faulty.

The view of the pilot that was given the task of this transition training as reflected is likely to be consistently reflected to the NTSB, so without anything more conclusive i.e. aircraft failure [increasingly unlikely given the time that has passed and the manufacturer has posted here today and with nothing to alert us to] or perhaps there was a medical problem [although you think that is unlikely] it is more than likely that you get a range of potentials and you take comfort in something that you feel fits.

I can be the bad man for saying but certainly some issues shouldn't mean a fatal accident. Putting in a boot of rudder shouldn't mean a LOC nor a loose canopy [we don't lose the canopy because we can see it attached in the film...]. Pitch is the issue especially with the 915 thrust levels and power seems to remain unchanged throughout which is unusual for somebody cognisant of the situation we can see develop.

You can keep replaying the not fully informed narrative and so whatever number I was told will be as equally uninformed as the view upon the initial dual flight PIO, so you tell me how many hours he had but less than a couple of hundred on type is in-experienced isn't it?
 

fara

AR-1 gyro manufacturer
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
3,660
Location
Tampa, FL
Aircraft
AR-1
Total Flight Time
3600+ .. New to gyroplanes
Just to share something in general about zero G. In gyroplanes and trikes alike, you don't have to go to negative Gs'. You only have to go towards zero G somewhat sustained (1 to 2 seconds) to create a loss of control. This hardly ever happens in normal flight except in severe turbulence in the mountains or really bad fronts likes of which can spit off wings from light airplanes (we just lost an instrument rated young pilot in a RV-7 right at our hanger whose wings flew right off 2 months ago in a hidden cell during a front in Florida during a XC flight) etc. Trikes usually tumble straight down at idle or with a carriage roll right into the wing due to torque if high power with no recovery except pulling a BRS. Gyroplanes don't fair much better. In fact any 2 bladed helicopter gets in some deep trouble with the same. To produce close to zero G doesn't take much if you intentionally do it though. It happens fairly quickly if you do the correct sequence of inputs. Going over the top if power is not reduced (like in this video), the result is even more abrupt, sudden and drastic. Please ABSOLUTELY do not even think about trying this at home. This has been done many times in trikes, gyroplanes, Hueys, Robinsons etc. We all know the results already. Differential HS or not, its not going to save you.

 
Last edited:

Vance

Gyroplane CFI
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
16,570
Location
Nipomo,California
Aircraft
Givens Predator
Total Flight Time
2400+ in rotorcraft
As for failing to secure the canopy, it shouldn't [and doesn't in many cases typically aerobatic aircraft] lead to LOC or a fatal outcome. I believe there is even an incident of a canopy not being secured properly in an AR1 where the pilot ended up landing out, but safely. Although I suppose the more familiar you are with the aircraft the chances of it not happening in the first place are higher as too the possibility of landing safely.
I can be the bad man for saying but certainly some issues shouldn't mean a fatal accident. Putting in a boot of rudder shouldn't mean a LOC nor a loose canopy [we don't lose the canopy because we can see it attached in the film...]. Pitch is the issue especially with the 915 thrust levels and power seems to remain unchanged throughout which is unusual for somebody cognisant of the situation we can see develop.
It is my observation that there have been several Loss of Control accidents in gyroplanes that have been attributed to uncoordinated flight at high speed. Sometimes it has been intentional and sometimes simply a miss use of the rudder.

It is my observation from reading accident reports of all types of aircraft an open door or an unlatched canopy has been found many times to be the cause of a fatal accident.

I recall a Magni M24 fatal accident in the UK because of an unlatched door.

I had a client with a Cavalon who during pattern work became focused on an unlatched door and despite my repeated reassurances that the unlatched door was not a problem; continued to focus on the door and simply forgot to fly the aircraft or make his radio calls until we were so near the ground and out of shape I took the controls. If I had not been there I have no doubt he would have flown a perfectly flyable Cavalon into the ground while focused on the door.

I cannot tell if the canopy is latched from the video.
 

fara

AR-1 gyro manufacturer
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
3,660
Location
Tampa, FL
Aircraft
AR-1
Total Flight Time
3600+ .. New to gyroplanes
Not possible to tell if canopy is latched from the video. It can look all set down but that does not mean it was latched shut. The handle on the outside is on the opposite side out of view in the video.
Excessive side slips are never a great idea. AutoGyro found that out the hard way for even open cockpit MTO Sport with a fatal. Now they have a warning in the POH such as

Excessive side-slip is prohibited!
WARNING
Side slip may be performed only with proper training and within safe boundaries. Use gentle pedal input for initiation and stabilization. Do not rely on airspeed indication in side slip. Never perform abrupt control stick input into the direction of motion. Be aware that excessive side slip may result in an uncontrollable and unrecoverable (low-G) attitude.

Depending on speed you cannot do full deflection of controls like rudder even on airplanes without breaking them off or getting out of control. That's the point of maneuvering speed.
 

WaspAir

Supreme Allied Gyro CFI
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
4,914
Location
Colorado front range
Aircraft
Bell 47G-3B-1 / A&S 18A / Phoebus C, etc.
Total Flight Time
stopped caring at 1000
Even respecting V-A won't protect you from structural damage from full rudder deflection. Look up American Flt 587. Very sobering!
 

Philbennett

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
477
Location
London
I recall a Magni M24 fatal accident in the UK because of an unlatched door.
Indeed and it has become a point of discussion in both initial pilot training, revalidation flights and instructor courses and refreshers since.


A detailed piece of work by our own investigative body the AAIB and in the UK generated a safety recommendation around design regulations on door opening since May 2013, such that BCAR-T reflects:-

T 783
Doors
  1. a) There must be a provision to secure each door.
  2. b) There must be a means to safeguard each door against inadvertently opening in flight unless:
    1) it can be shown that any door that is not closed and secured would be clearly evident to the crew from their normal operating position(s) before flight; or
    2) a door opening in flight does not adversely affect the safe operation of the aircraft or cause undue distraction to the pilot.

In the UK training on type includes the highlighting of these points i.e. this is how the door / canopy is closed and secured, these are the snags with this model [if relevant - so Cavalon it is easy for the bayonet at the rear to be pushed outside of its fixing and not latched]. Then further instruction around the reminder to fly the aircraft and not become distracted etc.

If you take this thread and post 9 within in it:-


The AAIB and the CAA attempt to address this posters point 4, I leave you all to decide what better aids pilots to avoid being snagged with his points 1-3.

I draw your attention to the AAIB report and page 121 [as it is an extract of a monthly bulletin with other reports]. The lessons are there if you know where they are and look for them.

In July 2010 the pilot commenced his training in gyroplanes, predominantly on the Magni M16C, and in September he test flew a M24C and ordered an aircraft shortly afterwards. He was awarded his Private Pilot’s Licence Gyroplanes PPL(G) in January 2011 and immediately commenced his conversion training onto the M24C, which he completed in February 2011. He then continued to fly with his instructor, completing his first solo ight in the M24C in April 2011. At the time of the accident the pilot had a total of 12:55 hrs in command of gyroplanes, with 2:35 hrs in command of the Magni M24C. The pilot’s training records show satisfactory progress throughout the PPL(G) course.
 

XXavier

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
1,327
Location
Madrid, Spain
Aircraft
ELA R-100 and Magni M24 autogyros
Total Flight Time
694 gyro (Apr. 2021)
In recently-built Magni M24s, if the doors are not duly closed, a dashboard warning lamp stays on, but –more important– the rotor revs counter won't work... A very good warning sign, since it's impossible that the pilot may fail to notice that...
 

Mike G

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
1,554
Location
Lillebonne France
Aircraft
Owned Magni M16 now ELA 07
Total Flight Time
550FW + 500 gyro
With our warning system we could probably also give a verbal message over the intercom "door not locked".
 

fara

AR-1 gyro manufacturer
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
3,660
Location
Tampa, FL
Aircraft
AR-1
Total Flight Time
3600+ .. New to gyroplanes
It’s not about lights and warnings. You won’t get any warning lights in many certified airplanes and certainly none is required in any SLSA airplane. A pilot is supposed to follow procedure and check against anything loose or unsecured in the cabin. The fix belongs where it actually belongs which is following a procedure that secures the cockpit against anything loose before the aircraft even steps on to a runway. It’s true that canopies coming off in flight have caused deaths in some airplane accidents including in at least one light sport airplane. The committee decided not to change the standard to require a light etc. when a Piper Cherokee 140 does not have a light or warning that you did not close the door. What do you do with the warning when you convert a convertible to fly open? Or in a Grumman Tiger where you can fly it with canopy slid back a few inches but if it’s open more than that you will barely get 100 FPM on climb out. The pilot has to follow procedure that makes sure aircraft is in flight ready condition.
 
Last edited:

Brent Drake

Gyroplane Instructor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
2,062
Location
Shelbyville, Indiana
Aircraft
Pipers/Cessna's/gyro's
Total Flight Time
3,000+
In Utah, In the video, I believe he had a rotor-tail strike on takeoff. the takeoff should have been aborted. The pilot only had 2-1/2 hours in type. Not enough time in a machine that flys like a sports car rather than a family car.

At this time the PRA is working on an insurance policy for gyros. It will have a currency requirement that should help us all. The discount being offered is a substantial one. This should happen this spring. We have been doing lots behind the scenes and a whole new website is coming.
 
Top