NTSB Reports: straight facts

Cobra Doc

Senior Trouble Maker
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
1,787
Location
Carrollton, GA
Aircraft
Senior Telemaster, Schluter Moskito
Total Flight Time
25,000 instrument approaches
I'm not going to embelish or even report types involved. Here are the raw numbers:
10-1-99 through 11-17-04: 53 reportable accidents/incidents
Pilot Error: 43
Fule Starvation: 1
Mechanical Failure: 3
Maintenance related: 2
Construction related: 4
****************
Serious Injuries: 6
Minor Injuries: 9
Fatalities: 21
****************
Post crash fire: 5
****************
Student Pilots: 10
Not Rotorcraft Rated: 10 (includes a passenger fatality)
****************
Missing: 1
Possible in flight death of pilot: 1

I could break out Make and model and accident type, etc. But I'll leave that up to somebody else. I will tell you that one make in particlar suffers a lot of blade strikes on the tail. I can only attribute these to pilot error like the NTSB did. If I miss counted one two, oh well. This isn't to start any arguments. It's just the raw data that was asked for.

Cody
 
Screw-In

I wish you would have broken them down to Make and Model, so people could see what could be a dangerous gyro. As well as Rotorcraft ratings if any.

I know that these are only what have been reported, and I'm sure there are and equal amount if not more that never was reported.

Screw-Out
 
Where I reported Not Rotorcraft Rated, about half didn't have anything, not even a fixed wing student certificate. I'll leave it to your imagination which Candian make and model is responsible for 20 of these reports.
 
Doc - please remember that a PPO accident is usually reported by the NTSB as "pilot error". We can safely assume that these pilots would probably still be alive today if their gyro was PPO-proof. The biggest error these pilots made was in the selection of their make/model.

Udi
 
I absolutely agree Udi. I didn't break out how rudders/vertical fins were knocked off in flight, but it seems to be a common cause of accidents with one model in particular. The reason I didn't break it out is beacause I have know way of knowing if it was PPO or PIO. I did my best to present just the raw numbers and keep the judgement to a minimum. Notice I didn't "fuel starvation" under pilot error. I think I counted the possible water contamination under construction due to poor fuel tank design. It could have also gone as pilot error due to poor pre-flight precedures.
 
Last edited:
Pete; I have a copy right here on my desk, along with another 15 lbs of research material. I probably have all the answers that Carter Copter is looking for somewhere in this stack! So far it looks like it all comes down to stable aircraft and quality training.
 
Cobra Doc said:
......it looks like it all comes down to stable aircraft and quality training.
Uh, well, yeah, I suspect it does! :D

Seriously, training was actually cited as a problem before it was universally (universally? Probably not!) accepted that gyro stability was a big problem. That was probably because there had been many incidents caused by self-training. Once the two-place trainer was developed then it was, and is, thought by some that the training systems could be improved. This provided a reason for one PRA chapter to start creating their own and to solicit help from the PRA BOD.

The BOD blessed the effort and a team was formed to create what was hoped would be a standardized training system that could be bought, figuratively speaking, by all instructors. About this time the LSA/Sport Pilot rule became the big news and the gyro consensus standards pulled G. Gremminger out of the loop. Greg was, and I assume still is, a big proponent of the 'system' and apparently some in the FAA had an interest in seeing it come to pass. But the person that originated the standardized training idea fell victim to health problems and dropped out of the effort.

The training team was then reformed but one member's military unit has gone active because of Iraq and another has had his problems with the PRA. So, the training systems development is in limbo. Eventually I believe that something will happen to improve the training methods.

While the LSA gyro consensus standards should sustain, if not improve, the all ready improving gyro safety record, I have the feeling that the FAA is still going to looking for improved training. I suspect that the AAI folks led by Jim Mayfield may have the answer. The question then becomes, is their training system something that can be adapted by all instructors and if so will they train other CFI's, that are not AAI dealers, to use it. Then again, may be other instructors may want to keep doing it their way. Instructors tend to be a very independent.
 
Yes, Mayfield and AAI have an excellent training program, I have it on my desk. They also have a network of 22 insructors using it. Piper, Cirrus, Lancair and Velocity have stadarized training programs. Others are following suit. LSA/SP practically mandates standardized training. The more complex the aircraft gets, the more structured the training gets. With 10 solo students and 10 non-rotor rated pilots trying to plant an aluminum forest, self training doesn't work. Please don't use the Wright Brothers as an example that it does. They spent years doing it very meticulously and they crashed a lot. Even their first "successful" flight ended with a crash. So did the third one. Can you learn to fly an unsafe airplane safely? If Orville and Wilbur didn't think so, why should we? You can probably guess where I'll be going with this as an insurance professional.
 
Cobra Doc said:
So far it looks like it all comes down to stable aircraft and quality training.

Cody,

The data sure seem to suggest that pretty strongly, don't they? I really hope you are successful. I've worked pretty hard to be the kind of gyro pilot who will, hopefully, be insurable. I hope to get a single seat, CLT in the future and would really like liability insurance. I would also love to be able to get renter's insurance right now. I trained for my Rotorcraft-Gyro rating with Terry Brandt over at AAI. I wass on of their first students seeking an initial PP pilot rating in Gyros. I'm very lucky to live so close to quality instruction.
 
Last edited:
Cobra Doc said:
..........Piper, Cirrus, Lancair and Velocity have stadarized training programs. Others are following suit. LSA/SP practically mandates standardized training...........
Cody, Are you saying that all of the fixed wing guys you mentioned are using the same training system?

Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, what is your definition of 'standardized' training? Mine is that all instructors use the same syllabus and training methods and only modify where necessary to fit those that don't fall in the middle of the bell curve as far as learning rate and etc. I think the value of a good instructor shows up in student evaluation and knowing when and how much he/she has to modify. In the gyro world, standardized training would solve the little problem we seem to have where, for whatever reason, multiple instructors are used. This may happen in the fixed wing world also but I know it happens with gyros.

One other thing, there are some of us (I started to say a lot or most but then I would have to justify that!) that believe that the gyro training hours required to solo are under quoted by the instructors. In this area we are hearing 40+hour numbers to solo for fixed wing students. But then may be us Texans are just slow! Or then again that may be just Texas talk for more than the student thought it would be. Actually those numbers are being reported by the flight schools. I say that when I received the info second hand and not from the schools.

Hey, GyroRon I don't want to even hear about your learning curve! You don't fit the norm.
 
A standardized training plan is ususally devleoped by the company concerned using available rescoures. There is no way I list those rescources. I don't think Todd has that kind of band width. Once the company develops their own plan they start training and approving flight instructors that agree to use the training plan. This usually involves annual reccurent training for the instructors. Nobody tries to compress their plan lock-step to the 40 hour minimum requirement for a PPL. A good plan is flexible and starts with minimum requirements and allows for extended training as needed by the student. If I remember correctly, it was on Cirrus 4th try that they hooked up with UND and got it right. All the companies went through the same steps: denial, anger, acceptance and action. Several aviation magazines published in low key that the FAA had strong words with Piper about the PA-32 series. The PA32 is one of the all-time great airplanes. However, due to the airplanes relatively low acquisition cost, low time pilots were killing themselves and half their relatives in one shot. Piper allied themselves with SIMCOM. Lancair has always had some of the best pilots in the world at their disposal. It took a long time, but they finally decided they need to use their rescources. Their decison came on the heels of an accident and insurance industry pressure and internal pressures. Velocity figured it out on their own. None of these happened over night. Mooney has had initial flight traing with a new purchase for a long time. The key is continued "pilot maintenance". Initial training is great, but an annual check-up makes it even better.
When I first soloed back in '77 I did it in 6 hours. Looks like those days are gone. Since all my avaition materials didn't make it to Korea with me, I got married, raised a family, quit flying, usual story. When I finally got bck to flying I soloed in 10 hours. Funny thing is, the secont time around I was a much better pilot andcould have soloed in 4 hours. I wouldn't have, but if needed I could have. As for 40 hours to solo, I'll have to ask my friends that run Success aviation at Houston NW. I can't speak for gyros. After I finish my Private ASEL, I'll be visting Buckeye for my Private Gyro.
So, here were are almost 101 years after Orville's first powered crash and we are just figuring out that training is required. ;)
 
Statistics

Statistics

Don't forget that for statistics to be any where near accurate you have to figure in the hours flown in make and model.

It is only logical that the the aircraft most flown will probably be involved in the most accidents.

Frank Marchetti used to be very proud of the fact that no one was ever hurt in a Marchetti Avenger.

Statistically, now, the Marchetti Avenger has killed nearly half of the people that built them. Statistically a far worse record than the "Canadian" gyro.

Burt Rutan said on 60 Minutes, that NASA has killed 4% of their astronauts and can you imagine an airline with that record?

12-13 fatalities for every 747 departure alone. Quite an eye opener.
 
Tom, I don't disagree with you. According to some slightly dated information I have, RAF has sold over 900 kits, naturally they will have the most accidents, but they are disproportionate to the #2 kit seller, Air Command. If someone takes a Sparrow Hawk in, the accident rate for AAI will really look bad. I really wanted someone else to make these comparisons on their own so I could see how my numbers and conclusions compared to an independent scource. The most fatalities came from the solo student/un-rated group. The way these reports are worded, most of the students had no business flying solo and the un-rated pilots simply didn't belong in the air in a gyro. The non-rotorcraft rated pilot that killed himself and a passenger was in fact a high time ATP with 3 gyro hours.
So, to put the ball back in your court, now that I've posted the data, what is the PRA going to do about it? What I've posted is information I tried to get from the PRA. I shouldn't be leading the charge to support the gyro industry.
 
Last edited:
Cobra Doc, the last Raf kit I got 3 years ago was serial no. approx 500. I would be wary of the 900 kits sold figure. When I was a Raf agent and before Dan was killed Raf were selling 70 to 60 kits per year, and reducing each year. The 2 years after Dan died Don told me they sold about 50 per year and that 45 was roughly their break even point.

Aussie Paul.:)
 
The latest info I have read...from what I consider to be a reliable source...is 630 RAF kits have been shipped; worldwide.
 
Thanks Paul and Harry. Those number make more sense for the RAF 2000. The numbers I have probably reflect all RAF kits, ever. Seems like I saw something recently that indicated that RAF has been around for a really long time. Any idea how many 1000s there are?
 
Cobra Doc said:
A standardized training plan is usually developed by the company concerned using available rescoures...............)
Unless all the companies you have listed are using the same resources and their training systems are identical then we are not talking the same thing when we say standardized training. When I say it I mean every company and every instructor is using an identical training system that incorporate the same training methods and philosophy.

It is my understanding that a CFI prospect has to develop his/her own system and present it to the FAA as part of the certification process. If true, this is a crazy! Why have a new CFI prospect do this when systems and methods have already been optimized by others.

A standardized system wouldn't require any development, only training in its use. Like I've said before, I feel the real value of the instructor in the ability to analyze the student and the student's progress and adjust accordingly and not the ability to create a training system.

I just realized that I hijacked this thread, sorry 'bout that!
 
The aircraft companies and/or the owner/pilot groups are developing training plans specific to their airplanes. All these companies are not using the same identical training plans. They are similar, to a point. Emergency actions in a Cirrus are not the same as in a Velocity. There's no reason to re-invent the wheel, just make it fit your cart. Go ahead an jack this thread all you want, it keeps it at the top! If it ended up in "training", nobody would read it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Kit manufacturers on gyro accident chart that PRA submitted to FAA

Kit manufacturers on gyro accident chart that PRA submitted to FAA

Hi from the PRA Safety Guy--

FYI, PRA submitted a gyro accident chart to the FAA as part of its response to FAA requests for review of proposed rules for Light Sport Aircraft. The chart was published in Rotorcraft Magazine -- sorry, I don't have the date here.

When Greg Gremminger and crew developed the chart and the other documentation for FAA, the PRA Safety Guy wasn't consulted. I am on a borrowed computer and don't have a copy of the original chart as published in Rotorcraft Magazine.

The FAA required gyro kit makers to be identified on this chart by "model letters." I'm told this was done at the insistence of FAA, not PRA. As a result, all gyro kits from Manufacturer A were listed under the "A" without disclosing who the manufacturer was. I decoded it myself. You can, too.

Since the chart was based on reports of N-numbered gyro accidents and incidents investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board, each entry was accompanied by an alphanumeric code. That is the NTSB number assigned to the accident or incident. The date of the accident or incident is given on the chart.

Get on the NTSB website at: <https://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Month.asp>. Then select the month, open it, look for the date, find it, match the number, and open the report. Shazam! You'll learn which gyro kit manufacturer's machine was involved in which accident or incident.

As the PRA Safety Guy, I insist on the anonymity of accident information. My policy is not putting into print or electronic equivalent any accident info that can be used to identify anybody -- individuals, or in this case, specific gyro kit manufacturers.

However, the information on which "model letters" represent which gyro kit manufacturer isn't a secret. I'll send a copy to anyone who reads this post, if you contact me by personal e-mail at <[email protected]>. When you receive my e-mail, I ask that you do not post it on the Internet or on the Rotorcraft Conference.

I support the direction of this forum and hope this will help!
 
Back
Top