RAF version of Quebec accident

[Hognose]

I think that RAF and all of its instructors have at least some inkling of the truth about stability, but intentionally turn their backs on it for business reasons.

Doug, and all,

perhaps I am being too generous, but I do not think there is any intention of turning their backs. I think it is more a matter of psychological denial, the avoidance mechanism of pretending what isn't, is, in order not to have to face the unpleasant implications of what is.

Putting the pop psychobabble away for more clear words, I believe that people like Jim and Dofin and Duane can't let themselves think that they and their mentors have been wrong about this. They know they're decent and honorable men, they know they're good pilots but not supermen, and they've mastered flying the stabless RAF and flown it anywhere from hundreds (Dofin) to 8,000+ (Duane) hours.

A number of RAF pilots don't come here because of our negativity towards their machine. Why? Because they spent a decent amount of money, they often worked their asses off building the machine, and they put their pink body into it and go aviate. Any suggestion that they're one gust away from a tail strike is perceived as a personal attack, and so they leave.

I don't know the right way to engage RAF's people in meaningful discussions about stability and safety. I only know that we have not yet found it. I have spoken a little or a lot to each of the guys I name. They do sincerely want the sport to be safe and grow. They literally can't believe there is anything amiss with the design of their machine.

But there is....

cheers

-=K=-

 

[Hognose]

he did a very skillful job of cutting and pasting parts of the heli section into the gyro section and then posting this very verbose statement to attempt to prove his point logically.

Two comments:

1. To talk gyro stuff based on the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook you always have to refer back to the helicopter (first) section, because all the basic rotor theory is in there.

2. It is possible that he was pasting something that he didn't make himself, but was made for him by RAF Marketing... that would square the circle of his computer literacy (or lack of same) and his posting this pastiche.

Anyway, these are speculation. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but perhaps there are some reasons he did what he did on Norm's forum.

cheers

-=K=-

 

[ben]

kevin
comment#1 is how he explained it to me ,thanks kevin

 

[KenSandyEggo]

He didn't "refer" to the heli section. He plucked sentences from the heli section and inserted them into the gyro section and then posted it in an attempt to deceive everyone that pushing over at the top of a powered climb in an unstabbed RAF is a safe maneuver. He deliberately manipulated the text to attempt to show this. A dangerous deed that may have cost some lives or at least the potential was there for anyone who read that garbage and believed it.

He also took paragraphs from the heli section, rearranged some words and sentences and attempted to pass them off as his own statement as to the safety of the maneuver in gyros. Maybe he doesn't beat his wife and kids or kick the dog and goes to church 5 times a week, but that doesn't excuse his attempt to convince us that a deadly maneuver is safe and using rearranged text and plagiarism in an attempt to convince us that a maneuver that has cost several gyro pilots their lives is safe, even in an unstabbed RAF.

 

[Aussie_Paul]

Yes, I remember that Ken. I have flown with Jim and Duane and I like them both, but I was embarressed by what Jim did when he was backed into a corner.

Aussie Paul.

 

[GyroRon]

Ken, good buddy.... Who cares what he wrote? and BTW I should be over in a hour or three with my leaf blower!

 

[ben]

tim
i sure hope to be at bensen day and roc this year

 

[C. Beaty]

One thing that has been consistent about RAF has been their reckless disregard of the truth.

(1) The fabrication they issued about the death of their company CFI when his RAF-2000 tumbled out of the sky is illustrative.

They claimed this pilot, who had 17,000 hours of helicopter time, only had a couple of hours in a gyro, was flying the company machine without authorization and was trying to loop it.

The Canadian TSB accident report told an entirely different story. The pilot was fully qualified to fly an RAF-2000, had quite a few hours and the flight was authorized. Witnesses on the ground were reported as having observed porpoising prior to the machine tumbling out of control.

(2) Dan Hasseloh’s crash into a parked van: Dan was flying in violation of Canadian regulations by taking off from an airport parking lot and during turbulent weather, ducked down between two buildings, lost his airspeed and pancaked into the van.

The local newspaper, quoting Pete Hasseloh, stated that Dan hadn’t intended to fly, was running up the engine when a gust caught him and lifted the machine into the air. Dan was hospitalized with a back injury. Chuck Ellsworth posted a copy of the newspaper article on Norm’s forum.

From that crash, evolved the story that Dan was “testing” a horizontal stabilizer which prevented him from flaring and he ”flew the damned thing right into the ground.” The fact is, their CFI in the San Francisco area had sent RAF a horizontal stabilizer but it was tossed into a corner and never tried.

(3) The next RAF CFI to die in an RAF-2000 was inspecting and test flying a customer’s new machine in Canada; I don’t remember exactly where.

The story released by RAF was that an improperly installed rudder cable pulled loose. That’s a conclusion that’s difficult to make when examining crumpled bits of aluminum that have fallen from 1,000 feet.

I personally know several people who have had rudder cables break and survived. I had the complete vertical tail fall off a Bensen I was test flying for a friend and survived without injury to myself but the gyro was severely injured when it flopped over on the rebound from a vertical descent.

I’ve not seen the Canadian TSB report of this accident; their site is difficult for me to navigate. Perhaps Chuck E. can locate and post it.

(4) Until I see the Canadian TSB’s report on Michel Vallière’s crash, I’ll take the comments by RAF and their agents as disinformation based on their well established track record.

I have no doubt as to the veracity of comments made by Line Richer and Jean Belair, both friends of Michel Vallière. I’ve known Line for a number of years and concur with Doug Riley’s assessment.

 

[animal]

Ben,
You should review some fixed wing books.
Of course we know you can level the aircraft with stick or throttle and you can also change speed with stick or throttle. BUT
Most CFI's teach power is altitude and pitch is airspeed. You level off by reducing power from climb power to cruise power.
You trim for airspeed.
If you are trimmed for 100 knots and add power you will climb if you reduce power you will descend -- all at your trimmed airspeed.

Rob

Yep thats what I was tought in the RAF I flew in. if you don't keep cruise power R.P.M. you desend. to climb add power.at all times I was told to keep my hand on the throttle,as the machine I was flying the power would creep down on ya from time to time. and you really did not have to lose much r.p.m. to desend at a slow rate.

 

[Chuck_Ellsworth]

Quote from Chuck B:

" One thing that has been consistent about RAF has been their reckless disregard of the truth.

(1) The fabrication they issued about the death of their company CFI when his RAF-2000 tumbled out of the sky is illustrative.
"

Even though I am seen by many in this gyro group as an evil tormenter of RAF and their company flight instructors I have at least had personal dealings with RAF since 1991 when I had an agreement to set up their training program through my Transport Canada approved fixed and rotary wing flight school.

To best demonstrate their dishonesty one only has to get the record of their testimony in a Transport Canada court case against them for falsifying legal documents.

I was subpoenaed as a witness for the Government. Not only were they found guilty but their testimony was so dishonest that the members of the tribunal commented on same.

When their instructor died, Don LAFleur and Dan Haseloh made very quick statements to the press claiming that the instructor was trying to do aerobatics against the company policy etc...We in the helicopter buisness were horrified and sad because the instructor left behind a wife and young children who were also horrified to see such allegations about their dead husband / father in the press before any official investigation had even began.

...I have also known Jim Logan since 1992, when I left RAF due to their dishonest methods of dealing with their clients and employees Jim stayed and took over the training program.

Jim also tried to convince me that the dead instructor was attempting a loop when he bunted.

Dan Haseloh was in my opinion to dangerous to fly with and I refused to take training on the company machine with him, TC had given him a temporary instructor rating to train me, that temporary rating was cancelled when I refused to fly with him...Dan had a long history with T.C. with his many accidents flying the RAF.

The wreck in the company parking lot was only one of many wrecks Dan had including the final event that took two other lives.

I may bee seen as evil and a basher by many here, however the foregoing is fact. And not only my opinion, these issues are well documented.

Chuck E.

 

[Hognose]

...in an attempt to deceive everyone that pushing over at the top of a powered climb in an unstabbed RAF is a safe maneuver..... attempted to pass them off as his own statement as to the safety of the maneuver in gyros.... doesn't excuse his attempt to convince us that a deadly maneuver is safe... a maneuver that has cost several gyro pilots their lives....

Ken,

I was only a very casual visitor to Norm's forum. I have to defer to your first-hand (and Paul Bruty's, as he backs you up) knowledge of that.

Everybody,

Just in case anyone is thinking that this is a disagreement about the substance of whether that maneuver is safe: It is not.

It is an extremely hazardous maneuver in any rotorcraft (even helicopters) equipped with a teetering semirigid rotor system. You are taking tremendous risks attempting this in a Bell 47 or Huey, Robinson, Rotorway or Helicycle, for example, and in autorotation -- i.e. in a gyro -- it is nothing short of a sui cide attempt.

I don't know of anyone deliberately tickling the tiger's tail in a gyro, but occasionally young bucks attempt to approach these parts of the envelope where the helicopter manual says not to go. Either they have the scare of their lives and become eager to warn their comrades off it, or they have the scare of their lives, followed in two to three seconds by the end of their lives.

I think Ken understates when he says "several gyro pilots." Worldwide, dozens or scores of gyro pilots.

Many of them are experienced fixed-wing pilots whose ingrained reflex response to an uncommanded light-in-the-seat event can be instantly fatal.

cheers

-=K=-

 

[Mayfield]

I no longer have my copy of Dr. Bensen's manual. Did he not specifically warn against pushing over at the top of a climb?

Jim

 

[C. Beaty]

From a 1967 edition of the Bensen manual, page 45:

….Avoid making sharp pullups after high speed passes, as this may lead to “zero G” condition after the pushover and to unintentional inverted flight…..

 

[ben]

kevin and jim

to the best of my knowledge the topic was how to level out at altitude after takeoff but i could be mistaken. (altitude, power, trim)

 

[ventana7]

Jim Mayfield - care to comment

Jim Mayfield - care to comment

Jim,

As an experienced CFI and DE would you care to comment on how you teach and prefer to see a level off from a climb done?

Stick, Throttle, trim
or
Throttle, stick, trim

Do you teach power is altitude and pitch is airspeed?

Thanks.
Rob

 

[Aussie_Paul]

On the other hand....

On the other hand....

Yes, I remember that Ken. I have flown with Jim and Duane and I like them both, but I was embarressed by what Jim did when he was backed into a corner.

Aussie Paul.

...it was interesting to read Jims report of flying with a stab that, we stab supporters, had floating around the US for non believers to try. I think it was a Gary Brewer stab.

A couple of Jim’s comments after he tested the stab fitted machine through the maneuvers for the commercial gyroplane rating:-

1) at 110 mph (10 mph past the Raf flight manual VNE of 100 mph) When he snapped the throttle closed there was no uncommented rising of the nose as there is without the stab. I thought great, he is being honest.

2) that the autorotation descent rate was 1000fpm without the stab and 2000fpm with the stab. We had conducted the descent rate tests and there was no appreciable difference with or without the stab.

I guess Jim had to appease Don the flower somewhat.

in 1997, at the insistence of Raf I bought a guy called Tony Melody out from the UK to help me get going with the Raf. We had a ball together and found that we had been doing the grass roots gyro thing on different sides of the world. Tony was a great friend of the UK agent, dentist Mike Goldring (SP).
Mike had bought his daughter out with him and she was a similar age to out some and daughters, They all had fun together and re developed more than a professional relationship.

Tony was very clear with two things that he told me about operating the Raf.

1) never quickly close the throttle for a simulated engine failure at speeds higher than 70 mph or you will end up 300' higher.

2) when you cut power for a simulated power failure, be over the strip because the engine will probably stop. The Raf had major icing problems and we had the engine stop on the base leg. Until we put the carby heat on during early down wind we had this problem.

That is why I love my fuel injected engines!!!

It was a very worth while exercise to bring Tony out as he had experience the little problems with the brake lining and pre rotator lining glue failing. This of course has been fixed, but I would have taken me quite a while to work out what Tony already knew.

When it was Dofins turn he contacted me. We were friends at this time as I was vice president of the ASK First Society and Dofin was the treasurer.

Dofin was almost paranoid at what he would find having to operate with a stab. It appeared to me that he was so brain washed into thinking it would be dangerous. I guess Don had told him as he told everyone that Dan ended up in hospital after testing a stab. I am sure he did not tell people that silly Dan did a test flight form the car park in 35 kt winds and blamed the stab for his misjudged attempt to miss the van!!!!

I explained the differences that he, Dofin, would find and he was appreciative of my help. I never did get to find out what he thought of it, as Raf and I were gradually falling out over this very important safety issue.

I have flown with Duane and loved it as Duane flew differently to Jim. Jim was the procedure type guy where Duane was the "grew up on Macs and VWs and flew the machines as a sports car. I loved flying with him. Unfortunately Duane’s report of the stab was that it decreased the electrometric properties of the "magic" bush!!!!

These reports were documented, but I suppose it was on Norm’s forum. I found these reports very fascinating as to how these guys, who were backed into a corner, handled don the Flower at Raf!!!

Jims was a good report other than the ridiculous change in decent rate.

This is a little background for the new comers to see where some of this has come from.

I was a great supporter of the ASK First Society for better training, and a strong supporter of Raf until I proved them wrong. The relationship with Raf and the men in question deteriorated quickly after I stood up against Raf!!!!

 

[C. Beaty]

I believe that stab “expose” was on the Ask First Society web site; the members only section, Paul.

I might have a copy of it somewhere, if I get some ambition, I’ll hunt for it.

Duane said the gyro wouldn’t “levitate” as it should with stab installed; confusing gyros with tales of flying carpets from the Arabian Nights.

Jim’s claim of increasing the rate of descent from 1000 fpm to 2000 fpm was the most outrageous departure from reality.

 

[Mayfield]

Jim,

As an experienced CFI and DE would you care to comment on how you teach and prefer to see a level off from a climb done?

Stick, Throttle, trim
or
Throttle, stick, trim

Do you teach power is altitude and pitch is airspeed?

Thanks.
Rob

Rob,

I teach:

1. Fixed wing: slightly before reaching the desired altitude in a climb, begin to lower the nose to a cruise pitch attitude. As cruise speed is achieved, reduce power to a cruise setting.

2. Gyroplanes: When reaching the desired altitude after a climb, *reduce power to a cruise setting and then lower the nose to a cruise pitch attitude. trim as required.

*In truth, with most gyros, the power is reduced and the nose lowered almost simultaneously.

This sequence is far less critical in a gyro that does not have a high thrust line, but since it is far safer this way, I seem to find myself teaching this technigue in SHs also.

kevin and jim

to the best of my knowledge the topic was how to level out at altitude after takeoff but i could be mistaken. (altitude, power, trim)

Ben,

This is what confuses me about this thread. Altitude, power, trim is what I advocate. Apparently you agree; probably for the same reason.

R/S

Jim

 

[Mayfield]

This is not the right thread, but needs to be said here.

If you (rhetorical "You") are absolutely intent on a testosterone moment, and you insist on leveling off from a climb still at climb power, at least load up the rotor system with a turn as you level off.

Jim

 

[Hognose]

kevin and jim

to the best of my knowledge the topic was how to level out at altitude after takeoff but i could be mistaken. (altitude, power, trim)

Ben, Jim, Ken and all:

I spoke to Jim Logan today. We covered a very wide range of subjects. Jim clarified that in the old Norm-forum thread he was talking about the round-off from climb to level flight, not as I had understood from Ken's description of the old thread, a deliberate pitch over from a zoom. I dunno if the misunderstanding was at my end or at Ken's but for communication to take place the same idea must be expressed, and understood, and it didn't make it all the way through.

He teaches it in gyros the same way, generally, as it's generally taught in fixed wing. Establish pitch for level flight, and then reduce throttle to cruise throttle when you are established in level. Done properly this is not going to -G anybody's rotor system. (His explanation is longer, and it involves keeping track of your altitude and rounding out the climb gradually, etc. He is not describing a mechanistic way of doing it).

As far as recommending forward stick after a zoom: "Come on, do you really think I would tell anybody to do that?"

Jim does agree that the pilot comes to be the stabilizing element in a gyro, as in any other kind of plane. It's normal to be making lots of little motions -- the air moves and you move with it, after all. Just like people don't drive down the road with their hands locked on the steering wheel in a car.

He does not plan to come on here and post himself. It becomes a feeding frenzy (my words) of bashers (his word). In my opinion that is unfortunate because he's a very experienced pilot and instructor.

We talked about a couple of high-profile accidents including Mike (as Jim called him) Vallière's (sp?). Jim has talked to the TC investigators. Mike had eight, I believe, hours of dual in the RAF and he had students waiting for him in Quebec, mostly guys who were single-seat gyro guys trying to get a legal license. Mike told Jim he had 900 prior hours in gyros, all, I think, in a single-seat Air Command.

We talked about the forum. In Jim's view it could be a greater resource than it is, and he deplored some of the bad information put out here (he cited specifically individuals who encouraged or permitted non-gyro-qualified friends to fly their machines). Jim believes that the forum is hurting RAF, but more than that it's hurting the sport as a whole. (He didn't say this but I suspect it is also hurting his own business). I think Rob Dubin might have made a similar point about the forum carping in his open letter, but it's been a while since I read that.

As far as his post on Norm's forum, he offered to find it and fax it to me, so Ben's right, Jim's behind on technology (I don't have that 1980s technology here! Fax? Didn't that go out with TELEX?)

In any event, what the underlying dispute in this particular case is, seems to be a difference of opinion among instructors as to how to teach rounding out to level flight after a full- or climb-power climb. Simply adjusting pitch, power, trim (a la fixed wing) instead of power, pitch, trim (as Jim Mayfield teaches) seems unlikely to produce an upset, and it is broadly similar to that taught in helicopters (pitch, collective, trim).

Once they've got some hours under their belts, most pilots adjust pitch and power simultaneously and instinctively without even thinking about it -- whatever they fly.

cheers

-=K=-