Please read again, slowly. I stated that condemning the teaching of downwind landings was ignorant. I did not say that disagreement about the practice was ignorant. I did not state my own position, but it is pleasing to see you acknowledge the downwind landing is a reality and by demoing it make your students at least aware of the possibility and then work on the tools that should make the need unlikely.You may be in the other camp on a philosophical difference of opinion, but that doesn't justify accusing dissenters of harboring "a high level of ignorance". There are a host of choices that must be made by instructors based on risk/benefit considerations. For example, I do not teach full-down autorotations in the R-22 to primary students, because the risk in training is extreme. Similarly, although there has always been much debate about it, the FAA abandoned spin recovery training requirements (favoring avoidance) for private pilots in airplanes decades ago because their stats showed it did more net harm than good. This dispute has comparable roots. I demo but do not teach downwind approaches, while teaching go-arounds, methods of determining wind direction, and constant evaluation of potential landing sites (wind considerations included). I consider a student who does downwind approaches to flat terrain in non-emergency situations to be exercising poor airmanship. My students are not training to muster cattle, or land at Lukla. I have made a fully informed choice, which differs from yours, but that disagreement does not establish ignorance on my part. Can we avoid the personal accusations?
I don't believe that, while the gyro is flying, there may be a downwash coming from the lower side of the disk. It's true that, once on the ground, or very shortly before contact, most of the rotational energy of the slowing-down rotor is spent in accelerating air downwards, towards the ground, working like a fan, since, just before touchdown, the flare maneuver spins up the rotor, setting it in 'helicopter mode'... But, while in the air, the downwash flow comes from the upper part of the rotor, not downwards through the disk. There's no 'inversion' anywhere...Hey Vance yes unrelated to downwind landings, It’s related to the rotor point in that it too supports an idea that supposedly rotor rpm is increased to give useful additional lift in the landing phase, although we are still waiting for the reference to support.
For clarity here, my downwind approach demo is not for that purpose (as I read your meaning) and does not include a landing. I do not consider such a landing to be advisable, necessary, or inevitable, and do not intend that the student treat it as a "reality" to be learned, prepared for, or mastered. Rather, it is to suggest the possible consequences of a potentially serious error in judgment in the choice of landing direction. I want the student to experience the speed difference close to the ground and to appreciate the danger in choosing the wrong direction, so that he/she will not attempt to land in that direction. I do a low approach but then a go-around so no downwind touchdown is included.Please read again, slowly. I stated that condemning the teaching of downwind landings was ignorant. I did not say that disagreement about the practice was ignorant. I did not state my own position, but it is pleasing to see you acknowledge the downwind landing is a reality and by demoing it make your students at least aware of the possibility and then work on the tools that should make the need unlikely.
Hi - yes although not necessarily the S-turn bit just the rational for the S-turns.I don't cotton to that S-turn business in the video - at all. Is that what you mean by "communicated gyroplane witchcraft", Phil?