lies, damn lies and autogyro accident rates?

[rans6andrew]

a 3 axis microlight pilot I know has suddenly got the autogyro (gyroplane) bug, sold his aircraft and bought a nice shiny new autogyro. He is well into training for it. I queried the atrocious accident rate with him and was informed;

the early ones were dangerous because they lacked a horizontal stabiliser, POI caught people out. My one doesn't suffer from this.

Not being overly convinced I just thought I would see what G-INFO has to add to this.

Interesting.

One of the modern, safe, two seat machines popular in the UK has one sixth (the same rate as Russian Roulette with a revolver!) of the UK fleet de-registered due to "aircraft destroyed". A couple of the other types fair a little better but not much.

Does any one know if there any other sport aviation machines with an accident record that bad?

I was going to check the R22 record but life is too short. It is not as simple as just looking at de-registered entries because changed registration and sold abroad also show up in G-INFO de-registered listings.

Rans6.....

[Mechta]

Bede 5, Bede 10, Rutan Quickie, Pou-de-Ciel (Mignet Flying Flea), Southern Aero Sports Scorpion, Granville Bros Gee Bee R1, Rand KR-2?

The smaller the quantity built, the more greater the chance of a high accident rate.

Its easy to read too much into statistics when taken at face value though. The Cirrus SR22 is a safe aeroplane, but its airframe parachute may give its pilots the confidence to carry on into weather that requires abilities they don't have.

With respect to autogyros specifically, there is a list of accidents worldwide by type, although it appears to be lacking recent updates:

http://sportflyingforum.com/accidents.php

[bladegrabber]

The gyroplane without a horizontal stabiliser your friend refers to was the Aircommand design and it had a pretty horrific accident rate. Things got so bad in the mid 1990's UK CAA commisioned Glasgow university to do a study into gyro flight characteristics using a modified 2 seat Montgomerie Bensen machine which was heavily instrumented .The more recent designs solved the problem of centre of thrust line/c of g and size of horizontal stab required which has reduced the incidence of powered push over . Still see lots if accidents reported but it seems to be more on a par with other ultra light types these days .BG

[ShyTorque]

The very early ones didn't suffer from the power pushover problem, either. They had the engine in front and a horizontal stabiliser at the back.

[Daysleeper]

Anecdotally the gyro accidents fall into two distinct categories:

"Early" gyros - gross instability leading to inflight loss of control, in flight break up and other terminal for the machine and almost inevitably fatal for the operator accidents. Total number of accidents / deaths low as gyro was mainly homebuilt, production numbers limited and flight hours low due to reliability but rate per flight / hour / number very high. (numbers stagnated to about 30 ish on the UK reg at any one time...as one was built another crashed.)

"Modern" gyros - mainly factory built and in the UK compliant with / to Section T. Large(ish) numbers. Introduced a whole new group of people to gyro flying as a cool looking crossover between weight-shift micros / helicopters and motorbikes.
Accidents mainly look like rollovers on take-off / landing at low(ish) speed and performance planning resulting in hitting obstacle in take-off path. (short take off but very long clearway needed). Both painful but usually much less fatal for the occupants though it does leave a fair number of written off machines.

In conclusion for a new gyro hull insurance likely to be (relatively) expensive (if available) but much less chance of being dead than in the old ones. I've flown a couple of newer models and I'm a chicken.

[ShyTorque]

Daysleeper..."early" gyros...how far back are you going?

The early ones I'm thinking of go back to the late 1920s / early 1930s.

A modern one on a similar theme: Little Wing Autogyros, Inc.. (http://www.littlewingautogyro.com/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_xNOuNyCHE

[Daysleeper]

"early" gyros...how far back are you going?

Fair point well made...

A better example may be is the design concept pre or post the CAA Glasgow report and the evolution of Section T. Obviously there are crossovers and types originally designed "pre" that had been modded to improve stability and so on and make them more like "post."


PS see that little-wing does look very cool, in the opposite way from how the MTO Sport manages to also look cool.

[Thracian]

Daysleeper..."early" gyros...how far back are you going?

The early ones I'm thinking of go back to the late 1920s / early 1930s.

A modern one on a similar theme: Little Wing Autogyros, Inc.. (http://www.littlewingautogyro.com/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_xNOuNyCHE
Those machines look very strange to me.
In Germany, we´re more used to the machines from AutoGyro:
AutoGyro - Home (http://www.auto-gyro.com/)


Although I don´t really know their specific safety record, a friend who´s flying one of them, is always telling me about their performance (W&B-wise) and cost compared to "real" helis.


Maybe in summer I will take the chance and fly with him. ;-)


Thracian

[GS-Alpha]

I think the new factory built machines are far less prone to inflight failures however autogyros do not respond well to pilot error during takeoff and landing. Essentially there are three main issues as far as I can see:

Firstly, a forward airspeed that is too high for the current rotor RPM as a result of pilot error during takeoff or landing, will result in an uncontrollable rollover because the blades are unable to flap to equality (unless the pilot is quick to push the stick forward to reduce the angle of attack, whilst simultaneously reducing airspeed).

Secondly, landing in a crosswind, pilot error can result in drifting or crabbing during touchdown, and with the tricycle undercarriage and relatively high CofG, coupled with the lift vector from the rotors, you can find yourself experiencing dynamic rollover very quickly.

Thirdly, during takeoff or go-around, finding yourself behind the drag curve and running out of clearway! This is a particular problem in a crosswind partly due to trying to avoid the second point of drifting or crabbing during ground contact. An autogyro requires an acceleration in ground effect phase, in order to get on the right side of the drag curve. But if you continue sideslipping once airborne in a strong crosswind, you're giving yourself an awful lot more drag which in many cases can result in very little acceleration. The pilot needs to recognise this lack of acceleration and commence crabbing whilst being very careful not to make ground contact again. At the same time, they need to remain very alert to the requirement to immediately re-enter sideslip should ground contact be required again.

All three of those gotchas are actually very closely linked and are occurring whilst very close to the ground. It's easy to see why people come a cropper with them, and in all honesty, I'm not entirely sure they are super well understood by low timers.

The high accident rate is due to the fact that generally, people buy an autogyro and then are trained on it, or they train an a school gyro and then immediately buy one. A lack of practical experience and an inadequate understanding of the issues, results in the accident rate that we see. Personally, I think the training of the fundamental understanding of these threats and what to do should you suddenly realise you're in imminent danger of experiencing them, could be a lot better.

[bgbazz]

Someone may find this footage interesting.....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywaNXVuqxn0

[dah dah]

IMO as a PPL(A) and PPL(G) the concentration and finesse needed to fly a gyrocopter is similar to that needed to fly a fixed-wing taildragger.

Prior to buying my MT-03 and I read every available AAIB report for the type. I was not put off and did not, and do not, consider the modern gyrocopter concept inherently unsafe.

[flyinkiwi]

I concur with GS-Alpha. After reading a bunch of fatal accident reports from my corner of the globe it seems that a lack of thorough training played a significant part in the causes. Pilots were getting themselves into areas of the flight envelope that they were not properly prepared for and their gyro bit back hard with fatal results.

[atakacs]

Does anyone know if fly by wire with flight envelope protection has ever been considered / implemented for autogyros?

[SandL]

I fly a single seat gyro in the UK PPL(G) I have a lapsed PPL(A) and used to teach gliding
the PPL(G) training focused many hours on rotor management.. the pilot looked at the blades and by look and feel performed a take off. this has now been deskilled by a ststematic procedual take off technique eg still still and pre rotate, when rotor RPM reaches XX then go full throttle and full stick back. and a take off will work. if you do not do exactly that then the take off will fail, often with bad results. the trainee pilot is being de-skilled.
autorotating rotor blades can produce a huge amount of drag, they can operate like a huge brake parachute, upon climb out or overshoot it's very, very easy to get the wrong side of the drag curve, it can be like deploying a brake parachute. some accident reports say gyro would not climb or engine was not producing enough power. if fact the pilots and investigators may not recognise that the gyro was behind the drag curve, (or power required curve if that is easier to understand).
gyros and guns are safe it all comes down to the training and operation in my opinion.

[SandL]

my single seat machine is like a dirt bike, it is not a big x-country machine, if i wanted to go long distance from airfield to airfield I would use a fixed wing, it's warmer and more echonomical, I do not need gyroplane performance (short landing distance and tight turning capability) to cruise from A to B and land on a 1,000 mtr runway whilst drinking 20 ltrs per hour at 2,500 ft, but I would need warm clothing.
gyroplanes are very, very different to fixed wing

[dah dah]

SandL

You make a sweeping statement about current training that I can't agree with. I did mine in 2014 with Roger Savage and there was a lot of emphasis on rotor management.

Also, I was not taught stick back/FULL throttle as a default take-off and nor is that the method in the latest training manuals from Gyrocopter Experience.

I'm sure there are good and not so good instructors out there (as there will be for any type of flying) but your assertion that there is systemic deskilling (by which I assume you actually mean insufficient training) is not one I recognise.

Mark

[SandL]

I taxi my gyro with blades turning (it reduces stress on the head as you taxi over bumps)
It is possible to taxi too fast with the stick in the wrong place stall and wreck the gyro ... whilst taxiing. As I take off, if go to full power when the blades are not up to speed I will end up next to the runway in the middle of a pile of scrap metal.
Gyros have a high C of G and narrow under carridge, If I turn quickly after landing it will easily tip over and be wrecked. If a rotor blade travelling at about 300mph touches the ground the gyroplane will be wrecked.
both new and old Gyros are safe, you just need to know how to operate them.
and from a design point of view all flying machines that I have come across have their own design flaws that applies to both new and onld gyros, new and old fixed wing as well.

[SandL]

Rojer was old school, he came from a single seat environment then the M16, Rojer knows rotor management and I am not at all surprised he taught it extensivly, he knows it's value.
you mention "the latest training manuals".. this suggests that things have changed and I hope improved. I wonder if the manufacturer has also decided to change the pilots notes to match the new procedure ? out of interest what gyro do you fly ?, is it fitted with a rotor tach and powerful pre rotator ? can you fling start the blades and bring them up to speed if the pre-rotator fails? if either fail is it a no fly situation ?

[SandL]

an aaib report accident 2010
Synopsis
Whilst taking off the student pilot did not use the
technique he had been taught, resulting in a loss of
control and the gyroplane rolling on to its side. The pilot
received minor injuries.
History of the flight
The student pilot was departing on a solo cross-country
flight in fine weather. He lined up on Runway 10 and, in
accordance with the normal takeoff procedure, selected
full forward cyclic before he engaged the pre-rotator.
The student pilot reported that, during a normal takeoff,
once the rotor has reached 220 rpm, the pre-rotator
should be disengaged, the brakes released, the cyclic
moved fully aft and the throttle advanced. Having
carried out these actions, as the gyroplane increases
speed down the runway, the relative airflow will
accelerate the rotor and at about 340 rpm the gyroplane
will become airborne.
On this occasion, the pilot did not select aft cyclic
before he began the takeoff roll. He realised that the
takeoff was not proceeding normally at the same time
as hearing his instructor, who was watching from beside
the control tower, say “stick back” over the radio. The
pilot pulled back on the cyclic, the gyroplane became
airborne, pitched nose up and rolled left. The rotor
blades struck the ground and the gyroplane came to rest

[dah dah]

SandL

Phil Harwood is old school too and I'd guess many of the new breed of instructors are from his stable.

I fly an MT03. The handbook does not go into great detail about take-off but what it does say is correct and adequate. How much power you use will depend on the runway surface and a/c loading and the manual does not cover every eventuality - but that's the same with heli and fixed wing permit types.

I have had a pre-rotator gearbox fail. I did not, and would not, fly in such a situation - so fling starting would not be an option, for me anyway. My concern would be less about getting the rotor turning and more about what might happen to the components that were broken!

Not sure what point you are making with the AAIB report? The student didn't do what he was trained to do. So what? That's nothing to do with gyros. I can quote a fixed wind report where the student failed to raise flaps on a go-round and spun in. People make mistakes and accidents happen.

Mark

[SandL]

The point I was making was it appeard to be a "by numbers take off," It suggests that he did not follow the 1,2,3 procedure and ended up in a skills defecit area. hadf he nursed the blades up to speed maybe this would not have happened ... he is not the first, nor the last, I seem to recall 2 others almost exactly the same, was it Ashford, and shoreham ?
a min equipment list would be interesting pre rotator , radio, gps? rotor brake ? wheel brakes, volt meter ?,

[dah dah]

SandL

Remember, with a modern factory built gyrocopter we are looking to get 500kg into the air without taking miles of runway. It makes sense to pre-rotate and start accelerating as quickly as possible - not necessarily with full power. Yes you need rotor awareness, but "nursing the rotor up to speed" is just not part of the required regime for one of these machines.

I guess where we differ is that you seem to be arguing that there is a fundamental flaw in the current training methods, whereas my experiences from training with Roger, Phil and 2 others is is that the standard is remarkable high.

Mark

[dah dah]

..
a min equipment list would be interesting pre rotator , radio, gps? rotor brake ? wheel brakes, volt meter ?,

For me:

pre rotator - yes
radio - no
gps - no
rotor brake - no
wheel brakes - yes
volt meter - not fitted

[SandL]

it was not the first and not the last of this type of accident , there have beene 2 more almost exactly the same from my recollection. was it ashford or shoreham ?
min equipment would also be interesting, if radio, GPS, wheel brakes or rotor tach were to fail are they no fly situations ?

[BOBAKAT]

It's a general slow loss of knowledge, years after years, Gyros be much more easy to fly, much more safe and student want to fly alone quickly.

So we learn less and less ... we know just the minimum, then we are lucky ... or not ... it is verifiable in all educational structures. Whether it's for the car license or for the pilot license ....
When I passed my driving license, I had to know, in addition to the rest, how to change a wheel. When I passed my helicopter pilot certificate, it was necessary to know how to make autorotation in a straight line and in Ushape ... engine down
Today, new drivers hardly know how to park in reverse : they have the "radar" or the reverse camera to help them.... and the EASA only requires the instructors to only "demonstrate" ONLY ONE autorotation with engine cut to students ... The engine are so safe now,....

It is the same for plane and others ...Much more technology, much less more human knowledge .

Be careful, i am happy to use the technology and my reverse camera when i park, but i am "old school" and i know i can park without.

sorry for my bad english, i am French, nobody's perfect

[dah dah]

It's a general slow loss of knowledge, years after years, Gyros be much more easy to fly, much more safe and student want to fly alone quickly.

are you saying they want to fly "alone" more quickly than they would have done back in the days when there were only single seat gyrocopters?

[SandL]

agree with bobcat
take fixed wing for example ... spinning used to be part of the PPL(A) sylabus, so if you put a "new" PPL(A) into a full spinn will they be able to recover ?
or are we releying on modern aircraft being safer and spinn proof. then take that PPL(A) student and put them in a C150 or Piper Cub. ?
Thant is why the MT pilot is not licenced to fly a Bensen, or cricket, it simply requires additional understanding and training. I believe some of those skills have been given a "lighter touch" in the new gyros.

[dah dah]

SandL

People die when they spin in form a height that you could not recover from. So, learning to recover form a fully developed spin is less use than learning to stop a spin at the incipient stage. It has absolutely bugger all to do with modern aircraft being spin proof. where on earth did you get that idea from?

Most PPLs still learn on 152s so putting them in a 150 worries you how? And you can't put them in a cub unless they have done differences training because it is tail wheel so no idea what point you are trying to make there.

All all of the above is why (not really but as you seem to be using non sequiturs on this thread I'll join in :) ) a Bensen or Cricket pilot requires additional training before the can fly modern factory build gyro.

Are you really truly arguing the point that those who fly old kit build single seat gyros are sky-gods, and the rest of us are ham-fisted buffoons?

Mark

[SandL]

I have not yet met a sky God.
agree to fly a modern gyro requires difference training as does a tail dragger for a PPL(A) to fly a cub
I have flown giders that spin like a top , then climbed into an unspinable glider.
I am pleased I flew both a spinable glider before flying an unspinable glider.
I am pleased to have had the experience of spinning a C150
I am also please to have learnt gyroplane rotor blade management before flying a modern gyroplane.
The thread title is lies .. damn lies etc .. am am sorry for the thread drift that I have become part of.
I believe gyroplanes are safe as are fixed wing aircraft and guns.
It is all about training, being responsible and sound decision making, recognising when one is vulnerable for an accident ... before it's too late to do something about preventing it. I respect your knowlage and experience and I hope you agree that gyroplanes are safe, in the right hands with the right training. In the bad old days many saw a stick and rudder, jumped in to a gyro and tried to teach themselves believing that they could master it with minimal or no training. This is partly why gyros had such an appauling accident record. that record has improved but it should not be ignored that there have been quite a nuimber of modern gyro accidents in recent years. It is now a matter of identifing common causes, learning from mistakes and adjusting flying habits and training to avoid those common causes. I hope this is being done.
Sir I am no sky God, never have been , never will be, I'm always willing to learn.from those more knowlagable thatn me.




.

[dah dah]

... there have been quite a nuimber of modern gyro accidents in recent years.

Gyros have gone from a tiny niche to being almost mainstream. Even in the 3 years I've been involved I've seen schools popping up all over the UK. More training and more flying leads to more accidents - if it didn't that would be some kind of weird statistical anomaly.

I agree with you that we need good training. And I believe gyro training in the UK is as good as heli, fixed wing and microlight. It's not perfect, but again, it would be bloody weird if it was because nothing in life is perfect.

You have argued that there is a widespread lack of training in relation to rotor management. I think if you can justify that argument with more than a knee jerk reaction to a couple of AAIB reports, you should flag it up to the BRA.

BTW I have no vested interest in the gyro training industry. I'm defending it based on personal experience of 4 excellent instructors combined with simple logical argument.

Mark

[SandL]

The thread started with a statement that
One of the modern, safe, two seat machines popular in the UK has one sixth (the same rate as Russian Roulette with a revolver!) of the UK fleet de-registered due to "aircraft destroyed". A couple of the other types fair a little better but not much
To me that is a high percentage.
the CAA/LAA (in my opinion) should look at this. the aircraft are not falling apart so there is most probably another issue. I do not know the current BRA comittee but in the past many had a vested business interest in gyros.
I also have no vested interest in any gyro business I just want safety (as do we all).
to improve safety , accident anaylsis needs to be done to look for common causes, once those have been established a rectification needs to take place , as the CAA have done with the "safety sence" leaflets. I am not sure that putting accidents down to simply pilot error or training error and forgotten about is the right way to go.
With rotor management training in single seat training the student is told to sit still over a fixed spot on the ground , pre rotate till you can no longer count individual blades then gently work the blades up using the wind, as the drag comes on more throttle is needed to keep over the spot on the ground. once up to speed the student gradually reduces throttle and rotor speed untill the blades are no longer coning and blades can be counted. I doubt this excercise is carried out on the modern gyros. the value of this is to gain a greater understanding of how the whole lift drag thing works and teaches that you will not climb behind the power required (drag) curve. It involves gentle use of stick and power. It also teaches all about avoiding blade flapping and tail chopping it is all done by look and feel.
the old days of PPO and PIO seem to have dissappeard thank goodness, but with 1/6 of the fleet damaged maybe there are new issues that need addressing.

[dah dah]

Let's not take the 1/6 at face value :)

There are 55 MT-03 registrations and 4 destroyed. So that's less than a 1/12th. What does that actually tell you anyway unless you have the detail? Not much. One was destroyed last year in a very sad accident where the pilot had a heart attack.

These things are complicated and it is just unhelpful to have people claiming kit is unsafe or there's poor training when they don't have the facts.

If you are in the LAA and read the magazine (especially Malcolm's very readable safety spot) you will know that they are all over any kind of pattern be it mechanical or operational.

Mark

[SandL]

I make it 16 take off incidents involving the new generation of gyros
MT, Calidus M24, Cavalon etc from 2008-2016 some of which would be as you describe a "training accident" but not all. I am sure that like you I am keen to see a reduction in accidents, I think the questions are is this a pattern and if so what can be done about it ? maybe you have some suggestions
I believe the following data is acurate, if not please correct me, If I am wrong I apologise. I simply typed these registrations into the internet. Knowing that gyros have had a doubtful safety record in the past I have spent considerable time resurching as many gyro accident records as I can find so I can learn from others and hopefully stay safe myself . (sorry the data is not easy to read I simply copied it from my accident exel spread sheet) my total data (not shown here) records 38 reported accidents involving the new factory built 2 seats machines in the UK. As you say it's the detail behind the accidents that count of the 38 2 can be dismissed immediately (the very sad medical emergency and the hunt sab accidents) that leaves 36 accidents in total I believe aggh plus 1 more in northern Ireland this week. Every owner of a permit machine has to be an LAA member inorder to get a permit


2014 01-Nov G-JBRE MT03 blades contacted prop on take off (flapping)
2013 10-Apr G-CGMG Calidus blades hammering during take off
2010 01-Nov G-CGGW MTosport behind power curve no climb available
2008 09-May G-CEUI MTo3 student takeoff behind power curve
2011 05-Jun G-CGGV MTosport lack of climb at max AUW & gust
2011 08-Feb G-CGIX MTosport blade flap on takeoff rotor hit tail.
2011 23-Apr G-CGEW MTosport student pulled back stick with insufficient Rotor RPM rotor hit tail.
2015 31-Jul G-CLDS calidus behind power curve during short field take off hereford
2014 05-Mar G-RDNY Cavalon student take off incorrect technique
2013 28-Dec G-PAFF MTosport low rotor RPM on take off chopping the tail
2012 29-Dec G-ETOJ calidus over rotation on take off rotor hit runway
2011 07-Jul G-RSMT MTo3 aircraft would not climb after takeoff (power curve)
2015 08-Apr G-CPCP Calidus rotor blade hit tail pre take off
2016 28-Sep G-CFVG MTosport rollover during takeoff
2016 28-Sep G-CFVG MTosport roll over on takeoff northreps
2011 03-Feb G-CGRT Magni M24 orion early take off rotor not up to speed gust

[dah dah]

I think it is important to note that the list is NOT a list of fatal accidents or even a list of accidents where someone was hurt.

I accept that a gyro is more prone to ground and T/O incidents that lead to damage, sometimes extensive that you would not see in the fixed wing environment.

If I understand your point, you are saying that these incidents are avoidable and are solely due to poor training across the board in the UK. You have also hinted that the BRA are aware there's a problem but due to connections between the board and TOs they won't act.

I can only say that my personal experience differs. I think instruction in the UK is to a very high standard. I also believe that some incidents of the type described are inevitable - just like you get dynamic roll over in helis, engine failures in 2-stroke microlights, and ground loops in tail-wheel a/c. You have to take into account the nature of the beast.

Mark

[SandL]

I did not say they were "solely due to poor training across the board"
I am keen on preventing accidents fatal or not can be just a whisper away
I am no longer a member of the BRA, I do not know the current board, I mentoined that in the past the board had business interests in promoting the new 2 seat machines.
I ask the question is this accident rate acceptable, if not what do you suggest to reduce it.?
I do not dispute that we all make mistakes, I have had 2 stroke engine failures in my gyro, I have been trained in field landings, I will not get a field landing right every time, with this in mind I cointinue self training in field selection. I have been trained for that emergengy and so far so good (am I courting danger with this post !) PPO appears to have almost dissapeard (except for the Dubai accident, but there were other issues involved in that) I suggest that PPO has been trained out of the system and that the modern gyros are more stable that the older ones (a 2 pronged approach).
so apart from training there could be an abort light illuminated when airspeed does not match rotor speed. or for drag curve situations where airspeed does not match engine RPM. all the electronics are there today, what harm will it do ?. would those lights have prevented accidents along with more focused training.maybe ?. could a flapping simulator be built ? (probably not) could more fucus be put on placeing a student in a high drag high power situation., many times over (at height) with out warning when handing control to the student. ?
But first it would have to be recognised that a problem exists. If they are regarded as just another accident nothing will change and people are happy with them being just another accident. this is not generally the philosophy of safe aircraft operation. 16 accidents in 8 years is 2 per year on average, when will the next one be and will there be a serious injury or written off machine ?.
I agree training is a high standard in the UK but that does not eliminate the opertunity for additional focus in certain areas to prevent accidents , what do you suggest.

[dah dah]

... what do you suggest.

I'm happy to leave to the instructors/examiners/LAA to decide if there's an issue and if so to deal with it.

Mark

[BOBAKAT]

I make it 16 take off incidents involving the new generation of gyros
MT, Calidus M24, Cavalon etc from 2008-2016 some of which would be as you describe a "training accident" but not all. I am sure that like you I am keen to see a reduction in accidents, I think the questions are is this a pattern and if so what can be done about it ? maybe you have some suggestions
I believe the following data is acurate, if not please correct me, If I am wrong I apologise. I simply typed these registrations into the internet. Knowing that gyros have had a doubtful safety record in the past I have spent considerable time resurching as many gyro accident records as I can find so I can learn from others and hopefully stay safe myself . (sorry the data is not easy to read I simply copied it from my accident exel spread sheet) my total data (not shown here) records 38 reported accidents involving the new factory built 2 seats machines in the UK. As you say it's the detail behind the accidents that count of the 38 2 can be dismissed immediately (the very sad medical emergency and the hunt sab accidents) that leaves 36 accidents in total I believe aggh plus 1 more in northern Ireland this week. Every owner of a permit machine has to be an LAA member inorder to get a permit


2014 01-Nov G-JBRE MT03 blades contacted prop on take off (flapping) LACK OF TRAINING
2013 10-Apr G-CGMG Calidus blades hammering during take off
2010 LACK OF TRAINING 01-Nov G-CGGW MTosport behind power curve no climb available LACK OF TRAINING
2008 09-May G-CEUI MTo3 student takeoff behind power curve LACK OF TRAINING
2011 05-Jun G-CGGV MTosport lack of climb at max AUW & gust LACK OF TRAINING
2011 08-Feb G-CGIX MTosport blade flap on takeoff rotor hit tail. LACK OF TRAINING
2011 23-Apr G-CGEW MTosport student pulled back stick with LACK OF TRAININGinsufficient Rotor RPM rotor hit tail. LACK OF TRAINING
2015 31-Jul G-CLDS calidus behind power curve during short field take off hereford LACK OF TRAINING
2014 05-Mar G-RDNY Cavalon student take off incorrect technique
2013 LACK OF TRAINING28-Dec G-PAFF MTosport low rotor RPM on take off chopping the tail LACK OF TRAINING
2012 29-Dec G-ETOJ calidus over rotation on take off rotor hit runway LACK OF TRAINING
2011 07-Jul G-RSMT MTo3 aircraft would not climb after takeoff (power curve) LACK OF TRAINING
2015 08-Apr G-CPCP Calidus rotor blade hit tail pre take off LACK OF TRAINING
2016 28-Sep G-CFVG MTosport rollover during takeoff LACK OF TRAINING
2016 28-Sep G-CFVG MTosport roll over on takeoff northreps LACK OF TRAINING
2011 03-Feb G-CGRT Magni M24 orion early take off rotor not up to speed gust LACK OF TRAINING

And one other very important thing is : tail boom curved on most of the new Gyro = early take off but, if you don't have enough RPM rotor...it's totally wrong... How many young student ( or young pilot) can manage that ?
Old school : tail straight, no way to put the stick back early : the tail wheel hit the ground...

[SandL]

Bob cat you are talking design , I think the M24 has a straight keel also I perform a soft field take off on most occasions as I fly from a rough grass strip, to I lift off early without going into full wheel balance, I lift off right on the bottom of the drag curve then hold it down so gain speed, again training taught me how, why and when to use this technique.
Dah Dah do you agree a problem exists, ? do you want to lobby the LAA/BRA/CAA to help prevent these accidents ?
are you a member of the BRA? and do you think the BRA is interested in highlighting this issue ... or is it a non issue and considered acceptable ?
has training changed ? has design improved ? has the BRA carried out any accident anaylsis ?
I used to be a member about 10 years ago then did not renew as I found the organisation did not represent me. I re-joined about 3 years ago and was again very dissapointed so left.



.

[this is my username]

Any accident is an accident too many, and I don't know anyone involved in gyroplanes who is sanguine about accidents, whatever the rate.

I also know that anyone who thinks that single-seat pilots have some sort of exclusive claim to ninja-type rotor management skills could never have taken a look at the pile of bent rotor blades round the back of the hangar at Henstridge and/or Rissington. The big difference is/was that single-seat gyros rarely carry hull insurance so it's generally easier just to sweep-up and carry on rather than make a fuss and report.

Here's a single-seat guy showing us all how it should be done:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422efdc40f0b613460002e7/Montgomerie-Bensen_B8MR__G-BTTD_03-96.pdf

Now that the stone-throwing is done with .......

It's too easy to go around shouting "lack of training". "Brain fart" would be a more appropriate description for the root cause of most of the listed accidents, with "lack of currency/recency" a contributing factor in some. As long as we have human beings in the mix then things will go wrong.

What has been done to try and fix it? Well, quite a bit actually. The CAA worked with the BRA and the industry to produce a very good "handling sense" leaflet:

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20120816HSL04.pdf

The requirement for an "instructor hour" every 24 months has added an opportunity to try and ensure ensure that pilots' skills haven't atrophied.

The format of the general flying test has also been amended to include an oral element, with questions on aircraft performance an integral part.

Is it enough? I'm sure that more could be done, and will be as ways can be found to do it.

Let's not forget that back in the "good old days" there were about 40 homebuilt gyroplanes operating in the UK and it was unusual for a year to pass without a fatal accident.

BOBAKAT - I can't think of a single accident in the UK where the curved tail boom played a significant role.

[BOBAKAT]

[QUOTE

BOBAKAT - I can't think of a single accident in the UK where the curved tail boom played a significant role.[/QUOTE]


I don't talk for only UK ;) The biggest fault of the students is to believe that when they have speed rolling, they will take off faster if they pull the stick back ...
With the right tail, you can not! You have to have the Rotor RPM to take off ... In reality, you can, but you have the tail wheel that warns you that it touches the ground right away if you do not have the RPM for takeoff ... .

The curved tails let you pull the stick back without warning you, even if you do not have the RPM to take off.

Same for landing :
With curved tail, you can landing like an helicopter if you want... But, you have to manage very precisely your rate of descent...if you don't want to bump the ground too hard...
With a straight tail, you have to make a nice "arrondi" to land smoothly.... if not...The tail warn you....

But that is not the only cause of accident. Fast taxiing is, IMHO the second cause....


IN UK and other country .... :rolleyes:

[nevillestyke]

I see many paraglider crashes which go unreported, so it would be hard to estimate the accident rate. A friend did a cross-country flight on a P/G in the southern England rough air of 21st May, suffering innumerable canopy collapses but never low enough to hit the ground, therefore never reported. The airframe (there is little or no frame) is rarely damaged when hitting the ground, unlike the pilots.

[SandL]

person with no name I dont think anyone is stone throwing, just discussing,
single seaters pilots or 2 seaters neither are in anyway knowlage superior.

you quote an accident from 1996 clearly a brain fart, with no prerotation at all ! very strange. back then, before modern 2 seat machines were available, I recall much training at that time was carried out solo. you built a machine and having never flown before turned up to learn and commenced solo training. You could, taxi, wheel balance, take off and circuit all solo having never flown before. It's no wonder there were accidents.
before the glasgow report, on CLT, air command instability, illegal flying and sometimes instruction by a guy who had done it before. this resulted in a number of bent blades of course. Much has changed since then for the better.
But I think we are now talking about the present day, the current situation.
Currently, (in the last few years) a number of 2 seat machines have experienced similar types of accidents.
We will see if the instructor hour (which is very valuable) and the safety leaflet works. The point I am making is that generally when an accident pattern is found in aviation the powers that be make a change to something to prevent a repeat accident. I'm not sure that an instructor hour and aleaflet is a change. the instructor hour is not a pass or fail and a leaflt is advice. I may be wrong but I dont think the take off "system" has changed. It's the system/techniquue that I dont like. "If you accurately follow this sequence it will work". and it does 99.9% of the time. just like airliners, procedures work, but the airFrance south atlantic crash the pilots simply forgot they were flying an aircraft and not a computer, then the extra pilot arrived on the flight deck and realised they were stalled, He was thinking "aircraft, and how it works" rather than procedure. Same with the guy that raised the flaps on the Heathrow accident, he was thinking aircraft, wings, drag, stretch the glide rather than procedure and he saved many lives.
some in the US say always land tail wheel first as it will straighten up the gyro and eliminate drift upon landing thus reducing the chance of a tip over, I'm not sure on that one, (I would rather use my rudder to get rid of drift)

[5179]

(I would rather use my rudder to get rid of drift)

Not me.......rudder will turn nose to left or right, but drift will still occur. Tilting blades to control drift ( tilt left if drifting right, tilt right if drifting left )
Using rudder to stop drift when landing, will have your machine yawed left or right as you land......next step is over you go. Rudder "aligns machine".....rotors take machine where you want it.