Genghis
Shawn has largely hit the spot I think. I recommended many years ago (1997 I think) that Section T should consider position as well as force.
My principal reason was that I wanted to get speed stability established (Mu to those of us that know what it is). With good Mu the aircraft is partly en route to having good phugoid characteristics ( the mode that is the one that causes PIO problems in gyros, worse than in helicopters because it couples into rotorspeed as well).
Stick shake on these machines can be horrendous (Glasgow University's Montgomerie is a pretty good example of this, but the VPM M16 that was tested in 1996 by me was awful in this regard as well). Couple this with a generally poor trim system (if one exists at all), pilots that aren't tp's, operating without the benefit of an FTE, light stick forces (nothing like fixed-wing aircraft), then on balance I thought that stick position should have been given some consideration as well.
How CAA implemented this recommendation was up to them. I've been under contract to them on gyroplane research since 1993, but I haven't been sent a copy on the lastest Section T that others (including yourself) got for comment......ho hum!!!
Anyway, now that I've got a Chipmunk I'm hardly ever around to do gyro research anyway! That offer's still open Genghis!
Regards