1st time in a gyrocopter
You can't relate the accidents in these:-
The new types are way safer - plus I believe the CAA have changed things such that new pilots must train on a 2 seat machine rather than rolling their single seater into a ball of snot.
The new types are way safer - plus I believe the CAA have changed things such that new pilots must train on a 2 seat machine rather than rolling their single seater into a ball of snot.
Thanks for flagging up CAP800, which is a bit more recent.
Because of the small numbers of gyroplanes, you'll always get large variation in average accident rates. But realistically, a fluctuation between 6,000 and 2,000hrs is between bad and shockingly bad.
So CAP 800 gives us:-
Gyroplanes: 400 per million / 1 per 2,500 hrs
Microlights: 17.9 per million / 1 per 56,000 hrs
Gliders: 23.2 per million / 1 per 43,000 hrs
Small helicopters: 15.9 per million / 1 per 63,000 hrs
Small conventional aeroplanes: 10.6 per million / 1 per 94,000 hrs
Balloons and Airships: no fatalities in 10 years.
Does rather make a strong case for flying anything but a gyroplane!
The list of gyroplane fatals there from 2000 to 2009 is 4 Bensens, 3 RAF-2000s, a Cricket, and a one-off called a KB-2. The RAF 2000 was the first of the current generation of enclosed gyroplanes, and the Bensen is very much old school, and there are a lot around. That doesn't suggest strongly that the new generation aircraft are massively safer than the old ones, *yet*.
In reality they should be getting safer - the newer and better understanding of Section T, the industry-wide adoption of the design criteria developed following the CAA sponsored research at the University of Glasgow, and a growing critical mass in the gyroplane community should all be making things safer. But, that is really not yet proven.
But, there is nothing in wrapping a bubble of fibreglass and perspex around a pilot that makes him safer than being exposed to the elements - that's just prettier and more comfortable. Showing a picture of an old and basic looking gyro compared to a newer shiner and enclosed gyro tells you nothing about their relative safety. More serious is whether they have a horizontal stabiliser (which you can see) and where the vertical CG is relative to the propeller thrustline (whch you can't).
G
Because of the small numbers of gyroplanes, you'll always get large variation in average accident rates. But realistically, a fluctuation between 6,000 and 2,000hrs is between bad and shockingly bad.
So CAP 800 gives us:-
Gyroplanes: 400 per million / 1 per 2,500 hrs
Microlights: 17.9 per million / 1 per 56,000 hrs
Gliders: 23.2 per million / 1 per 43,000 hrs
Small helicopters: 15.9 per million / 1 per 63,000 hrs
Small conventional aeroplanes: 10.6 per million / 1 per 94,000 hrs
Balloons and Airships: no fatalities in 10 years.
Does rather make a strong case for flying anything but a gyroplane!
The list of gyroplane fatals there from 2000 to 2009 is 4 Bensens, 3 RAF-2000s, a Cricket, and a one-off called a KB-2. The RAF 2000 was the first of the current generation of enclosed gyroplanes, and the Bensen is very much old school, and there are a lot around. That doesn't suggest strongly that the new generation aircraft are massively safer than the old ones, *yet*.
In reality they should be getting safer - the newer and better understanding of Section T, the industry-wide adoption of the design criteria developed following the CAA sponsored research at the University of Glasgow, and a growing critical mass in the gyroplane community should all be making things safer. But, that is really not yet proven.
But, there is nothing in wrapping a bubble of fibreglass and perspex around a pilot that makes him safer than being exposed to the elements - that's just prettier and more comfortable. Showing a picture of an old and basic looking gyro compared to a newer shiner and enclosed gyro tells you nothing about their relative safety. More serious is whether they have a horizontal stabiliser (which you can see) and where the vertical CG is relative to the propeller thrustline (whch you can't).
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 5th Jul 2013 at 13:08.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
More serious is whether they have a horizontal stabiliser (which you can see) and where the vertical CG is relative to the propeller thrustline (whch you can't).
As for being "The youth of today"....thankyou, it's about forty years since I was last called that.
(much safer, being more stable in pitch with power changes).
G
But, there is nothing in wrapping a bubble of fibreglass and perspex around a pilot that makes him safer than being exposed to the elements - that's just prettier and more comfortable. Showing a picture of an old and basic looking gyro compared to a newer shiner and enclosed gyro tells you nothing about their relative safety. More serious is whether they have a horizontal stabiliser (which you can see) and where the vertical CG is relative to the propeller thrustline (whch you can't).
Beyond the actual machine there has been a huge refresh of the training for gyro, which you can read here:-
http://www.gyroflight.co.uk/2013BRAA...andminutes.pdf
The typical accident in a gyro is low time, single seat. But I think in time gyros will gain traction.
Is that proven by reference to the most recent stability research from Glasgow? I can't quite see why the pusher/tractor prop arrangement would make any difference - the issue as I understand it is where the vertical CG is relative to the engine thrustline, which could be above/below/co-incident in either configuration.
Hang on a minute (and I am sure there are far better gyro qualified people than me to make the case) but the new types from Auto-Gyro and Arrowcopter are a millions miles away from the home built. Even the RAF type is of a different generation to the new types recognised by the CAA in the form of the introduction of now being able to self fly hire a gyro.
Beyond the actual machine there has been a huge refresh of the training for gyro, which you can read here:-
http://www.gyroflight.co.uk/2013BRAA...andminutes.pdf
The typical accident in a gyro is low time, single seat. But I think in time gyros will gain traction.
Beyond the actual machine there has been a huge refresh of the training for gyro, which you can read here:-
http://www.gyroflight.co.uk/2013BRAA...andminutes.pdf
The typical accident in a gyro is low time, single seat. But I think in time gyros will gain traction.
Looking at the basic structure, rotor dynamics, thrust, powerplant, control mechanisation, I can't see much change. Newer undercarriages are nice to have, but don't add much.
The new generation with cranked tailplanes that run underneath the prop have used new science very appropriately.
So far as I can see, most of the other developments have only been refinement and comfort - which are worth having, but aren't particularly major advances.
2-seaters have been around for a while, but the move to being able to "type approve" aeroplanes through factory approvals is a definite industry advance, but doesn't necessarily indicate better aircraft - rather better production and quality assurance standards. Again, worth having, and things are definitely moving in the right direction. Probably the biggest advance there is that it's become much harder to approve something that doesn't properly comply with Section T which historically was, frankly, fudged.
But open cockpit, pusher, scary, flexwings remain 10-20 times less likely to kill you per flying hour. A bit of plastic around you really does not make it safer, nor do nice seats, electronic instruments, or LED landing lights - not that I'd turn those things down myself, but I'd not delude myself that they increase safety in any way: that's rather deeper.
Good training and supervision however. Those will save a lot of lives.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 5th Jul 2013 at 16:16.
Its an interesting subject. To deal with our points I think we might be at cross purposes.
I'm not sure why the picture of a Bensen singe seat against a newer type leads you to think I was focused upon enclosed cockpit, LED landing lights etc?
Without any doubt its the consistent production methods, the testing, the materials, design and more importantly training that will set the newer generation machines apart.
The story around horizontal stabilisers is what 40 years old? and actually in the end you can't really do much if people fly beyond the limitations of the machine.
However look at the data of the crashes and the vast majority are low time pilots (often in the early days low hour gyro but high time fixed wing crashing due to low 'g) with home built single seaters, and some of the AAIB report make for shocking reading.
I mean read this :-
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...EU%2008-86.pdf
7 hours in.
Or this where clearly there was some issue with material strength:-
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...20%2002-87.pdf
You could go on all night!
I agree that the training element will be a big step.
Its not to try and put down any other type of aviation just saying that the stats around gyro is not a real picture of the newer types/methods.
I'm not sure why the picture of a Bensen singe seat against a newer type leads you to think I was focused upon enclosed cockpit, LED landing lights etc?
Without any doubt its the consistent production methods, the testing, the materials, design and more importantly training that will set the newer generation machines apart.
The story around horizontal stabilisers is what 40 years old? and actually in the end you can't really do much if people fly beyond the limitations of the machine.
However look at the data of the crashes and the vast majority are low time pilots (often in the early days low hour gyro but high time fixed wing crashing due to low 'g) with home built single seaters, and some of the AAIB report make for shocking reading.
I mean read this :-
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...EU%2008-86.pdf
7 hours in.
Or this where clearly there was some issue with material strength:-
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...20%2002-87.pdf
You could go on all night!
I agree that the training element will be a big step.
Its not to try and put down any other type of aviation just saying that the stats around gyro is not a real picture of the newer types/methods.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis
You may know a lot about a lot of things, but gyros aren't one of them. You have already demonstrated that quite clearly by referring to the RAF 2000 as "the first of the modern generation gyroplanes" when it was anything but that. You have compounded it by suggesting that modern gyroplanes built to BCAR Section S are just manufactured to higher standards - which is far from the truth.
If my past exchanges with you are anything to go by you will try and shut me up by telling me about your academic qualifications, your CPL and your experience in the aeronautical industry. All those things may be very relevant to discussions about aeroplanes and microlights but you really know very, very little about gyros and you would do us all a favour if you didn't post as if you do.
You may know a lot about a lot of things, but gyros aren't one of them. You have already demonstrated that quite clearly by referring to the RAF 2000 as "the first of the modern generation gyroplanes" when it was anything but that. You have compounded it by suggesting that modern gyroplanes built to BCAR Section S are just manufactured to higher standards - which is far from the truth.
If my past exchanges with you are anything to go by you will try and shut me up by telling me about your academic qualifications, your CPL and your experience in the aeronautical industry. All those things may be very relevant to discussions about aeroplanes and microlights but you really know very, very little about gyros and you would do us all a favour if you didn't post as if you do.
Section T not Section S.
Section T is about adherence to a design code, developed over 20ish years originally from Section S but built upon developing experience, and especially about a third of a million worth of stability and control research at the University of Glasgow.
Type approval is about built quality, manufacturing quality assurance and CAA oversight, butthat oversight has also ensured much closer adherence to Section T during the design approval stage. This has included stability and control analysis, and requirements for the relationship between propeller thrustline and vertical CG. However the use of horizontal srabilisers has also provided pitch damping, thus reducing the potential for potentially lethal excursions into low normal acceleration. Those are at the root of many fatals, sometimes exaccerbated by pump action sticks causing Pilot Induced Oscillations - caused primarily by handling qualities but often unfairly blamed upon relatively inexperienced pilots.
There's also been a substantial tightening up of gyro flight testing, in part falling out from the very bloody nose LAA got in court following the fatal accident to G-BIGU. That is a very Good Thing.
But an enclosed cockpit does not in itself make them any safer.
The RAF2000 was reported widely as the new future of gyros at the time, but arguably did not embed many of the safety lessons it should have. Have the subsequent aircraft? Hopefully, but whilst they do with regard to tailplane, there is too much "lip service" still being paid to vertical CG.
The newer aircraft hopefully are a lot safer, but they've not been flying enough hours to prove this. Also, since there has also been a massive tightening of training standards, we'll probably never really know if it was the pilots or aeroplanes that made the greatest steps towards better safety. Fraudulent activities like logging PiC with the instructor in the bsck and hours of wheel balancing logged as flight time have one hopes been eliminated, but given one or two instructors well known to have practiced these are now teaching again - arguably a Bad Thing.
But, published statistics still show gyros roughly twenty times as likely to have a fatal as anything else.
Anything I missed apart from the personal insults?
No I've not flown a gyro - at some point I'll rectify that. I have spent a year or so of my life studying them for several professional reasons, which I think does give me the right to comnent, although there are certainly a people who know a lot more than me.
G
Section T is about adherence to a design code, developed over 20ish years originally from Section S but built upon developing experience, and especially about a third of a million worth of stability and control research at the University of Glasgow.
Type approval is about built quality, manufacturing quality assurance and CAA oversight, butthat oversight has also ensured much closer adherence to Section T during the design approval stage. This has included stability and control analysis, and requirements for the relationship between propeller thrustline and vertical CG. However the use of horizontal srabilisers has also provided pitch damping, thus reducing the potential for potentially lethal excursions into low normal acceleration. Those are at the root of many fatals, sometimes exaccerbated by pump action sticks causing Pilot Induced Oscillations - caused primarily by handling qualities but often unfairly blamed upon relatively inexperienced pilots.
There's also been a substantial tightening up of gyro flight testing, in part falling out from the very bloody nose LAA got in court following the fatal accident to G-BIGU. That is a very Good Thing.
But an enclosed cockpit does not in itself make them any safer.
The RAF2000 was reported widely as the new future of gyros at the time, but arguably did not embed many of the safety lessons it should have. Have the subsequent aircraft? Hopefully, but whilst they do with regard to tailplane, there is too much "lip service" still being paid to vertical CG.
The newer aircraft hopefully are a lot safer, but they've not been flying enough hours to prove this. Also, since there has also been a massive tightening of training standards, we'll probably never really know if it was the pilots or aeroplanes that made the greatest steps towards better safety. Fraudulent activities like logging PiC with the instructor in the bsck and hours of wheel balancing logged as flight time have one hopes been eliminated, but given one or two instructors well known to have practiced these are now teaching again - arguably a Bad Thing.
But, published statistics still show gyros roughly twenty times as likely to have a fatal as anything else.
Anything I missed apart from the personal insults?
No I've not flown a gyro - at some point I'll rectify that. I have spent a year or so of my life studying them for several professional reasons, which I think does give me the right to comnent, although there are certainly a people who know a lot more than me.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 5th Jul 2013 at 21:50.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genghis, as the ancient Romans used to say, Illegitimatus Non Carborundum!
As the person entitling himself as "this is my user name" didn't care to post under his real name, nor could he come up with a more entertaining cognomen, I don't think his attitude is helpful to this website.
The statistics you quote as to relative safety of the various forms of GA gave me pause. Are gliders really more dangerous than light aircraft or those flying tablecloths called microlites? Is it possibly skewed because a lot of glider flights tend to be of very short duration, especially during training?
As the person entitling himself as "this is my user name" didn't care to post under his real name, nor could he come up with a more entertaining cognomen, I don't think his attitude is helpful to this website.
The statistics you quote as to relative safety of the various forms of GA gave me pause. Are gliders really more dangerous than light aircraft or those flying tablecloths called microlites? Is it possibly skewed because a lot of glider flights tend to be of very short duration, especially during training?
I suspect that if gliders pilots didn't keep trying to fly around in small circles under the same cloud, they'd come out far safer than my favourite flying tablecloths 
G
G
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF 2000 has a very high thrust line and no horizontal stabilizer, it is very prone to power pushover and has killed a lot of people.
I do have some knowledge of this subject having built one and flown several.
I also have a FAA Commercial Gyroplane Pilot License.
The little Wing tractor type gyro is very stable.
Oh, and I use my real name here.
I do have some knowledge of this subject having built one and flown several.
I also have a FAA Commercial Gyroplane Pilot License.
The little Wing tractor type gyro is very stable.
Oh, and I use my real name here.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies, the Section "S" vs "T" was a typo - when I wrote it I was thinking about making comparisons between Section "S" aircraft and Section "T" aircraft and it slipped out on to the keyboard.
If you knew about gyroplanes you would know that the RAF 2000 was approved pre-Section T - so it wasn't approved to any design code, nor was it subject to any formal flight testing by the CAA or any other competent body. To make any sort of comparison between the RAF 2000 and the modern Section T machines is wide of the mark.
Please don't take my comments as personal insults. If someone who had never flown a flexwing and knew little about them came on the forum pontificating about them you would, quite rightly, rip them to shreds on the basis of your superior knowledge. I would just like you to apply the same standards to yourself when it comes to gyroplanes.
The stats are hard to argue, and you are as well qualified as anyone to comment on them.
If you knew about gyroplanes you would know that the RAF 2000 was approved pre-Section T - so it wasn't approved to any design code, nor was it subject to any formal flight testing by the CAA or any other competent body. To make any sort of comparison between the RAF 2000 and the modern Section T machines is wide of the mark.
Please don't take my comments as personal insults. If someone who had never flown a flexwing and knew little about them came on the forum pontificating about them you would, quite rightly, rip them to shreds on the basis of your superior knowledge. I would just like you to apply the same standards to yourself when it comes to gyroplanes.
The stats are hard to argue, and you are as well qualified as anyone to comment on them.
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Botswana & Greece
Age: 68
Posts: 940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just been looking at: XENON PRO - profesional Gyrocopter for Police, Military...
Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of operating these aircraft on water?
BTW I quite fancy the armed version at the end of the page
Does anyone have any experience or knowledge of operating these aircraft on water?
BTW I quite fancy the armed version at the end of the page
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, what a website!
Those enterprising Poles have done it again, constructed a rather exceptional aircraft. We know them well for gliders; I flew a Jantar III in the Soviet Union. (1989, Women's European Championships). The Junior single seat glider is sturdy, designed for landing on horrible fields. The Puchaz, with that enormous tail, does exactly what it says on the tin, flies right side up or upside down as required. And will spin in a heartbeat if mishandled.
Those enterprising Poles have done it again, constructed a rather exceptional aircraft. We know them well for gliders; I flew a Jantar III in the Soviet Union. (1989, Women's European Championships). The Junior single seat glider is sturdy, designed for landing on horrible fields. The Puchaz, with that enormous tail, does exactly what it says on the tin, flies right side up or upside down as required. And will spin in a heartbeat if mishandled.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Golly, think I wish I never posted about my flight, lol !!
You should be pleased to have started a thread that arouses such passion and interest.
Indeed, the statistics are quite intrigueing and it will be of great interest to see how this new generation of enclosed, stable machines affect the safety-stats.
As with Hang-Gliding, I fancied a go ,but didn't have the required surfeit of gonads.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
I agree, I always enjoy any discussion about gyrocopters.
I had the category on my ATPLH/G until very recently as it used to be automatically included. The CAA removed it when I had to renew it as a JAR licence.
Gyrocopter design went wrong somewhere a few years ago and the resulting accidents gave the type an unnecessarily bad reputation. The fundamental problems are now understood and more modern aircraft have them designed out again. As a long term helicopter pilot I can appreciate that a properly designed, modern gyrocopter is very well suited to some roles (such as aerial observation) and could do it at much lower cost than helicopters.
I had the category on my ATPLH/G until very recently as it used to be automatically included. The CAA removed it when I had to renew it as a JAR licence.
Gyrocopter design went wrong somewhere a few years ago and the resulting accidents gave the type an unnecessarily bad reputation. The fundamental problems are now understood and more modern aircraft have them designed out again. As a long term helicopter pilot I can appreciate that a properly designed, modern gyrocopter is very well suited to some roles (such as aerial observation) and could do it at much lower cost than helicopters.