Shafted again?

[Trevor Harvey]

Brian.
Quote
Trevor, my comment about sweeping statements was because you said: "It is time for the LAA/CAA to start from a position of yes this group of aircraft should fly; what proof is there preventing safe flight. Not from a position of no you cannot fly unless you prove xxxx yyyy zzzz." Unquote.

Please read my posts again
That comment was not made by me. It was in fact made by Paul. In the last 3/4 lines of his post timed at Wed 6 June 8.48 PM after he had quoted my remarks regarding cavalier attitudes.
Please read it again. I say again I DID NOT MAKE THAT COMMENT!!!

Hi Paul.
I do not know who the person was who either bent it, repaired it, sold it, signed it off. But for an a/c to be in the "serviceable a/c" loop in such a condition is not in my opinion funny. Rest assured it is being fixed correctly but that doesn't excuse those upstream of now.
Sorry I won't give names, regs or details. In the wrong hands the accident stats would have increased.

Hi Trevor,

I am sure reasonably sure that the LAA and the CAA have seen work signed off as "serviceable" on all aircraft types which is anything but "serviceable" but the point you seemed to be making on your previous post

Also since my last post I have, by pure co-incidence, discovered a somewhat cavalier attitude to their operation/maintenance/record keeping "system". So perhaps I should review my opinion

As the word their when writing about gyros implies that all gyro owners/engineers are cowboys reinforces the individual and corporate sub conscious against gyros when in reality it is an individual who has behave in the way discribed and who in all likelihood will continue to do so, regardless of the aircraft involved! If I appear to be overly sensitive then my apologies, but I have decided it is time to challenge stereotyping of gyrocopters as an unsafe aircraft consciously or unconsciously. It is time for the LAA/CAA to start from a positon of yes this group of aircraft should fly; what proof is there preventing safe flight. Not from a position of no you cannot fly unless you prove xxxx yyyy zzzz.

Cheers Paul
ps those xxxx are not kisses

[Brian Hope]

Sorry Trevor, I stand corrected, it was indeed Paul who made that comment, I misread your later post and apologise for attributing the quote to you.

[Trevor Harvey]

Thank you Brian,
Apology accepted

[Trevor Harvey]

Brian.
As a point of interest you also misquoted me at the beginning of this thread with ref to the questions posted by Paul.
Quote:
Essentially three questions should to be asked of permit aircraft:

1. Does aircraft meets the national standard?
2. Does the pilot have a recognised license?
3. Does the pilot have a recognised medical?

If the answer to all three questions is yes why is a differing or double standard applied to gyrocopters on a permit?

Cheers Paul
Unquote.

In your reply you state:
Quote:
Hi Trevor, I am not sure quite who you believe to have double standards, it is certainly not the LAA or the CAA on the gyroplane isssue. As you say if the answers are positive to the questions:

1. Does aircraft meets the national standard?
2. Does the pilot have a recognised license?
3. Does the pilot have a recognised medical?
Unquote.

Have another look. It was not me but Paul that asked those three questions & it was Paul who initially mentioned double standards. I merely agreed that there were (from the IrishAA) not from LAA as you seem to have presumed. (my underlines)
It seems you believe that it is I who has an issue with gyros when in fact it was Paul who was the original poster.
I shall be very wary of contributing any comments on these fora in future whether I have a strong view or not.
A rather ironic thread title by the way.

[Jeremy Liber]

Let's not be shy here chaps, the gyro accident rate is an order of magnitude worse than the GA fixed wing fleet.

I personally know an ETPS rotary wing test pilot who let his rotary wing ratings all lapse (he now flies fixed wing aircraft as well) partly so that he wouldn't be asked to test fly gyros.

Fly in one, I wouldn't stand under it...

Jeremy

[paulbh]

Go on then my turn to look stupid.

Does the reason for Gyros not being considered relate to their lack of ability to "Glide Clear"?
Can they in the event of an engine failure Glide any distance?

i just know I'm going to get bitten,but I don't know the answer.

Hi Alan,

No one bites on here (but you may get a bit of chewing ). I think the word is "Land Clear" next time you are flying over a town look at all the sports fields etc and a gyro will be able to land in most of them. It may not have enough room to take off but that is not a concern if you have to put down in a hurry.
I see that you are posting from York, in which case cut along to Rufforth Airfield and you see a wide selection of gyros there. Have a trial flight and all your questions will be answered.

Cheers Paul

[Alan Kilbride]

I have been to Rufforth many times(3 miles from home), as well as to Kirkbride where I have seen Gyros aplenty.
All I wanted to know is, as far as "land clear" goes. How far can a Gyro glide say from 2000tf?

Far from being wary of Gyrocopters,I do like the look of them and if any one is offering as tootle in one I would jump at the chance.

The problem as I see it at the moment is that there seems to be no joined up thinking within the aviation world on Gyros. Has anyone thought to contact the CAA,LAA,BMAA or even AOPA to create an evidence based case for overflight? Or is the BRA aligning itself to the various groups with a view to embracing the culture of Light Aviation. Until these people are approached, I don't see how they can help.
I sincerely hope that the seperate powers that be aren't attempting to create their own little Kingdoms and are looking towards a Euro wide acceptance of Gyros and all thing Light Aviation based on evidence and not perception. Facts not Fiction.

Alan

[Trevor Harvey]

Let's not be shy here chaps, the gyro accident rate is an order of magnitude worse than the GA fixed wing fleet.

I personally know an ETPS rotary wing test pilot who let his rotary wing ratings all lapse (he now flies fixed wing aircraft as well) partly so that he wouldn't be asked to test fly gyros.

Fly in one, I wouldn't stand under it...

Jeremy

I'm sorry Jeremy but this is exactly the attitude that would make a gyro enthusiast go "cowboy".
Have you ever watched one fly?
If you watch a 3 axis microlight landing in a strong wind it doesn't look particularly safe. But no-one says "I wouldn't stand under one of those".
I think the gyro is more wind tolerant than a fixed wing, but as with the helicopter it has, I think, a glide angle of about 30deg forward of the vertical plummet.
Do helicopters have to be able to land clear? I really don't know.
It could be argued from a glide/land clear point of view that the gyro is already set up for an autorotation decent & needs prob a lot less room to come to a safe standstill than an R22 frinstance.
As said bring the proposals to the table & do the joined up thinking. The Microlight movement did the same thing successfully.

[paulbh]

Let's not be shy here chaps, the gyro accident rate is an order of magnitude worse than the GA fixed wing fleet.

I personally know an ETPS rotary wing test pilot who let his rotary wing ratings all lapse (he now flies fixed wing aircraft as well) partly so that he wouldn't be asked to test fly gyros.

Fly in one, I wouldn't stand under it...

Jeremy

Jeremy,

Nice one, as in nice sweeping statement devoid of figures to back it up Also as I understand it an ETPS rotary wing test pilot is not able to fly/test gyros unless they also have a Gyro extension to their licence therefore if he has an adversion to testing gyro he could let that section lapse or he can say no to testing that aircraft or aircraft group.

As for "Fly in one, I wouldn't stand under it..." I wouldn't take unwilling passengers and why would you want to stand under any aircraft? Would you stand under your 30 year old Jodel or glider? No I thought not.

Paul

[Dave Hall]

The CAA safety evening figures did support the view that Gyros are much more likely to be involved in a flying accident than any other powered aircraft, based on the number of hours flown - not sure if it was 10 times the risk though, but it was many times it. I've never seen other figures to explain why.

[Brian Hope]

Certainly the single seat record has not been good, teaching people to fly them was always going to be a problem but now there are a number of two seaters to use for training, theoretically at least we should end up with a better trained gyro pilot population. To my recollection there has only been one Section T type fatailty (discounting the fox hunt incident) but I have no knowledge of the non fatal accident record. It is unreasonable to write off the latest generation machines as having a poor record without properly prepared statistics, something I would hope the BRA safety officer would have in hand.

[Trevor Harvey]

The CAA safety evening figures did support the view that Gyros are much more likely to be involved in a flying accident than any other powered aircraft, based on the number of hours flown - not sure if it was 10 times the risk though, but it was many times it. I've never seen other figures to explain why.

It is a pity that that statement didn't read "Gyros WERE much more likely"
I sincerely hope the recent advances make a difference, & are recognised.

[Jeremy Liber]

Paul

The accident statisctics as presented at the CAA Safety evenings are the data I was referring to. There is no getting away from it, the accident rate for gyros is much worse than for fixed wing types. QED.

My Jodel is actually rather closer to 50 years old than 30, my glider is about 30 years old though. And yes, I would and have stood under them as they flew over. I might even stand under a gyro as it flew over but I would understand the increased risk.

I have nothing against gyros or the chaps who fly them, the point is the stark accident rate data is what you need to counter. The data is not prejudiced and I notice that you have not actually addressed that central issue. Rather than rant at people (and regulators) making valued safety judgements based on the accident rate, that accident rate data is the crux of the matter for ther gyro world.

Regards

Jeremy

[paulbh]

I have nothing against gyros or the chaps who fly them, the point is the stark accident rate data is what you need to counter. The data is not prejudiced and I notice that you have not actually addressed that central issue. Rather than rant at people (and regulators) making valued safety judgements based on the accident rate, that accident rate data is the crux of the matter for ther gyro world.

Regards

Jeremy

Jeremy,

I have addressed the central issue of what I believe to be double standards, if you see the following link from an earlier post you will see that gyrocopters are excluded from discussion from the start, while all other permit aircraft are included regardless of which organization regulates them.

http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co. ... Change.pdf

I would find it helpful if you can post the link to or the safety data you refer to, as looking through the CAA website for gyrocopter safety data has not been fruitful as gyrocopters and helicopters are classified as rotorcraft and one is not able to split the two apart, such as found in the CAA strategic review.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/StrategicReviewGA.pdf

I am not having a rant at people (and regulators) making valued safety judgments based on the accident rate. I am however having a rant at people (and regulators) who do exclude gyros from the start for other reasons other than safety as indicated by the link at the top of this post.

As to regulators and safety; the recent reciprocal agreement which was announced allowing Irish/UK permit aircraft (which excludes gyrocopters) to visit each other’s country without having to previously seek permission for the flight is as previously stated great news. However I will as you say “rant” when UK gyros are not allowed the same privilege as other aircraft on a UK permit because of an Irish tit for tat political decision.

One can only arrive at the political decision point of view when the CAA Head of Airworthiness Strategy and Policy has stated that "Irish registered gyroplanes do not necessarily meet the requirements of Section T and therefore would be subject to separate applications for exemption should they wish to visit the UK. The discussions with the Irish followed a similar line except that in this case we (CAA) are aware that many of the modern production gyros are not compliant with our Section S codes and have some features that we had cause to question when approving them in the UK.”

It gives the impression that while UK permit gyros are safe enough for the IAA the IAA gyros fall short of BCAR section T. Therefore is appears that the Irish Authorities have chosen to exclude gyros from the recent reciprocal agreement on political not safety grounds, while the CAA do exclude IAA gyros on safety grounds not political grounds.

Yes I understand the UK government is not able to force another Sovereign State to allow non-ICAO complaint permit aircraft access to that Sates airspace and it is up to the Sovereign State to decide under what conditions to allow non-ICAO complaint aircraft access but I am fully entitled to point out the injustice of something being dressed up as safety when it isn’t. Even if you or others think it is a “rant”

Cheers Paul

[Alan Kilbride]

I don't quite understand why this is posted only on the LAA forum and not on any of the other usual suspects.
As far as I am aware the LAA don't administer BCAR section T therefore why ask the question here?
Anyone browsing this forum might think the LAA is getting the blame for not standing up for the "rights" of a group not affiliated to it.

I was once asked if my 55 year old Jodel was safe. If it got to 55 it must be reasonably safe don't you think? Yes I would stand under it. I would also stand under a MT03 and a Calida etc. I wouldn't be happy standing under some of the older types though.
I would suggest that those parties with an interest in this make representations to their own group and then form alliances with others to get this exclusion lifted.
Any chance of an objective answer?