All - I wanted to share with the group the data dump download I did from the NTSB website identifying all gyro incidents since 1966 through the present. I'm a "facts matter" kind of guy and looking at the data reveals some interesting statistics. I can't attach an excel file to the post, so happy to send across through email, so you can go through the data yourself. A couple of quick observations, but first, I want to clarify this is not about if the RAF should/should not have certain safety mods, the gyro is stable/not stable, high thrust vs centerline thrust, etc. No need to hash that out. But here is what the stats say:
- From 1993 to present, there were 50 RAF accidents reported; 12 incidents resulted in fatality; 4 incidents resulted in serious injury; 11 resulted in minor injury; 23 resulted in no injury.
- In the above stats, 3 accidents identified a loss of control for undetermined reason; 1 accident was due to the malfunction of flight controls for undetermined reason; 2 accidents mention pilot induced oscillation. When reading through all of the accident reports, only one investigator mentioned the lack of a HS.
- Looking at the Sparrowhawk variants, and assuming those gyros are the "improved" version of a RAF, from 2005 thru 2017 there were 10 reported accidents; 3 fatalities; 4 accidents with minor injuries and 3 accidents with no injuries. Interesting to note that 4 of the 10 accidents identified "loss of control for unknown reasons" and of the 4, 3 were fatal.
- For the RAF, 2 of the 12 fatality accidents were identified as "undetermined reason"
- When we take the "newer" gyros into the data [MTO, AR, Cavalon, Magni, Calidus, Apollo, Xenon] we have 59 reported accidents from 2009 through 2023. 11 incidents resulted in fatality; 11 incidents resulted in serious injury; 15 incidents resulted in minor injury and 22 incidents with no injury.
- So, the "newer" gyros over a 14 year period have a comparable accident/fatality rate to the RAF, which have been flying for over 29 years.
Seems to me the design of the aircraft has less to do with accidents and most assuredly 98% of accidents are due to pilot error which can be attributed to lack of training, insufficient training, poor judgement, etc.
I recently completed discussions with seven RAF pilots; two in Canada, three in the US and two in South Africa. They fly all variants of the RAF, from stock to modified... with hundreds to several thousand flight hours per pilot in the RAF; in no case did anyone say the RAF was an unsafe aircraft. What they ALL said is 1) If you want to fly a RAF, you should be trained in the RAF from the get-go and not transition from student to solo from one make gyro to another. 2) Your instructor needs to be someone who flies or has flown the RAF so they are familiar with the aircraft. 3) There is absolutely nothing wrong with making modifications to the RAF such as additional of a HS, adding the stabilator , lowering the keel, etc. with this caveat: DO NOT make any modifications to the stock RAF that have not been tested/proven else you potentially set yourself up for failure. 4) The South African guys, who use the RAF "commercially" DO NOT modify the stock aircraft intentionally as the type of flying they do {crop dusting and cattle rustling] they need the performance of the stock RAF and believe adding a HS would degrade performance FOR HOW THEY FLY the aircraft. Now I don't specifically know what their flying consists of, but I can imagine they need turn-on-a-dime performance for both crop spraying and cattle rustling and apparently the HS impacts that.
OK, so for all of my research, I've concluded that 1) The RAF 2000 can be a perfectly suitable aircraft when purpose built for your intentions and you have been appropriately trained on that specific aircraft. 2) Gyrocopter flying has a bloody past and up through the early 1990's, more often than not an accident resulted in a fatality. 3) There is much misinformation in the light sport industry about the ease of flying anything - be it a gyro, a trike, a fixed wing, etc. 4) The original meaning of EAB has gotten lost and due to the archaic rules in the US; light sport and EAB have been merged into this confused status - the idea that you can train in one type of aircraft and then immediately solo in something completely unfamiliar is in my opinion, an accident waiting to happen. So think about this...let's say you spend 20-25 or more hours in dual instruction mode in the CFI's aircraft...great, you have gotten familiar with the aircraft, handling characteristics, etc. and you solo. Now, you transition to some other gyro [could be single place, different manufacturer, etc.] on a solo basis without the benefit of further dual training in that aircraft...especially for folks who go from tandem to single seat, I'm just not sure that type of transition makes sense. The whole process is a bit overwhelming when you consider the lengths that someone has to go to in order to: 1) find an aircraft, find a CFI, schedule local training [generally not available] and the list goes on.
For me, I'm putting the RAF debate to bed but appreciate having a forum to discuss/debate/challenge. If I continue my gyro journey, I look forward to sharing my experiences and hopefully, meeting some of you fine folks.
