www.PSFmagazine.com | December 2016-January 2017 | 33 32 | December 2016-January 2017 | Powered Sport Flying NTSB Data NTSB data was somewhat clearer to work with, partly since naturally there were far fewer records to deal with and the incidents are pretty well-known in the sport. However, no attempt was made to differentiate between causes of accidents or incidents. Conclusions The study presented in this white paper provides measurable proof that modern gyroplanes show considerable safety improvement over the older gyrocopter. It is the belief of usua and lama that fully-manufactured gyroplanes will further these significant advancements. Through programs involving online resources that usua and lama will propose, we believe it will be possible and efficient to track any such exempted aircraft to accumulate data that proves the case even more convincingly. To Summary Table Older Gyrocopter Newer Gyroplane Total Fleet Size 1042 197 1239 Non-fatal Incidents 116 11 127 Non- fatal Incidents as % of ‘Type’ Fleet 11.1% 5.6% 10.3% Non- fatal Incidents as % of Total Fleet 9.4% 0.9% Fatalities 56 4* 60 Fatalities as % of ‘Type’ Fleet 5.4% 2.0% 4.8% Fatalities as % of Total Fleet 4.5% 0.3% Support Our Advertisers participate in an exemption environment, lama and usua would encourage (require?) all manufacturers and operators of modern, exempted, fully-built gyroplanes to participate directly using Internet-based methods. Besides other benefits, fully manufactured Special lsa gyroplanes will allow proper, compensated flight instruction that is the remaining piece needed to further improve safety. Removing the current cloud of uncertainty over how one becomes trained and competent in an lsa gyro is a worthy goal for an exempted aircraft. usua and lama believe that in five years of operating exempted gyroplanes, data collection allows the case to be made for eventual incorporation into a revised regulation covering the whole of Light Sport Aircraft. • Gyroplane Advocacy would generally be inappropriate to allow aircraft larger than the limits in Part 103 to be used for flight training. At this time, the faa is not participating in developing consensus standards for gyroplanes, because the faa believes that, unlike other kinds of light sport aircraft, there are significant complex design issues for gyroplanes that are unresolved by the industry. The simplicity of operation of gyroplanes supports making this aircraft available to sport pilots. The need for dual instruction in gyroplanes, and the scarcity of gyroplane instructors, is reason for the faa to issue training exemptions for the gyroplane community. Including gyroplanes in the light sport aircraft definition will permit the continued construction of two-seat gyroplanes that will support increased availability of gyroplane flight instructors. If the gyroplane community is successful in developing a design and performance consensus standard, and if service experience, including accident data, demonstrates a marked difference between ultralight gyroplanes and those that are built to that voluntary consensus standard, then the faa may revise the rule to permit gyroplanes to receive the special airworthiness certificates in the light sport category. Otherwise, before the end of the 5-year period during which aircraft certificated under §21.191(i)(1) may be used for flight training for compensation, the faa may consider if it will continue to keep exemptions in place to allow flight instructors to train sport pilots in gyroplanes issued experimental certificates. Demonstrating a Marked Difference The two criteria that the faa wanted the community to meet were: 1. Developing a design and performance consensus standard 2. Showing service experience, including accident data, demonstrating a marked difference between ultralight gyroplanes and those that are built to that voluntary consensus standard Long ago, the industry developed a consensus standard through the astm process. The challenge has always been to show any kind of service experience. A few different approaches have been attempted. For example, industry sought to get exemptions from the gyroplane exclusion in §21.190(a) in order to produce gyroplanes built to a voluntary consensus standard, for the purpose of collecting the data that the faa wanted. There were also attempts to collect data from European countries. Nothing really seemed to work, and the effort floundered. Meanwhile, European-style gyroplanes continued to be popular, and the US fleet grew through aircraft being certified as experimental amateur built. EAB offered the ability to fly a modern, safe, gyroplane. But it doesn’t allow for factory building and continues to make flight training challenging for new owners who need to fly off time in their aircraft before they can be trained to fly their new aircraft. A Catch-22. As the years have passed, we have been able to develop a statistically significant fleet of European style gyroplanes to compare with older style gyrocopters. The usua/lama proposal to the rotorcraft directorate was to use the very same kind of data that they used to justify keeping gyroplanes out of §21.190(a), namely ntsb data. Only this time we would compare newer style gyroplanes with the older style gyrocopters. In addition, to make the comparison fair, we proposed to use faa aircraft registration data so that the data would be normalized with actual fleet sizes. For the purposes of showing improvement, we collected ntsb data from 1996 when the first European gyroplanes made it to our shores. For registration numbers, we used the current faa registry. Problems with the Registration Data The data was far from black and white. First, it was a challenge to sort out experimental gyroplanes from experimental helicopters, since the faa only relatively recently began identifying gyroplanes specifically. After that, it was a matter of identifying which aircraft were modern gyros and which were not. For the purposes of the registry total, if there was some doubt about an aircraft, it was placed in the older gyrocopter datagroup since that seemed to be the most conservative approach. Approaches for sorting data included: • Knowledge of the industry. • Identifying engines. Nearly every modern gyroplane uses a variant of the Rotax 912 engine. Subaru, Volkswagen, McCulloch, and even Lycoming engines are indications of older style gyroplanes. • Date the airworthiness certificate was issued. • Internet searches by make, model and sometimes even N-number. Often images turn up in the searches. • Current registry numbers indicate that there is a fleet of 1042 older-style gyrocopters and 197 newer style gyroplanes. A report showing the specifics of that data can be created if the faa hasn’t produced that kind of work themselves.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwNDI3MA==