Double amputee Solo in RAF 2000

[gyroo]

Well all,can I maybe try and extract a consensus from all of the above -The consensus seems to be a general acknowledgement that RAFs can be much trickier and much more of a handful than more modern designs such as US Dominators or most of the European tandems?I absolutely don"t doubt that what t-bird is saying is mostly valid - that someone who is trained competently and properly will just about be able to fly anything safely. I"m more interested in the latent flying qualities of any given design. I would like to think that off the drawing board a gyro design should be configured such that PIO will NOT worsen in amplitude (to the point of PPO). Rather, it should be configured so that any PIO tendency will naturally diminish in amplitude because it is configured to do that.Because gyros hang like pendulums from their hubs, really ham-fisted piloting in turbulence is quite likely to induce a bit of PIO in any design, but I like to think that the latent design qualities of any given design should automatically tend to dampen, rather than exacerbate, any PIO. With RAFs, as Murray suggests, I argue that their basic configuration is unacceptable in this modern era, and "fixes" like the stabilator and the UK style HS are band-aid solutions to a design that is fundamentally flawed (by contemporary standards). RAFs were great in the 90"s when there was really nothing else comparable being churned out by a manufacturer. But, my view is that they"ve had their day. They should be respected as a transitional design from which valuable lessons about what NOT to do have been learned by the entire gyro community. The lessons are don"t use belt-drives with a large prop axis to crankshaft offset orientated up; shy away from seat tanks installed within pods; don"t have the pod positioned very low down on the keel; avoid having a thrust-line / CofG of something like 10 to 12 inches; endeavour to build a comparable machine 100 kg lighter than a RAF; and build inherent stability into the design. Mark RMelbourne

[t-bird]

Mark do you have the same opinion as Eigyro and Disco that a passenger endorsement is only a legality ?

[MadMuz]

Mark you can not condone flying with out a license on an open forum as an ASRA board member. Can you please show where Mark condoned anyone flying without a license? I missed that bit. I think that statement needs clarification and to be withdrawn if not able to be substantiated... not to mention an apology to Mark is in order, I believe.... that is an outrageous claim to make against probably one of the most knowledgable and notably correct members ASRA has.The PILOT will induce oscillations in a RAF without proper training. Then the machine is dangerous and needs to be made more stable?Adequate training will reduce the fatality rate as proven by RAFSA. Then rather than making the machine more stable, 50 hours of training will REDUCE the fatality rate!! Eigyro the average solo time on tandems are between 15 and 30 hours. That sounds about rightIt also depends if you are training at a controlled airport. Some pilots struggle with the Radio work. That is true and why I believe training would be better away from commercial airports to begin with, to reduce workload on pilot learning to fly the machineMurray I don"t think you have flown in a stock Raf. As stated previously, I flew in a stock RAF as a passenger only... and it is the only time I have felt nervous in a gyro.... you are free to think what you like :-*I apologise to the pilot who solo"d who this thread was originally about.... all of this going on is taking away from his proud moment.... this thread really needs to be separate from his achievement thread in my opinion. :-[

[MadMuz]

Regarding solo, and when one soloes, the following, lifted today from PPRUNE, is a good example of the mental garbage this issue seems to generate;"Forgive me if this is out of order. I"ve currently got 13.7 hours in my logbook in the Cessna 162 Skycatcher, and today was supposed to be the day of my first solo.We landed after what I thought was a crap flight, and was told the inevitable: you aren"t going solo today, Alexander. I was then told that my rudder work needs work on final approach.My mind"s telling me that I"m now a crappy pilot, even though it was quite bumpy this morning. Considering I"ve dropped my Law degree to follow the aviation path, does not going solo the first time around mean I"m a bad pilot? "See what I mean?Sorry, I don"t see what you mean? If you aren"t able to control the rudder adequately enough to satisfy the instructor you can solo, then you are not a crappy pilot, you are just not ready to go solo yet? Do you think that the instructor should let a student go solo in an aircraft if one of the most basic flight controls is not yet mastered?

[gyroo]

Well t-bird,That"s an interesting question. This thread started out as a testament to a job well done by the double amputee gentleman and appropriate salutations by you to his trainers in South Africa, and you were at pains to explain that it was all done in a stock standard RAF. So far, so good. As other people added posts I got an impression that the focus of the thread was drifting away from the personal achievement of the double amputee and shifting to RAFs, and the impression I gained from some of your responses was that your view of RAFs is much more positive than those held by me, or Murray Barker, for instance. It was at that point I decided to jump in to the thread because I have a rather dim view of RAFs, as no doubt everyone who reads this forum will be aware.It was against that background that I threw in some detail about the recent September 21 RAF double fatality in Southern Louisiana where the blades reportedly "folded up" in flight, symptomatic of a PIO leading to PPO, and consistent with a number of similar circumstances involving RAFs going well back into the 1990"s. Deja Vu, in other words. 2 more unnecessary deaths, this time one being that of a 13 year old child.Your response to my info about the Louisiana crash was that the 48 year old pilot was not authorized to carry passengers. I hadn"t picked up that point from the several reports I read, but I"ll take your word for it.If the pilot didn"t have the proper passenger carrying authorization, and yet was clearly carrying a passenger anyway, then this could be demonstrative of a general disposition on the deceased pilot"s part to not necessarily do the right thing, and could also have wider implications such as the pilot may not have trained or been trained as conscientiously as he should have. Perhaps he was a person who cut corners or took shortcuts instead of making sure that everything was 100% kosher with his training and authorizations. I saw somewhere that he had quite low hours on gyros, but I don"t remember the number.The point that I think Eigyro and Disco are making, alongside the point that I have been trying to make, is that IF the RAF was a design that didn"t have this tendency for PIO leading to PPO in inexperienced hands, then very probably the 48 year old pilot and his 13 year old passenger would still be alive today. It"s a very simple proposition - a modern gyro design shouldn"t have any latent potential hazards that can spring out and kill the unwary or complacent.I reacted in the same way that Eigyro and Disco did

[Tim]

ASRA CONSTRUCTION REQUIRMENTS FOR COMPLIANT GYROPLANESIt must be possible to maintain any required flight condition and make a smooth transition from one flight condition to another (including turns and slips) without exceptional piloting skill, alertness or strength and without danger of exceeding the limit manoeuvring load factor, under any operating condition probable for the type, with the engine operating at all possible associated power settings within the allowable range, including the effect of power changes and sudden engine failure. Normal variations in pilot techniques must not cause unsafe flight conditionsNo longitudinal oscillations with periods less than 5 seconds shall be exhibited with primary cyclic controls fixed, and with primary cyclic controls free.

[t-bird]

Hi MarkIt was a simple question and I don"t want to create the impression on an open forum that a passenger endorsement is only a legality. Eigyro gyro have less than 15 hours and is under the impression that a passenger endorsement is a legality.

[asra]

I disagree wholeheartedly concerning PIO and AIO, airframe induced oscillation.A standard RAF, or any other un-dampened HTL gyro will go into oscillation all by itself with the stick fixed.

[MadMuz]

Can the thread please go back to the original topic now and any more stability stuff go to a new thread.... I for one would be interested to hear how our mate is doing, has he done any more subsequent flights since his solo and how is he progressing?

[eigyro]

Thanks, Mark. You hit the nail right on the thumb.Any distraction from the central issue will do for T-bird.Including what he wrongly thinks is my flight experience. (Another attempted distraction).You are right, Muz, and I accept blame for distracting attention from the guy"s achievement.I was provoked by the dishonesty of the "stock RAF" claim.I"m done here.

[maulonir]

I flew a RAF in NZ a few years ago, this machine had the Paul Bruty tail/stab modification.

[RickE]

Pretty sad to see what started out as a good news story turn into a s#%t fight.

[t-bird]

I agree with 90 % as to

[Disco]

A passenger endorsement is a legality.

[gyroo]

T-Bird,20,000 hours is a heck of a lot of hours but not as many as Waddles has, I reckon. Obviously I am intrigued about whether the hours figure - wherever you got it from - is reliable and accurate, and if so what is the distinguishing feature about South Africa as against the experiences in the UK and the USA? Obviously you have been at pains to point out that South African training is extremely rigorous, and I see no reason to challenge what you say on that.As I"ve said earlier, with really proper and rigorous training a person can learn to do anything that involves a level of hazard or risk - even juggling running chain saws and axes, or handling cobras.I"ll just stick with my aspiration that our register will one day not have any designs on it with known dynamic shortcomings.And I also completely agree with Disco"s last post. Apparently not having a passenger carrying authorization is not a direct causal feature of the South Louisiana double fatality - being inexperienced and flying a gyroplane with a known tendency for PIO that worsens to PPO is the direct causation.But, in no way should my comments be brushed-off as me not caring whether a person is authorized to carry passengers or not. I will always insist that people"s paperwork and authorizations are up to scratch if they are actually flying or intending to fly soon.Cheers,Mark R