Gryoplane accident statistics
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
wanttaja
En-Route
Haven't taken a single look at 'em...them dangerous things should be banned!
Just kidding. Some clown on POA asked the same question on a PM this morning.....
Up until today, I hadn't looked at gyros. The FAA registry lists only about 156 Experimental Amateur-Built gyros plus about 42 licensed as Light Sport. Not a real strong base to work with.
My 1998-2020 homebuilt accident database has 198 gyro accidents. That's about nine per year. Divide that by the 156 registered as of the start of this year, it comes out to a fleet accident rate of about 0.57% per year. Overall homebuilt rate is about 0.75%, so they seem to come out a bit better with this metric.
(Yes, it's a bit goofy way to compute it, but I think the *relative* rates between types should be about right.)
59 of the 156 accidents resulted in at least one fatality. That means about 38% of all EAB gyro accidents result in at least one fatality. This is high; the full EAB rate is about 25%.
There are probably several explanations for this. First, the typical gyro does not have a lot of structure protecting the occupants, and there are big whirly-cutty things right above their heads that probably don't help.
Second, I think gyros probably spend more time at low altitude (who flies a gyro at 5,000 feet?) and low flying traditionally has a higher fatality rate).
Scanning through the Probable Causes, I'm seeing the rotor mentioned in 18 of the 59 fatal accidents. Often, this is related to the pilot maneuvering so that to cause the rotor to strike the tail. Obviously, fixed-wing aircraft don't have this issue.
On the positive side, much fewer gyro accidents seem to be related to power failure. About a third of fixed-wing EAB accidents start with the loss of engine power (whether or not the issue is related to the engine itself) vs. about 12% of the gyro accidents.
I think this can be explained by the fact that a gyro is ALWAYS operating in autorotation. Loss of engine power just means a gentle descent to the ground, with the pilot really having to muck it up to cause serious injury.
Gyros seem to be good subjects for auto-engine conversions. Over half of all fixed-wing EAB accidents with Subaru engines are power-failure cases (25% of them related to the engine itself) vs. 17% of the gyros (~9% of them related to the engine).
Personally, I'm not seeing a lot that would scare away from them. Fleet accident rate the same or roughly better, less impact of engine choice means one can find an economical powerplant. I'd get good training and wear a helmet, otherwise sounds pretty good.
I dumped an older version of my spreadsheet to my web page so curious folks can download it:
http://www.wanttaja.com/salty.xlsx
This only runs to 2019, but it will give you an idea of where some of the statistics are coming from.
Ron Wanttaja
Tarheelpilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,507
- Location
- North Carolina once again.
- Display Name
Display name:
Tarheelpilot
ETres
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 704
- Display Name
Display name:
ETres
I often think about selling my airplane and going gyro. I wouldn't want to have both because I prefer my brain and muscle memory to be focused on just one type of aircraft.
That surprised me; I expected the accident stats to be worse. I have two friends who fly gyros, but they always made me nervous, with the ease with which they can be put into an unrecoverable flight mode. Most airplanes are difficult or impossible to get into an unrecoverable situation, barring structural failure of course.
Spring Ford
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2018
- Messages
- 774
- Display Name
Display name:
SpringFord
Wing Commander Kenneth Wallis DSO MBE CEng FRAeS RAF built and extensively flew numerous autogyros over about 45 years.
He died 'in his bed' at the age of 97, flying his machines until shortly before that.
Can't be that dangerous,surely?
Mind you he seems to have been generally quite lucky —
"He survived mid-air explosions, crash landings and bailing out, completing 28 missions over northern Europe. He earned the nickname "Crasher" after a series of crash landings; in one, his Wellington bomber lurched home with 115 holes; in another a wing was flapping off after a collision with a barrage balloon and in a third the underside of the plane was enveloped in flames after an explosion in the bomb bay. "I went through a lot of aircraft," he said."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wallis
He died 'in his bed' at the age of 97, flying his machines until shortly before that.
Can't be that dangerous,surely?
Mind you he seems to have been generally quite lucky —
"He survived mid-air explosions, crash landings and bailing out, completing 28 missions over northern Europe. He earned the nickname "Crasher" after a series of crash landings; in one, his Wellington bomber lurched home with 115 holes; in another a wing was flapping off after a collision with a barrage balloon and in a third the underside of the plane was enveloped in flames after an explosion in the bomb bay. "I went through a lot of aircraft," he said."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wallis
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,190
- Display Name
Display name:
Llewtrah
I posted some stuff in this thread https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/thinking-about-a-gyro.138561/
They have worse statistics for a variety of reasons. Training is essential but they’re not at all complicated to fly. Rotor management is essential (and mismanagement is the cause of most accidents) but it’s not difficult.
Several other reasons for the bad accident rate include the fact that many people come to it later in life, often without previous piloting experience.
Many come to them with a big, persistent misunderstanding that they’re neither a fixed wing nor a helicopter: many accidents are due to people treating them like they’re “less expensive helicopters” and trying to “hover” them when they land. The cranked keel on several popular brands makes it tempting to try to stop on a dime. It works - until it doesn’t. It’s way safer to think of it as a Cub with a spinning wing: the numbers are actually pretty similar for airspeed, safe approach speed, etc.
They’re a LOT of fun and are safe if used as they’re intended and respecting the physics. They’re not complicated.
Add: with 100+ degree temps here in TX for weeks on end, I’m not really keen on taking my Warrior up just to bore holes in the sky but the gyro, being open cockpit, is fine. Like a motorcycle. I just need to wear sunscreen…
They have worse statistics for a variety of reasons. Training is essential but they’re not at all complicated to fly. Rotor management is essential (and mismanagement is the cause of most accidents) but it’s not difficult.
Several other reasons for the bad accident rate include the fact that many people come to it later in life, often without previous piloting experience.
Many come to them with a big, persistent misunderstanding that they’re neither a fixed wing nor a helicopter: many accidents are due to people treating them like they’re “less expensive helicopters” and trying to “hover” them when they land. The cranked keel on several popular brands makes it tempting to try to stop on a dime. It works - until it doesn’t. It’s way safer to think of it as a Cub with a spinning wing: the numbers are actually pretty similar for airspeed, safe approach speed, etc.
They’re a LOT of fun and are safe if used as they’re intended and respecting the physics. They’re not complicated.
Add: with 100+ degree temps here in TX for weeks on end, I’m not really keen on taking my Warrior up just to bore holes in the sky but the gyro, being open cockpit, is fine. Like a motorcycle. I just need to wear sunscreen…
Last edited:
MonkeyClaw
Pre-takeoff checklist
Keep in mind that there are lots of different gyros flying, too. Gyros have undergone a lot of refinement in the past 20-30 years, including longer tails, horizontal stabilizers (early gyros didn't have these, as can be seen in the picture of 'Little Nellie'), thrust line location (high, low, center, and varying degrees of each), etc. The newer gyros tend to have better designs and are more forgiving of certain pilot techniques (e.g. the lower thrust lines of newer designs don't 'bunt over' as easily). Many of the older designs are still flying, and safe if flown properly. As Llewtrah mentions, rotor management is key.
Can you plot accidents per year. Back in 1998 the RAF2000 was one of, if not the, most popular gyroplanes. They were found to be unstable due to the high thrust line and lack of a horizontal stab.
Some folks retrofitted them with horizontal stabs. The Sparrowhawk then replaced the RAF as one of the most popular before the modern LSA designs really took off.
Additionally, training in this category seems to have improved since the 1998 timeframe. There were a lot of self-taught people in the 70s & 80’s.
I’d expect the data to show a decrease in accidents over time for gyros. Partially for the improved modern designs and partially for the better awareness of their limitations and better training.
wanttaja
En-Route
wanttaja
En-Route
Here's a plot of the fleet size for RAF 2000 gyros. This includes aircraft listed in the FAA registry for that year identified as an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft; it doesn't include Exhibition category, Light Sport, or cases where the FAA records don't show a certification type.
The big drop at the end is probably due to the FAA's re-registration system. However, the drop is a few years beyond the initial 2010-2013 implementation period of the policy. These gyros were apparently dropped on their second re-registration.
Ron Wanttaja
The big drop at the end is probably due to the FAA's re-registration system. However, the drop is a few years beyond the initial 2010-2013 implementation period of the policy. These gyros were apparently dropped on their second re-registration.
Ron Wanttaja
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,219
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
"He's too close for missiles, Goose. I'm switching to guns."
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,365
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
Autogyros rely on positive G to ensure that the airflow is constant in flowing upward through the rotor to keep it rotating. A zero-G or low-G maneuver defeats that, and the rotor RPM decays real quick and coning finishes the flight.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,190
- Display Name
Display name:
Llewtrah
True but…
the inertia of the rotors plays a big role. Aluminum rotors have less and are therefore more agile but also more prone to what you describe. Composite rotors have more and are less agile but are also significantly less prone to with what you described. The Magni has a composite one. I’m fine with the agility of the Magni and like the safety margin of the composite rotor.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,190
- Display Name
Display name:
Llewtrah
Even if they do, it ain’t cheap: my Warrior and my Magni have identical coverage amounts ($60K hull, $1M/$100K liability). $500ish for the Warrior, $5,000 for the Magni. And I’m a Commercial Gyro and “just” an IFR mere mortal in the Warrior. Insurance is a killer in gyros.
Warmi
Line Up and Wait
That tells you everything you need to know about their safety record …
Or more likely, the fleet size.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,190
- Display Name
Display name:
Llewtrah
Or the cost of repairs. Even if one bellys in a retract, repairs can be "reasonable". By contrast, roll a gyro and there's a lot to be replaced/repaired. The rotor blades and bearing for sure. Probably the frame. Whatever fuselage there is. Maybe an engine teardown, although Rotaxes are more forgiving than Lycomings/Continentals, but composite prop blades too. In all, even a "simple" non-injury event in a gyro can easily total it. The insurance expense is for the hull - not the liability.
The fact that people do stupid pilot tricks in them at a high rate adds to it as well.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
Doesn't exactly help that they're as rare as hen's teeth.
Jon Howard
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2020
- Messages
- 37
- Display Name
Display name:
Jon H.
It's not so much that gyros are inherently dangerous, but too many pilots fly them improperly. Probably a combination of inadequate training and hazardous attitudes.
Ron, Should the accident rate not be 5.7% (9/156) , rather than 0.57% ? If so, this makes gyros 7.6 times more prone to accidents compared to FW EAB.
Last edited: