Re-Entering Aviation

[MirandaB]

Hello All:

I am preparing to re-enter aviation after a 30-plus year hiatus, and I have a couple of questions to which I have not been able to find straightforward answers. I stumbled across this forum while looking for information on an automobile engine conversion. After spending a few hours reading various threads and posts I am so sorry I didn't find Pilots of America sooner.

I was a very young Army helicopter pilot a little over 30 years ago. I did not continue flying after I left the Army. I have a long-dormant single-engine turbine commercial helicopter pilot license with an instrument endorsement. I also have ALL of my military flight training records.

During the 30-year period following my departure from the Army I changed my name to one significantly different from the one I was originally given ande served with.

I would like to consolidate my military training records into a more conventional pilots logbook, in part because my original training records are cumbersome and, more importantly, because I would like my records to all be in my current name. For personal reasons I do not want my records to reflect the name I was originally given.

I know that getting my license re-issued in my current name is no problem. However, I do not know whether/how I can legally or properly consolidate my prior records, or if I can do so in such a way as to protect my privacy.

Does anyone have any potential insight into this situation?

Here is a bit more personal information about me:

Total flight hours: Approximately 450
Aircraft: TH-55 (Hughes 269) and UH-1H Hueys

Following my time in the Army I served the remainder of my military career in the Coast Guard as a marine inspector, investigator, and attorney, before retiring. Following my retirement I worked as a civilian civil rights attorney in private practice for about 10 years. Then I co-founded a gun company with a couple of colleagues and served as its managing partner for several years before selling my interest in it almost a year ago. I am currently waiting out a non-compete restriction as a condition of sale, after which I intend to develop some new designs and start a new company.

In the meantime I am working on getting a house ready to put on the market, working through the restoration/modification of an old pickup truck, and looking to build my own 2-seat gyroplane. Hence my inquiries into updating my license, flight records, etc.

Thanks for reading my post,

Miranda

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Do you need to re-record all of the old data with every individual entry, or just start fresh with your old totals carried over?

 

[Blackhawk]

1. Do a one line entry in your civilian logbook transcribing the times from your military records.
2. Get your certificate updated.
3. Get a medical.
4. Enroll at faasafety.gov for the Wings program. Start taking some of the online course, particularly the airspace courses as this changed dramatically in the early 1990s. Also GPS, weather sources... Anything else you feel are weaknesses. Most of the courses are free.
5. Normally a SEL add on is a little over 30 hours. Depending on how quickly you pick things up that's about right.
6. Instrument airplane is another 15 hours. Those I've done for Army pilots went quickly and only took 15 hours, but they were current.

 

[MirandaB]

L&S Guy:

That is one of the things I was wondering. Blackhawk seems to have a good handle on that question as well as several other nuts-and-bolts aspects of getting current.

Blackhawk:

Thanks for the quick and dirty roadmap. I have been aware of some of the major changes that have taken place in general aviation since I left. I have spent some time with the current VFR charts and some of the available sport pilot introductory material just to get a feel for it all. I don't intend to renew my instrument endorsement, but if I did, I would have to basically start all over again with everything. When I flew IFR we had AM NDBs, VORs, and - uh - well, that's about all. And submitting an IFR flight plan involved symbology and shorthand notations that also changed almost 30 years ago as well. In the Hueys we didn't even have TACAN of DME even though they both existed at the time. Didn't even know what GPS was at the time. Thankfully, I have forgotten so much that I probably won't have to actually unlearn much. How's that for looking on the bright side?

Thanks,

Miranda

 

[Henning]

I'm assuming you had a legal name change with a court document? You'll probably have to transcribe your military time into another log book and take it and your records along with the court change of name documentation to the FAA and get something from them to sign you off for whatever ride you qualify for.

 

[MirandaB]

Yes, it was a legal name change. No problem with documenting it all. That part is covered. I just want to avoid having to produce the same documentation and make the same explanations over and over.

 

[Henning]

Yes, it was a legal name change. No problem with documenting it all. That part is covered. I just want to avoid having to produce the same documentation and make the same explanations over and over.

Which is why I suggest getting all your stuff together and making one trip to the FSDO.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was a very young Army helicopter pilot a little over 30 years ago. I did not continue flying after I left the Army. I have a long-dormant single-engine turbine commercial helicopter pilot license with an instrument endorsement. I also have ALL of my military flight training records.

Good. Assuming you didn't do the paperwork for an FAA pilot certificate back then, you'll need them all to do that today.

During the 30-year period following my departure from the Army I changed my name to one significantly different from the one I was originally given ande served with.

You'll need the legal papers documenting your name change to present with your current ID when you take your records to the FAA to get your civilian pilot certificate issued.

I would like to consolidate my military training records into a more conventional pilots logbook, in part because my original training records are cumbersome and, more importantly, because I would like my records to all be in my current name. For personal reasons I do not want my records to reflect the name I was originally given.

I'm not sure you'll be able to avoid that unless all you want to do is personal flying. If you want a professional pilot position, you're probably going to have to produce those original military records to support your employment application. OTOH, if all you want to do is personal flying, all you need do is enter the totals from your Army records in the "brought forward" line on the first page of your new civilian logbook.

I know that getting my license re-issued in my current name is no problem. However, I do not know whether/how I can legally or properly consolidate my prior records, or if I can do so in such a way as to protect my privacy.

Not from the FAA, and probably not from your employer if you want a pilot job.

 

[asgcpa]

I converted my Transport Canada ASEL license to an FAA license after a 31 year hiatus. It was a one line entry to a new log book. FAA did have to verify my TC license. I got the verification letter from the FAA which I had to take to the local FSDO. I did not have a name change so I don't know if there is any complication there. Good luck.

 

[oldShar]

Miranda,
I went thru just the process you were referring to about 6 years ago. It's a no (real) sweat operation. Just takes TIME and some paperwork.
FSDO will have a few forms for you to fill out (make an appointment first, don't just show up), and wait for your paperwork to be cycled, and every thing will be hunky dorey.
I had absolutely NO problems from any one in the FSDO, in Oklahoma City, the AME's office, or elsewhere.
It's essentially a non-issue, other than an investment in time.
Good luck

 

[jtheune]

I would start with the medical first. Anyone over 50 should start there before they invest time and money into flight training as there is nothing worse then chasing a dream only to find out you don't qualify or have to go a special issuance route that can take months/years to get.

 

[Blackhawk]

L&S Guy:

That is one of the things I was wondering. Blackhawk seems to have a good handle on that question as well as several other nuts-and-bolts aspects of getting current.

Blackhawk:

Thanks for the quick and dirty roadmap. I have been aware of some of the major changes that have taken place in general aviation since I left. I have spent some time with the current VFR charts and some of the available sport pilot introductory material just to get a feel for it all. I don't intend to renew my instrument endorsement, but if I did, I would have to basically start all over again with everything. When I flew IFR we had AM NDBs, VORs, and - uh - well, that's about all. And submitting an IFR flight plan involved symbology and shorthand notations that also changed almost 30 years ago as well. In the Hueys we didn't even have TACAN of DME even though they both existed at the time. Didn't even know what GPS was at the time. Thankfully, I have forgotten so much that I probably won't have to actually unlearn much. How's that for looking on the bright side?

Thanks,

Miranda

Yeah, I flew Hueys as well as 60's (and the 55) so I know where you are coming from.
In some respects instrument flying has become easier. Your BI (basic instrument), flying skills are probably still there and would return faster than you think. Heck, you flew NDB approaches so GPS approaches would be easy. I'm considered a cruel, mean person for making pilots with ADFs in their airplanes learn how to use them. You are use to using a CDI and that is what most airplanes still have, though glass is becoming more common.
Flight planning and filing is much easier with the advent of electronic "flight bags". A complex IFR flight plan is pretty quick and easy. It is very difficult now to even find paper charts for sale. Also, the civilian side never did get wrapped around the axle about the information in the IFR flight plans like the Army did. I always found it amusing how caught up IE's got about the information on the IFR flight plan when 1/2 the stuff was not even put into the system or just confused the FSS on what we actually were doing.
I've actually taught a bunch of Army pilots and, when I lived in El Paso, I had a contract to teach Army pilots and CBP pilots single engine flying. The Army pilots needed to learn single engine in order to fly AN-2's (I also gave them tail wheel check outs). Feel free to PM me if you have questions.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I would start with the medical first. Anyone over 50 should start there before they invest time and money into flight training as there is nothing worse then chasing a dream only to find out you don't qualify or have to go a special issuance route that can take months/years to get.

Never ever go and attempt to get a medical unless you are sure you are going to pass.

If you try and fail you are locked out of sport pilot and likely other options if (if... don't hold your breath) the FAA approves more operations with less stringent medical certificate requirements.

There is no FAA penalty for failing to try.

 

[LDJones]

Just put a copy of your name change papers in your old logbook, then carry the totals forward to your new logbook and you should be set.

 

[MirandaB]

Thanks for all of the insight and feedback. It is good to know that, other than having to jump through some administrative hoops re documentation, etc., the process isn't all too onerous and others have survived it intact.

My intent is to fly sport pilot only. After all, I am only planning to fly a 2.1-place rotary wing E-LSA in daylight VFR, including some cross country (the extra one-tenth of a seat will be to accommodate our two tiny chihuahuas). I had previously read about the issue re failed attempts at medical certificates and exclusion for a sport pilot license but still appreciate the warning. For me it is simple: having the ability to fly at night or in excess of other sport pilot limitations isn't worth the risk in this 54-year-old body. And the odds only get longer the longer I play. The ruling doesn't make any sense to me, but I am not trying to start a discussion on it since I am sure that has already been covered ad nauseum in other threads here.

 

[Jim Logajan]

My intent is to fly sport pilot only. After all, I am only planning to fly a 2.1-place rotary wing E-LSA in daylight VFR, including some cross country (the extra one-tenth of a seat will be to accommodate our two tiny chihuahuas).

You may have a problem, depending on the rotary wing you have in mind - as far as I know helicopters cannot be flown with sport pilot certificate, and they cannot be registered as LSA. However, I believe gyroplanes can be registered as LSA and flown with sport pilot license.

 

[MirandaB]

You may have a problem, depending on the rotary wing you have in mind - as far as I know helicopters cannot be flown with sport pilot certificate, and they cannot be registered as LSA. However, I believe gyroplanes can be registered as LSA and flown with sport pilot license.

You are correct on all accounts, Jim. As much as I would like to resume flying helicopters I am going to transition to gyros. (Funny, the FAA doesn't seem to want to count my countless full-stop autorotations toward my gyro type-endorsement)

My choice of gyro over helicopter isn't based on the medical certificate issue but more a matter of practicality. I can much more easily build and maintain my own gyro, and at a much lower cost. While I just passed on buying a used R22 I could have afforded, the maintenance would have had to be done by someone else and at often a significant expense. If I build my own and stick with a mechanically simpler design I will be miles ahead cost-wise in the long run. The sport pilot license and reduced medical requirement are just a bonus.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Cool. When you are up and flying a gyro share some pics and stories. Never flown one and they are intriguing little buggers.

 

[poadeleted20]

My intent is to fly sport pilot only. After all, I am only planning to fly a 2.1-place rotary wing E-LSA in daylight VFR, including some cross country (the extra one-tenth of a seat will be to accommodate our two tiny chihuahuas).

What's not clear is whether you currently have an FAA pilot certificate. If you do, I expect it has a Rotorcraft category and Helicopter class rating but is in your earlier nae. If you do not, you will need to take your Army flight records to the FSDO along with proof of your connection to that prior identity in order to be issued such a certificate, which based on your Army experience will still be issued with a Rotorcraft category/Helicopter class rating. Either way, you are going to have to deal with the FSDO to get a pilot certificate in your current name issued.

However, even if you do have a pilot certificate with an RH rating in your current name, there are (as noted above) no LSA helicopters, only gyrocopters in the Rotorcraft category, so you are going to have to add the Gyrocopter class privilege at the Sport Pilot level before acting as PIC of that E-LSA rotorcraft. That means going through the Sport Pilot additional class privilege process detailed in 14 CFR 61.321:

Sec. 61.321

How do I obtain privileges to operate an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft?

If you hold a sport pilot certificate and seek to operate an additional category or class of light-sport aircraft, you must-
(a) Receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you on the applicable aeronautical knowledge areas specified in §61.309 and areas of operation specified in §61.311. The endorsement certifies you have met the aeronautical knowledge and flight proficiency requirements for the additional light-sport aircraft privilege you seek;
(b) Successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor other than the instructor who trained you on the aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation specified in §§61.309 and 61.311 for the additional light-sport aircraft privilege you seek;
(c) Complete an application for those privileges on a form and in a manner acceptable to the FAA and present this application to the authorized instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of this section; and
(d) Receive a logbook endorsement from the instructor who conducted the proficiency check specified in paragraph (b) of this section certifying you are proficient in the applicable areas of operation and aeronautical knowledge areas, and that you are authorized for the additional category and class light-sport aircraft privilege.

That may involve some review of your Army flight records by the instructors involved, and that may require sharing your past identity with those instructors. You may be able to avoid that by hand-transcribing all your Army flying (on a flight-by-flight basis, not just one "brought forward" line) to a civilian pilot logbook in your current name and not showing the Army records to those instructors, and presenting the logbook to the instructors involved.

If by some chance you do have a pilot certificate with RG rating in your current name, then you won't have to do anything at all with the FAA, and you'll need only whatever training is needed to be safe in this particular aircraft , and that doesn't require any discussion at all of your past name.

 

[MirandaB]

What's not clear is whether you currently have an FAA pilot certificate.

I do have an FAA pilot certificate, issued in 1980, for commercial single engine rotary wing (helicopter) with an instrument endorsement. I understand that I can get the FAA to reissue it in my current name just by providing the appropriate court order and other associated identity documents. My larger concern has been the proper (or acceptable) way to document my prior flight training while still maintaining an acceptable degree of privacy. I know virtually NOTHING about how flight records are kept in the civilian world. In the Army we would just fill out our aircraft logs and the unit flight operations department took care of the rest. A lazy way, perhaps, but it was the Army way and I am sure that any personal logs I might have wanted to keep at the time would have no value now as an official record. This has left me with flight records that don't at all resemble what I have seen of civilian flight logs thus far.

 

[oldShar]

2.1-place

Cute!



==============================

Unless you are flying professionally, the primary way the government has your flight records is based upon certificate application and medical applications.

The FSDO is going to KNOW your past identity (while you are completing paperwork in the FSDO), so you can transcribe your records under your previous identity with them present, so no fraud would be suspected. It's really not an issue.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Buy a civilian logbook and make one or two entries carrying everything forward. You shouldn't have a problem, unless the CFI is a jerk. No need for you to ever show them your Army records. Unless you suck at flying(unlikely, rust doesn't count) it should be a quick get up to speed and get signed off for the SP gyro add on. You will get professional courtesy for already being a pilot, bonus points for being a rotorhead.

I do have an FAA pilot certificate, issued in 1980, for commercial single engine rotary wing (helicopter) with an instrument endorsement. I understand that I can get the FAA to reissue it in my current name just by providing the appropriate court order and other associated identity documents. My larger concern has been the proper (or acceptable) way to document my prior flight training while still maintaining an acceptable degree of privacy. I know virtually NOTHING about how flight records are kept in the civilian world. In the Army we would just fill out our aircraft logs and the unit flight operations department took care of the rest. A lazy way, perhaps, but it was the Army way and I am sure that any personal logs I might have wanted to keep at the time would have no value now as an official record. This has left me with flight records that don't at all resemble what I have seen of civilian flight logs thus far.

 

[poadeleted20]

I do have an FAA pilot certificate, issued in 1980, for commercial single engine rotary wing (helicopter) with an instrument endorsement.

I don't think that's exactly what it says on that certificate, but I get the idea. The FAA doesn't issue separate SE/ME helo class ratings, and the "instrument" is a category-specific rating, not an endorsement. So, unless you also have an Airplane-Single Engine rating, I suspect that what's actually on your certificate under "Ratings and Limitations" is "Rotorcraft-Helicopter, Instrument-Helicopter." And since it was issued in 1980, I'm guessing it's made of paper, not plastic, and has thus been invalid for use since March, 2010, so you will have to get it reissued no matter what name is on it in order to fly today.

I understand that I can get the FAA to reissue it in my current name just by providing the appropriate court order and other associated identity documents. My larger concern has been the proper (or acceptable) way to document my prior flight training while still maintaining an acceptable degree of privacy. I know virtually NOTHING about how flight records are kept in the civilian world. In the Army we would just fill out our aircraft logs and the unit flight operations department took care of the rest. A lazy way, perhaps, but it was the Army way and I am sure that any personal logs I might have wanted to keep at the time would have no value now as an official record. This has left me with flight records that don't at all resemble what I have seen of civilian flight logs thus far.

For your stated purposes, there will be no regulatory need to show anyone your Army records at this point.

To get your new plastic pilot certificate, you need only your old paper pilot certificate from 1980 plus the necessary identity documents to prove your new name. For the details on that, see paragraph 5-317 in this section of FAA Order 8900.1. You'll need to make an appointment at the FSDO to accomplish this -- strictly phone-ahead, no walk-ins allowed any more.

Once you've done that, you can just enter your Army time totals in the "brought forward" line of a new civilian pilot logbook in your current name and go on from there. To add the Gyrocopter privilege at the Sport Pilot level, there is no regulatory need to show anyone anything other than your newly-issued plastic pilot certificate with your current name and CP-RH-IH ratings - your gyrocopter instructor will help you fill in the training in that new civilian logbook, and you can move on from there.

BTW, since the "proficiency check" for your additional gyrocopter Sport Pilot privilege is given by a CFI, not "an examiner, an approved pilot check airman, or a U.S. Armed Force," one of the two instructors involved in that process will have to conduct and endorse your new civilian pilot logbook for a flight review as well as that additional class privilege before you'll be allowed to fly without an instructor. Make sure your instructor understands that up front, as it will affect how s/he structures your training session(s). You might want to prepare for that by doing some pre-study on current rules, procedures, regulations, weather sources, etc. AOPA's "Getting Back Into Flying" guide might be a good place to start. If you're not already an AOPA member, this product alone would be a good reason to join.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Ron a new SP rating doesn't count as a flight review? Not arguing, asking cause I never thought of it before.

 

[docmirror]

Since this thread has taken an interesting turn, I want to add a few comments. Not from the perspective of the logging, or name change but the choice of aircraft.

Gyro-copters and auto-gyro planes are rare birds indeed. I'm prolly one of the few people on this board with some experience with them. I've owned and flown a Bensen B8-M back centuries ago, and more recently a Dominator single seat(not sure of the model but it was EXP). Although one can spend a serious amount of money for a two seat model, the concepts are the same, and the gyrocopter design is fraught with control perils.

I learned on the Bensen, and it was moderately stable but like all gyros with pusher engine configs it suffered from modest pitch-pole issues. The Dominator was very critical in pitch moment control, and I want to stress that you understand the problem with pusher design gyros and be ready for the strange behavior. If you consider the similar problem of thrust-line concerns with pusher amphib planes like the Lake, the pusher gyro has very similar pitch-moment problems but in the opposite direction.

Frex; At low speed, with regular rotor RPM, an abrupt increase in power will tend to pitch the gyro up, and has been shown to exceed the ability of the rotor to counteract the pitch moment and maintain forward airspeed. As forward airspeed is sacrificed, lift is also sacrificed and the results can be an uncontrolled descent at pretty high rates. If it's done near the ground, it's a mess. This becomes a particular problem on final to a runway, where the gyro pilot often wants to impress with the extreme short field landing prowess. They get very slow over the ground, then need to pour on the power, and at full forward stick, the engine still overcomes the rotor angle of incidence and it all comes down hard.

Please investigate this factor when deciding on a gyro, and be aware that abrupt power changes near the ground are sticky when forward airspeed is very low. High powered gyros are even worse, as the higher thrust causes steeper rotor angles that are impossible to correct for with forward stick(it's not a cyclic).

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron a new SP rating doesn't count as a flight review? Not arguing, asking cause I never thought of it before.

I'm just reading the regulation as written, which does not include proficiency checks given by CFI's. It might be that AFS-800 wasn't thinking about that when they wrote the Sport Pilot rules, and that if they did, they'd make the same change to 61.56 they did for CFI practical tests once they realized the rules didn't say what they wanted. However, as it stands, I don't see a 61.321 proficiency check given by a CFI as counting for the 61.56(d)(1) flight review exception.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Tricky. I could see a lapsed pilot buying a different category LSA getting the SP rating for it and never getting a FR. If it was me I'd have assumed I was covered.

 

[MirandaB]

Gwen, Greg, and Ron:

Thanks for the further input re licensing and documentation. It is much appreciated, and you have doubtless saved me much time, frustration, and misunderstanding.

Random: I have spent a long time - years actually - looking into the issues you raised, and I all of your observations have been echoed by many others. I have never been comfortable with the problems inherent with pusher-powered gyros, and have settled on the tractor design Little Wing model as my starting point. I plan to modify the plans to permit side-by-side seating, but that is pretty much the extent of the changes I plan to make to it. The tractor configuration is inherently more stable and avoids many of the potential pitfalls you mentioned in the pusher designs.

I am perplexed by one comment you made, though. You made a distinction between control "stick" and a "cyclic". Can you say more? Feel free to PM me if you think it outside the scope of the general conversation here.

 

[gkainz]

snip -
I am perplexed by one comment you made, though. You made a distinction between control "stick" and a "cyclic". Can you say more? Feel free to PM me if you think it outside the scope of the general conversation here.

Please continue this on the thread, or a new thread? I think we all find the conversation interesting, even if not pertinent to any of us fixed wing folks.

 

[docmirror]

Random: I have spent a long time - years actually - looking into the issues you raised, and I all of your observations have been echoed by many others. I have never been comfortable with the problems inherent with pusher-powered gyros, and have settled on the tractor design Little Wing model as my starting point. I plan to modify the plans to permit side-by-side seating, but that is pretty much the extent of the changes I plan to make to it. The tractor configuration is inherently more stable and avoids many of the potential pitfalls you mentioned in the pusher designs.

I am perplexed by one comment you made, though. You made a distinction between control "stick" and a "cyclic". Can you say more? Feel free to PM me if you think it outside the scope of the general conversation here.

I'll commend you on your choice of a tractor config gyro. They are much less prone to pitch-pole issues.

As you know, the cyclic control in a helicopter changes the pitch of each blade as it 'cycles' around the rotor mast. Because a gyro has a fixed pitch hub/blade attachment, there is no cyclical control of the pitch of the individual blades on a gyro, they are what they are when set by construction design to be a fixed angle of incidence.

As the air washes from bottom to top of the rotor disc, this moving air does two basic jobs, one is to provide lift, and the other is to maintain rotor RPM. This is one of the reason that a gyro is never going to be as efficient a lifting body as a fixed wing aircraft. The maintenance of rotor RPM is a function of the angle of the rotor blades in relation to the relative wind. The rotor 'free-wheels' as it moves forward in the air due to the angle of the blades which is not changed at any point during the rotation about the hub. Thus - it is controlled in pitch by varying the angle of the hub(swash plate in heli terms) relative to the mast.

Most(all?) modern gyros are a teetering hub design which is simplicity itself, but at the detriment of control precision. Since the gyro is rarely flown in gusty or windy conditions, the teetering hub design is sufficiently robust and suitable for the task at hand. If the hub were a rigid-in-all-axis type, it would provide for better feedback to the "stick", but other issues with gyroscopic effect would have the pilot pushing left to go down, and forward to turn right, etc so they are not used.

It could be said I suppose that the teetering hub allows for some modest amount of cyclical difference in relative force, but in relation to the cyclic in a helicopter there is no comparison.

 

[poadeleted20]

Tricky. I could see a lapsed pilot buying a different category LSA getting the SP rating for it and never getting a FR. If it was me I'd have assumed I was covered.

Need I remind you what "assume" does when it comes to the regulations?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Need I remind you what "assume" does when it comes to the regulations?

Yeah I know, wonder if anyone versed in the 'new rating counts as a FR' way of thinking did their first two years of sp not legal?

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah I know, wonder if anyone versed in the 'new rating counts as a FR' way of thinking did their first two years of sp not legal?

Many of us old-time CFI's had to really work to wrap our minds around the fundamental differences with Sport Pilot certification. One of those is that a Sport Pilot privilege is not a rating...and that's why they had to amend 61.51(e)(1)(I) to say "When the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate..."

But the good news is that the "proficiency check" by the second CFI is not a practical test, so your record need not reflect a failure to satisfy the second CFI -- s/he just doesn't sign the 8710-11 or the logbook endorsement. There is nothing I can find requiring that second CFI to send the 8710-11 onward if the check is not satisfactory.

 

[MirandaB]

Greg: Thanks for your vote on continuing this topic, this thread.

Random: Very well said. Thank you. You clarified some latent issues that have been slowly coalescing in my understanding of the difference between helicopter and gyro rotor heads. You also touched on something that I have not understood at all until now, and if you don't mind, I would like you to explain further.

It always seemed to me that gyro rotor heads were similar to helicopter rotor systems in that they both seem to have a swash plate that takes non-rotating control inputs and converts them to rotational control inputs to the rotor blades. I am very familiar with this in the UH-1 I used to fly. (Actually, the UH-1 rotor system fed control inputs to the flybar, which transferred them to the rotor blades to make them - as it was explained to me - less sensitive to control inputs.)

Unlike helicopter rotor systems, however, because a gyro's blades are fixed in their pitch relative both to each other and to the rotor head itself, the control inputs are not converted from non-rotating to rotational. Nor are they inputted directly to the rotor blades. Instead, they are simply inputted directly to the rotor head mounting apparatus to change its angle relative to the non-rotating rotor mast. So the apparent similarity between rotor systems is not as strong as it would seem at first blush. Your explanation helped clarify that difference for me.

I was also glad that you mentioned gyroscopic effect. The swash plate on a helicopter is constructed in such a way as to account for gyroscopic precession, and enters the desired control input 90 degrees earlier in the phase of rotation. As I began researching gyro rotor heads and control systems I assumed (BAD word) that I would likewise find control systems engineered to enter control inputs 90 degrees earlier in the phase of rotation. Not so! Instead, the control inputs to the rotor head are directly linear, with no mechanical advance in the phase of rotation. So where did the gyroscopic effect go? Why do helicopter rotor systems have to account for the phenomenon and gyro rotor systems don't?

If I understand your previous explanation, the gyro's teetering hub discounts gyroscopic effect by living with a much lower degree of sensitivity, which is tolerable (I am guessing) because gyros are always operating in a directional flight mode and do not hover - so the diminished rotor control sensitivity is not an issue. Is this anything close to what you were saying, or am I missing something important here?

 

[docmirror]

Nor are they inputted directly to the rotor blades. Instead, they are simply inputted directly to the rotor head mounting apparatus to change its angle relative to the non-rotating rotor mast.

*******************************************
I was also glad that you mentioned gyroscopic effect. The swash plate on a helicopter is constructed in such a way as to account for gyroscopic precession,

********************************************

So where did the gyroscopic effect go? Why do helicopter rotor systems have to account for the phenomenon and gyro rotor systems don't?

If I understand your previous explanation, the gyro's teetering hub discounts gyroscopic effect by living with a much lower degree of sensitivity, which is tolerable (I am guessing) because gyros are always operating in a directional flight mode and do not hover - so the diminished rotor control sensitivity is not an issue. Is this anything close to what you were saying, or am I missing something important here?

OK, I'm back for a bit. Lets start at the top. The gyroscopic effect is not precession per-se, or it could be thought of as the torque-free variant of precession. In the case of a helicopter it is a torque-induced, or torque coupled gyroscopic effect. In a torque free system the moments of inertia are not as strong when considering the tensor of the rotor disc because one of the forces - 'torque' is missing. It can be thought of like a football tossed by a pro quarterback and how it retains it's major axis of spin even as it's acted on by gravity. For guys we call it a tight spiral(although not technically a spiral at all!).

In a gyro, the only moments are the rotational forces caused by the rotor passing through the air. There is clearly no torque applied to the mast, and it rides in a set of bearings with a very low coef of friction, such that we can ignore the anti-torque effects of the main hub bearing. In the case of the free gyro effect(non-torque-coupled), generally speaking the effects of the gyroscopic forces are somewhat lower than in a helicopter. As you mentioned a gyro doesn't hover, and is always in forward motion as well as it's rotational moment(s).

From a practical perspective, the hub gets it's control inputs directly from the stick, and those inputs mimic the airplane control movements exactly, with no compensation for gyroscopic effect. Push forward, the hub tilts down, the rotor tilts down, the blades tilt down, and the craft pitches forward. Push to the right, the hub tilts right, the rotor tilts right, and the blades tip to the right, and the craft enters a right turn. Left - same, and back - same, there is no compensation for gyroscopic effect.

The next thing we take into consideration is the low-mass of a gyrocopter in comparison to a helicopter. If we were to use a small experimental helicopter of similar weight as the gyrocopter, the mass of the gyro rotor will still be lower by a significant factor. As mass increases on the rotor blades(disk, for our purposes) the tensor moments increase, and without doing the tensor integral calc for each change in motion angle, the gyroscopic effect will build rapidly as the mass is increased. One could also say the same thing if the rotor diameter were smaller, but the mass of the blades were higher. The tensor can be made the same depending on rotational speed, and again I am way too lazy to do the tensor calc, but I think you get the idea.

Having said that, you'll find what I found when I flew a gyro, that any turn you make with the stick will come with a bit of pressure from the precession of the disk, and you will naturally compensate for it. Depending on which way the rotor disk is spinning, when you turn right, you'll feel the craft want to pitch down a bit, and you'll hold back pressure on the stick to negate that effect. When you turn left, the craft will seem to want to pitch up a bit, and you'll find yourself holding a bit of forward pressure to counteract that. If the rotor spins the opposite way, of course the precession will be opposite as well.

For some reason, I never noticed a left/right precession when I was changing pitch, and the only thing I can come up with is that I was taught to change pitch very gently due to the previously mentioned pitch-pole, or thrust induced pitch-over problem. I was overly gently with the stick in the fore and aft direction, and gave myself plenty of forward airspeed, most especially when near the ground.

I've always thought that most of the pitch-pole issues with the gyro are exacerbated by pilots trying to show just how slow they can fly. In a 12-15kt wind, people try to hover them, and when the craft begins to settle, the natural reaction is to shove the throttle all the way forward, as the stick is held back trying to stay on the back side of the power curve. I was taught to approach with a set RPM that will be governed by the type of engine and prop, and to make small adjustments with the throttle at all times, and use the stick for glide control. once in ground effect, even if it does pitch-pole, it's not going to kill you but it will sure destroy the plane quickly. I was too cheap to have to rebuild it, so my approaches were quite tame, and once I was in ground effect, I landed by just reducing throttle gently and letting the plane settle. I've seen pro gyro pilots that can scream it in at high speed, and bleed off the forward airspeed with just the stick, and come to a dead stop in a few feet. I would never have tried that until I had way more hours accumulated, and tested it at some altitude.

After about 5 hours of flight in the Bensen, it lost it's allure as I found I was spending so much on fuel and oil, I would prefer to get inside a cockpit and get some more metal and fabric around me. More or less a fad, but one that taught me interesting things about gyros, and how not to kill oneself.

Feel for the gyro effect as you make turns. It'll be subtle but you'll feel it, and compensate for it naturally without much thought.

 

[MirandaB]

OK, I'm back for a bit. Lets start at the top. The gyroscopic effect is not precession per-se, or it could be thought of as the torque-free variant of precession. In the case of a helicopter it is a torque-induced, or torque coupled gyroscopic effect. In a torque free system the moments of inertia are not as strong when considering the tensor of the rotor disc because one of the forces - 'torque' is missing. It can be thought of like a football tossed by a pro quarterback and how it retains it's major axis of spin even as it's acted on by gravity. For guys we call it a tight spiral(although not technically a spiral at all!).

In a gyro, the only moments are the rotational forces caused by the rotor passing through the air. There is clearly no torque applied to the mast, and it rides in a set of bearings with a very low coef of friction, such that we can ignore the anti-torque effects of the main hub bearing. In the case of the free gyro effect(non-torque-coupled), generally speaking the effects of the gyroscopic forces are somewhat lower than in a helicopter. As you mentioned a gyro doesn't hover, and is always in forward motion as well as it's rotational moment(s).

From a practical perspective, the hub gets it's control inputs directly from the stick, and those inputs mimic the airplane control movements exactly, with no compensation for gyroscopic effect. Push forward, the hub tilts down, the rotor tilts down, the blades tilt down, and the craft pitches forward. Push to the right, the hub tilts right, the rotor tilts right, and the blades tip to the right, and the craft enters a right turn. Left - same, and back - same, there is no compensation for gyroscopic effect.

The next thing we take into consideration is the low-mass of a gyrocopter in comparison to a helicopter. If we were to use a small experimental helicopter of similar weight as the gyrocopter, the mass of the gyro rotor will still be lower by a significant factor. As mass increases on the rotor blades(disk, for our purposes) the tensor moments increase, and without doing the tensor integral calc for each change in motion angle, the gyroscopic effect will build rapidly as the mass is increased. One could also say the same thing if the rotor diameter were smaller, but the mass of the blades were higher. The tensor can be made the same depending on rotational speed, and again I am way too lazy to do the tensor calc, but I think you get the idea.

Having said that, you'll find what I found when I flew a gyro, that any turn you make with the stick will come with a bit of pressure from the precession of the disk, and you will naturally compensate for it. Depending on which way the rotor disk is spinning, when you turn right, you'll feel the craft want to pitch down a bit, and you'll hold back pressure on the stick to negate that effect. When you turn left, the craft will seem to want to pitch up a bit, and you'll find yourself holding a bit of forward pressure to counteract that. If the rotor spins the opposite way, of course the precession will be opposite as well.

For some reason, I never noticed a left/right precession when I was changing pitch, and the only thing I can come up with is that I was taught to change pitch very gently due to the previously mentioned pitch-pole, or thrust induced pitch-over problem. I was overly gently with the stick in the fore and aft direction, and gave myself plenty of forward airspeed, most especially when near the ground.

I've always thought that most of the pitch-pole issues with the gyro are exacerbated by pilots trying to show just how slow they can fly. In a 12-15kt wind, people try to hover them, and when the craft begins to settle, the natural reaction is to shove the throttle all the way forward, as the stick is held back trying to stay on the back side of the power curve. I was taught to approach with a set RPM that will be governed by the type of engine and prop, and to make small adjustments with the throttle at all times, and use the stick for glide control. once in ground effect, even if it does pitch-pole, it's not going to kill you but it will sure destroy the plane quickly. I was too cheap to have to rebuild it, so my approaches were quite tame, and once I was in ground effect, I landed by just reducing throttle gently and letting the plane settle. I've seen pro gyro pilots that can scream it in at high speed, and bleed off the forward airspeed with just the stick, and come to a dead stop in a few feet. I would never have tried that until I had way more hours accumulated, and tested it at some altitude.

After about 5 hours of flight in the Bensen, it lost it's allure as I found I was spending so much on fuel and oil, I would prefer to get inside a cockpit and get some more metal and fabric around me. More or less a fad, but one that taught me interesting things about gyros, and how not to kill oneself.

Feel for the gyro effect as you make turns. It'll be subtle but you'll feel it, and compensate for it naturally without much thought.

Thanks very much for the tutorial. It explains a lot, including some of the apparent stick feedback I have seen evident in some POV gyro flying videos. I just assumed the pilots in those videos were experiencing feedback from rotor blades that weren't tracking equally (and maybe sometimes that was part of what I was seeing, too).

I have been in contact with Ron Herron, designer of the Little Wing gyroplane, and am purchasing plans from him. Although I have been tempted to go the quicker, cheaper, less-complicated route and build one of the single place open-cockpit gyros (a la the Bensen or Gyrobee) I really want to do more than buzz around the airfield by myself. I am married and would very much like to share the joy of flying with my honey bunny, as well as take some regional trips together. I greatly appreciate everything that has been contributed to this thread. The insights, advice, and information everyone has shared are SO helpful to me, a new old pilot (or is old, new pilot?).

Thanks very much to all.

Miranda

 

[docmirror]

My pleasure I'm sure. Now, I'm going to suggest you get yourself some stick time in one of the gyros you are interested in before plunking down hard earned cash. I would not want to dissuade anyone from following their dreams, or even their fantasies but the world of gyro flying is quite limited, and the mission it covers is seriously narrow.

No disrespect to the Little Wing folks either but all gyros are quite a compromise for the ability to take off and land very short, and the lesser risk in a fixed wing stall. Any of them will have trouble maintaining 80MPH unless you look at one of the Euro gyros with lots of streamlining, and high cost. next, I have to remind you that their design is a single or a tandem, and if you are going to have a passenger, and mod one for side-by-side seating you become even more of a test pilot than a person who goes the Experimental amateur built category.

The reason for the tandem with rear seat solo is because if you go to a side-by-side seating and fly solo, you have to contend with the offset mass by sitting on the left side, with no person in the right seat. The mast of a gyro is very sensitive to lateral mass and stability. All the exp helicopters like the Rotorway Exec will require a slug weight to be placed on the right skid, and maybe a seat slug to compensate for no person sitting in the passenger side. If you look at all the other two seat gyros I think they are all tandem config for this reason. There is a four seat version, but I have no knowledge of the slug weighting for that craft, but I'm betting there is one in a pilot-solo from left arrangement.

I would even say it would be a benefit for you to go to the Little Wing factory for a demo ride, and see if it's what you really are looking for. A trip of even 100 miles in a slower tandem craft will seem like an eternity. It's good that they are producing a closed cockpit version, and that it's a tractor config, but please know before you jump in with both feet. If you any other questions, just drop them in here, and we'll get it sorted out.