Gyros burning after impact?

[Tinkerbell]

Somebody once said in an email to my husband: whatever you do in life, is wrong. I thought it negative and fatalistic, now I see he was right.
Someone else recently said safety is an attitude and needs participation. You all know him and he is also right.
It is up to us to get to a working middle ground.

[Learjet]

Johan, I'm sorry that you feel disappointed with my comments. I have the utmost respect for you, and there is no doubt whatsoever about your knowledge, capability or good intention in this regard. If you found my analogous references to "garlic & beetroot" offensive I apologise. It was not intended to disrespect you, but to make the general point that unless any research is conducted in accordance with a scientifically accepted protocol, and preferably by an acknowledged an accredited institution e.g CSIR, it will be that much harder to have the yielded data taken seriously by either the regulating authorities or manufacturers. Even more so when dealing with aviation safety matters. We both know that is unfortunately the real world reality. Fortunately the wheels seem to be already in motion at Magni, and hopefully your knowledge and senior role within SAGPA could be utilised to good effect by engaging with the other manufacturers to address this safety concern within their own, better resourced and funded R&D programmes as a matter of urgency. There are some very valid points of view from across the board here and I'm sure the respective SAGPA technical and safety committee members will take all of these into consideration to decide the best way forward to finding a solution.

[Ashley V]

Greetings Johan.

I have known you for some time now, and your credentials are up there with the best!!!!!!!

Arrow Copter South Africa, will donate R10,000 towards any development /R & D that YOU feel will have an impact on preventing a fire on impact, for all types of gyros currently flying in SA

Please advise if the monies should be transferred to Wagtail or to SAGPA?

Regards

Ashley V

[Learjet]

That's a "put up or shut up" statement if ever there was and I respect that! Ashley that's a fine gesture, and whilst I may have differing views on how best to go about it I applaud your support. Well done Sir.

[old no 7]

[Jabbanaught]

Dont you Sleep ???? POsting at 2:28am !

[Gyronaut]

Dont you Sleep ???? POsting at 2:28am !

Yes, he does....

[mak]

Dont you Sleep ???? POsting at 2:28am !

Yes, he does....

This photo is a big surprise to him, when he went to sleep the hanger behind him was full of gyro's and when he woke up they were all back already and he thought he didn't miss any flying that weekend.

and whilst I may have differing views on how best to go about it

Dave, I would like to hear what you think that is.

Arrow Copter South Africa, will donate R10,000 towards any development /R & D

[Learjet]

and whilst I may have differing views on how best to go about it

Dave, I would like to hear what you think that is.

Arrow Copter South Africa, will donate R10,000 towards any development /R & D

Mak,
I fully support the efforts of anyone who wishes to personally develop or evaluate any product which will make flying safer. (and which ultimately will require CAA mod approval for fitment) This was never in contention. Nor are Johan's credentials.

I do however question whether SAGPA's role should be that of a R&D financier, my view being that the role of SAGPA is that of a representative body, who in the event of safety concerns should raise these with the CAA whose mandate it is to ensure safety compliance in SA.

The manufacturers are far better resourced - financially and product expertise wise to research and develop better safety attributes for their own gyros than SAGPA. To put this in perspective, Arrow Copter's generous R10 000 offering is the equivalent to the annual membership fees of of approx 40 SAGPA members. (And to echo T-Birds comment, there's also no guarantee that other manufacturers will take on board anyone else's suggestions as it opens a whole different can of worms about intellectual property rights, commercial ownership and royalties etc).

At the end of the day not one manufacturer is going to sell one single gyro in SA unless the CAA are satisified that it meets their specified safety criteria, for example B-CAR Section T standards etc - and quite simply if SAGPA feels that there is a safety concern with a particular product or part, it is the role of SAGPA to raise this concern with CAA, who in turn have the finance and expertise to evaluate the problem and demand resolution and compliance from the manufacturers. It's system that works perfectly well for type certified aircraft and I see no reason for SAGPA to go to the simply unaffordable expense of reinventing the wheel for NTCA gyros when other existing, and better resourced avenues are available.

There you have it MAK. Others may disagree and that is fine with me, we're all entitled to an opinion. It is a pity thought when some try to turn this issue into a "you're either with us or against us" divided camp scenario. I continue to hope that the greater gyro community has moved on from this clique mentality. Ultimately it will be up to the elected SAGPA committe to decide the best way forward to find a solution, and I'm happy with that.

[mak]

Dave, I agree 100% with you, as I mentioned previously I also don't believe it's SAGPA's responsibility to fund this but the manufacturers, but what to do when the manufacturers denies any problem and believes their gyro is "safe" and won't participate in the process or investigate any alternatives. Do we believe them and leave it at that or do we then proceed with own funding and mods to our gyros?
Yes, in future you can omit them from your shopping list if you are not satisfied, but how do you help the current owners?
Is it really necessary for all gyro types & models to get these mods? Surely accident history can give us guidance here?

The guys that are going to do testing, to what standard are they going to test it. Surely BCAR Section-T approval require this sort of testing anyway. Does anyone know what is the minimum Section-T impact requirement for a fuel tank? What is the most likely survivable impact that a human can withstand (I thought Section-T is required to this standard) and what is the highest impact a fuel bladder or blanket can withstand? Are there any scenarios that a blanket won't work, tear or cut by debris, burn/melt from outside due to fuel pipe/pumps starting the fire, etc, etc. How much of this impact must the undercarriage take and are there scenarios that the undercarriage won't take any of this impact?

Splinter/ T-bird, we are also willing to contribute, but first I want to make sure what is the best option. I don't want to spend money on a fire blanket that is a part solution to the above scenarios if paying a bit more for a new reinforced tank or new bladder type tank will address all the above issues. Unfortunately a bladder inside our existing Ela fuel tank is not an option (existing tank too small already) and we are considering upgrading this in any case. This fire upgrade might just be the excuse to do it.
This brings me back to my question, for example only, if there were only one Ela post impact fire in SA to date which might not have been a survivable accident in any case (I don't know), do we then still need to do this upgrade if the manufacturer say it is not required?

[Vertical Tango]

Mak, you would like the manufacturer to do a mod or test because you feel it necessary. On its own the manufacturer won't do anything unless he is forced to. Who can force him is the CAA who after an accident ("after" unfortunately ...) estimates that the particular machine needs a test or mod, or also you raising the flag with CAA. On the other hand we fly a particular category of machines that could cost a lot more if all the safety tests were carried out.
I personnally feel that there is a certain amount of risk that one should take after using one's common sense. I ride a bike and I know that I run the risk to have my legs chopped. If I don't like that risk, then I should stop ridding bikes. We will never have the perfect risk free machine, and by adding all sorts of gadgets, we are adding weight, reducing fuel volume and in turn range, then at the end are bound to fly around the patch. I think we must put in our mind that we don't fly to crash and take more responsability for consequences instead of leaving the gadget do it for us.
This discussion should however continue as something safer might be found.

[Splinter]

Greetings Johan.

I have known you for some time now, and your credentials are up there with the best!!!!!!!

Arrow Copter South Africa, will donate R10,000 towards any development /R & D that YOU feel will have an impact on preventing a fire on impact, for all types of gyros currently flying in SA

Please advise if the monies should be transferred to Wagtail or to SAGPA?

Regards

Ashley V

That is awesome Ashley. Now lets hope Johan is still willing to help us in this regard. I am also willing to donate what I can as soon as we know where Johan wants the money transferred to.

[roofer]

Hi
What if one can make up a cover to fit over existing tank something that would not tear on impact even if the tank tears and will still hold the feul inside, like a outside bladder that you can zip over ... only an idea that I'm sitting with.

Regards
Ben

[Gyronaut]

As I understand it, that is exactly what they are talking about doing some local R&D on Ben.

A fire-proof, leak-proof blanket that wraps around the fuel tank. Sounds like a good idea to me.

It appears that Magni are going the route of the rubber fuel-cell-bladder which is a bladder inside a strong fuel tank. Waiting to hear what the BCAR regs require.

Rgds

Len

[braam hechter]

Good morning All.

I trust you had a good weekend.

Herewith some info to look at, at, http://www.liquidrubbersa.com/site/liqu ... resafe.pdf

Liquid Rubber Firesafe® is the next generation of multi-functional fire retardant coatings designed not only to effectively retard flame spread and
smoke generation when exposed to fire but to protect the substrate from both fire and water damage. Liquid Rubber Firesafe® is applied as a
single component liquid and cures to a flexible elastic fire retardant membrane that also resists degradation from UV or water exposure. Liquid
Rubber Firesafe® is cold applied using a spray pump system or roller and used with a wide range of substrates.
Liquid Rubber Firesafe® is recommended for exterior and interior applications and include coating roofing assemblies, including over polyurethane
foam and polystyrene insulation board, structural supports, insulated concrete forms, and wall assemblies. Firesafe® meets or exceeds ANSI/UL
723.
Liquid Rubber Firesafe® is water based and environmentally safe. Liquid Rubber Firesafe® provides excellent fire and waterproofing protection
through a flexible membrane that resists cracking and aging. It is not affected by a range of acids, alkalis and waterborne salts.

It would seem that the fuel tank can be removed and coated with this coating, a fairly straight forward process.

I am discussing this with JvL, but if anybody else want to look at this, feel free and please give us feedback.

Greetings and operate safely.

Braam Hechter