What happened
On August 9, 2011, a pilot was conducting a commercial joyflight for a passenger in an ELA 07 gyroplane, identified as 76-SN. Prior to departure from Le Havre Octeville aerodrome, the pilot noted winds from the west-northwest at approximately 11 knots. During takeoff from runway 23, air traffic control reported increasing winds from 320° at 14 knots with gusts up to 20 knots.
Following a 45-minute local flight, the pilot returned for landing on runway 23. At this time, the controller reported winds from 320° at 14 knots with gusts reaching 22 knots. To avoid turbulence caused by nearby trees, the pilot adjusted the touchdown point and landed at a slight angle to mitigate the crosswind component. While the initial touchdown was normal, the pilot moved the control stick forward to maintain direction during the slow landing roll. During this phase, the gyroplane tipped to the left, causing the main rotor and the propeller to strike the ground, resulting in heavy damage to the aircraft.
The investigation
The investigation examined the operational environment and the pilot's knowledge of aircraft limitations. The presence of cliffs west of the aerodrome was noted as a source of potential turbulence and wind rolls. The investigation also reviewed the manufacturer's operating manual, which specifies a maximum demonstrated crosswind component for landing of 16 knots, provided the nose wheel is kept off the ground until a complete stop. The manual further warns that the risk of capsizing increases during crosswind landings.
It was established that the pilot was unaware of these specific manufacturer limitations or the required landing techniques for crosswind conditions. Additionally, the investigation looked into the company's operational procedures. The company operator had not established a formal crosswind limit for gyroplane operations and did not have a formal operations manual. While the operator had previously landed the same aircraft in higher winds, the pilot felt pressure to complete the flight because the passenger had traveled a long distance.
Findings
Several contributing factors were identified in the accident:
- The pilot and the operating company had failed to establish a maximum crosswind limit for operations.
- The pilot was unaware of the specific wind limitations and landing instructions outlined in the aircraft's operating manual.
- There was a lack of a standardized, reference landing technique for crosswind conditions among local pilots.
- Commercial pressure to complete the flight due to the passenger's travel distance influenced the decision to fly despite the weather conditions.