ANC18LA021 · Foxfly Inc FOXDOMINATOR

The pilot who was also the builder and owner of the gyroplane, reported that, before taking off from a turf runway for about a 10-minute-long local, personal flight, he did not get a weather briefing. The purpose of the flight was to fly the gyroplane to his home airport after condition inspections had been completed. The pilot did not remember the entire accident sequence of events; however, he remembered that the engine started and ran up without any issues; that the gyroplane was bouncing during the takeoff roll, followed by it tipping over; that the winds were strong and gusting; and that he attempted to take off into the wind. A witness stated that a strong crosswind existed at the airport that afternoon, that the airport windsock was “standing straight out,” and that the wind was gusting from the northeast about 20 to 30 knots. He watched the gyroplane taxi to runway 13 and noted that the engine sounded normal. The gyroplane lined up on the far right side about 5,700 ft down the runway and commenced the takeoff roll heading diagonally across to the left side, rolled beyond the runway left side markers, turned right to parallel the runway, and then continued the takeoff roll. Subsequently, the gyroplane went past the runway end and airport boundary then impacted a ditch and an elevated road embankment. The gyroplane then "flipped over" at least twice while crossing the road and then descended a steep embankment. The witness stated that the gyroplane did not lift off before impact. Based on the witness statement and the reported winds at the nearest airport, the crosswind component about the time of the accident would have been between 13 and 29 knots. The pilot stated that he had no personal crosswind limit because he performed takeoffs into the wind. Presumably, the pilot attempted the initial takeoff roll into the wind by heading diagonally across the runway until he had to turn to parallel. The limited headwind, while on runway heading, at the time of the accident would have resulted in more takeoff area required to obtain rotor rpm and flying speed. The precise runway distance needed is unknown due to the lack of performance information. The pilot had a 6,300 ft runway available, but rather decided to use the last 600 ft for the takeoff, which limited his abort options. A review of the gyroplane’s maintenance records revealed that condition inspections were completed the morning of the flight, at which time the engine was operated with no anomalies noted. The pilot reported that he knew of no mechanical malfunctions or issues with the gyroplane before the takeoff attempt and that it had operating brakes. Postaccident examination of the wreckage and site revealed no anomalies with the engine, flight controls rotors or airport surface that would have precluded normal operation. Given the evidence, it is likely that the pilot’s improper decision to attempt to take off in strong gusting crosswind conditions with insufficient runway remaining led to his loss of control with inadequate distance to safely abort, which resulted in impact with an elevated road embankment beyond the airport boundaries.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset