ERA24LA008

Factual narrative

On October 13, 2023, at 1300 eastern daylight time, a RotorSport UK Ltd MTOsport 2017 gyroplane, N975CD, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident at Easton Airport/Newnam Field (ESN), Easton, Maryland. The pilot was seriously injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The pilot was a former military helicopter pilot and had stopped flying for about 18 years. He recently returned to flying and decided that a gyroplane was the easiest and most economical transition. The pilot received gyroplane training in the MTOsport 2017 from a local distributor (who was also a flight instructor) and then purchased a new gyroplane directly from the factory. The gyroplane was delivered in September 2023. Before the pilot accepted delivery of the gyroplane, he conducted two flights with the flight instructor/distributor for a total of about 1 hour of dual instruction. The pilot said the gyroplane flew “beautifully…like a Ferrari.” He took official delivery of the gyroplane and then decided to fly the gyroplane from ESN to his home in Virginia that same day. The pilot said that, before he departed, he performed the abbreviated preflight checklist, which included checking the flight controls, and found no issues. He then started the gyroplane and taxied to the active runway, where he performed the before takeoff checklist. The pilot found no issues with the flight controls during the taxi or during the before-takeoff check. The pilot then took off on runway 4. He said he pre-rotated to 200 rpm, and the gyroplane began to roll forward. Once he got “wheel balance” (that is, balancing on the main landing gear without the nose landing gear contacting the surface), he increased rpm, and the gyroplane lifted off the ground. The pilot said that the gyroplane made an uncommanded 30° yaw to the right when it was about 5 ft above the runway. He tried to correct with full left rudder pedal, but there was no response. The pilot said his only option was to reject the takeoff. He reduced power, pushed the nose forward, then pulled the controls back in an attempt to make a soft landing. The pilot stated that the main rotor blades flapped; he could not recall if the gyroplane then rolled left or right before it “dropped” vertically about 15–20 ft to the ground. After the gyroplane came to a stop, the pilot manually turned off the engine. The pilot said that he did not know why the gyroplane yawed but recalled that the control stick stayed in his hand, and he felt no feedback in the rudder pedals. He further stated that there were no birds in the vicinity, and the wind was calm. Postaccident examination of the gyroplane revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Flight control system continuity was confirmed from the cockpit controls to each flight control surface. The pilot had just purchased the new gyroplane. He completed two delivery flights with a flight instructor, receiving about 1 hour of dual instruction. The pilot said the gyroplane flew beautifully, and he decided to fly home that day. Before takeoff, the pilot checked the flight controls, which functioned normally. There were no birds in the area and the wind was calm. On takeoff, when the gyroplane was about 5 ft above the runway, it made an uncommanded 30° yaw to the right. The pilot said he tried to correct with full left rudder pedal, but there was no response. The pilot said his only option was to reject the takeoff. He reduced power, pushed the nose forward, then pulled the controls back in an attempt to make a soft landing. The pilot stated that the main rotor blades flapped, and the gyroplane rolled before it “dropped” vertically about 15–20 ft to the ground. After the gyroplane came to a stop, the pilot turned off the engine. The pilot did not know why the gyroplane yawed but recalled that the control stick stayed in his hand, and he felt no feedback in the rudder pedals. A postaccident examination of the gyroplane revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot
• — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-(general)-Not attained/maintained