Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:22 am
I have always operated under the assumption that a Skyraider pilot can do no wrong. 
Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:58 pm
EDowning wrote:I have always operated under the assumption that a Skyraider pilot can do no wrong.
Well, you know what happens when you assume things...
Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:02 am
WEll, in Eric's case he usually makes an ass out of you and me, and sneaks off with the pretty quaker girls for a noon siesta. 
Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:09 pm
muddyboots wrote:WEll, in Eric's case he usually makes an ass out of you and me, and sneaks off with the pretty quaker girls for a noon siesta.
Lucky bugger!
Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:16 am
Fiesta! 
report
Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:09 pm
It is pretty difficult for us to read the report and be sure of much of anything. The photo really proves little, as there is no reference point to show where the planes are related to the crowd or the show line. They could well be at about 200 feet, but could be farther away and much higher.
One point I noticed was the CAF man said he tried to discuss and settle the issue right after the show without having to file a complaint and get the FAA involved, but the pilot would not cooperate.
A potential problem can be in recent years they have started extended the show line 200 feet or 500 feet longer on the ends than it would have been n the past. Leave it to the FAA to complicate a system that was working fine, and add one more technicality for a pilot to remember.
When I flew the Russell Spitfire at Thunder Over Michigan in 2006, I wasn't aware of this extra part of the show line. I am not sure I turned outside the corner on the photo passes. On Sun morn the airboss emphasized this point and I made sure to be on the safe side for that days flying. It sounds like in the Gillespie case two people may have a conflict of minds. I doubt if the FAA will admit any error, even if they made one. In 28 years as a pilot I have only once had an FAA person ever say they were wrong, and that was only because I had a written copy of the waiver in my hand to read word for word and show that the version he had given at the briefing was off. I think for the most part you'll see a plane powered by cold fusion before you'll ever have a FAA person say they were wrong. It sounds like the pilot may be as stubborn also.It is a shame it has to go so far.
One point I noticed was the CAF man said he tried to discuss and settle the issue right after the show without having to file a complaint and get the FAA involved, but the pilot would not cooperate.
A potential problem can be in recent years they have started extended the show line 200 feet or 500 feet longer on the ends than it would have been n the past. Leave it to the FAA to complicate a system that was working fine, and add one more technicality for a pilot to remember.
When I flew the Russell Spitfire at Thunder Over Michigan in 2006, I wasn't aware of this extra part of the show line. I am not sure I turned outside the corner on the photo passes. On Sun morn the airboss emphasized this point and I made sure to be on the safe side for that days flying. It sounds like in the Gillespie case two people may have a conflict of minds. I doubt if the FAA will admit any error, even if they made one. In 28 years as a pilot I have only once had an FAA person ever say they were wrong, and that was only because I had a written copy of the waiver in my hand to read word for word and show that the version he had given at the briefing was off. I think for the most part you'll see a plane powered by cold fusion before you'll ever have a FAA person say they were wrong. It sounds like the pilot may be as stubborn also.It is a shame it has to go so far.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:33 pm
Actually Bill, it's pretty easy to figure out. By using a little math, it is apparent that the Spads are just a couple of hundred feet off the ground. It's also pretty apparent that they are no where near the show centerline. I've never seen a show that would have either trees or flying flags within several hundred feet of show center. The last show that I worked, we had to actually measure and move some tents and displays due to them being too close to the mandated show centerline.
I'd bet if one were to google up the aerial shots of the field, it would be easy to tell where they were in relation to the center line.
I love the show birds coming in low and fast, but there is no reason to be jepordizing the safety of the crowd or the aircraft or even one's ticket by doing a stupid stunt like this.
I'd bet if one were to google up the aerial shots of the field, it would be easy to tell where they were in relation to the center line.
I love the show birds coming in low and fast, but there is no reason to be jepordizing the safety of the crowd or the aircraft or even one's ticket by doing a stupid stunt like this.
line
Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:45 pm
Cvair, I fully agree with you that the safety of the crowd is paramont, and the show line should be respected. And I thought the same thing about those trees and flags. But the photo still is not proof, a telephoto lens can distort the scene, just as the moon appears not as a large object in the sky, but a small one because we don't see the distance. We don't even know if that photo is a show pass or an arrival initial pass without a crowd or show line there. We have only the word of one side about the photo.. In a large show, I would expect there to be many photos, perhaps even a video of the flying. Finally I wouldn't think a normal pilot would fly 200 feet over a crowd, but who ever said Skyraider pilots are normal.
When I was learning to fly I did some of my practice landings at Gillespie.
When I was learning to fly I did some of my practice landings at Gillespie.
Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:12 pm
Perspective and a lens can distort a distance measurement. As a lark, if things are quiet at work tonight, I'll run the computations and see what I come up with for distance and height. We do have a decent reference in the shot, so it the numbers will be pretty accurate...at a glance, probably with 100 feet or less.
Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:44 pm
CVair, there are large number of things a camera lens can do to screw up the ability to use a photo to measure distance. You best bet would prolly be to measure somethign in the foreground, and use the riginal dimensions of teh SPAD, then scale out from there. Of course, if you could get eric to go back to the original site, and run back and forth for about an hour, jumping in the air and making "Vroom Vroom" noises along the claimed flight path, we'd all get a giggle and you could use him as a third leg in traingulating the distance.
Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:01 am
Optics can do some weird things at times. In this case, I'm missing one number that is needed to do the calculations.
Unfortunately for the pilots, I don't need to do the calcs to see that they do deserve the violations if some evidence that I saw online is valid. I'm not going to post what I saw, or where to find it because I will not do the feds' job for them. Unfortunately what I saw constitutes gross stupidity at a minimum and should be considered willful and reckless endangerment. If the feds have a copy of what I saw, the pilots should consider themselves extremely lucky if they ever get their tickets back.
If I were a show promoter, the only invite I would consider for either of them after this incident, would be for static display only. I may be flamed for taking this position before resolution of their cases, but I have little toleration for those that do something this stupid and then try to weasel out of the responsibility for their actions.
Unfortunately for the pilots, I don't need to do the calcs to see that they do deserve the violations if some evidence that I saw online is valid. I'm not going to post what I saw, or where to find it because I will not do the feds' job for them. Unfortunately what I saw constitutes gross stupidity at a minimum and should be considered willful and reckless endangerment. If the feds have a copy of what I saw, the pilots should consider themselves extremely lucky if they ever get their tickets back.
If I were a show promoter, the only invite I would consider for either of them after this incident, would be for static display only. I may be flamed for taking this position before resolution of their cases, but I have little toleration for those that do something this stupid and then try to weasel out of the responsibility for their actions.
Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:06 am
CV, you raise an accusation without offering up "what you saw online". So without any chance for others to view your evidence, I guess there is no rebuttal. Really, you should either keep your opinions neutral, or provide some fairly solid proof that the pilots were in the wrong.
I don't have enough info to make a fair judgment based on what I have seen or read, and I wasn't there, so my stated opinion will remain neutral.
I don't have enough info to make a fair judgment based on what I have seen or read, and I wasn't there, so my stated opinion will remain neutral.
Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:14 am
I agree. If you have something that is germane to the discussion, share it. We're all interested in the truth here. There are a lot of questionable actions going on from both sides in this matter and it doesn't serve anyone (including those of us here who attend shows) to intimate that you are and will actively hide facts that may make a difference. Think of what actions the FAA can take if they see your post. They are a government entity given certain powers, including subpoena powers, and they don't hesitate in using them.
Tue Jan 29, 2008 10:46 am
Guys: I don't mind sharing what I saw, but I will not post the location that it can be found in an open forum while there is enforcement action in the works against these guys. Shoot me an email with an address outside of the WIX system and I'll provide it without comment about the evidence and let you form you own conclusions.
There are fed types that do monitor this board and a couple of others very closely. They have no problem about calling some other agency if they see something that might interest them. Nor would they hesitate about drawing the board owner into the case. You might think me being paranoid, but this is from personal experience. Were I to post the link to the evidence, I could potentially be exposing Scott to being drawn into the legal entanglements of this case. I can't take the chance of that happening. If the case were completely over, I would have no problem about posting it in an open forum. I have my reasons for being extremely wary of all feds and so I am extremely passive-aggressive when it comes to possibly dealing with them.
There are fed types that do monitor this board and a couple of others very closely. They have no problem about calling some other agency if they see something that might interest them. Nor would they hesitate about drawing the board owner into the case. You might think me being paranoid, but this is from personal experience. Were I to post the link to the evidence, I could potentially be exposing Scott to being drawn into the legal entanglements of this case. I can't take the chance of that happening. If the case were completely over, I would have no problem about posting it in an open forum. I have my reasons for being extremely wary of all feds and so I am extremely passive-aggressive when it comes to possibly dealing with them.