Warbird Information Exchange

It's pretty standard that essential crew only during shows - certainly in the UK, NZ, Australia, Canada, I believe as well as the US, and it's one that most operators would concur with, I'd hope. If they don't, I don't think they should be flying public display - speaking as a writer on airshow factors.

It has nothing to do with restricting 'rides', which is and should be a separate activity.

The evidence for risk-increase by carrying non-essential crew during shows is significant, and the reverse I'd suggest, inadvisable to argue unless you want to sound like someone not to be trusted with heavy machinery - or indeed heavy lifting.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

If they banned passengers during check rides, 2 of my friends would still be alive.....

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

Absolute bollocks!!! You cannot afford to play around during an air show. These rules are in place for very good reason. There have been horrific accidents because of extra crew members on board, such as the A-26 pile up at Biggin Hill many years back (7 dead pax), or the Harpoon that piled in out west. You are only allowed essential personnel on board, which usually amounts to pilot alone in single engine, or pilot, copilot and potentially observer in multi-engined aircraft.

Rules usually come from somewhere, and are not just made up for the fun of it... there's often some hard truth to support them. Sometimes they can be enforced a little too rigidly, I agree, but an airshow is a whole different kettle of fish to just going out for a joy ride.... pilots trying to impress their passengers during a show routine is hardly the sort of thing we should be encouraging, which is exactly what happened in the two incidents I mentioned.

Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com

A2C, just a polite enquiry - what is your relation to or experience of display flying? What knowledge do you have in the matter? Can you provide evidence of the 'thought' you've stated is behind your 'question'?

Thanks!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Just a lot of flying, and aerobatics. The thought behind the question is the concept that the PIC himself is in charge, and the belief that the pilot can determine his/her own destiny. It's an interesting discussion pro and con.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

Fair enough. The PIC isn't, however, in charge of an airshow, and the general public expect a degree of safety provided for them.

Is it? I'm not aware of anyone qualified seriously prepared to advance the idea that passengers are a good idea within an airshow - certainly not in high performance aircraft.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Well, I've gone for rides during airshow displays a few times (20+ years ago) with no ill affects. I was just dead weight. Don't see a problem with it if it is done responsibly. No more dangerous than any other formation flight with passengers, perhaps safer since the (waivered) airspace is more controlled during the show.

In this case, I don't see any evidence that the passenger had an influence positive or negative on the result. From what I've read there wasn't really any agressive maneuvering involved either. Furthermore, did the lack of a check flight really contribute to the accident? If the pilot became incapacitated due to health reasons or there was a control failure, the lack of a checkride really doesn't matter. Another story though if the problem was caused from a system being operated incorrectly.

Nonetheless, the check pilot should be reprimanded for his unethical behavior and violations of the regulations.

There are instances when the PIC can discuss the need for an additional crew member to serve as an observer. A few years back, one of our pilots asked the Fed monitoring the show if I could go up in the Heinkel during the show as a set of eyes for the rear of the aircraft. The Fed had already stated that only the pilot and co-pilot were neccessary for the flight but after a short discussion, he agreed that it would enhance the safety of the flight. I think THAT was the key. Simply giving someone a ride during an airshow is not a risk that should ever be taken lightly. It is a very highly intensive time and all the pilots concentration needs to be on the plane, not entertaining a passenger. The FAA really started enforcing it after the tragic crash of the Nimrod a few years back when all ten crewmembers perished.

_________________
The more I learn about aircraft, the more I realize I still have to learn.

To whom? The difference within shows is you have a crowd. Beyond the risk to the crew, which you can debate - there is an additional risk to the crowd, not valid during non-show flying.

And there's another risk - that of the effect on show flying after an accident. If someone drops a display aircraft on the crowd or kills a 'member of the public' at a show, then there's going to be a clampdown, however minor the real risks. It's easy for us to forget that to the general public, aircraft are an unnatural (they fly! how? magic!) accident waiting to happen. The media aren't going to have a balanced debate afterwards, and the politicians would just act. This has nothing to do with the style or liberties of governance in any democracy, just a baseline scenario awaiting us.

Pretty fallacious argument, bdk. Is a pilot who is properly checked out on an aircraft more competent and more likely to be able to deal with issues? Obviously yes, which is why the system's there.

Clearly all that stimulator time for airline pilots is wasted because the times they need to use those skills are so infrequent... What a saving you are proposing for the biz!

Seriously though, the 'no passengers' rule is a good 'risk factor removal' rule. There are case for exceptions that can be made - as Chris has just pointed out. However they should stay exceptions. The risk-management line in, IMHO in the right place.

Also, there's a world of difference between say, bdk, a qualified pilot, JDK, an aviation writer but no pilot and joe doe who knows nothing. Each would provide a different level of distraction/ support and ability to cope during a high performance flight, or escape from an incident. (I know I don't like and can't take much g. What about someone who wants to go but doesn't really understand what g is?)

The case where a passenger in an L-39 was killed through his own inappropriate (but understandable) reactions in the case of an accident resulted in a court case in the UK. Like the whole taking passengers question - which is a separate issue - one has to plan for what will happen if it goes wrong, how to maximise chance to avoid worse case outcomes - because sadly, it still does go wrong.

As Ryan touched on, as well as Chris, there's too many good reasons with headstones as to why most western democracies have this rule for show flying.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

bdk,

Here is what you wrote:

"In this case, I don't see any evidence that the passenger had an influence positive or negative on the result. From what I've read there wasn't really any agressive maneuvering involved either"

Unfortunatly both those statements are exactly what are being scrutinized in this accident.

The bottom line here is that exactly what these two guys were attempting to do will never be known for sure because they are both dead. However there are some very knowledgable assumptions being made. Whatever the FAA decision is we must remember that this was an extremely tragic event and when the facts are revealed (if they ever are), hopefully we can all learn from it to prevent it from happening again.

The problem is that the pilot would then also determine his passenger's destiny. What if you're having a major malfunction and need to vacate the a/c quickly? You will need to help the passenger get out of the mess, as well as making sure the heap of metal doesn't bury itself on top of the Smith family on the ground as soon as you've left the ship. Or should the pax and spectators be left to determine their destiny? I kinda feel that your ego have just written a check your body can't balance. And I can guarantee you, there will be a stampede of lawyers ready to determine your destiny!

T J

_________________
Make my day, punk!

The no passenger rule is a VERY good rule and has been in effect for years. Not only in the US, but also in Europe. The Belgian Air Force also specifically forbids passengers during displays. Display flying is a very intensive and serious thing.
As said, the rule only came into use after several accidents. Saying it's up to the PIC to decide is bull. Try telling that to the families of passengers who died because a pilot tried to show of!

_________________
Magister Aviation
It's all in my book

I thought the Air Boss could determine if an extra set of eyes could be carried at an airshow under the waiver. Having the blessing of the FAA is great, but not sure if it is essential.

Just a guess, but I'll bet that if you were to exclude the crew of the aircraft, fewer people are killed "in the crowd" at an airport airshow than off airport. The show is worked around the crowd specifically to avoid undue risk to the crowd.

I'm talking about the cause of the accident, not the fallout. I think we all understand the post-mortem.

But did the lack of a proper checkout have any influence on THIS crash?

Please provide evidence of how a passenger increased risk to the flight (caused a crash) at an airshow? There certainly is added risk to the passenger, I mean the passenger got out of bed after all. He could have also been attacked by a rabid dog walking out to his car.

Is flying circuits at an airshow a "high performance flight," or is every Mustang ride a "high performance flight"? I agree that an A-26 full of passengers should not be doing aerobatics at an airshow, or even at altitude on a joyride for that matter.

This proves part of my point (if I am understanding yours). The passenger did not contribute to the CAUSE of the accident, but did not act appropriately after the accident.

Is flying as a passenger in an airshow during a series of (non-aerobatic) flypasts more dangerous than any other joyride?

In the case of THIS L-29 accident, is there any evidence that the lack of a proper checkout or the presence of a passenger contributed to the cause of the accident? We all know and agree that he was a bad boy- but if he had a completely unrelated and unanticipated medical condition that caused the accident, isn't that the root cause? Y'all are also assuming the pilot was completely incompetent and had not performed cockpit procedural and/or aircraft systems training. I don't know. How many hours did he have in type? How many hours did he have in like aircraft? Obviously the guy who signed him off without a check ride thought that was somehow OK. To restate, was this merely a procedural violation, or was it a direct cause of the accident?

I'm still trying to figure out how some jets flying in formation was an "airshow".