Warbird and Air Show Safety

[Fouga23]

This past summer I've seen enough bad flying to last a lifetime (and I don't mean the people who all got killed either)... In the last week, I've seen a jet team that broke the dead line a bunch of times and over flew the crowd in their act. No names here, but a lot of people I talked to at the show were scared of them, my prediction is they are the next upcoming disaster.

Over here in Belgium we had a big airshow crash in 1997. After that safety increased a lot. I believe the line is now 300 or 400 meters from the crowd. You cross it once, you're done!

[51fixer]

Nothing personal here Rich, I have great respect for you. My question wasn't laid out that well and I spent quite a few long days here at Reno...

When we get to the O2 part, I'm more referring to CO posioning than O2 deprivation. With CO, you start running into coordination problems, etc, hence ultimately problems with controlling the aircraft.

For ACRO and helmets, that helmet doesn't fit under the canopy argument to me is like "I don't wear a seatbelt since it wrinkles my clothes"....

This past summer I've seen enough bad flying to last a lifetime (and I don't mean the people who all got kiled either)... In the last week, I've seen a jet team that broke the dead line a bunch of times and over flew the crowd in their act. No names here, but a lot of people I talked to at the show were scared of them, my prediction is they are the next upcoming disaster.

I got to know one respected pilot this summer who just didn't seem to follow what I would call safe procedures.

Oh well, who am I to comment on it...

Mark H

Mark,
Points taken and I'm glad we are having a discussion.
At Reno the Unlimiteds are required to wear O2 while racing. An engine that is putting out 1 1/2 to 2 times its designed power is gonna exhaust significantly more by products.
The T-6 racing class doesn't require the same.
I know pilots who routinely use an oxygen meter on the tip of a finger while flying. Who have a CO2 meter patch stuck on the instrument panel.
I'd just like to say that this is an issue that there is data to go by. Owners and pilots make their choices based on the data.
In the O2 systems that I'm aware of, which are modeled after post-war military set ups, you have a regulator. The regulator has selections so that it either mixes some O2 with some cockpit air (dilutes on demand) or 100% O2. The demand feature allows you to use less O2 as it only allows O2 to pass when there is demand or your are breathing in. On 100% O2 there is a pressure all the time in your mask.
Again pilots make the selection while flying.

As to whether you feel someone is flying safely or making good decisions, if you don't feel safe with the pilot certainly don't fly with them. As to getting straightened out, it will take a peer or mentor to give him that lesson. It you know someone that the pilot will listen to, approach them, explain things and see if they will help. Otherwise your a bit limited in what you can do. I've seen some who didn't heed to some talkings and also paid a price.

I'm all for the helmets. But they aren't mandated by any law. I'm with you but see the pragmatic reality. That is all I'm explaining.

[JDK]

With the web we have been a witness to accidents all over the world.
For our discussion we need to consider the US accidents.
There have been several in the UK and in France. We all feel these and wish for other outcomes than what has transpired. AS much as those in other countries have an open look at what has gone on in the US.
For this discussion the accidents in the UK and France other places need to be categorized differently. They can't be overlooked in terms of safety, but the FAA shouldn't include what they don't have jurisdiction over.

As ever, Rich makes a number of good points. I'd suggest, as an observer thinking globally, there's every reason to consider and act on lessons from accidents wherever they may have occurred, in terms of good airmanship and technical lessons*.

On the other hand, as Rich says, legislation has to be on a national (or state) level and local. That, however, does not mean that good practice in legislation or guidelines cannot be examined and good practice can (and should) be considered for import where there is a benefit.

(*Technical lessons from warbird and vintage aviation accidents and incidents already are transmitted and acted upon globally, albeit with national variations in paperwork and 'standards' (in the proper sense of the word) to match national air safety and certification requirements.)

Regards,

[Invader26]

More rules does not automatically mean more safety. It is the culture of safety that matters. All associated have to be part of the culture.

[51fixer]

With the web we have been a witness to accidents all over the world.
For our discussion we need to consider the US accidents.
There have been several in the UK and in France. We all feel these and wish for other outcomes than what has transpired. AS much as those in other countries have an open look at what has gone on in the US.
For this discussion the accidents in the UK and France other places need to be categorized differently. They can't be overlooked in terms of safety, but the FAA shouldn't include what they don't have jurisdiction over.

As ever, Rich makes a number of good points. I'd suggest, as an observer thinking globally, there's every reason to consider and act on lessons from accidents wherever they may have occurred, in terms of good airmanship and technical lessons*.

On the other hand, as Rich says, legislation has to be on a national (or state) level and local. That, however, does not mean that good practice in legislation or guidelines cannot be examined and good practice can (and should) be considered for import where there is a benefit.

(*Technical lessons from warbird and vintage aviation accidents and incidents already are transmitted and acted upon globally, albeit with national variations in paperwork and 'standards' (in the proper sense of the word) to match national air safety and certification requirements.)

Regards,

I'm with you in terms of any plus learned from any where can be an enhancement to saftey.
I'm thinking in terms of our emotions and the input of accidents globally.
The latest questions of safety and whether the FAA needs to shut down shows has to be dealt with on data and some logic based on what the FAA has juristrisction over. It half or more of the accidents are from overseas or non-warbird related then we filter that out so we can see if there are true trends that can be identified are there.

[Canso42]

I'm glad this thread is going. This is good material.

[tom d. friedman]

i'm not a pilot so i'm not going to comment on the air racing issue. my only comment is LIFE!! has it's inherent risks. recreational flying, getting killed by a baseball hit into the stands, a boat driver has a heart attack & plows into a fishing wharf full of people...... on & on

[bluehawk15]

Live life to the fullest, there's no way to get out of it alive!

[Mudge]

What FOX and the talking heads won't discuss is the immense amount of time and resources that goes into a WW2 Airplane (as well as all the others) to keep it airworthy. How about the fact that race aircraft are not stock 65 year old surplus planes that cost $500 to fly away in from the smelter but expensive high performance machines akin to a NASCAR racer. Ill go with what Scott said in another thread and keep the speculation to a minimum.

All that said, I am a huge proponent for safety and I am very sure there will be a lot of changes coming down the pike. Crew Dog that was an excellent post I have seen the same breakdowns happen on board ship and in the field (during a former job many years ago) when your list came into play by the numbers to cause a near calamity. Kudos for speaking up with an intelligent and thoughtful post.

Which "talking heads" are you referring to? I've watched the reporting on a number of channels and found FOX's accident reporting to be quite even handed. Sure, they sometimes report the first thing they hear before they get solid confirmation. So do all the channels. It's the old "We've gotta' be first" syndrome. FOX has had numerous USAF, private, and ex-pilots on and a few FAA people. IMHO all these guests were extremely knowledgeable about what an air race/air show is and isn't. They went into great detail about the many, and stringent, inspections every vintage aircraft and pilot, had to pass before they'd even be allowed to fly. And the inspections for a racing a/c were even more stringent. They also explained about the many checks the pilot had to go through. (Whether the pilot was "vintage" or not.)
Actually, one USAF General went into such a lengthy, detailed explanation, the host had to cut him off for a "hard break".

Mudge the even handed

[spookythecat]

One thing i've noticed from reading comments on news stories is ALOT of people make comments about things they don't know about and I know those of us who are the participants and hardcore fans are the minority of those who understand how safe the events and aircraft really are. Based on comments i've read people seem to think the Warbirds flying today are straight from the war and have just been filled with fuel over the years and they could fall apart at any moment. They don't know the work that goes into keeping them safe. The AD's pilots have to take care of to keep the planes safe. I don't know what news facility will want to do a special report on such a topic but maybe those who think Air Shows and Air Races are the equivalent of walking into a death trap will understand and respect that is not the case.

[Mudge]

Just curious...Is there anything on the ticket that one buys to get into these air shows/air races that holds the promoter and all associated not liable for any damages sustained? I know there is on a baseball ticket. I mean, is it explained that you're entering at your own risk because there are things that can go bad.

Mudge the curious

[CrewDawg]

I'm glad this thread is going. This is good material.

Me too Canso, this is why I started this thread, to get the discussion started. WIX, by and large, has an incredible brain trust of knowledge that needed tapping into for this issue.

[Jarink1]

This may be a simplistic question, but wouldn't the spectator area be safer if it were located inside the racetrack?

My limited understanding of air racing is that if a pilot has any sort of trouble, he exits the course to the outside. If something happens to a racer that the pilot is unable to control, especially in a turn, the aircraft would naturally depart to the outside as well, correct? Centrifugal force and all that.

[RyanShort1]

This may be a simplistic question, but wouldn't the spectator area be safer if it were located inside the racetrack?

My limited understanding of air racing is that if a pilot has any sort of trouble, he exits the course to the outside. If something happens to a racer that the pilot is unable to control, especially in a turn, the aircraft would naturally depart to the outside as well, correct? Centrifugal force and all that.

It has some merit, but might not be as safe, or practical as you'd think. For starters, there has to be a way in. Unless you have a purpose-built facility with a tunnel for the entrance, there's no way to completely eliminate the possibility of the entry area being vulnerable. Second, there's still the possibility of a "freak" accident - much like this weekend's accident. That sudden pull up - or mechanical failure - could have ended up anywhere once parts started breaking and/or flying off. At some point, there is a point where no matter what safety precautions you take, bad things can still happen. What if a plane was "pulling" left (towards the inside of the pylon) and had a control surface jam... or some disturbance as a result of hitting another aircraft's wake - you could still potentially have the energy coming towards the center of the area.

Ryan

[51fixer]

This may be a simplistic question, but wouldn't the spectator area be safer if it were located inside the racetrack?

My limited understanding of air racing is that if a pilot has any sort of trouble, he exits the course to the outside. If something happens to a racer that the pilot is unable to control, especially in a turn, the aircraft would naturally depart to the outside as well, correct? Centrifugal force and all that.

Reno Stead has 3 runways in somewhat of a triangle.
To maintain a safe distance from all 3 would limit the crowd area possible.
The pits, where the aircraft are parked, are a huge draw for spectators and then would be inaccessible.
I haven't been to Reno since 93, but as I recall the Formula 1 course was over this area as well.
The whole valley has grown in population and the unlimited course has been altered several times since 64 to keep separation from homes. Basically it has shrank in the last alteration IIRC.