Warbird Information Exchange

So, first off, the FAA had to agree to the back seater logic for them to fly the show. Second, groups like the CAF commonly have observers in positions, and also for people wanting to fly a seat.

For instance:

Senior Pilot- Authorizes pilots to fly in airshows; requires one flight in an airshow observing a Senior Pilot and one flight in an airshow being observed and subsequently recommended by a Senior Pilot. Note: this is not aircraft specific.

From: https://www.rockymountainwingcaf.org/be ... pilot.html

Even if a second pilot was not "required" which it might be, there's a chance that the FAA would let another pilot seeking qualifications an opportunity to ride along for an airshow profile as an observer.

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

I don't know that it has a 2-man minimum crew, but I do know that the FAA can and will waive the "minimum crew" requirement for displays as long as certain criteria are met, especially if there isn't a lot of maneuvering occurring (i.e. just making a few level/photo passes).

My question is based on this statement from Randy above. Can anyone verify if, in fact, a 2 person crew is the minimum for flight operations as dictated by the FAA operating limitations?

Randy was asking a question, not making a statement. He asking "if" there is a 2-crew minimum, what would the requirements be for the second crew member.

Prelim posted:

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/ ... 192855/pdf

Well, that makes for interesting reading...

Leaving 5 seconds early is always preferable to leaving one millisecond too late. The PIC/owner may have been more willing to troubleshoot longer, but that might not have been the right decision. It is unknown if the problem was even fixable.

It goes to show how important a second pair of eyes are and that it can save lives as well...

It would appear the back seater decided to un-a$$ it first.

Do wonder what the envelope is for the seat in the Mig-23, and how close they were to the edge of it when they punched.

looking at how low the canopy of the second seat out was when it fully developed, whoever it was that initiated the ejection, did the right thing.

My thought is what if the front seater (PIC) had decided to stay in the plane to do all he could to make sure it didn't crash into a populated area and kill innocents on the ground and the back seater decided to eject anyway. From the report above there is no clear answer on this. Nobody got killed so it is water under the bridge.

Sorry, but that isn't part of the decision matrix.

People like to parrot this after accidents, but when an aircraft is headed to an impact with the ground, either the pilot has control of the aircraft and is doing everything they can to save their own pink butt, or they don't have control of the aircraft and they're simply along for the ride until impact. There is no "oh well, I'm going to die, but I may as well try and steer away from people on the ground" resignation.

Files is pretty clear in the NTSB prelim that he was actively troubleshooting the engine problem when he was surprised by the ejection.

Many folks seem to be interpreting the back-seater's actions as unwarranted. Most of the people making those statements haven't flown ejection seat aircraft for a living.

It is hard to tell with just the information in that report, but it can also be interpreted to mean the front seater was task saturated on troubleshooting the engine while the back seat pilot saw them needing to egress immediately based on the speed/altitude/energy state of the airplane.

In ACES seat-equipped aircraft, the mininum controlled bailout altitude by policy and training (not by seat capability) is 2000' AGL. Ejecting by 2000' AGL ensures the "one swing in the chute" that substantially increases the survivability of the ejection.

This means in any emergency below that altitude, you either need to climb above 2K immediately to continue working the problem, or bail out immediately. The most common root cause of death/injury in accidents in ejection seat equipped aircraft is a delayed decision to eject. In fact, in the USAF fighter community we say, "the decision to eject is made on the ground" as the various scenarios are considered and logically thought out at 1G and zero knots, and decisions when you will and will not eject are determined before you ever strap into the airplane. Deviating from those decision points is what leads to that delayed decision to eject and the injury/fatality that inevitably follows.

So...while I'm not discounting the possibility that the back-seater f'd up, it is entirely possible instead that the back-seater's actions saved Files' ass rather than them both being at risk of more severe injury or death by waiting longer.

_________________

And it's possible that we will never have enough information to know either way.

I thought that was just how they're sequenced so the guy in back doesn't get roasted by the guy in fronts seat rockets?

_________________
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.