Pilot Who Crashed L-29 Delfin In California Was Not Checked

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:38 am

A2C wrote:

Who's to say what they should or shouldn't do? The pilot is the only one who needs to decide, because they are in command of their aircraft. Not an announcer, bureaucrat, or anyone else.

The simple answer is that you can - if you're on your own somewhere else!
If you're being paid (or not), or invited to participate in an airshow, you are voluntarily under the jurisdiction of the FAA rules for that event. You also get the added benefit of having restricted airspace around you during the show, protecting YOU and others on the ground from MOST of the likelihood of some nitwit bumping into you while you are participating. It's all about the event and trying to make it a safe atmosphere for everyone involved, not just you the pilot.

Ryan

LadyO2Pilot · **Posted:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:01 am

A2C wrote:

Who's to say what they should or shouldn't do? The pilot is the only one who needs to decide, because they are in command of their aircraft. Not an announcer, bureaucrat, or anyone else.

Obviously you have never flown as a performer in the airshow environment based on a comment such as this and some of your previous ones. Other than that I agree with James.....NO COMMENT!!!!!

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:19 am

The irony is, A2C, that you are very happy to have jurisdiction over your aircraft, so you apparently understand the need for law and order. I doubt you'd be happy if I was in the back and decided you weren't smart enough to be PIC. You ought to recognize that because of accidents and mistakes, there is a public jurisdiction that YOU are responsible to, just as your passengers are responsible to your jurisdiction while on board the aircraft. Your passengers may feel that you are being arbitrary when you tell them they can't do something behind you while you fly, but you probably have a good reason for it, and what's more, you have the authority as Captain to make that decision. You need to accept the jurisdiction the FAA has determined for the waivered airspace of an airshow.

Ryan

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11330

JDK wrote:

You are presuming is that a passenger is inert, like a redundant slurry tank.

Actualy, I'm not, although that is a fun analogy.

In my field of employment, a "Risk Hazard Index" or RHI is used. It is a measurement of the likelihood of an adverse occurence combined with the consequence of that occurrence. Below a certain value (typically "8"), the risk is considered acceptable. At 8, a risk can be acceptable with review. Above 8, you generally don't fly except under some very controlled circumstances (a ferry flight for instance).

JDK wrote:

Further in any aerobatic display the pilot should be flying a practised display, adhering to a routine based on performance parameters. Even just the weight of a passenger in a nominal single seat fighter varies that and has therefore added an un-necessary risk and variation into the flight.

I would never recommend a passenger be carried in an aerobatic display. A pilot in the US is given a low level waiver to perform aerobatics at an airshow in admission of the added risk. Flypast pilots are not held to the same standard due to the lesser risk.

ZRX61 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:16 am **Posts:** 2309

I think A2C should go make his case to the FAA & then post what they say on here :wink:

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:27 pm

bdk wrote:

[ Flypast pilots are not held to the same standard due to the lesser risk.

When you are performing a fly past, you are still under the FAA waiver to the 14CFR91 regulations. The regs say that you must fly at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet over the terrain, except when landing and taking off. Since the fly by's are typically less than 1,000 ft, this reg has been waivered, and by signing the waiver, you have agreed to the conditions written into the waiver, ie, no passengers.

Back to the Delphin, typically, and definitely in this case, the operations spec's issued by the FAA specify that only required crew to be carried on board during operations. The min crew for an L-29 is one. The pilot failed to operate the aircraft in accordance with the limitations in the ops specs. An observer is not authorized to be carried in the aircraft.

Oscar Duck · **Posted:** Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:23 am

Gentlemen one must follow the rules or we're all doomed in this world of PC.

As for the A-26 accident in the UK don't worry about the pax causing it - it was never supposed to be doing aeros.

then of course I see this... :roll:

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

If I'm not mistaken that upside down 26 has the ring spar mod also.

Nathan · **Posted:** Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:11 pm

Avn-Tech wrote:

Group,

I have known Doug Gillis, for 5-7 years. during this time, I have been present for several briefings (Before and After Check rides, and formation flights).

While I do not know all of the facts of this case (as most or all of you deciding his fate), I do know Doug. I have a hard time beleiving he was flying below the minium, or did not do a through check ride.

I have seen the FAA at work before and beleive they are making Doug a scapegoat for this tragic accident. The FAA is not about safety, but about public opinion and personel Vendettas!

Fly Safetly
Avn-Tech

100% accurate!

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:56 pm

Quote:

and beleive they are making Doug a scapegoat

Quote:

100% accurate!

Nathan avn-tech states his opinion and you say it's FACT so now you need to back that up :idea:

famvburg · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:41 am **Posts:** 540

Is that ring spar mod a plus or a minus if you're going to loop it?

PinecastleAAF wrote:

If I'm not mistaken that upside down 26 has the ring spar mod also.

famvburg · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:41 am **Posts:** 540

Using this argument, we don't need ANY rules, do we? IFR approach minimums, heck, even IFR certification or other advanced pilot ratings, a/c performance numbers, etc., should all just go out the window, 'cause the PIC is Pilot IN CHARGE, so whether it's stupid or not, as long as the Pilot IN CHARGE thinks he/she can handle it, strap it on! Sorry if I missed someone already saying this.

A2C wrote:

Quote:

Wrong again. Required crewmembers - like Flight Engineers, required co-pilots, etc... are OK, but not students or passengers. The point is that you don't need the extra distraction in front of the crowd, and because of the increased danger in the airshow envelope and the need to be considerate of increased concentrations of people on the ground I think it's a decent rule!

Disagree, the pilot is in command so it should be at his discretion.

PinecastleAAF · **Joined:** Fri May 25, 2007 4:50 pm **Posts:** 1028

Quote:

Is that ring spar mod a plus or a minus if you're going to loop it?

I was under the impression it would be a minus. It is a good question. Since an arch shape is stronger than a horizontal beam it might actually be a plus......but I doubt it in this case. I think it would be more failure prone where the ring joins the original spar.

51fixer · **Posted:** Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:02 pm

PinecastleAAF wrote:

Quote:

Is that ring spar mod a plus or a minus if you're going to loop it?

I was under the impression it would be a minus. It is a good question. Since an arch shape is stronger than a horizontal beam it might actually be a plus......but I doubt it in this case. I think it would be more failure prone where the ring joins the original spar.

If it the same as the one I worked on the spar carry through is a steel circle welded and bolted together. This one was the rear only. Fwd was stock. Basically 2 semi circles with a single very large bolt at the top and several plates with multiple 7/16" bolts through the plates on the bottom. Basic cross section was a H shape. Rear spar of the wing bolted on the same as the original.
I believe this would have been engineered to transport category specs rather than original mfg specs.
Whether that makes it stronger or not Most A-26s that have lost wings in recent times have been attributed to nacelle to wing fairings rubbing on and leaving a stress riser mark on the spar cap. FAA has issued an AD for that back in the 80s IIRC.
The ring spar would make a nearly battle ship size anchor if they welded hooks on the bottom of it. It is that large and massive.
Rich

stumac · **Joined:** Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:19 pm **Posts:** 185

I was always under the impression that the ring spar isn't for strenght but was incorporated to eliminate the spar from going right thru the middle of cabin making the airplane usefull as a executive type transport. Thats what On-Mark was doing was modifying A-26 for executive airplanes.

Warbird Information Exchange

Pilot Who Crashed L-29 Delfin In California Was Not Checked

Who is online