Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:35 pm
This thread is a broad one about warbirds and aerobatics. Narrowing in on the topic of the Super Corsair, IMHO, is out of bounds (for now) namely out of respect for those of us still mourning. The second reason is that there has been no cause investigated and released. It may be that the cause of Bob's loss was one that would have ended up with a loss of the airplane, aerobatics or not.
Ken
Ken
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Thu Sep 13, 2012 9:33 pm
51fixer wrote:I took a little time to go through some NTSB data Jan 1 through Reno this year so far 17 accidents of various types involving Warbirds.
4 Stearman, 3 L-39, 2 T-6, 8 Fatal
Last year, 2011, Jan 1 through the end of Reno Races there was 16 accidents listed.
7 Stearman, 2 T-6, 7 Fatal
I have excluded Rotorcraft as most listed under a Military designation are not operated as a Warbird. I also left off Alaska and NE operations of DHC-2 and -3s.
The F2G crash hasn't yet been listed but I included it for the count as well as Furias gear problem.
I won't vouch that others have occurred but weren't counted and this only applies to US data.
I'm gonna modify this years stats to remove the Hunter Crash and it's fatal results as that was in support of a military ops. Thats a different operation than the typical civil warbird. I also am only including pilots and pax on aircraft involved with the crash. Obviously the Reno crash last year involved many people on the ground.
That leaves 16 accidents with 7 fatal for this year to date.
Breaking them down a bit more-
This year 4 were during airshows or Races, arriving for an airshow or practice on site with 2 fatal. 1 was an IFR departure in dense fog with a fatal. 9 involved accidents involving landing. 3 involved take off with 4 fatal, 1 a pax. (this includes the IFR departure crash already mentioned). 4 involved known mechanical problems. 1 had an off airport emergency landing.
Of the 16 accidents in 2011 2 involved Air Races or Airshows w/2 fatal and many ground deaths and injuries. 1 involved an impromptu airdisplay for friends with 1 fatal. 1 Involved IFR wx with a pilot and pax fatal. 7 involved landing and 2 were off airport. 1 ran out of fuel.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:05 pm
On the topic of "the owner can do any darn thing they like with their property"; I would like to chime in with a couple of thoughts.
If I was a deep pockets Art Collector should I be allowed to buy and destroy works by...say Da Vinci...just to make my other examples worth more money? And before you scream impossible there are numerous examples in the Coin and Stamp world of just such practices.
If I was a deep pockets person that hated America should I be allowed to buy...say Lincolns boyhood home...and then burn it to the ground? Hypothetical I know, as I believe the State of Indiana owns it now. But the last private owner was a relative of mine...should he have been allowed to burn it down?
Or what about a Movie producer that thinks it would be "neat" to buy a B-17 or two and then rig them for remote control flight and crash them for their Movie?
Just because someone has a lot of money does not mean they have common sense...or a respect for history. The thought that our history and heritage is for sale to the highest bidder...who can then do as they please with that historical object is disquieting to me.
If I was a deep pockets Art Collector should I be allowed to buy and destroy works by...say Da Vinci...just to make my other examples worth more money? And before you scream impossible there are numerous examples in the Coin and Stamp world of just such practices.
If I was a deep pockets person that hated America should I be allowed to buy...say Lincolns boyhood home...and then burn it to the ground? Hypothetical I know, as I believe the State of Indiana owns it now. But the last private owner was a relative of mine...should he have been allowed to burn it down?
Or what about a Movie producer that thinks it would be "neat" to buy a B-17 or two and then rig them for remote control flight and crash them for their Movie?
Just because someone has a lot of money does not mean they have common sense...or a respect for history. The thought that our history and heritage is for sale to the highest bidder...who can then do as they please with that historical object is disquieting to me.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Thu Sep 13, 2012 10:48 pm
I love aerobatics but don't like Airshow routines all that much. I am one of a very few that would love to watch days worth of competitive flying as I learn and enjoy it. For that, the purpose built aircraft rule the skies.
On the other hand, I love Warbirds also. In the last few years I have talked any number of folks into going to their first Warbird airshows....and have had them sadly unimpressed by endless fly-bys of most of the aircraft. They can't see why the aircraft were special in their roles from a flyby. I wish they could see the plane being run through its abilities to better understand how they were designed and used. It doesn't have to be crazy dare-devil low-level like some noted pilots insist on. Just putting them through their paces more than just wandering by at full throttle....
...face it...outside of boards like these, few know anything about Warbirds, how they fly or their roles. If they are going to fly and preserve the history...I'd like to at least see an accurate picture to some degree. I do think more people would be interested in Warbirds and svaing them. I have been at a number of shows over the last 5 years where the general public highly disliked "Those old planes that are so slow and don't do anything...." and only got excited at the F-16 flybys or the like.
On the other hand, I love Warbirds also. In the last few years I have talked any number of folks into going to their first Warbird airshows....and have had them sadly unimpressed by endless fly-bys of most of the aircraft. They can't see why the aircraft were special in their roles from a flyby. I wish they could see the plane being run through its abilities to better understand how they were designed and used. It doesn't have to be crazy dare-devil low-level like some noted pilots insist on. Just putting them through their paces more than just wandering by at full throttle....
...face it...outside of boards like these, few know anything about Warbirds, how they fly or their roles. If they are going to fly and preserve the history...I'd like to at least see an accurate picture to some degree. I do think more people would be interested in Warbirds and svaing them. I have been at a number of shows over the last 5 years where the general public highly disliked "Those old planes that are so slow and don't do anything...." and only got excited at the F-16 flybys or the like.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:03 pm
To add to what JmKendall has expressed ~ though these aircraft are indeed the private property of individuals, they are also national treasures to a large degree (in my opinion). I have met many, many dedicated warbird owners who express the fact that they feel they are simply the "care takers" of these wonderful machines and with that, a responsibility to protect and preserve that airframe. Though I am not a warbird owner, I am an owner of a great deal of historical military aviation artifacts. And for instance, the last thing I would be doing is wearing around a priceless painted A-2 flight jacket as a fashion statement, just because "I could" because I own it. I feel it my responsibility to protect and preserve these items knowing that someday ownership will be transferred to another individual who (hopefully) shares that same committment to the preservation of our historical items. With ownership comes responsibility, and care, and judgement, which all relates to this topic of conversation. (Attitude) and (Ability) go hand in hand when it comes to flying, and it definitely shouldn't be about what I (can do) but what I (should be doing) to preserve these aircraft, in my opinion. Agree or disagree.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Thu Sep 13, 2012 11:43 pm
jmkendall wrote:On the topic of "the owner can do any darn thing they like with their property"; I would like to chime in with a couple of thoughts.
If I was a deep pockets Art Collector should I be allowed to buy and destroy works by...say Da Vinci...just to make my other examples worth more money? And before you scream impossible there are numerous examples in the Coin and Stamp world of just such practices.
If I was a deep pockets person that hated America should I be allowed to buy...say Lincolns boyhood home...and then burn it to the ground? Hypothetical I know, as I believe the State of Indiana owns it now. But the last private owner was a relative of mine...should he have been allowed to burn it down?
Or what about a Movie producer that thinks it would be "neat" to buy a B-17 or two and then rig them for remote control flight and crash them for their Movie?
Just because someone has a lot of money does not mean they have common sense...or a respect for history. The thought that our history and heritage is for sale to the highest bidder...who can then do as they please with that historical object is disquieting to me.
Ummm to answer your question yes. If you own something you can do whatever you want with it (unless what you want to do is illegal.) IF I were to own a warbird, it would be MY decision on what was done with it, how it's painted, who flies it, if it flies, if it rusts away to nothing. IF I allow it to be flown in waivered airspace, that is MY decision.
No matter how much passion any of us has for these aircraft, it doesn't matter in the least what we think, feel or say. The OWNER is the final word (once again as long as what they are doing is legal, and lets not invite the gvt into this, they already want to scrap everything.) We can moan, mourn, cry, whatever else you want, it is just hot air and pointless typing. All aircraft break, all pilots will make a mistake. All that can be done is to learn from the mistakes, learn from the breakdowns; and then FIX them. Who knows what the final word will be on this years accidents, but once those findings are out, it is those in the position to learn to do so. If we don't learn from the accidents, then they become true tragedies.
I've spoken my peace, hopefully I was able to word things correctly...
David
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:30 am
Three points - most warbirds are a piece of history, but most of them are not of significant historic importance in the in own right, most merely represent an aspect of technology or stand as a placeholder for it. In that aspect there are few aircraft that fly in private hands as warbirds that are 'too precious' to do so.
Conversely, of course, some that do fly, are important because they are flying warbirds; it would be appalling to have Bockscar or Enola Gay flying, and Fifi in the NMUSAF or Smithsonian; conversely the way things are is ideal and approprioate, and having Fifi fly (where she's historic to us because of her flying as a warbird) is A Good Thing.
Utter rubbish. (With respect!
) The US Government is the custodian for the people of the US and the world of what are unarguably the most important aircraft in the US, such as, I said earlier, the Wright Flyer, Lindbergh's Ryan, and the NC-4. 'Warbirds' like operational, historic types such as B-26 Flak Bait, B-29 Enola Gay, Mustang Excalibur III and so forth. They are on public display and unarguable public access - you, I and anyone else who can behave themselves has a right to see them. More importantly, they are protected from the depredations of state or private individuals, and in theory at least held in perpetuity.
Through the USAF and US Navy, the US Government are also responsible for the aircraft in those museums' collections and other forces (Army, Marines) military collections.
By supporting the concept of the tax-break 'museum' the US government is critically responsible for enabling more of those type of collections, and wider access to warbirds where those owners choose to take advantage of generous tax opportunity.
The US Government, through the FAA is critically responsible for supporting the 'Rides program' and support the effective operation and cost mitigation (if not profit) of flying these aircraft.
Outside the US, other governments have more dynamic vintage and historic aircraft activities, such as the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, part of the RAF, and a function of Her Majesty's Government, and others I alluded too earlier.
Regarding the scrapping of modern or recent equipment, any government in any democracy is responsible for providing its armed forces with equipment to do the job, and for decisions on behalf of the people and state to choose how to use those tools. Finally, like any owner, they are responsible for the disposal of those tools after their use. (Whatever some of us may think here), not only are they not obliged to sell ex-military weapons and tools to anyone, they also have a duty of care to ensure they are appropriately disposed of.
You'll find that representative examples of most military equipment is secured for major national collections, and what is disposed of is regarded as excess. Given the US government, USAF and Navy don't feel operating heritage flights is not part of their remit, they are not obliged to enable others to do it instead of them either, however wrong we might strongly feel that is. Recovery of any remaining financial value of obsolete military equipment is desirable, but not a priority; in fact restricting availability serves the interest of the state in reducing the chances of such falling into undesirable hands.
We might feel there's a need or a desire for the opportunity to have access to excess military equipment, and the option to operate and fly them; however the government or state is not obliged to enable that. (Obstructive behaviour (for instance) by the NMUSAF or USAF towards the Collings Foundation attempted or actual operation of military jets is (IMHO) unjustified and exceeds their responsibilities, however. But the basic principle ceeds advantage to the state.)
It's certainly a *trick* to get from 'recent military equipment' to 'historical military equipment', but we have done that well so far.
Regards,
[EDIT] PS: Just a clarification. These are not my political views (which are not for WIX anyway, as per the rule) - FWIW, I'm no great fan of any of the three democratic systems I've lived in (not including the USA) nor the parties or process, but these are some observations of what does (or sometimes how things should) happen standing back from a warbird enthusiast point of view.]
Conversely, of course, some that do fly, are important because they are flying warbirds; it would be appalling to have Bockscar or Enola Gay flying, and Fifi in the NMUSAF or Smithsonian; conversely the way things are is ideal and approprioate, and having Fifi fly (where she's historic to us because of her flying as a warbird) is A Good Thing.
davidbray wrote:... lets not invite the gvt into this, they already want to scrap everything.)
Utter rubbish. (With respect!
) The US Government is the custodian for the people of the US and the world of what are unarguably the most important aircraft in the US, such as, I said earlier, the Wright Flyer, Lindbergh's Ryan, and the NC-4. 'Warbirds' like operational, historic types such as B-26 Flak Bait, B-29 Enola Gay, Mustang Excalibur III and so forth. They are on public display and unarguable public access - you, I and anyone else who can behave themselves has a right to see them. More importantly, they are protected from the depredations of state or private individuals, and in theory at least held in perpetuity.Through the USAF and US Navy, the US Government are also responsible for the aircraft in those museums' collections and other forces (Army, Marines) military collections.
By supporting the concept of the tax-break 'museum' the US government is critically responsible for enabling more of those type of collections, and wider access to warbirds where those owners choose to take advantage of generous tax opportunity.
The US Government, through the FAA is critically responsible for supporting the 'Rides program' and support the effective operation and cost mitigation (if not profit) of flying these aircraft.
Outside the US, other governments have more dynamic vintage and historic aircraft activities, such as the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, part of the RAF, and a function of Her Majesty's Government, and others I alluded too earlier.
Regarding the scrapping of modern or recent equipment, any government in any democracy is responsible for providing its armed forces with equipment to do the job, and for decisions on behalf of the people and state to choose how to use those tools. Finally, like any owner, they are responsible for the disposal of those tools after their use. (Whatever some of us may think here), not only are they not obliged to sell ex-military weapons and tools to anyone, they also have a duty of care to ensure they are appropriately disposed of.
You'll find that representative examples of most military equipment is secured for major national collections, and what is disposed of is regarded as excess. Given the US government, USAF and Navy don't feel operating heritage flights is not part of their remit, they are not obliged to enable others to do it instead of them either, however wrong we might strongly feel that is. Recovery of any remaining financial value of obsolete military equipment is desirable, but not a priority; in fact restricting availability serves the interest of the state in reducing the chances of such falling into undesirable hands.
We might feel there's a need or a desire for the opportunity to have access to excess military equipment, and the option to operate and fly them; however the government or state is not obliged to enable that. (Obstructive behaviour (for instance) by the NMUSAF or USAF towards the Collings Foundation attempted or actual operation of military jets is (IMHO) unjustified and exceeds their responsibilities, however. But the basic principle ceeds advantage to the state.)
It's certainly a *trick* to get from 'recent military equipment' to 'historical military equipment', but we have done that well so far.
Regards,
[EDIT] PS: Just a clarification. These are not my political views (which are not for WIX anyway, as per the rule) - FWIW, I'm no great fan of any of the three democratic systems I've lived in (not including the USA) nor the parties or process, but these are some observations of what does (or sometimes how things should) happen standing back from a warbird enthusiast point of view.]
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:57 pm
My point concerned the purchase for deliberate destruction of historical objects. In this case Warbirds. My point was not about someone buying say the Memphis Belle and turning her into a Reno Racer. Or about "paint" and whether it is best to be static or flying.
Consider this; Within the last few years a foreign government decided that they did not want a cemetery in their country that belonged to the aboriginal inhabitants; to exist any longer.
Said Cemetery was 2000 years old. A UNESCO "protected" site, and had stone Memorials that were Centuries old.
Yet using your logic it was perfectly OK for them to bulldoze all the graves flat; break up all the memorials; and utterly obliterate every trace of the original inhabitants....simply because they were the new owners.
I agree that in most respects the owner of a piece of property, both real and personal, has the right to do with it as they please...I believe the term is 'quiet enjoyment'. And if something gets destroyed though accident or neglect, that is sad, but understandable.
For instance I would never condone the seizure of say the Soplata Collection on the grounds that it would be better "for the people of the country". It was Mr Soplata's and would not exist without his intervention; and he should have had the "quiet enjoyment of it" while he was with us.
Using the Soplata Collection as an example. Say that the Township where he lived had seized his collection as "an eyesore". Not far fetched. A township in Central Ohio did just that to a very large collection of classic Pontiacs about 15 years ago.
So under your view the township, as the new owners were well within their rights to scrap every last airframe and put the profits in their pockets. Which is close to what happened with the classic cars.
Do you see the difference? Being the owner doesn't make your actions "right" it just makes them "legal".
Consider this; Within the last few years a foreign government decided that they did not want a cemetery in their country that belonged to the aboriginal inhabitants; to exist any longer.
Said Cemetery was 2000 years old. A UNESCO "protected" site, and had stone Memorials that were Centuries old.
Yet using your logic it was perfectly OK for them to bulldoze all the graves flat; break up all the memorials; and utterly obliterate every trace of the original inhabitants....simply because they were the new owners.
I agree that in most respects the owner of a piece of property, both real and personal, has the right to do with it as they please...I believe the term is 'quiet enjoyment'. And if something gets destroyed though accident or neglect, that is sad, but understandable.
For instance I would never condone the seizure of say the Soplata Collection on the grounds that it would be better "for the people of the country". It was Mr Soplata's and would not exist without his intervention; and he should have had the "quiet enjoyment of it" while he was with us.
Using the Soplata Collection as an example. Say that the Township where he lived had seized his collection as "an eyesore". Not far fetched. A township in Central Ohio did just that to a very large collection of classic Pontiacs about 15 years ago.
So under your view the township, as the new owners were well within their rights to scrap every last airframe and put the profits in their pockets. Which is close to what happened with the classic cars.
Do you see the difference? Being the owner doesn't make your actions "right" it just makes them "legal".
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:54 pm
davidbray wrote:jmkendall wrote:On the topic of "the owner can do any darn thing they like with their property"; I would like to chime in with a couple of thoughts.
If I was a deep pockets Art Collector should I be allowed to buy and destroy works by...say Da Vinci...just to make my other examples worth more money? And before you scream impossible there are numerous examples in the Coin and Stamp world of just such practices.
If I was a deep pockets person that hated America should I be allowed to buy...say Lincolns boyhood home...and then burn it to the ground? Hypothetical I know, as I believe the State of Indiana owns it now. But the last private owner was a relative of mine...should he have been allowed to burn it down?
Or what about a Movie producer that thinks it would be "neat" to buy a B-17 or two and then rig them for remote control flight and crash them for their Movie?
Just because someone has a lot of money does not mean they have common sense...or a respect for history. The thought that our history and heritage is for sale to the highest bidder...who can then do as they please with that historical object is disquieting to me.
Ummm to answer your question yes. If you own something you can do whatever you want with it (unless what you want to do is illegal.) IF I were to own a warbird, it would be MY decision on what was done with it, how it's painted, who flies it, if it flies, if it rusts away to nothing. IF I allow it to be flown in waivered airspace, that is MY decision.
No matter how much passion any of us has for these aircraft, it doesn't matter in the least what we think, feel or say. The OWNER is the final word (once again as long as what they are doing is legal, and lets not invite the gvt into this, they already want to scrap everything.) We can moan, mourn, cry, whatever else you want, it is just hot air and pointless typing. All aircraft break, all pilots will make a mistake. All that can be done is to learn from the mistakes, learn from the breakdowns; and then FIX them. Who knows what the final word will be on this years accidents, but once those findings are out, it is those in the position to learn to do so. If we don't learn from the accidents, then they become true tragedies.
I've spoken my peace, hopefully I was able to word things correctly...
David
+1
Private property is just that -- private property.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:08 pm
So in an open discussion on road safety, you'd just keep talking about the ownership status of the cars, rather than what safety might be.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:47 pm
jmkendall wrote:On the topic of "the owner can do any darn thing they like with their property"; I would like to chime in with a couple of thoughts.
If I was a deep pockets Art Collector should I be allowed to buy and destroy works by...say Da Vinci...just to make my other examples worth more money? And before you scream impossible there are numerous examples in the Coin and Stamp world of just such practices.
If I was a deep pockets person that hated America should I be allowed to buy...say Lincolns boyhood home...and then burn it to the ground? Hypothetical I know, as I believe the State of Indiana owns it now. But the last private owner was a relative of mine...should he have been allowed to burn it down?
Or what about a Movie producer that thinks it would be "neat" to buy a B-17 or two and then rig them for remote control flight and crash them for their Movie?
Just because someone has a lot of money does not mean they have common sense...or a respect for history. The thought that our history and heritage is for sale to the highest bidder...who can then do as they please with that historical object is disquieting to me.
Yes I agree that the thought of someone doing any of those things is totally repulsive and would disgust me.... but not as repulsive as the thought that if someone was able to purchase those items legally he would be told what he could and could not do with them (assumign of course his actions would not physically hurt anyone else).
To many people I have come to know and respect fought hard and lost blood over the rights and freedoms of the American Citizen.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Sat Sep 15, 2012 7:59 pm
"Acro" (though not "acrobatics") has been in common use as a casual synonym for aerobatics for many years. ...
You missed "...in the US." (or North America, if you prefer). It's an Americanism, currently slang
So the English call them "aeros"? Sound pretty silly to me.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:58 am
Sorry, I don't see that a conversation over the rights and responsibilities of ownership has any need to stop a discussion of good practice and safe flying in public airshows. But such diversions help avoid that thinking feeling.
http://content-delivery.co.uk/aviation/airfields/prune/
That's how it goes, I suppose.
Silly as against a term used by and for people in spangled tights?
Neither 'acro' nor 'aeros' is worth sweating over; they're slang, and hardly tested for good sense in use; both occur only in context. Generally in NZ, Aus, and the UK, I've heard "aerobatics" (and "aeros" for brevity) in conversation; "aerobatics" in writing.
FWIW, I wasn't referring to the 'English', but all those other native English speakers outside N America. Either way, mine, yours and the British versions of English will be eclipsed in due course, and we may as well continue to enjoy the truly silly illiterate news-writer's 'aircrafts'.
Regards,
http://content-delivery.co.uk/aviation/airfields/prune/
That's how it goes, I suppose.
Stephan Wilkinson wrote:k5083 wrote:"Acro" (though not "acrobatics") has been in common use as a casual synonym for aerobatics for many years. ...JDK wrote:You missed "...in the US." (or North America, if you prefer). It's an Americanism, currently slang
So the English call them "aeros"? Sound pretty silly to me.
Silly as against a term used by and for people in spangled tights?
Neither 'acro' nor 'aeros' is worth sweating over; they're slang, and hardly tested for good sense in use; both occur only in context. Generally in NZ, Aus, and the UK, I've heard "aerobatics" (and "aeros" for brevity) in conversation; "aerobatics" in writing.
FWIW, I wasn't referring to the 'English', but all those other native English speakers outside N America. Either way, mine, yours and the British versions of English will be eclipsed in due course, and we may as well continue to enjoy the truly silly illiterate news-writer's 'aircrafts'.
Regards,
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:44 am
There are several thousand members registered on this forum, I suspect we'll get several thousand opinions on this thread if it goes on long enough. So, for what's it's worth (and that is likely nothing) here is my view on Low Level Warbird Aerobatics or Low Level Aerobatics as a whole.
"They are boring, annoying, and play to the lowest denominator public and potentially risks the image of aviation and warbirds"
1. Boring.... I don't get any more excitement out of seeing a Warbird at 10 feet AGL as I do at 500 feet agl. The pilot is having the thrill of his life watching the pavement whizz by. I get more from the horizontal distance to the aircraft. If you want to drive around at 5 feet off the ground; get a car.
2. Annoying.... Low level aerobatics are great for the people at the front row. I've been too airshows and the announcer says, 'so and so is zipping by 6 off the ground is his Whizz Bang 1". So what? All I see is the remnants of the smoke generator drift upward. There are too many people in the way.
3. Plays to the lowest denominator public ...(let me clarify this statement: I know that there are plenty of intelligent, warbird aficionados who appreciate the skill and thrill of low level aerobatics on this forum and around the world. Because you enjoy this type of flying doesn't make you the lowest denominator, just like drinking a beer doesn't make you a gutter bum. It's just that, drunkard bums need a beer to be what they are.) In the early days of barnstorming, when pilot's were looking for income, they performed all kinds of stunts. From wingwalking to actually flying into buildings. The morbid, thrill seeking public ate it up. To keep the public entertained, you have to get more and more extreme and lower and lower. Until you make a hole in the ground. AND THAT BRINGS THEM OUT TO THE SHOW EVEN MORE. I was a yearly visitor to a large airshow at an Air Force base.
The attendance was typically about the same over the years. Increasing, slightly, I suppose just because the local population increased. That airshow right after the Ramstein crash in 1988, had record attendance. The announcer was ecstatic over the amount of people attending. The crowd gasped and "oohed" and "aahed" whenever the Thunderbirds did their head-on or opposing passes.
They wanted to see a crash.
4. Low level aerobatics substantially increases the risk to damage the image of aviation. The private owner of a warbird has the right to do whatever he pleases with his aircraft (legally). I do not believe he has the right to do whatever he pleases with the image of aviation or warbird ownership. We are all in this together and this requires responsibility.
That's my opinion..I'll listen to yours. Fire away.
"They are boring, annoying, and play to the lowest denominator public and potentially risks the image of aviation and warbirds"
1. Boring.... I don't get any more excitement out of seeing a Warbird at 10 feet AGL as I do at 500 feet agl. The pilot is having the thrill of his life watching the pavement whizz by. I get more from the horizontal distance to the aircraft. If you want to drive around at 5 feet off the ground; get a car.
2. Annoying.... Low level aerobatics are great for the people at the front row. I've been too airshows and the announcer says, 'so and so is zipping by 6 off the ground is his Whizz Bang 1". So what? All I see is the remnants of the smoke generator drift upward. There are too many people in the way.
3. Plays to the lowest denominator public ...(let me clarify this statement: I know that there are plenty of intelligent, warbird aficionados who appreciate the skill and thrill of low level aerobatics on this forum and around the world. Because you enjoy this type of flying doesn't make you the lowest denominator, just like drinking a beer doesn't make you a gutter bum. It's just that, drunkard bums need a beer to be what they are.) In the early days of barnstorming, when pilot's were looking for income, they performed all kinds of stunts. From wingwalking to actually flying into buildings. The morbid, thrill seeking public ate it up. To keep the public entertained, you have to get more and more extreme and lower and lower. Until you make a hole in the ground. AND THAT BRINGS THEM OUT TO THE SHOW EVEN MORE. I was a yearly visitor to a large airshow at an Air Force base.
The attendance was typically about the same over the years. Increasing, slightly, I suppose just because the local population increased. That airshow right after the Ramstein crash in 1988, had record attendance. The announcer was ecstatic over the amount of people attending. The crowd gasped and "oohed" and "aahed" whenever the Thunderbirds did their head-on or opposing passes.
They wanted to see a crash.
4. Low level aerobatics substantially increases the risk to damage the image of aviation. The private owner of a warbird has the right to do whatever he pleases with his aircraft (legally). I do not believe he has the right to do whatever he pleases with the image of aviation or warbird ownership. We are all in this together and this requires responsibility.
That's my opinion..I'll listen to yours. Fire away.
Re: My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.
Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:03 pm
Cubs, from reading your post I'm not sure what you are objecting to, is it ultra-low flypasts at a few feet above the ground, or low-level aerobatics (generally performed at between several hundred and a couple of thousand feet from the ground, and visible to those in the back rows in the crowd)?