My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.

[Nathan]

In a nutshell............................

1. My take on the original post that started this topic: I too have changed my mind and would rather not see warbirds thrown around at low levels.

2. there seems to be two kinds of people on here. A: Ones that just like the machines and don't really give much care about the history. B: Or those that think these planes are worth the note of behind historical and don't want to see them destroyed.

3. There seems to be a real lack of appreciation for the historical aircraft on wix. I guess we just keep flying them hard until they all crash? Oh, and if we can fly how ever we want then my instructor forgot to mention that to me.

4. If people don't like a topic or other peoples opinions then just don't read the post. No wannabe mod'ing necessary, thank you.

(In a nutshell without political correctness)

[L2Driver]

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.

Hi James,
Not what I was saying/implying. Safety issues are quite real and laws/regs are constantly updated to address unanticipated challenges (texting/cell phone use, for example). Safety rules apply to all vehicles. We don't really have special rules to address rare/expensive/historically significant vehicles.

My point was that I would not support regulation/restriction of a legally registered/inspected/operated vehicle because some other person/entity deemed it to be (in their view) too valuable/priceless/irreplacable to operate.

If someone wants to take their multi-million dollar, last-remaining-example of a Ferrari to a vintage race and flog it around the track, that's their decision to make. Same for deciding to take the same car for a drive on an icy road full of potholes in mid-winter. None of my business.

It's interesting to theorize that nobody would care if I took my 97 Dodge pickup onto a track and destroyed it but sportscar fans would likely be in an uproar if I took a near-extinct Ferrari and did the same thing (No. I don't own a Ferrari).

Moving back to avation, nobody seems to have much issue with horizontally-opposed aerobatic aircraft flying low/fast (are these pilots/aircraft expendable?) but, because we here have a fondness for vintage warbirds, the risk is now too high for this part of the aircraft population and pilot pool?

Last edited by L2Driver on Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Kyleb]

Moving back to avation, nobody seems to have much issue with horizontally-opposed aerobatic aircraft flying low/fast (are these pilots/aircraft expendable?) but, because we here have a fondness for vintage warbirds, the risk is now too high for this part of the aircraft population and pilot pool?

I have grown to dislike low level (say<250') displays of any type. I'd be perfectly happy with a 500' hard deck for all routines (warbirds, aerobatic types, jets, whatever). I want to enjoy the aircraft and the flying, not the derring-do.

And yes, private owners are welcome to do whatever they want with themselves or their aircraft on their own time and their own venue. But at public demonstrations, let's not challenge the fates quite so much...

[Cubs]

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)?

Mike,
Thanks for asking. I did not give a proper summary to my thoughts.
The point is this: Given that low level aerobatics does not enhance and may even degrade from the demonstration, the substantial added risk is not worth the possible expenditure of life or aircraft.
Therefore, I am opposed to low level aerobatics in civil registered warbird aircraft.
(Since this thread is about warbirds, I'll confine my response to address that).

The next question is: what is too low? The FAA defines low as below 1,500 feet AGL for aerobatics. I define it as the minimum altitude which the aircraft can be safely recovered and/or landed in the event of engine failure, loss of control due to stall (as two examples). Below that altitude, normal flight maneuvers should executed.
Some would argue, if you did that, a P-51 aerobatic demonstration would have to be performed at 6000 ft. Who would watch that?
My response is that if we followed that philosophy maybe Bob Baranaskas and a long list of other warbird pilots would still be with us. Not only that, quite a large number of irreplaceable warbirds would still be around to admire and enjoy.
Mind you a low level demonstration could still be performed using normal flight maneuvers (as defined by the FAA).
Safety First, right?

[51fixer]

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)?

Mike,
Thanks for asking. I did not give a proper summary to my thoughts.
The point is this: Given that low level aerobatics does not enhance and may even degrade from the demonstration, the substantial added risk is not worth the possible expenditure of life or aircraft.
Therefore, I am opposed to low level aerobatics in civil registered warbird aircraft.
(Since this thread is about warbirds, I'll confine my response to address that).

The next question is: what is too low? The FAA defines low as below 1,500 feet AGL for aerobatics. I define it as the minimum altitude which the aircraft can be safely recovered and/or landed in the event of engine failure, loss of control due to stall (as two examples). Below that altitude, normal flight maneuvers should executed.
Some would argue, if you did that, a P-51 aerobatic demonstration would have to be performed at 6000 ft. Who would watch that?
My response is that if we followed that philosophy maybe Bob Baranaskas and a long list of other warbird pilots would still be with us. Not only that, quite a large number of irreplaceable warbirds would still be around to admire and enjoy.
Mind you a low level demonstration could still be performed using normal flight maneuvers (as defined by the FAA).
Safety First, right?

Your 1500' Altitude is taken from where? Airshows get waivers of specific FARs otherwise an airshow couldn't happen. Typically it involves speed and altitude restrictions being waived.
Performers get approvals from various organizations that work with the FAA to develop programs to teach, promote and issue approvals for pilots to perform specific skills. For Warbirds these cover Formation and low level performance of Aerobatics. Performers get approvals to perform at certain altitudes. New guy might be 800' others are approved to perform to ground level. It ties into an experience level. For most it is actually easier and safer to perform to a lower altitude. Most pilots fly off of a feel and use sight lines and ground reference to determine altitude, direction, pitch and location in the box where maneuvers are allowed. There isn't much time to look at instruments and use them as your primary source of flight reference. For most people if you stand on a single or two story house it is easy to estimate exactly where the ground is. If you go up 10 stories or stand on top of a skyscraper that ground reference is much less exact.
Maneuvers performed are typically are what is published in manuals for that aircraft or are industry standard, but not just what is published by the FAA. Each aircraft has a pilots manual and what is in that manual is usually approved to be performed by that aircraft.
Performers will practice, the newer they are to a specific aircraft, to performing at airshows or just performing aerobatics means they will be practicing more. If you see them perform a couple times at a show on a weekend means they have flown that display 20, 30, 40 times to prepare, sometimes at a practice area. There are practice boxes for aerobatics which people will create and get FAA approval to be able to practice at low level similar to a waiver for an airshow.
We can't take back the losses that have happened. I would bet that any of those guys would be pretty vocal arguing against making drastic changes because of what happened to them. I'm sure they would want other pilots to learn from what happened and use that to prevent a reoccurrence. There are risks but obviously many rewards from performing. There are probably some that really need to use their aircraft to perform at airshows otherwise they may not be able to afford to own and operate that craft.

[Mike]

3. There seems to be a real lack of appreciation for the historical aircraft on wix.

Really?

I can't say that I'd agree with that statement at all.

[JDK]

3. There seems to be a real lack of appreciation for the historical aircraft on wix.

Really?

I can't say that I'd agree with that statement at all.

Oh, you could say that most of what gets talked about on WIX is not actually 'historical' at all - as in "of historical importance" but rather generic or obscure old whizzy military stuff we get excited about.

Heh.

[JDK]

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.

Hi James,
Not what I was saying/implying. Safety issues are quite real and laws/regs are constantly updated to address unanticipated challenges (texting/cell phone use, for example). Safety rules apply to all vehicles. We don't really have special rules to address rare/expensive/historically significant vehicles.

My point was that I would not support regulation/restriction of a legally registered/inspected/operated vehicle because some other person/entity deemed it to be (in their view) too valuable/priceless/irreplacable to operate.

If someone wants to take their multi-million dollar, last-remaining-example of a Ferrari to a vintage race and flog it around the track, that's their decision to make. Same for deciding to take the same car for a drive on an icy road full of potholes in mid-winter. None of my business.

It's interesting to theorize that nobody would care if I took my 97 Dodge pickup onto a track and destroyed it but sportscar fans would likely be in an uproar if I took a near-extinct Ferrari and did the same thing (No. I don't own a Ferrari).

Moving back to avation, nobody seems to have much issue with horizontally-opposed aerobatic aircraft flying low/fast (are these pilots/aircraft expendable?) but, because we here have a fondness for vintage warbirds, the risk is now too high for this part of the aircraft population and pilot pool?

Thanks, L2Driver, I'd agree with all that, indeed.

There is a question of operation (where we broadly agree, and I think most do) and another, different question of ownership of historic artifacts.

IMHO, and it is demonstrated in moth states and supra-nationally that there is required a mechanism for state or society to be able to secure particularly historic artefacts and to protect them for depredation; it is common in 'fixed cultural heritage' (building, historic sites) less so with movable cultural heritage.

There's an argument between items being acquired for a fair price and without duress, while there can be an argument that certain artifacts should be able to be sequestered by the state where appropriate (I can feel the suck of indrawn breath, by some, from here - but what if I found, say the (lost) manuscript of the US Declaration of Independence and wouldn't sell? An argument for elsewhere, perhaps, given the strong feelings engendered, but a type of question that does exist.)

Traditional museum approaches expect artifacts to cease use for preservation, but there is a realisation that sometimes operation is an important part of the item's 'story' and that of the community, and there are steps that funding and state support has now been put towards operating vintage aircraft and restorations. Two examples that come to mind are Lockheed Harpoon 'Hot Stuff', which is on the National Register of Historic Places (I believe a registration, but no funding - over to IndyJen or any of the team on that) and the Government Aircraft Factory Beaufort bomber rebuild in Queensland Australia, financially supported by our National Trust. In these cases the operators or owners normally have an agreement with the state or independent supporter / endorsement, and obviously an obligation to adhere to safe operating practices to demonstrate the aircraft to the public appropriately.

It's a model that's not common, nor well recognised, but where it would help get a warbird flying that otherwise might not, it's worth being aware of. And it's another model (like state operation like the BBMF) to contrast with the private operation of warbirds.

As I said earlier, I can't think of an operational warbird that's "too precious to fly", and I can think of a lot where we are luckier by having a flying example - though I like there to be static preserved examples of major types as well. I certainly wouldn't support mandatory restrictions of privately owned historic kit, beyond 'the rule of the road'.

And in part that's because we sadly can't legislate or rule for sense. If someone is an idiot or suicidal, they can, have and will kill themselves in their Spitfire, Mustang, Ferrari etc. Thankfully most of what we have are sensible people not tempted towards Viking-style immolation on a stock-market fall. So we come back to how to reduce accident rates further.

Regards,

[JDK]

For most it is actually easier and safer to perform to a lower altitude. Most pilots fly off of a feel and use sight lines and ground reference to determine altitude, direction, pitch and location in the box where maneuvers are allowed. There isn't much time to look at instruments and use them as your primary source of flight reference. For most people if you stand on a single or two story house it is easy to estimate exactly where the ground is. If you go up 10 stories or stand on top of a skyscraper that ground reference is much less exact.

Good point, Ric, but yes and no. Greater precision and accuracy, but on the other hand, less energy recovery possible or actual height to recover from problems. There are numerous warbird fatalities that wouldn't have been had there been a few feet height greater (and some have - the Yak 9 video. ). However I agree that airshows wouldn't be viable with a hard deck of of 1,000+ feet, and I think you may be right that we might get different types of accidents as a result.

We can both think of pilots wavered (or equivalent) to deck level, some of whom are safe there as in bed, others who we let the breath out after they land, and a third group who are no longer with us as the opportunity was a mistake.

Maneuvers performed are typically are what is published in manuals for that aircraft or are industry standard, but not just what is published by the FAA. Each aircraft has a pilots manual and what is in that manual is usually approved to be performed by that aircraft.

Yesss.. Except there have been warbirds flown beyond the pilot's manual's limits. I think that's an area where we're getting better, so I'll name no names.

We can't take back the losses that have happened. I would bet that any of those guys would be pretty vocal arguing against making drastic changes because of what happened to them. I'm sure they would want other pilots to learn from what happened and use that to prevent a reoccurrence. There are risks but obviously many rewards from performing. There are probably some that really need to use their aircraft to perform at airshows otherwise they may not be able to afford to own and operate that craft.

I'm always wary of projecting wishes onto those who can't speak. You may well be right, it is in line with the views of those who can comment as practitioners, but it's still pure speculation however.

None of this should overlook that things are, actually, a lot better than they were - or might be. For instance we worry about obesity and cancer these days because we don't die of other causes first (running from the tigers stuff) that we used to. Our conversations on aircraft and specifically airshow safety are in the context of a much better safety attitude than at any other time in history.

Regards,

[Fight2FlyPhoto]

I for one would not want to see warbird airshow flying relagated to that of the "airplane of the month fly day" at FHC or POF. That day may yet come but that time is not now.

I've been going to airshows since 1991, and it wasn't until 2008, when I went to an FHC fly day, that I fell head-over-heels in love with vintage aircraft and the stories they all have to tell. And it was no "fancy" flying. Banana passes, and high-speed flat passes. Personally, at airshows, when the warbirds come up, that's usually the time to rest, whether its loops and rolls or flat passes. Perhaps it's because I'm used to this sort of proximity at these "airplane of the month" fly days, which is possible because of the lack of need for an aerobatic box.


Luftwaffe day (183) by fight2flyphoto, on Flickr



VAW 881 by fight2flyphoto, on Flickr


http://youtu.be/OM91ZincXPA?hd=1

Oh, and also... they're airplanes. Some are going to crash. Whether it's from someone attempting a lamchevak in a Mustang, or making a pass at traffic pattern altitude. Unfortunately, as with all types of flying, sometimes $hit just happens. As long as it's within the safety parameters, I don't think there is any reason to stop doing aerobatics in their own vintage aircraft. But then again, this is WIX, and there has to be something to complain about.

Oh, and I'm calling BS on, "for most it is actually easier and safer to perform to a lower altitude." At least give me a better explanation, because I fly aerobatics myself and I couldn't disagree more.

[Cubs]

Your 1500' Altitude is taken from where? Airshows get waivers of specific FARs otherwise an airshow couldn't happen. Typically it involves speed and altitude restrictions being waived.

1. FAR PART 91, Subpart D , Special Flight Operations, 91.303(e).

2. An airshow couldn't happen?... I've been to quite a number of airshows and NO aerobatics were performed. I found those shows quite entertaining.

3.Waivers...again, do we really need to get low to have a good show?

[51fixer]

Your 1500' Altitude is taken from where? Airshows get waivers of specific FARs otherwise an airshow couldn't happen. Typically it involves speed and altitude restrictions being waived.

1. FAR PART 91, Subpart D , Special Flight Operations, 91.303(e).

2. An airshow couldn't happen?... I've been to quite a number of airshows and NO aerobatics were performed. I found those shows quite entertaining.

3.Waivers...again, do we really need to get low to have a good show?

This is the FAA document for waivers as it pertains to aerial gatherings. It is 108 pages and covers ballons to Air Races.
http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v03%2 ... 06_001.pdf
Typically the specific FARs that are wavered for an airshow are 91.117 Speed, 91.119 (b & c) Altitude, 91.155 Distance from Clouds and 91.303 Aerobatics.
The waiver process also issues guidelines for how close you can have crowds to runways and the performance area or box.
If a waiver doesn't exist then FAA enforcement could be undertaken if an aircraft exceeds 60 degrees of bank in a turn or 250 knots of speed in in airport airspace. Which is fairly easy done in many warbirds. The warbird pilots I know would probably avoid participating if the show would put in place restrictions on what they can perform along the lines of this discussion.

If you find a show that exhibits aircraft the way you want, go.
If you find low level aerobatics offensive with warbirds at a show then don't go.

[Ken]

This thread has really gotten up some hackles in folks and I get that, however it is just a discussion on a web forum. Whether the posters are currently performing or have never been within 100 yards of a warbird, I doubt any policy will be influenced or changed by this discussion.

Putting aside the hackles, I think Cubs and Fight2Fly make some valid points. From a safety standpoint, it would be safer if the pure aerobatic maneuvers were done higher. Not necessarily the normal FAR min of 1500A, but perhaps 500 or 800 as currently provided to certain holders of an ACE card. Other maneuvers; passes, hard turns, etc could still be done to 50'/the surface. Compromise.

Most pilots like to have an out. In a loop, for example, once the nose has tracked down into the vertical, you must pull out successfully or use your parachute. The lower you fly, the greater the odds that neither of these options remains. No matter how well one practices, a failure in the elevator controls would define the outcome. Raising the floor (even voluntarily) would enhance safety by some margin and I doubt that 95% of the crowd would know or notice, particularly when other low maneuvering is retained.

Ken

[JDK]

Couple of thoughts:

Re- Rich's stats. I can't recall a major or fatal warbird airshow accident in 2012 outside of the USA. My memory is likely at fault, correction welcome. It would be nice to be right.

In terms of warbird airshow ops, the USA would have the highest activity, followed some way behind by the UK, and trailing some way behind those again in aircraft/hours Aus, NZ, Canada, Europe (France, Germany, Scandinavia). But the actual proportions would be very hard to nail, and even so, a proportional relation to the (few) accidents against activity by country would need caution re- conclusions.

Fatal accidents do have a national effect on self-awareness and cautions, but sadly not international. Frankly I'm tired of being told "They're reckless, we are great, and our failures can be excused" - but I get the variation in every warbird country I've visited from warbird aircrew and practitioners. I'm not telling anyone how to fly, but I can smell bull and see a lack of realism with the rest of us.

And sh1t does not 'just happen'. It's always a failure in process, or risk management - and often nothing to do with the guy who collects. Where it counts (i.e. massive financial or property penalties) most accidents are prevented, but it's hard to get from our notional 95% good to 99% or 100%. The attitude of accidents happen is both wrong about what accidents are, and a bad attitude.

Rich's brief summary of the FAA show parameters is (as far as I understand from never paying careful attention to such things in briefings) essentially similar as seen in Aus, NZ, the UK, and France to my direct inattention but experience.

I doubt any policy will be influenced or changed by this discussion.

That's a reasonable, oft expressed view in these contexts, and certainly there's no direct connection. However:

- I'd hope the various bits of data that have been put in the mix (as against the opinions, which get all the heat & light) would better inform those involved, and it's another (informal) route of communication and PR for the warbird industry.

- It's another element (one of many) in the social environment, which has a cumulative effect on social expectations and mores (as well as 'hard' knowledge as above). Examples of effects of these cumulative changes are things like the use of car seatbelts, less-acceptance of drunk driving, and on topic more common use of personal safety equipment by warbird aircrew, the use of briefings and good flying practice for public show and around (such as air-to-air photographic sorties) rather than the 1960s - "Charlie's a good stick, watch this."

- Certainly my understanding changes as a result of the discussion, and I do communicate on that revised view. That's in print & face to face. I know that the same applies to practitioners as well as mere journalists.

Regards,

[Cubs]

...., I doubt any policy will be influenced or changed by this discussion.

Ken

I agree. That's why I said my opinion is probably worthless.

51fixer mentioned restrictions on performance, some warbird owners simply wouldn't perform.
As far as a speed restriction goes, I think a waiver there would be o.k. Speed restrictions are in place to enhance aircraft separation. Since the performer is the only one in that airspace, no need for separation from other aircraft. Multiple performers should be very much aware of the other aircraft position and any large separation is likely not the goal for that routine, anyway.

51fixer, you also mentioned, if someone finds LL warbird aerobatics offensive, then don't go.
I don't go. I haven't been to such a performance in 15+ years. But that is kind of a head in the sand mentality. Because when these aircraft are destroyed and the pilot is killed or severely injured; it hurts the whole aviation community, in many ways. One example, is public support or the lack of for your local airport. For example,there is a situation I am familiar with that local folks are trying to close an airport. They cite the dangers and hazards that small airport presents to the public. They really got in a tiz and beat the drums when an airshow performer slammed into the ground and was killed. (Yes, I am aware that much of their misguided opinion likely came from sedate, spam can aircraft accidents). This is a small world. You can't do one thing over here and not have an effect elsewhere.

As mentioned earlier, this discussion will not likely change policy. What if for the 2013 airshow season, performers of warbirds followed the guidelines or something similar that I mentioned?