My views on low level warbird aerobatics have changed.

[51fixer]

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.

Just noticed this one for this weekend so that will fill out our comparision period-
IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 2207X Make/Model: YK52 Description: YAK-52
Date: 09/16/2012 Time: 2021

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Destroyed

LOCATION
City: HUNTSVILLE State: AL Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT CRASHED UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES. HUNTSVILLE, AL

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 2
# Crew: 0 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:


OTHER DATA
Activity: Pleasure Phase: Unknown Operation: OTHER


FAA FSDO: BIRMINGHAM, AL (SO09) Entry date: 09/17/2012

That leaves 17 accidents with 9 fatal for this comparison period this year.
Last year for the same period, 2011, Jan 1 through the end of Reno Races there was 16 accidents listed with 7 Fatal.

[mlenoch]

To be in line with the 'topic title', should each listed accident be confirmed as happening during low level aerobatics?
Just because an event happens at an airshow, it would not be an applicable data point in reference to the 'topic title'?
For example, the Galloping Ghost crash did not happen during an airshow nor was the aircraft performing aerobatics.
Yours,
Vlado
(PS: I sometimes call it "akro" or "akrobatics".)

[rwdfresno]

This debate isn't a lot different from the fly them vs static arguement. The point is that you take risks anytime you make a decision to do something. You decided to store aircraft in a hanger, well it could burn down; you decide to do low level aerobatics, you could crash; you decide to leave your house, you could get hit by a bus.

How many aircraft have been lost whist not involved in low level akro/acro/aero-batics or not even in association with an airshow? The CAF P-38, B-17 "Liberty Belle", CAF B-26, PV-2 "Fat Cat," PV-2 "Fat Cat Too," and many others all during rather routine operations. There are those out there who believe that these aircraft and those pilots who did perish would be around today if we just wouldn't take the risk of flying them. Do those of you believe that these aerobatics are too risky support those who believe flying routine operations is too risky? Who should determine what is too risky? Should it be a central planner or the individual who has the skin in the game?

Ryan

Last edited by rwdfresno on Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[mlenoch]

Ryan, then the discussion has digressed from the topic.
I personally am interested in the safety considerations and concerns of the original topic title, thus my interest in applicable data.
(Otherwise, I am here to argue against green gear doors and who should decide when they need repainting. )
VL

[Lynn Allen]

Ryan, then the discussion has digressed from the topic.
I personally am interested in the safety considerations and concerns of the original topic title, thus my interest in applicable data.
(Otherwise, I am here to argue against green gear doors and who should decide when they need repainting. )
VL

Vlado, the green door sheriff...

[Cubs]

This debate isn't a lot different from the fly them vs static arguement. The point is that you take risks anytime you make a decision to do something.
Ryan

It isn't "a lot different" but, there is a fundamental difference. With low level aerobatics your margin for error is nil. That's what makes it appealing to some people. If your margin is so tight that in the event of an error, your only option is to make a smoking hole in the ground, then I would say, "yes, it is too risky".
An aircraft in routine flight typically has options, (glide distance, sufficient altitude to recover, or egress, etc).
And I am not touting a "risk free" endeavor, nor would I ever think such a thing is possible in this world of anything we do. I"m am attempting to maintain a rational discussion and you are trying to move it into the realm of absolutes. You may well make a convincing argument to put yourself (or a friend) in an early grave with a missing man flyover for your funeral.

[N3Njeff]

Well after reading the thread and viewing the figures that have been posted. I think the only safe thing to do in the warbird community is ground all stearmans.

[davidbray]

Ryan, then the discussion has digressed from the topic.
I personally am interested in the safety considerations and concerns of the original topic title, thus my interest in applicable data.
(Otherwise, I am here to argue against green gear doors and who should decide when they need repainting. )
VL

Vlado, the green door sheriff...

Awww man Lynn, now every time I see a Mustang with green gear doors I'm going to be hearing the "cowboy showdown" music from the Wild West Town I worked at years ago.

So for a little perspective I looked up Part 137 ops reports from the NTSB for the past 10 years as well as Part 91 (Air race/show) reports. For the Air Race/Show reports there are 91 (not currently up to date.) For Part 137 (Agricultural) there are 797.

[Ken]

...With low level aerobatics your margin for error is nil...An aircraft in routine flight typically has options, (glide distance, sufficient altitude to recover, or egress, etc)...And I am not touting a "risk free" endeavor, nor would I ever think such a thing is possible in this world of anything we do. I"m am attempting to maintain a rational discussion and you are trying to move it into the realm of absolutes.

I have to say that Cubs continues to make well stated, rational, & balanced points.

In the USAF, we have been using an ORM (operational risk management) matrix for several years for our missions. I used to call it common sense, but now we have a form that identifies our most common threats and assigns them a point value. Some random examples are: crewmember(s) with less than 200 hours, no ATC radar at destination, low level ops in excess of 4 hours, NVGs in use, mountainous terrain, identified personal stress, ceiling forecast within 500' of mins, departure delayed >4 hours, etc etc. I never liked the form but it is good for two reasons. First, just in case you got busy and didn't consider all the risks ahead, it is a memory jogger. Second, if the point value is high enough, supervisors have to sign off for the mission to proceed. We always go, but at least it affords the AC a chance to talk with the boss and a good boss the opportunity to do his stuff. Bottom line, it tries to bring up issues before engine start so that they might be mitigated. Can we wait for weather improvement? Should we assign a different copilot? Should we delay until the radar is fixed? In the case of an airshow, the suggestions might be: Should I delete that maneuver today? Should I shift my show higher due to winds/turbulence? Should I ensure a test flight first, once maintenance is complete? Do I cancel because I really don't feel up to par?

To me, what drives these questions is risk/reward. The first question is "Should we fly this mission at all?" Only if the answer is "yes" do we worry about taking mitigating steps. When the Marines expected a pallet of donated blood to arrive on dry ice, I would do everything in my power to get it there, short of cause real damage to our plane, or injure anyone. Of course there are combat scenarios where "acceptable losses" are calculated as well. Contrast that with a stateside training sortie when we're going up simply to burn scheduled hours from the unit budget; it's easy to cancel if things don't look good, ie. the risk outweighs the reward. I bring this up because there have been some stats presented, to include ag flying. I don't know what the impact on crops would be absent ag flying, but I assume it's a necessary business - people need the service and pay for it. Comparing that to airshow flying - people want (not need) that, and (typically) pay for it, though sometimes not. If the stats show anything, it's that we have room to improve warbird safety overall, no matter the phase of flight. Accidents will happen, but we must proceed as if a 0% rate is achievable.

This brings me full circle to why I fundamentally agree with Cubs' point of view. I like airshows and enjoy seeing warbirds fly. I enjoy a well done demo and have always appreciated the skill of the Aeroshell T-6 Team over any of the modern sport planes or jet teams. I want (warbird) airshows to continue and, to be clear, I don't necessarily want to see new rules imposed on airshows. What I would like to see is a shift in the industry mindset that takes ego out of the equation and takes a 20/20 look at true risks and ways to mitigate them - an effort to provide more "outs" in a routine than maybe are present today. And if I could put a personal "cherry on top" it would be to encourage owners/pilots to evaluate the historical value of their particular machine and factor that into the equation. I feel the same, BTW, every time I hear that Glacier Girl is gearing up to re-create her trans-Atlantic flight. There is no way, IMHO, that the reward exceeds the risk. (As I'm not currently paying Mr Lewis' bills, I'll keep that opinion here on WIX.)

So ... quote all the stats you want. Say you are the best off the deck loop pilot around. Give all the reasons why pushing the limits is necessary for the show to be great. And I'll say that the facts remain the same: compromise is a worthy option, that backing off from the limits at times can be smart & improve safety without truly compromising the crowd's experience, and that every wreck is one too many. If you fly to inspire John Doe, he probably thinks a Cuban 8 is more exciting than a loop anyway and can't tell 200' from 500'. If you fly to impress Bob Hoover, I suspect Bob would be the first to say to forensically examine absolutely every aspect of what you're doing and to be very, very, very careful out there.

Ken

[jmkendall]

Wow Ken! All I have to say is HEAR HEAR!

[Mark Allen M]

So ... quote all the stats you want. Say you are the best off the deck loop pilot around. Give all the reasons why pushing the limits is necessary for the show to be great. And I'll say that the facts remain the same: compromise is a worthy option, that backing off from the limits at times can be smart & improve safety without truly compromising the crowd's experience, and that every wreck is one too many. If you fly to inspire John Doe, he probably thinks a Cuban 8 is more exciting than a loop anyway and can't tell 200' from 500'. If you fly to impress Bob Hoover, I suspect Bob would be the first to say to forensically examine absolutely every aspect of what you're doing and to be very, very, very careful out there.

Outstanding job!!!! .... well worth the 6 page wait.

[davidbray]

Would any warbird pilots like to weigh in? Say the ones that have flown akro (acro, aero)?

[51fixer]

Would any warbird pilots like to weigh in? Say the ones that have flown akro (acro, aero)?

That might violate rule #1- Don't Admit to Nothing

[mlenoch]

Ken:
You make excellent points and commentary. May I quote your comments for my warbird safety forums? If I may PM you for proper credit. Most warbird operators are not involved in low level aerobatics (what the topic title notes). I would say possibly 90% do not fly aerobatics at all. Thus your safety considerations are a high value thought and analysis for each owner or operator.
As for myself, I would remain interested in knowing the statistics for akro only warbird incidents at airshows. I do not do static, I do not do air race (any longer), I do not do flyby (only) and I do not fly across the Atlantic. I am only interested in what I do (for the last 26 years) which is low level warbird aerobatics. Thus my pure and sole inquiry about the topic title and corresponding statistics. [ for example: if you sole mission is frozen blood delivery in hostile territory, what value are night refueling safety statistics? Other than a safety-philosophical basis.] Thus my plaintive request for specific data (and pathetic question about the relevance to the topic title).
I very much appreciate everyone's input and opinions posted. Everything that is relevant to safety is very worthy for discussion.
My (devalued) 2 cents,
VL

[Ken]

Thanks for the kind comments. I am big believer in aviation safety programs and think that a "back to basics" approach is sometimes the most effective.

One thing I meant to mention in my earlier post regards human nature. We do well to analyze the things that don't go as planned, but we often forget to focus on what goes right and why. I'd like to see some stats and interviews regarding those pilots who have not had any (or successfully avoided) incidents. It's a mental shift, but there is a lot to be learned by noting the positives in life.

And, for the heck of it, here is a video I shot earlier this year to try out a new GoPro camera ... gentleman's aerobatics from the relative safety of 4000' AGL.

http://youtu.be/8BQ2QRyRKBw

Ken