Just a bit low?

[warbird1]

Even the pros sometimes need to be told that they are pushing it. I know of one of the best show pilots at one time was told by another performer about a manuver that left no room for error, he listened to the advice and adjusted the show to make it safer. Did the crowd know the difference? no, did those who flew in airshows know the difference, YES.

Yes, this has happened in the past. I was told by a well known airshow performer about a certain well known airshow performer who took unnecessary risks as part of their airshow routine and was told by ICAS to basically "tone it down". That performer is mentioned in this thread and unfortunately is no longer with us due to an airshow accident.

That kind of stuff happens from time to time, but we, the general public never hear about it.

The performer I know of is still very much around, becaused he listened to his peers.

We're talking about two different people. The one I was referring to is no longer here.

[smokeyjoe]

Found this on another site from the show this weekend at Andrews AFB. Seems just bit low?







All the pictures, scroll down for more in post.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthr ... ?t=2028416

Do you know the Pilot ?? if your complaining !! I know you dont !! your just a Julious man wishing to be in the pilots seat !! Hes an Expert !! and

Im glad to see this pilot s precision flying demo d in front of us all !!

to those of you nay sayers , ask where our demo pilots have gone on the west coast , and if you continue to critique something your Not able to do yourself!! Say Good bye to the Airshow s you say you love !!

Way to go Snort , and all the rest of the great men who share with us

[warbird1]

Wow! Six friggin' pages.

I've got to tell you as the son of a fighter pilot, Air Force brat, and one Indy car veteran mechanic and former race car driver, I think Snort was a bit high on that pass!

What are thes guys doing? Putting on a show for the aviation fans of the world. That means you "let 'er dangle" and you want the audience to come a way with the "holy poo poo" factor. Do you take a chance? darn right! Are you at risk? Dah! Is this something you have chosen to do, yeah. Is it too low? Does it scare me? Yup! As planned.

Stop all this PC whining! JeezLaweez! Get over it. This is show biz and everyone that flies knows the risk. Everyone who drives a race car knows the risk. The business is the show and sending everyone home with the HSF. That is what breeds new talent, new enthusiasm, new blood. Some may cross that final border but they knew going in that was the risk. For all the PC fans, pi$$ off. If you don't risk and challenge yourself to perform, then you have not traveled that road. There is a fine line between bravery and stupidity and Darwin seems to control that. Otherwise, live your life and talent to the fullest and put on a heck of a show!

My rant, over. There is a whole lot more to life than life itself. Sit and idle in the background or take life by the balls and live it! Know your abilities and then push them to the limit!

Unfortunately, in this age that we live in, bad publicity can kill aviation, airshows or warbirds. It definitely looks cool and may in fact inspire some new aviation fans, but there are other ways to accomplish the same goal that are less risky and safer. All it takes is a crash of one well known airshow performer and it could put an end to air displays as we know it. It's not necessarily about being PC, it's about ensuring that warbirds, and airshows continue to happen as we know them without heavy-handed knee-jerk reactions from the FAA or Congress. I'll give you two examples of what has happened in the past:

1) Frecce Tricolori, Ramstein Airbase, August 28, 1988 - On this day, the Italian version of the Thunderbirds had a massive mid-air collision which ended up with 70 people dead and many more seriously injured. That one singular event caused ALL airshows to be banned for the next 3 years in West Germany, and there hasn't been an airshow held at Ramstein since then. Up to that time, it was the worst airshow disaster in the history of aviation.

2) Fresno, Sept 24, 1972 - On this day, an F-86 crashed on initial takeoff from Fresno Executive airport during an airshow and hit an ice cream parlor and killed 22 people, mostly children. This singular event had very WIDE ranging implications on the operation of jet warbirds for a VERY long time over the next 25 to 30 years. Many people say that this single event contributed to the FAA's extreme reluctance to certify jet warbirds for many, many years.

The FAA is under a LOT of scrutiny right now from Congress and will act in it's own self defense without regard to who they affect by their decisions. Remember last month when the FAA grounded American's entire MD-80 fleet for technicality reasons and not safety reasons? The FAA will stop at nothing to placate public pressure to "save face", no matter what the cost. This kind of pressure will come from public scrutiny and visibility. All it takes is one well-timed, well-placed accident. Can you imagine what the reaction of the FAA would be if some warbird jet wiped out a crowd of spectators? Don't think it can happen? It almost did at the Reno Air Races last year, not once, but two separate events! This would give them all the ammunition they would need to permanently ground all jet warbirds. This is something the FAA has wanted to do for many years.

The point is, it's not at all about being PC, but survival of our way of life in regards to operating warbirds and having airshows. Warbirds and airshows are considered "luxury entertainment". They are not needed by anybody and their extinction would not affect the general public one bit. Sure all of us aviation fans would bitch and moan, but do you really think Joe Blow public would care when he's paying $ 5.00 a gallon for car gas and he's losing his home to foreclosure? Where do you think the general public's priorities will ly? With airshows and warbirds? Probably not.

Do you think the kind of attitude that you have displayed here is conducive to the long term survival of warbirds and airshows?

I think I'm done with this debate, Not much more to be said. I'm OK with all the left views and right views. We all had an honest chance to express our thoughts and as usual, we all came through quite well. Thanks for the fun. Just remember, nothing personal here, that's why we are able to debate issues like this. We have a very cool forum here and I get deeper and deeper as the months go by ..... To ALL who participated in this thread I say thank you for being mature and honest and not afraid to express your opinions. I also say thank you to all of you who truly put up with my nonsense .... hope I had a chance to stimulate your minds a bit ... Can't wait for the next controversial thread ....

PS ... I just re-read my posts in this thread, I can't believe you guys let me get away with that crap ....

never get mad, get even ... hehe

Sincerely,

Mark the debator

[airnutz]

Found this on another site from the show this weekend at Andrews AFB. Seems just bit low?







All the pictures, scroll down for more in post.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthr ... ?t=2028416

I'm glad to see this pilots precision flying demo'd in front of us all !!

Way to go Snort ,

Phukin Sweet!!!

Maybe a few of the WIX'ers could talk Connie E. out of the deuce 109? The Experts could fly the front half..
the 2cond string could land and control the tailwheel...and the "armchairs " could tell them what they were
doing wrong!!!!

Sorry...I'll get me coat...

[sdennison]

Warbird1

Do you think the kind of attitude that you have displayed here is conducive to the long term survival of warbirds and airshows?[/quote]

You bet! Since the examples you cite, how many airshows have gone away?

This is what the "barnstorming" used to be. Stop "what-iffing" or take it to the level of, "I can't go the show because I could get into a car accident and maybe killed."

Snort well knows the risk and his abilities. He is doing what very few can do. I for one, would trade places with him in a heartbeat. I have been there, in a different venue, but doing the same. I have had the parents and the kids come up and ask for autographs and say thanks for the great show. I didn't worry about the "crash" or it's outcome. If it was my turn, so be it. No one has stopped going to auto races and no one will stop going to air shows. Reno cancelled this year????

[mustangdriver]

Warbird1

Do you think the kind of attitude that you have displayed here is conducive to the long term survival of warbirds and airshows?

You bet! Since the examples you cite, how many airshows have gone away?

This is what the "barnstorming" used to be. Stop "what-iffing" or take it to the level of, "I can't go the show because I could get into a car accident and maybe killed."

Snort well knows the risk and his abilities. He is doing what very few can do. I for one, would trade places with him in a heartbeat. I have been there, in a different venue, but doing the same. I have had the parents and the kids come up and ask for autographs and say thanks for the great show. I didn't worry about the "crash" or it's outcome. If it was my turn, so be it. No one has stopped going to auto races and no one will stop going to air shows. Reno cancelled this year????[/quote]"


In all fairness I think there is a big difference in what is being said here. No one here is saying to stop airshow, or to stop flying warbirds. No one is saying that Snod is anything less then a great pilot and person. What is being said here is that the pass and turn look to be out side of what is safe. Something as simple as a wind gust could have been a bad deal. It is wrong to say that you aren't going to the airshow because you might get in a car wreck, but it is also wrong to leave your drive way and drive at 100 mph the whole time as well.

[richkolasa]

if Dale's a friend of yours, shouldn't it be very relevent? as opposed to irrelevent? And if you owned a P-51 I'm sure it wouldn't be "a hunk of metal" to you. Unless you view 1.5 mill as a hunk of metal.

Please don't presume to know my priorities, or how relevant the respect I have for people to make their own choices in life is. Yes, if I had the income to afford a P-51 and a friend lost their life in it, the plane would be the least of my concerns. I have a Shelby Mustang and a girlfriend with breast cancer. Guess where my priorities are? The car is a hunk of metal, nothing more (when compared with human life).

I also believe that our time on this earth is part of something much bigger, so I didn't go around worrying about how people are going to leave this life. Leo Loudenslager was arguably the founder of the new "kick a$$" aerobatics in his Laser, yet he lost his life at the hands of a drowsy driver as he was riding his motorcycle a couple of miles from his house. Stuff happens, and I accept that, hence I'm not worrying about how the people who are the best at what they do should be regulated.

One last thing ... don't you think it's a good thing to be able to have this forum to discuss matters like this? .... i think it's a gift.
Mark

Trust me, the moderators at this message board don't want to hear my opinion on threads like this one. The message board itself is wonderful. Have a great Memorial Day weekend, everyone.

Rich

[Steve Nelson]

I've always loved watching Snort perform. Here are a couple of shots from Warbirds Over Kalamazoo 2000 when he was using his own SNJ..

SN

[Lynn Allen]

Look how low the butterfly is to that Golden Better have a talk with him Great photo....

Lynn

[Jack Cook]

I'll refrane my inserting a unwanted opinion about low passes
But, in watching the Andrews video from the posted link what I noticed
the most was that I could hardly see the P-51 he was so low. Behind planes, trailers, people ect
An airshow isn't fun if the plane so low you can't see it!
BTW on the carrier fly-by...I found the flight deck of USS boat to be one freaking dangerous place on a normal day!
If a JO had done a fly-by like that he might well have tossed his wings in the trash on his way to see the old man

[warbird1]

Do you think the kind of attitude that you have displayed here is conducive to the long term survival of warbirds and airshows?

You bet! Since the examples you cite, how many airshows have gone away?

This is what the "barnstorming" used to be. Stop "what-iffing" or take it to the level of, "I can't go the show because I could get into a car accident and maybe killed."

Snort well knows the risk and his abilities. He is doing what very few can do. I for one, would trade places with him in a heartbeat. I have been there, in a different venue, but doing the same. I have had the parents and the kids come up and ask for autographs and say thanks for the great show. I didn't worry about the "crash" or it's outcome. If it was my turn, so be it. No one has stopped going to auto races and no one will stop going to air shows. Reno cancelled this year????

Unfortunately, you have missed my point entirely. The SOLE reason I am against this kind of low flying is strictly due to the ability of outside influences (the FAA) to shut down what we love best. If we didn't have an extremely powerful organization that could shut us down, I would care less how anybody flies at airshows. You crash and die, then you are accepting the consequences of your risks. This is classical Darwinism at it's best, with survival of the fittest pilots. I am all for personal freedom in choices. All it takes is one bad accident at an airshow, like what nearly happened at Reno last year, and that personal freedom of choice will be taken away from everybody. I think that Snort is one of the top 3 warbird pilots up there, and I greatly admire his skills as a pilot. BUT, what he is doing is an unnecessary risk to the detriment of the warbird movement and airshows. My argument has ZERO to do with pilots "worrying" about their risks or thinking they are going to crash, but everything to do about external perceptions from the public and their undue influence on the FAA, which has undue influence on us. This is what I am saying!

"No one has stopped going to auto races and no one will stop going to air shows. Reno cancelled this year????"

Yes, people WILL stop going to air shows if the FAA doesn't let them happen anymore, because they could take that choice away from them. No, Reno was not cancelled last year, but it was darn close. The FAA almost didn't let the races finish because of 3 fatalities there. Two of those fatalities occurred during the actual racing part of the airshow. The "public perception" that the Races were "dangerous", and some negative publicity and public outcry were unduly influencing the FAA. There were calls and editorials in the local Reno paper there to shut down the Reno Air Races because some uninformed, armchair non-pilot type deemed them too dangerous. The President of RARA did an outstanding job of keeping everything under control and was able to come to an agreement with the FAA about how the races were going to be finished. Without his outstanding leadership, the Reno Air Races might have been history.

So, should we have a "free for all" and let aviators do whatever the hell they please at airshows, and worry about the consequences from the FAA later? This example of what happened at Reno is what could happen at any airshow where there are fatalities from flying that is perceived to be "too dangerous" by the public. The FAA is real hot now and will do everything in their power to make the public feel like they are enforcing safety. Unfortunately, the FAA has decided that politics is much more important than actually employing standards and enforcing safety. Like it or not, that is the climate we live in today. Taking unncessary risks at airshows inches us closer to the FAA summarily "waving their magic wand" and declaring that warbirds, ex-military jets, airshows, or whatever are too dangerous and put a stop to it.

This is what I am saying we should avoid by self-policing, rather than being policed by the FAA.

[dors]

i'm a democrat and i don't like republicans... oh wait what are we arguing about this time? Yeah i think snort is cool. At every airshow I have been too I have seen flying that is much more dangerous than Dale in a mustang or sabre. Just about any aerobatic acts (Sean Tucker, Patty Wagstaff, Skip Stewart etc.. ) pushes the envelope pretty far. I have never heard cries of outrage for their safety. Makes you wonder how much weight the "warbird" really carries in some of these arguments.

[daveymac82c]

Flying that low is "unnecessary" in just about any circumstance. Of course it may show that the pilot is very good, but anyone who gets to fly a P-51 had better be a good pilot.

Flying that low does not impress me, I'm sorry.

-David

[warbird1]

At every airshow I have been too I have seen flying that is much more dangerous than Dale in a mustang or sabre. Just about any aerobatic acts (Sean Tucker, Patty Wagstaff, Skip Stewart etc.. ) pushes the envelope pretty far. I have never heard cries of outrage for their safety. Makes you wonder how much weight the "warbird" really carries in some of these arguments.

You are absolutely right and I think some of these aerobatic acts press the envelope too much. I have not mentioned that because this thread is directly related about warbirds specifically flying too low. I do think there are many aerobatic acts out there that press the limits too much. There are two performers who always made me nervous when I watched them fly. One was when Jimmy Franklin used to fly upside down in his Waco and cut a ribbon suspended between 2 Coke bottles with his rudder. That was just insane! The other was when Delmar Benjamin used to fly his GeeBee replica extremely aggressively, including inverted flight at very low altitudes.

So yes, there are some acts out there that press too hard, but there are some important distinctions between them and warbirds:

1) Most aerobatic performers as mentioned above (Tucker, Wagstaff, Stewart, etc.) are former aerobatic champions. They have flown, and perfected their craft for many, many years up high, prior to doing them low. They know their airplanes inside and out and know how they will react. Because they are former aerobatic champions, they tend to fly very, very precisely and in coordinated flight. Unless you are Kermit Weeks, the vast majority of warbird pilots do not have this background of precision flying. There is no doubt about it, having that kind of background and experience will definitely give you an edge over other pilots. In general terms, this means an aerobatic pilot will be able to operate more safely closer to the ground than the average non-aerobatic trained pilot.

2) Most aerobatic performers perform in airplanes that are much slower than most warbirds and have much tighter turn radii. An airplane with a tighter turn radius needs much less altitude to complete vertical maneuvers. This translates into a lower buffer zone to operate at low altitudes. For example, what is the loop radius of a Pitts or Extra compared to a P-51 or F-86? The difference is HUGE. This means that you can operate a small, lightweight, nimble aerobatic airplane at much lower altitudes safely than a typical warbird. For those of you that aren't familiar with aerodynamics, the turn radius of an aircraft is directly related to the airspeed at which it is traveling. In other words, the faster you go, the bigger your turn radius is. So, that means a P-51 doing a high speed simulated strafe run on an airfield will ALWAYS take more vertical height in completing than a Laser or Pitts doing the same maneuver. So, translated, that means, the faster the airplane, the less margin for safety when maneuvering in the vertical plane. Because of the difference in speed between your typical aerobatic performer and your typical warbird, the "buffer altitude" is accordingly different. You can't simply compare just the height of the airplane above the earth. Speed and type of airplane are needed for the comparison also. Would we all not agree that a J-3 screaming along at 10 feet above the runway at redline would be a lot different than a P-51 screaming along at 10 feet above the runway at redline?

3) If an aerobatic pilot crashes versus a warbird, the general public will react differently. As cold and impersonal as it sounds, the general non-informed, non-pilot public will think that is just par for the course for an aerobatic crash. They know that aerobatic accidents sometimes happen and the pilots knew what they were doing when they got into it. In other words, it's an accepted risk, that unfortunately, sometimes happens. If a warbird crashes from a low level display, the first thing the general public asks is "why". They ask why was the "old" 60+ year old warbird operated like that? Why was it put at risk during the display with such discretionary aggressive flying? Aerobatics are part of the "act" of an airshow performer, while NOT a part of the "act" for most warbird displays. Because of this huge distinction, the public outcry and outrage will be VASTLY different between a crash of a warbird that is "shining it's ass" vs. an aerobatic act that is supposed to "shine it's ass". That public outcry and outrage will manifest itself differently when the FAA gets pressure put on it by either the general public or congress.

4) Aerobatic airplanes and warbirds are built differently. Most aerobatic airplanes have much better visibility out of the cockpit than most typical warbirds. Aerobatic airplanes were built with good vis in mind, so the pilot can make good use of ground references and seeing outside. Being able to look outside and know exactly where you are at in relation to the ground is obviously a huge advantage compared to a warbird, where an obstructed forward view, canopy cross bracing, a low wing that obscures forward vis and other design flaws might obscure one's view of the ground. If you know exactly where you are at and how high above the ground you are, then obviously you don't need as much of a "buffer zone" to fly low. Also, most aerobatic airplanes have symmetrical airfoils, and most warbirds do not. This means that an aerobatic airplane will be able to fly inverted close to the ground without a negative angle of attack. A warbird will have to have a negative angle of attack, just to maintain level flight. Because of the differences in airfoils, the typical aerobatic pilot will be able to fly with relative ease whether rightside up or upside down, close to the earth. This again, provides more margin for safety than your typical warbird.