Warbird Information Exchange

Here's my question and I'm not trying to stir the pot. Just a simple question or 2.
1. Is the CAF still suffering any repercussions from the horrible PBY crash and following lawsuit?
2. Is the CAF suffering any repercussions from the litigation involving the F-82 ect? If the CAF loses this what will be the repercussions of this.
BTW I used to have really negative feeling towards the CAF. Gary, Ol Shep & FG-1D Pilot have changed that view. Quality people make for a quality organization IMHO

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Bob, honestly, I think that the consensus that I've heard around the hangar not just at CAF hangars, but others as well, is the lack of ability to fly often enough to maintain true currency. As it is now, how many CAF pilots get more than 20 hours a year in the planes they fly? How many CAF Airplanes get more than 30 or 40 hours a year on them?

I've not had a lot of years in flying for sure, and I know that every time I've had anything more than a few week layoff, I have to spend time re-acquainting myself with the airplane I'm flying and getting to where I feel comfortable by myself to do anything more than bang pavement in the pattern.

The problem sadly always goes back to money. It's hard for us to get enough money and enough time to put the birds in the air enough. The biggest problem is figuring out how to fix it. Can we (as an organization and industry) raise the funds needed to really make it possible to get crews current and keep them that way? Can we get the crews who have enough time to devote to maintaining that currency? If we can't do either or both, what can we do make it as close to that currency as possible? Do we need to invest in electronic methods? What about "similar type" flying to maintain the basic skill sets? Some of our pilots have their own airplanes that they fly more often than the warbirds, but some don't. What can we do for those who don't have their own planes and can't afford to put lots of time in the warbirds they fly?

My personal belief is that all CAF wings should have "support" aircraft. Whether it be a fast, light single for the wings with fighters or a light twin of some sort for the wings with transports, there should be a less-expensive aircraft that is supported by the wings and available for the pilots to use in maintaining currency with a more cost-effective aircraft than many of the warbirds which can cost thousands per hour to fly as compared to a more modern aircraft that can cost hundreds or less. In the US Air Force, they have T-38s assigned to the wings which have "high value" assets like the B-2A and U-2R and relatively unmodified TC-18 (Boeing 707) aircraft for the wings which operate RC-135s and E-3s. These aircraft allow the basic skill sets to be maintained at a lower cost and lower risk than the "primary airframe". I think this is something that should be considered not only by the CAF, but all warbird operators.

I've noticed that most of the private warbird operators on this board have a Beech, Mooney, Cessna, or some other light single or twin that they also fly when not flying the warbird. Whether they realize it or not, they are practicing this same idea by flying these airplanes, they're helping maintain their basic skills, which helps them when flying the warbirds to focus on those procedures and skills needed to fly that specific aircraft and not those required by general aviating.

Sorry, had to fix some grammatical & spelling errors on my part...

I agree much about the skill set. I usually only fly the L-5. Once in a while I get a chance to play with another airplane, but generally I am flying the Stinson once a week, more or less weather pending. After my trip to KOSH this summer, the 24 hours I got during the 12 days I was gone was very effective in getting me current. If I don't fly the airplane at least once a week, I definitely very well sense the deterioration of "feel" for the L-5. I wouldn't want to fly anything more busy than the L-5 without a good feeling of recency and recurrency.

That said, I have definitely encountered a "pressure" by people to go ahead and fly the airplane when the conditions are challenging. I like to challenge myself to develop skills, but not too much. For example, if I haven't been in a cross wind situation in quite a while, I am not inclined to go out and prove my dexterity on hard surfaces. I think this "get out there and fly no matter what" attitude is pervasive to the point where it irritates the ego of people who know better and encourages them to let their guard down. So far I've been able to resist this. I think there are a number of people who think less of me as a pilot, but I don't care. They can pay their own insurance and take their own risks. When it comes down to it, I'm still a relatively junior pilot, and building a solid skill set is more important than just flying when I can.

My original flight instructor was a USCG trained aviator. He told me that if he was on vacation or detached duty for two weeks, he had to take a ride with a check pilot when he came back. He operated some complicated stuff, HH3's and HH52's, and it just makes sense to do that. For the CAF, or anybody who is flying high performance tail wheel aircraft the Yak tail wheels are reasonably priced to fly. Maybe it would be a good idea to spend weekly time in them. One option would be to have a traveling check-ride program that came to each of the squadrons on a recurring basis during the year, 2-3 times during the year. The other option is to utilize a professional pilot staff to operate the airplanes- people who have the time to fly tail wheel planes more than the casual pilot. This may be the option as less and less tail wheel pilots are out there, and as insurance rates go up.

I shouldn't forget to mention emergency procedure practice, checklist review, ground cockpit practice, emergency re-start procedures, etc. How often do you think about the numbers for best glide of the airplane? Or just fly along and look at places where you could land? Or just pull the throttle and glide down to some point? I'm lucky that I can fly over the Eastern Shore of Maryland, which is one big runway. I'm confident that I could get the L-5 down in a few hundred feet or less. But only because I practice it constantly.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Interesting thread for sure. My initial thoughts on this are as follows...

Jack...I personally don't know the answer to your question about the PBY, but could only assume that ANY loss of aircraft and lawsuit is not something that is helpful to the organization. And I'm not legally allowed to speak about the P-82 stuff in detail. Everyone will just have to wait and see what happens there.

CAPFlyer...Not a bad idea with each Unit getting a training aircraft to maintain currency in. However, many (if not Most), Units and Squadrons are doing what they can to safely maintain the aircraft they have. And some aren't even able to do that. It's a difficult situation for sure. I don't think a blanket policy regarding training airplanes would be the best way to go, but if a Unit or Squadron could afford to do so, then it certainly wouldn't hurt.

Forgotten Field...First of all, good for you! If the conditions show that you shouldn't go fly, then don't! It's always a good idea to know your limits and the limits of the airplane you're flying. Sadly, no matter what the qualifications are of a pilot, judgement is something that comes from within. You can teach someone how to do stalls and landings, but you can't teach judgement. Now, as far as a traveling check ride program, you might be on to something. As I sit here, I cannot personally think of how we could implement it right away, but it's certainly something that I'll bring up to people that are much smarter than me.

I personally like hearing the ideas from the folks out there regarding this type of issue. Sure, not every idea can work, but they may be fodder for something that can be introduced later.


The bottom line is that although flying these old Warbirds is largely a matter of cubic dollars, it's the people involved that make it work or not. The pilots and maintainers must have their sh*t together and do what's right. If someone hasn't flown in many weeks and is then scheduled to fly an airshow somewhere, then wouldn't it behoove him or her to go get some time in that airplane or similar to sharpen up a bit? Of course it would. Does that happen very much? Unfortunately not. Maintainers are the same. If an airplane has been down for maintenance for some time and then there's a mad rush to get it back together for an airshow or similar, that tends to produce shoddy work or leaves items left unrepaired that "we'll get to later." It's up to the maintenance folks to step up and say "This airplane isn't going anywhere until it's right!" Again, these are all judgement calls. Look, we were all taught "right and wrong" when we were toddlers. Stay tough and do what's right.


Gary

Gary, I definitely agree that some squadrons would have problems getting "another" aircraft, however as I mentioned, most wings have at least one or two people who do have their own airplanes (usually a Cessna or Piper trainer, but occasionally more) and maybe it could be something for the Unit to organize with those who do have their own planes an arrangement or agreement for the Unit pilots to be able to use those aircraft some for the recurrency. As I said, most of the accidents lately that I've seen happen both in the warbird arena and in the GA side have been mainly pilots who are not current and getting into a problem (engine failure, fuel exhaustion, IMC, etc) and being overwhelmed because they're not comfortable in the plane and haven't spent enough time doing currency items (BTW, I consider doing emergency procedures and emergency practice part of maintaining currency personally, because I feel that if I'm not comfortable doing the emergency procedures during training, then I'm sure I won't during a real one). As my esteemed Wing Leader likes to say - "Where there's a will, there's a way."

The other item I thought of since is the crew-chief/safety observer. I know that there are insurance considerations during airshows especially with a lot of warbirds, but on aircraft that have a jumpseat behind the center console, there really should be someone there to help out at least look out the window, especially if the crew needs to go heads down to deal with an emergency if not be the one going heads down to deal with it with the PNF leaving the PF to fly the plane. I won't mention any specific accidents but I know of at least one that could have been prevented had that been done.[/code]

Is the B-23 going to stay in the States ? and do we know are the entions to restore to Fly ? I wish the CAF the Very best as I was a active member back in the Eightys Sadly do to personal and matters that were out of my control I was not able to keep active . I do wish that more people would realize that the days of going out to the hanger and dawing a patch covered Flight suit and flying to where ever airshow are long gone. in todays world you might get sued just for looking at some one the wrong way . that is why it is so dog gone expenseve to insure, maintain, and store, any and all warbirds. ( all airplanes for that matter) I wish all the museums, foundations that 2008 finds them a very SAFE and Happy New Year

_________________
Always Keep Em Flying !

Glen

Lookie Capt Jim! Wham! Wham! ...............................Termights

Glen do I know you from the early 80's when we were flying the B-23?
Robbie

_________________
Fly Fast Make Noise!

As to training aircraft the CAF sold the O2 they had. Now the O2 isn't the most whatever of anything, but it is complex enough, to mainatain proficiency at a reasonable hourly. I know there is no tail wheel, but IMHO the O2 is one of the aircraft that could be called "proficiency aircraft".

So where's the commentary on professional pilot's doing the flying? Not to put too fine a point on it, but perhaps the "sponsorship to fly" and the various approaches to getting to the point of qualification to fly the aircraft are unquestioned traditions that prevent forward motion in the CAF mission. I know there are a lot of guys out there with multiple thousands of hours in aircraft that would be good matches for flying the CAF fleet on a regular basis in a professional capacity. Was this ever considered, and if so, what came up in discussion?

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Right, so the issue seems to be how you stay sharp and current in a warbird that the CAF (or other museum) owns but has no $chingazo$" to fly on a regular basis.

How do we cure that? I can see that many a commercial pilot may have the general piloting skills to exceed but how does he get rated and stay sharp on the warbirds?

Stupid though I may be, has anyone ever looked for a government grant or (forgive me) porkbelly bill to provide funding for such a historic program? With all the money we spend on "when to plow snow" studies, we should be able to support the flying programs to preserve our heritage, only need to make that connection.

Who do you know in Congress with the same passion???

_________________
"There are old pilots and bold pilots but few old, bold pilots."

If you add up the dollar value of the airplanes lost in the last ten years plus the cost of damages from accidents, plus the value of the volunteer labor input it equals millions of dollars. If you add the millions of dollars in lost revenue because aircraft are not flyable or lost, then there's a couple million more dollars in lost revenue.
There is a correlation between safety, pilot proficiency, and quality of maintenance, versus the accident rate of any aviation organization.
WOuld it be better for an organization to ask itself; "Which airplanes are we going to maintain, do flight training and fly, and which airplanes are we going to park."

Parking is preferable to irreplaceble loss of life and material assets.

Forgotten Field wrote:



Of course any of these qualified pilots are able to apply to fly anything the CAF has already. The sponsorship cost to fly any of the CAF airplanes is ridiculously low (too low) in my opinion. At 10,000 to sponsor a fighter, 5000 to sponsor a bomber and even less for other types, payable in payments, few people that are highly qualified would be excluded because of sponsorship cost. Another point to be considered, you don't have to fly or be a pilot to sponsor an airraft. If one feels strongly about the preservation or maitenance of a particular type, contact a wing an set up a sponsorship. You will have exactly the same input and voice as a "flying sponsor".

I personally think that there should be an additional annual contribution required in addition to the initial amount of the sponsorship, my experience in the business world has taught me that the more "buy in" required of someone, the more serious the individual is about doing everything they can to maximize their investment.

THe current structure allows a sponsor/pilot to fly a certain amount per month (@ 1.5 hours) for nothing more than the cost of fuel. Very few CAF pilots actually do this. I would make this mandatory. If one is unwilling or unable to commit to this, perhaps some other hobby should be considered

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Eric,
I do have another hobby- flying my own airplane, the L-5. It is affordable, the airplane is just right for me at my skill level (less than 200 hours) and a good learning airplane for higher performance airplanes later in life- and this from all standpoints such as parts, maintenance, operation, training, recurrency, safety, etc.

I understand how the CAF sponsorship works. So based on your statements, am I to understand you thorougly believe that if you have enough money, you can fly any airplane? And if the buy-in is higher, then you will have more committment to doing that? If so, I don't understand how that relates in any way to proficiency in operating any type of machinery.

I'm not talking about how the "pay to play" structure works in the CAF. I'm talking about how to preserve the fleet and best practices regarding pilot's. Sure, it relates to the "pay to play" system right now, but we're not talking here about how the CAF works now, we're talking about attrition of airplanes and people.

_________________
REMEMBER THE SERGEANT PILOTS!

Many of the current CAF pilots are professional pilots. They fly heavy iron jets, not pistons. Two totally different skill sets are required. With heavy iron, you are more of a system manager than pilot in the classic sense. Thus, you fly by procedure and pushbutton as much as by throttle and stick. In a warbird, you have certain procedures, but most of what you do is get into the acceptable limits and stay there. You're more concerned about keeping the engines happy than making certain altitudes and speeds, you're more concerned with keeping the plane on an even keel than you are making sure you are still on-time for arrival at your destination. That's the big difference. You need time flying PISTON airplanes to be able to practice the basic emergency procedures and skills needed to fly a warbird safely.

Forgotten Field wrote:




My post was not meant in any way to be directed at Forgotten Field. I used the term "one should" everywhere except the last line and I can see how you may have believed that this was directed toward you, personally. I applaud the fact that you are flying the L-5 and I am sure you will progress along and have the required skill to fly other airplanes if you desire. As a side note, I had a 7 year period from 1988 to 1995 that I did not fly 1 hour because I felt I couldnt afford to do it enough to maintain my personal safety standards.

My post was really targeted at the policy that allows pilots ( and units) to pay a vary small amount of money for a sponsorship and go through the CAF process to get checked out and then not fly any of the profiecency allocated time because of cost. I believe that alot of very good pilots think because they are flying something else they are up to speed in the warbird as well.

I don't think having more money makes anyone more qualified to fly safely. I do, however, believe that requiring the people that fly these airplanes to bear more of the cost makes sense. I am really tired of talking to pilots who tell me how much experience they have and if they only had the money, they would be the next Robin Olds for the CAF. It is affordable for anyone who is reasonably employed and commited.

In many ways, it's like walking through a casino and looking at poker games. I might sit down at a table with a $1 ante just for kicks, or to pass the time, but if it's a $100 a hand, I am going to make sure it's how I want to spend my time and that I know what the F I'm doing.

Lastly, Are you sure you understand the entire CAF pilot selection/check out process? There is alot more to it than "pay to play". Are you a CAF member? If not, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on why not. We can always use good people.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."