Skyraiders vs The FAA

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:20 pm

I heard from a friend that the FAA is after, with a vengence, 2 SPAD pilots over supposed infraction at a recent S Cal air show. Any truth to this???

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11330

Yes! It was at the CAF Air Group 1 show in the San Diego area. Allegedy they flew over the deadline.

http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacfl ... -case.html

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:34 pm

So if I understand this correctly the FAA guy has a personal friendship
with the reportee so he discounts 32 eyewitnesses who say the pilots did nothing wrong. :roll:

Why am I not surprised

K5DH · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:37 pm

Remember the FAA's motto:

"We're not happy until you're not happy."

Dean the disgusted

Cindy · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:47 pm

There's a lot more to this than you read in Pacific Flyer and other publications. I know one of the witnesses and have talked with him at length about the incident. There's a lot of people who thought he was wrong for stepping up and telling the FAA what he saw. However, he is a safety advisor for various airshows and could loose his license if he didn't report what he saw.

I wasn't there, and didn't see what happened. But, I trust my friend and know that he was friends with both pilots before this incident. He wouldn't have said there was a problem if he didn't truly believe that they were in violation.

Cindy

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:56 pm

So FAA airshow monitor first says they did nothing wrong then changes his story and says his back was turned during the alleged low pass over the spectator area

A fine job of air show safety monitoring

My oh my how convienent

Wheels up · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:02 pm

From the linked PF above....

Quote:

There s something everyone should keep in mind, a former military pilot who now flies airshows but asked not to be identified told us, the FAA has one mission: regulating aviation, not promoting it. Filing such a serious complaint against two fellow performers that their ATPs are in jeopardy is unheard of and I d doubt that many airshow acts are going to want to fly the Gillespie show again with that threat hanging over their heads.

Well let's not overlook the fact that 33% of the complainers is a fellow airshow performer. Perhaps not warbird but a participant none the less.

Quote:

Moreover, they said they instead believed the three complainants against Grondzik and Morrison AG1 s Airshow Chairman Steve Real, the airshow boss, Michael T. Setnan, and airshow pilot John Collver.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

vg-photo · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:19 pm

Wheels up wrote:

From the linked PF above....

Well let's not overlook the fact that 33% of the complainers is a fellow airshow performer. Perhaps not warbird but a participant none the less.

John Collver is indeed a warbird performer. He performs in his T-6 "Wardog". I wasn't at the show, so I can't pass judgement. I do know that there were some folks that questioned how close the Skyraider was as the Chino show this year. I personally did not witness any encroachment, but I was further down the line than where the alleged close pass came during Chino.

I have met both Skyraider Bob and John Collver. They are both good guys that put on great shows. Did Bob get too close? I don't know. 3 people say he did, 32 people say he did not.

Jack Cook · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:13 pm

Quote:

3 people say he did, 32 people say he did not.

and the FAA safety guru had his backed turned eating a corndog :roll:

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:27 pm

I wonder if there is photo or video evidence of this? Did they really fly over the crowd? Remember that is usually allowed if above 1000 feet, however I don't think it is a good practice. Another way one can slip up is the new reg a year ago that extends the show line an extra 300 or 500 feet at each end, even if not marked. I was not at the show, just saw the Pacific Flyer story.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11330

I can't imagine that there was anyone taking photos at an airshow... :wink:

Too bad the burden of proof is not on the government to provide compelling evidence. Imagine if this was a civil case. This just turns into a he said/she said argument- 32:3 in favor of acquittal. The "trained observer" is on the side of the police, as always.

I was on the crowd line at the intersection of the two runways at Chino and didn't notice the Skyraider being appreciably lower or closer than any of the other aircraft.

For the purposes of discussion however, if the infraction did occur and was inadvertant, is license suspension warranted? This was also a flight of two. Was the wingman as responsible for the alleged infraction as was the lead pilot?

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

Lack of photos? Sure could be. I know of a recent crash at a major event where there were very few photos taken. I can only think of 1 photographer that go some immediately after the impact and some that were from a great distance. There were quite a few that were taken of the wreckage. So no photos of the planes crossing the deadline is no big deal.

I can say from what I read in the PACFLYER, WELCOME TO DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT. That is how they operate. The FAA is there to regulate aviation, not promote it (someone said that above and its quite correct). I can also say that based on some local incidents that on occasion there may well be personal axes to grind (I hear that had something to do with Mr. Hoover many years ago).

I can say that the pilots involved had better be ready to pony up some serious money to pay the lawyers. In the event they win and it is shown they didn't violate anything, then the WITNESSES better be ready for the civil suit when the pilots try to get their damages (attorney fees, lost income, expenses, etc) back. Not a pretty sight and I've been in the middle of it many times.

The best to all parties concerned.

Mark H

Bill Greenwood · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:03 pm

These pilots must be smart enough to contact an aviation attorney; thus they will be able to see what evidence or if no evidence, then at least what testimony of any violation there is. But the problem is there is no jury trial, certainly not one of his peers. In the end the FAA alone makes the ruling. It might be fair based on some good evidence from a safety officer; or it may be the kind of personal and political trumped up charges as they did to Bob Hoover. If there was an inadvertent cut of the deadline, and pilots are not perfect, and they get a local FAA official who is reasonable, perhaps they can negotiate a fair settlement, a warning or minimum suspension or reeducation.
As for the FAA regulating, not promoting aviation; that is now true. That change was made a few years ago, I believe under Bush's first term, after decades of having the FAA aid aviation.

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:14 pm

Careful, Bill, wouldn't want you to inadvertantly cross the deadline .

Hal B · **Posted:** Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:49 pm

bdk wrote:

Too bad the burden of proof is not on the government to provide compelling evidence. Imagine if this was a civil case. This just turns into a he said/she said argument- 32:3 in favor of acquittal. The "trained observer" is on the side of the police, as always.

Just another case of your tax dollars at work, as always

Warbird Information Exchange

Skyraiders vs The FAA

Who is online