C-60 Crash at Airsho

[TimAPNY]

Doug
I hear you on a group of people who have the same love and goals that sometimes can’t come together for some strange reason. I see it all to often in my church and other one around my area. It very hard to get people to work together and sometimes “agree to disagree”. I want to say I love the CAF and for the last 20 years. I worked on aircraft in the Navy and know sometimes things go wrong. I also saw that sometimes things did not have to go wrong. Keep up the battle, things always need improvement and we always need to learn from mistakes. Making the CAF the wiping boy won’t help a thing. I’ve heard it here before and I’ll repeat it. If you don’t like it, get involved and help change it.

Tim

[DougR]

Jeff,

I do not believe we have met, if we have, please refresh my memory. I would be happy to hear what you have to say, and you can call me at my office 641-423-0734,or if you wish, send me your number and I will call you on my nickel. I am hard to catch.

I know we have some "problem children" as does the entire warbird community. Having said that, so do the airlines, the military, and every other aviation endeavor. Have we addressed some of them? Yes. All of them? No. Are we trying to identify those people? Absolutely! Are we doing better? I hope so. Can we do better yet? We have to.

Please bear in mind that I am looking for "constructive critique," and we need to hear recent specific examples of poor judgement or airmanship that the Flight Safety Board can act upon. The "Joe Blow" is an "A--hole and could not fly his way out of a paper bag." or What someone did 10 years ago is of little use to us.

[bdk]

Sometime you'll need to ask Kevin Eldridge about his involvement with a certain POF Corsair over Phoenix back in 1995.

I'm not sure this one applies... That was a highly modified air racer lost during a race. POF held title to the airframe I believe, but was not the builder/rebuilder or operator of the aircraft. Not exactly a museum aircraft lost during an air tour!

With regard to CAF safety issues, I can only tell you about my personal experience. I serve in a local SQDN in a staff position, and am very involved. I can tell you that in my particular unit, we take safety VERY seriously. We actively (and constantly) encourage EVERY member (regardless of experience, confidence or knowledge) to SPEAK UP about ANYTHING that might be a safety issue, and we have committed to taking EVERY SUCH suggestion very seriously. We strive to put the ego away, and really look at the larger good of the organization with regard to each decision we make. We also hold numerous safety briefings and hold open discussion on it at EVERY meeting we hold (formal or informal).

I think it takes this kind of commitment from every unit within the CAF and from every individual CAF member. I believe that is what is happening.

Discussion is important, and yes, we SHOULD be open about anything safety related. We ARE open to that discussion. This sure looks like a discussion to me. So why (Chris) do you think we are hiding something? And I am still waiting for you to actually convey something that contains facts.


((still waiting))


Become part of the solution or you ARE part of the problem...those words are very true. Sitting back and slamming an organization you know little about doesn't seem very productive to me. And, for what it's worth, there IS a difference between asking valid questions about something and just slamming it.

Try honey. It does a great job on those flies, and smells a lot sweeter.

Well said, Doug. I ally myself fully with your comments.

Regards

Jase

[Brad]

Please bear in mind that I am looking for "constructive critique," and we need to hear recent specific examples of poor judgement or airmanship that the Flight Safety Board can act upon. The "Joe Blow" is an "A--hole and could not fly his way out of a paper bag." or What someone did 10 years ago is of little use to us.

Doug,

I know Jeff very well, have flown with him and count him as a friend. I'll also say that he is most likely the kind of person you will be glad to hear from. Unlike alot of people that just want to bad mouth the CAF, I think he will have something constructive to say.

[Chuck Gardner]

Doug,
You gave a great presentation during the Saturday morning briefing. You are quite correct in your statements and we could all use a major attitude adjustment. The survival of the WWII airplanes and the ability to fly them depend on it.

[Gregory]

The loss of life in the C-60 crash is very sad and speculation will not improve the understanding of the events or help families overcome the pain.

With this in mind, and with great appreciation for the CAF statement posted on this board, I would respectfully ask that the discussion consider not just the operational aspects (training, proficiency, maintenance etc) but also the impact of negative safety on the CAF mission.

The two points below are taken from the CAF homepage; I have added the emphasis.

1. To PRESERVE, in flying condition, a complete collection of combat aircraft which were flown by all military services of the United States in World War II.
2. To provide museum buildings for PERMANENT PROTECTION and display of these aircraft as a tribute to the thousands of men and women who built, serviced and flew them.

It seems clear that, quite apart from NTSB findings on any specific accident and/or incident, the current situation will tend to make this goals gradually more difficult to attain. Worse yet, it will affect the more unusual types (He.111, C-60), which attract less interest than the more common P-51 and are more difficult to find, fund and restore.

The CAF leadership is to be applauded for every step it takes to ensure the long term of its large and varied aircraft collection.

Gregory

[Randy Haskin]

The loss of life in the C-60 crash is very sad and speculation will not improve the understanding of the events or help families overcome the pain.

I thought nobody was hurt?

[DougR]

All walked out of the crash. 4 had no injuries and 1 had a small abrasion on his ear which was treated at the scene.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

[DougR]

I did not closely inspect the airplane. There is always salvage, but this airplane is probably not a rebuilder. Even before the fire, there was serious damage, the fire did even more.

[John Beyl]

Col Rohr,

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn answering a question you pointed to Doug. The photo's you saw were of the least damaged side of the A/C. It can clearly be seen that the tail is partially broken free as is the right side engine. Also clear in the photos is the damage to the nose. Both gear legs were torn free free or folded under. I didn't get a chance to go back and look at it Monday morning before we left but Doug told me that the left wing was bent back at about a 30 degree angle outside of the engine nacelle. The left wing and left side of the A/C near the tail section sustained considerable fire damage. The cabin section and cockpit were still 95% intact....Loadstars are tough old birds to say the least.

Since Loadstars are not terribly rare, this airframe would make a good parts source for other projects. In my opinion, I believe the cost of restoring this particular airframe back to airworthy standards would not be feasable at this point.


John
Red Tail CC

Hi Doug, I've been flying warbirds for more than 20 years including T-6/T-28/B-25/TBM and others. I keep saying that it's the "attitude and the attitude" that keeps aircraft flying. eg. weather not suitable - don't fly, aircraft not right - don't fly, pilot not current - don't fly, approach no good - go around, ATC wants this or that and not suitable for safe ops - reject it, and so on. I realise that I'm stating the bleeding obvious, but I see the evidence all the time - leave your egos at home when you go fly a warbird.

Where can pic,s of the wreck be seen?

Re: the accident after the CAF Airsho on Sunday past. As Airsho chairman I was part of the "disaster management team" that we always put together just in case there is an event at the show. This simply meaning I was in the loop from the moment the crash occured. I think that, as Doug Rozendahl has stated, there might be issues with some judgement and/or there might be mechanical issues as well. It is always best to let the NTSB sort everything out. I can assure one and all that there are literally dozens of photos of the event (from take-off roll to the arrival of the fire trucks) so piecing this together will not be that difficult. The important thing is that all five on board are fine.
Re: the airplane. It is pretty much a total loss. The cabin and the cockpit are the least damaged parts of the airframe. I'm sure the Mile High Squadron is already pondering what their next moves will be regarding the airplane.
Bill Coombes