Warbird Information Exchange

The Topic of accidents and pilots was raised on another site,(Atttrition) and it got so full so I'd like to open here.
First, I have not done a study, don't have the figures for CAF. My Impression is our accidents are likely in line with other warbirds. Some of them have been large multi engine planes so there were more fatalites.
I don't see any one major cause or reoccurring factor in all the accidents that would be easy to cure.
Someone, perhaps Ed, brought up professonal pilots. He might mean expert, but in reality this means someone who is paid to fly a plane he usually does not have a financial stake in. Also someone can have 5000 hours of Learjet or Kingair time, yet that may barely translate to a P-40 or B-17. I know that if I was a sponsor, I would not be interested in paying for that situation.
Next, whatever caused these accidents, my guess is it was not really lack of pilot skill or maybe even proficiency. Skill/experience are two safety factors, but judgment and a general concern for minimizing risk are also important. As I understand it, one accident was fuel exhaustion on a long cross country. They didn't need to be more skilled in running out of gas, rather someone in the crew needed to say guys, we are down to our 1 hour min reserve and we are stopping for fuel, not trying to stretch it for free fuel an hour down the road. Another was stall or proficiency training by an excellent pilot, but it was done with passengers and at too low an altitude.
Not CAF, but another accident happened when a very high time and skilled pilot tried to fly under very low ceilings. He did not need more practice in IMC, he needed to wait for better weather. The accident at Oshkosh happened to a very experienced pilot when no one realized a congested situation was developing.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Bill, you picked a good one to start the new year off.....

Lynn

The CAF has gotten a pretty bad rep over the years for all the accidents.
But, if you factor out things the have no control over like a pilot having a medical issue (A-20) or members who have a accident with their own a/c on their own time. Things may not look has bad overall for them.
On a whole, IHMO, if you compare the 'early' years to present day. Restorations are better, maintemence is better, pilots are more qualified and requirements are stiffer with equals more safety and less accidents.
Bill, you've been flying out in the warbird world for quite a few years. what's your take on this ???

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

As I see it there have been 3 major factors into most of the CAF accidents -

1) Mechanical failure (whether due to maintenance or just plain part failure)
2) Poor decision making (doing proficiency with passengers, flying with minimum fuel, flying with too few crew members, etc)
3) Pilot Proficiency (basic pilotage issues)

The third hasn't been a leading cause, but it has been a factor in several of the most recent accidents. In those cases, the mistakes made because of proficiency issues may not have avoided a forced landing, but they could have resulted in a different result, possibly taking a full-on accident into a major incident with the airplane being repairable, so they have to be considered in the overall picture. As well, I think #2 and #3 go hand-in hand. A pilot who hasn't been flying regularly isn't proficient in the decision-making process while flying an airplane and thus may not make good decisions because of it. By flying, they're forced to exercise those processes and thus may be able to better function when an emergency does occur.

Not being a Professional pilot- but someone that makes his living in another world and has been fortunate enough to be more than casually involved with warbirds over the last several years- I agree that I think the CAF gets a bad rap, however it does seem from the outside looking in that there are more CAF than non CAF accidents.

I wonder if this has simply to do with the quanity of CAF airplanes flying compared to those of other organisations. IF the CAF overall has more flying aircraft on its roster than any other organiziation I would guess that the chances are good that they would have more accidents. Working as a marshaller at several large events I have seen really top notch CAF and Non CAF pilots in about the same proportion as the not so good (ability OR attitude) pilots

I am curious to find out how the process works at the wing and squadron level to determine who gets to fly the aircraft. From my experience with individual museums I have worked at there is a pretty rigid process that takes into account both the character (not meaning to throw stones at anyone individiually here) as well as the skill set of the pilots. IE - is the pilot a team player or a lone wolf and does EGO or reason play in to account when making a descision. Specifically I think this speaks to the issue of deciding when to take a chance and when to land.

On the cause front - from my expericne on both the ramp at airshows and on large constructions sites where I make my living, I keep coming back to what has become almost a cliche, but I think is very accurate- no accident is ever the result of a single event. There is alway a long chain of events that lead up to them. In 90% of the accidents that I am aware of over the last several years the final link in the chain was usually a pilot descisoin of some sort, regardless of wheter the pilot was at fault inititially.
TO say that training is the answer seems to be the obvious and simple solution, but all the traininig in the world will do no good if when faced with making a descision the individual is unwiling or unable to conisder the bigger picture implication of there actions.

I agree that there is a better sense of quality and oversight to the community than there was 20 15 or even 10 years ago. I guess as the amount of the investment rises people are less likley to take foolish risks, paritcularly if they have personally made the financial outlay. I wonder how the past several season compare to say several years in the mid 60's in terms accidents. Are we simply more aware of the accidents today in this internet and litigious based society and therefore make a bigger deal of them, or have they truly increased over the last several years as some would have us believe. I am saying this not with any any preconceived notion-
I really do wonder which direction we are currently heading and think that would be good to know before I go any further trying to figure this thread out.

Steve S.

Herein lies the challenge when dealing with numbers used to portray any situation. I'm fairly ignorant about the actual topic at hand & won't speak to that, but will say that to gain a realistic comparison as to whether or not the CAF has a higher accident rate, you need to compare apples to apples.

One of the more commonly accepted comparisons in the aviation safety world is accidents per flying hour (or hundreds, thousands, or even millions of flying hours). This takes away the fact that the CAF has more airplanes & levels the statistical playing field.

Analyzing how or why an accident occurs is absolutely one of the most important things to do after the fact & only then can you gain a clearer picture of how to prevent future accidents. But to state something like (and I'm making this up), 'the CAF has more pilot-error accidents than any other warbird operator out there' is, in all actuality, irrelevant. A better way to phrase that would be per flying hour - so to say something like, 'the CAF has 1.4 pilot-error accidents per thousand flying hours when the rest of the warbird community has 1.2 per thousand flying hours' is giving you a truer picture.

Only then can a true comparative analysis take place.

OK - back to you guys that know what they're talking about!

_________________
Daddy always said, "If yer gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough" and I'm one tough sonofagun!

I seem to have left an opening for a slant I did not intend to emphasize. I don't know if CAF has a bad rep or is better or worse in accident rate. The warbird world is small enough and cohesive enough that any loss whether it is an L-#9 at Reno, a CAF PBY, or a Hurricane in UK, with people and airplanes lost, is a lost to all of us.
I am trying to analyze accidents, especially CAF since may be more familiar with them, and that was the topic.
To me, it is mostly NOT a simple case of unqualified pilots or lack of training.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

For the CAF some of the problems look like poor maintenance, for example, look at FIFI, if the corrosion was that bad, why did it take so long to find and fix?

Not to pick at the CAF, it's just easiest to use them as an example, because they have so many planes around. I'm sure there are a million factors to every accident.

Nobody's immune.
I recall "Briefing Time" getting clobbered a few years ago
EAA B-17, CF's B-17, F4U-5 there's enough stats for everyone

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

This is a tough one guys. I've lost more than a few friends the past few years due to accidents. Unfortunately, all could be both directly and indirectly attributed to pilot error. Indirectly might mean unfamiliarty with aircraft systems or improper crew coodination or just plain poor judgement. This does not however, let the mechanics off the hook. Less than stellar maintenance procedures can be one of the links in the proverbial chain of events and it may take considerable time to manifest itself. Pilot proficiency is certainly one cause particularly in fighter type aircraft since there are no other crew in the cockpit to discuss potentail problems and coordinate with. Cost to operate these planes has made it very difficult to get adequate hours in the type and there certainly no sims around to help out. We are also in a situation where we are replacing worn parts with NOS parts or others that might be servicable but far from new with regards to tolerances and such. Plus, they are all over sixty years old. I'm sure I'll catch some flack with this one but here it goes. Most of the pilots flying these aircraft are now well over sixty years old and many into their seventies. I know that you don't suddenly forget how to fly just because you hit a certain age but it is a proven fact that as you age particularly past sixty, your ability to reason and react diminish. Before you jump on me about this, I played professional baseball for seven years before I did the A&P thing. I had no problem hitting off a pitcher throwing a ball 90 MPH. I would be foolish to try it at fifty now since not only could I not hit the ball, but I don't believe I could get out of the way of a pitch if it was thrown at me. I was at the pinnacle of my profession but no longer would try it now. I think the same applies for anyone who uses skill, judgement and reaction time as part of their livelyhood. There comes a time when you need to step away. I'm not saying that there should be an age set in stone either since everyone is different and I applaud the FAA for raising the mandatory retirement age but you need to recognize what you can and can't do as a pilot. Same goes for mechanics. If you were a mechanic in 1950, that doesn't mean that you are still as good today as you were then. You may have a ton of experience and wisdom, but it may be time to share and teach others what you have learned. I used to work with a seventy two year old guy who was a genius as far as I was concerned and he taught me a great deal. But the thing I was most impressed with is that he always asked me to follow up on his work just to make sure he did what he said he did and everything was safetied and cotter pinned. He used to tell me that his memory and eyesight weren't as sharp as they once were and that was no excuse to put a plane onto a smoking hole. I've never forgotten that and I alwys have someone follow my work just to be sure. I think if everyone involved in the warbird community commits themselves to doing the absolute best of their abilities, whether you are mechanic who refuses to compromise his work just to get to an airshow or a pilot who flies a much tamer routine at a little higher altitude, then I think that's really all we can ask for. I know all of you WIXers out there agree with me on one point though, I'm really sick and tired of reading about someone dying in a warbird crash. Let's have a safe 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________
The more I learn about aircraft, the more I realize I still have to learn.

On some model airplanes pilot proffecency can be a problem. An aircraft that FG1 pilot and I are familiar with is the Fi-156 Storch. Not a lot of em out there to get familiar with. The cost and maintenance of monthly proffecency for multiable pilots makes it real hard to stay current. As there is no other aircraft to substitute for type (unless you have a spare L-1 ) what do you do. One thing we always did was only fly it in the most favorable of conditions. It will not tolerate a cross wind so we would leave it in the hangar if winds were ever over 12mph. Simple things like this can make flying old types a little bit safer. I think ol Bob is getting a handle on some of the safety issues at the CAF and we should be getting better daily.

In general maintenance is Not a major cause of accidents. Most warbird pilots care a lot for their planes, especially a rare or expensive one, and guys like Gary or Nelson or Ray take pride in their work. A top line one like an Oshkosh winner is going to seem better than an average CAF plane, but remember a lot of that is fancy paint and avionics. Just like cars, you can buy the latest Porsche and it drives great, but you can also get the 10 year old Chevy and still make the trip safely. Do to high performance engines, older, rarer systems warbird accidents due to maintainance may be a LIttle higher then gen av.
The other factor that I think does NOT account for many accidents is medical factors. AOPA keeps statistics on gen av accidents and medical factors are less than one %, and most of that is alcohol related, not really a health emergency. Now warbird pilots are getting older, but I still don't see that as a major cause. More on this later.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

Hey Bill,
I think maybe you are a little older than when you first checked out in your Spitfire. Maybe your eyesight isn't as good. I will gladly volunteer my services as a "safety pilot". and go along in the back seat!

I hope no one thought that I was implying that age is a major factor in warbird or any other type of accident. The best pilot I've ever flown with is sixty five right now and I fly with him quite a bit. I think my point was that if people fail to cope with the fact that they are getting older and don't make some consessions to that fact, then the odds increase. I think everything goes back to the chain of events thing. Maintenance, pilot proficiency and skill, weather conditions etc.etc. If too many of these are allowed to come together, then something bad is more likely to happen. Lefty Gardner put on one of the best P-38 displays I've ever seen. Bob Hoover, 'nuf said. There are exceptions to every rule but not everyone is part of the exceptional group. It's up to the individual to realize that. Again, I just ask that everyone fly smart, stay safe and have a great 2008

_________________
The more I learn about aircraft, the more I realize I still have to learn.

I'm doing my best to sit back and listen to this discussion, so to speak, about the CAF and their accidents. Interesting thread, no doubt. However, when I take jabs from someone about maintenance on the airplanes that I maintain, it's time for me to defend myself, I reckon.

Sure, the B-29 had some substantial corrosion issues, and until every piece of metal is replaced, over time, it will certainly have things pop up during it's life that will need to be addressed. Did it take too long for the CAF to get around to fixing the problems on FIFI? In my opinion, it did. But during 19 months and around 15,000 hours of maintenance, we were able to get those major corrosion issues resolved. The fact is that the old way of doing things has changed, and these sort of maintenance issues ARE being addressed, as Pilotgrl24 knows to be true.

This isn't just a CAF issue, by the way. I know for a fact that there were quite a few old Warbirds out there many years ago that didn't receive the maintenance or attention that they should've. But now, there seems to be a resurgance of folks who want to make things right with their airplanes. Not just within the maintenance world, but in the flying world as well. I can't speak for everyone else...and I certainly am not allowed to speak on behalf of the CAF and their policies, but I can assure you that we're doing what we can to help prevent anymore accidents in the future. Criticism and bad mouthing what's been done in the past isn't going to help the situation. Progressive thinking, good judgement, and doing what's right is the answer. I know that may sound vague, but it's certainly better than slamming folks that are trying to do the right thing.

Gary