Chuck Yeager article in Flight Journal(wow)

[bdk]

Apperently Yeager thinks differently.

I remember some Yeager quotes from long ago (1986). Chuck Yeager didn't seem to think that the Dick Rutan/Jeana Yeager Voyager 'round the world flight was much of an accomplishment. That was at a time when he was getting press for setting city to city records across the US in a Piper Chyenne.

I also had a college engineering professor who worked with Yeager at Muroc and didn't think highly of him either. His stories (told to me in the early-1980s) seem to closely jibe with these recent stories of Yeager's high opinion of himself.

I think we had a thread on this before, but when does a hero stop becoming a hero? Once a hero always a hero? I suppose some still consider OJ a hero because he won a trophy for football. Many do not because of his subsequent activities.

My personal opinion is that Bob Hoover has done more to promote aviation than Chuck Yeager ever did. I'm sure that Hoover could have taken that historic ride as well or better than Yeager did. Yeager was in the right place at the right time and was just good enough, and some dispute (with credible evidence) that he even deserved the honors bestowed upon him.

[Nathan]

Leave him alone? ... gladly, it seems more approprate to say he should leave us alone. We know what he did and what he didn't. It's old news. Tell CY to try to shut up and be grateful we have many more P-51's flying today than ever before, and more to come. Someone ask him what we should do with all the surviving P-51's today. Put then up on poles and place a plaque under them that reads ... "Here is the airplane that CY famously flew, and oh by the way, it was also flown during WW2"

As I stated before CY comments in the mag would give the reader the wrong impression on the warbird community. Thats why I am upset about it. I don't hate CY.....but I am coming to terms that CY isn't always right in what he says or does in is life. Seeing that he is a fighter pilot/test pilot would think he would have more respect for this type of thing.

[tom d. friedman]

pilots prang planes, crash planes, from the wrights, to doolittle to earhart to yeager to crossfield & fossett......... on & on. it happens, & will continue to do so. i think yeager needs a double slice of humble pie. nobody is omnipotent!!

[spookythecat]

With Dick James, if there was a mechanical problem, Dick should have been able to make a radio call, since he did not make a call, he might have had a medical issue, in that case, there was nothing lead could have done, Dick may have been dead before the plane hit the ground.

That is a quick idea, I am sure Vlado or someone else can say it better than I can.

I thought Dick James had a heart attack which led to the accident. I can't recall where I heard that. Maybe it was just a rumor.

[Bill Greenwood]

Any post or comments as to the cause of Dick James accident would probably be only guesswork. I don't believe there was enough to the plane left to rule mechanical failure in or out, nor was any info gained of a medical nature from an autopsy, IF I have my facts right.

Just from a statistical standpoint, incapacitation from medical causes of the pilot while flying is pretty rare. It is something like 1 % of all fatal accidents and 60 % of those are alcohol related, leaving only a few that are just out and out medical emergencies.

[mustanglover]

Any post or comments as to the cause of Dick James accident would probably be only guesswork. I don't believe there was enough to the plane left to rule mechanical failure in or out, nor was any info gained of a medical nature from an autopsy, IF I have my facts right.

Just from a statistical standpoint, incapacitation from medical causes of the pilot while flying is pretty rare. It is something like 1 % of all fatal accidents and 60 % of those are alcohol related, leaving only a few that are just out and out medical emergencies.

Actually, accidents related to "pilot incapacitation for unknown reasons" are generally due to some type of medical event or condition that the NTSB were unable to determine due to the lack of suitable material for an autopsy.

In other words if you did a query of this type of accident, it would be way more than 1% of all accidents in the NTSB database.

[Matt Gunsch]

Any post or comments as to the cause of Dick James accident would probably be only guesswork. I don't believe there was enough to the plane left to rule mechanical failure in or out, nor was any info gained of a medical nature from an autopsy, IF I have my facts right.

Just from a statistical standpoint, incapacitation from medical causes of the pilot while flying is pretty rare. It is something like 1 % of all fatal accidents and 60 % of those are alcohol related, leaving only a few that are just out and out medical emergencies.

Actually, accidents related to "pilot incapacitation for unknown reasons" are generally due to some type of medical event or condition that the NTSB were unable to determine due to the lack of suitable material for an autopsy.

In other words if you did a query of this type of accident, it would be way more than 1% of all accidents in the NTSB database.

I know of several unexplained accidents that could be pilot incapacitation, but the NTSB has the catch all phrase, PILOT ERROR. Dick James had been flying a 51 for a number of years, and if there had been a mechanical, he would have said something on the radio, as when you are in formation, it is useful to have your wingman handle the radio and let the pilot of the plane in trouble concentrate on flying the plane.

Bill wrote;

"Any post or comments as to the cause of Dick James accident would probably be only guesswork. I don't believe there was enough to the plane left to rule mechanical failure in or out, nor was any info gained of a medical nature from an autopsy, IF I have my facts right."

My wife is a deputy coroner in Wisconsin and Dick was a friend of ours. At a Coroner's convention she asked the Coroner who responded to the call he said "There was a report of him slumping forward and the plane starting to increase speed at a nose down angle. the entire plane ended up in a hole 65' x 20' there was nothing to autopsy."

Steve

[mustanglover]

I know of several unexplained accidents that could be pilot incapacitation, but the NTSB has the catch all phrase, PILOT ERROR. Dick James had been flying a 51 for a number of years, and if there had been a mechanical, he would have said something on the radio, as when you are in formation, it is useful to have your wingman handle the radio and let the pilot of the plane in trouble concentrate on flying the plane.

Actually that is incorrect. The NTSB does not use the catch all phrase "Pilot Error" for all unexplained accidents.

I work accidents with the NTSB as a company accident investigator and many un-explained accidents have been attributed to "pilot incapacitation for un-explained reasons".

[mustanglover]

Bill wrote;

"Any post or comments as to the cause of Dick James accident would probably be only guesswork. I don't believe there was enough to the plane left to rule mechanical failure in or out, nor was any info gained of a medical nature from an autopsy, IF I have my facts right."

My wife is a deputy coroner in Wisconsin and Dick was a friend of ours. At a Coroner's convention she asked the Coroner who responded to the call he said "There was a report of him slumping forward and the plane starting to increase speed at a nose down angle. the entire plane ended up in a hole 65' x 20' there was nothing to autopsy."

Steve

And that would typically have been classified as a "pilot incapatation for unknown reasons".

[Tim Savage]

Tim, I think it's great that warbird safety is being discussed among warbird operators. I respectfully reject your suggestion that it should not also be discussed in this forum, in magazine editorials, or elsewhere.

Many people believe that vintage military aircraft reflect part of our shared heritage; many people donate of their time and money to keep some of them flying. So there are a lot of valid stakeholders in warbird safety other than the guys holding the stick. There is a lot to be learned by those willing to learn. If you do not want to condescend to participate in such discussions in a forum such as this, fine. But I hope other experienced operators will continue to do so.

August

Hi August:

I think that safety as a whole and as theory should be discussed in every media possible.

I believe, however, that when it involves discussing specific incidents where 'real' people and situations are involved it should be done in a forum that allows for proper discussion, not rumors and speculation by posters on an internet forum, regardless of who they are. This is certainly the model the armed forces follow, and it seems to help to promote a safer environment. In a forum of peers the harsh truth can be discussed, parsed and recommendatiosn made.

We have certainly seen that enough of the speculation over the years on this forum alone.

[Bill Greenwood]

Steve, he was a friend of mine also, I was talking and joking with Dick on the porch of the warbird briefing room just before he went to takeoff that day. He seemed normal to me, his usual energetic self. Of course, I had no suspicion and wasn't looking for any physical problem.

As for any report that he was seen to slump down, before the crash: how do you know that? Who made that report and what was his viewing place? As I recall the 51 flight was holding on the SE side of the lake, over open ground, and Dick was last in the Daisy chain line. So who could see in his cockpit, especially if they were maneuvering? I may certainly be wrong, but the idea of him having a medical problem seems like it may be a plausible explanation made up after the accident to make the facts fit the situation; rather than known and provable fact. As I recall the flight lead did not even know that Dick had a problem until he just went missing?

Mustanglover; while I can't find the my copy of the Nall report from AOPA right now; I am certain enough that I'd bet money on what I wrote, i e that ALL MEDICAL CAUSES are only about 1 or 2 percent of TOTAL FATAL ACCIDENTS. Of these, about 60 % are alcohol related, so only about 4/10 of one percent of fatals are pure medical incapacitation out of the blue. We are sort of confusing the wording, in Dick's case since there is no KNOW or provable medical cause, then we don't know if there was any incapacitation at all. While it could have happened, but just from probability numbers, loss of control while maneuvering at low altitude is a more likely cause. A stall at low alt could result in an nose down impact also.

I don't remember seeing the final NTSB report, can someone post it here?

[Randy Haskin]

I just had a chance to read the article in question, and I agree with the general consensus that it's a pretty poor "safety article".

Tim all ready mentioned that there's a pretty robust safety culture among the USAF flying community. It's a regular thing for us to write articles for the safety magazine when we have an experience that we think others can learn from. Every quarter when that magazine comes out, it's very interesting to read peoples' "there I was" stories about something that happened -- there are always interesting learning points for the rest of us.

Reading Yeager's article, I got the feeling that he was trying to recapture a little of that safety article spirit, but with absolutely horrible execution. I definitely get the feeling that some of the finger-pointing is actually axe-grinding, rather than in the interest of actually saving warbirds.

most of the USAF accident reports were classified for that very reason. They are discussed and dissected at the unit level, but they aren't printed all over the place for everyone to see. I think you would agree that the safety culture is pretty high at the USAF.

Just a quick clarification on the USAF safety process: When there is an accident/incident, there are two parallel investigations that write reports. There is an "accident investigation" which is concerned with seeing if someone broke the rules, and there is a "safety investigation" that is concerned with finding out what happened and if there are any lessons that can be learned from it.

The accident investigation is a "black hat" legal type of affair -- this is where pilots have lawyers and what they say can be used against them. The results of the accident investigation ARE released publicly.

The safety investigation, on the other hand, is non-attributable. In other words, aircrew members can speak freely to the safety team and their words can't be used against them. Pilots can't be prosecuted for information uncovered during the safety investigation. The safety report is for internal USAF use only and not releasable to the public (so, not 'classified' technically, but in effect they are for anyone outside the flying community).

The two teams do not share information, which allows the safety investigation to get to the real root cause of an incident without the hindrance of pilots trying to cover their butts and make their story match what happened.

As Tim said, these safety reports are discussed openly among aviators at safety meetings in a no-holds barred fashion...but the only ones invited are other aviators who will benefit directly from the information. I feel it is a very effective means of ensuring the lessons of the mistakes of others are learned by the masses.

Last edited by Randy Haskin on Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

[A2C]

He's just speaking his mind. I respect the fact he can do that in a P.C. world.

[EDowning]

As per Tim Savage's post, I have witnessed a pleasing increase in the desire to have an improvement in the warbird safety record through out the community. As we have discussed here in other threads it is very difficult to have a robust, effective safety program with such a decentralized, diverse ownership group. The most important thing is that the safety effort continues.

As far as Chuck Yeager goes, I have great respect for his historic aviation accomplishments, and I give little regard to his opinions about warbird safety. He probably doesn't have any deeper understanding of the situation than any other warbird enthusiast.