Pilot Who Crashed L-29 Delfin In California Was Not Checked
Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:12 am
Pilot Who Crashed L-29 Delfin In California Was Not Checked Out To Fly It
Instructor and ATP Who Signed His Logbook Has Been Stripped Of All Flying Priveleges
The FAA has issued an Emergency Order of Revocation against Douglas Gilliss for falsifying the logbook of David Zweigle, saying he had personally checked Zweigle's ability to fly the L-29 Delfin which crashed July 4th 2009, killing Zweigle and his passenger, retired Air Force Test Pilot and airline pilot Robert Chamberlain of Morrison, Colorado. The order further states that Gilliss operated his aircraft in an unsafe manner by overflying a densely populated area below 1,000 feet, and carrying a passenger not required for the operation of the aircraft. All are serious FAR violations.
The FAA immediately revoked Gilliss' ATP, Ground Instructor, and "all other airman certificates you may hold", ordering him to surrender them to the FAA immediately or face an $1,100 per day fine. He is also denied from re-applying for any airman certificate for one year.
Gilliss and Zweigle had been participating in a July 4th flyover in Tehachapi, California as part of a three-aircraft formation of Aero Vodochody L-29 Delfins, a Soviet era trainer. The aircraft owned and flown by Zweigle fell out of the formation, passing over a park and several houses before impacting the ground, killing both aboard. Gilliss had signed Zweigle's logbook saying he had checked him (Zweigle) out in the Delfin, but an investigation found that the checkride had not occurred. The FAA also cited the conditions of the flyover. FAR's prohibit flight below 1,000 feet over a congested area except for the purpose of takeoff or landing, and the order says Gilliss made two passes below that altitude. Since the L-29 was classified as an experimental aircraft, carrying passengers is prohibited during any demonstration of the aircraft's "flight capability, performance, or unusual characteristics" unless the passenger is essential for the purpose of the flight. The FAA said Gilliss violated both of those FAR's. The LA Times reports that Gilliss is a former Air Force Captain and Vietnam veteran who has been flying for decades.
In the emergency order, the FAA stated "You failed to exercise the degree of care, judgement, and responsibility required of the holder of any airman certificate, and you have demonstrated that you presently lack the qualifications required of the holder of any airman certificate.
Based on the forgoing circumstances, the Administrator has determined that safety in the air commerce or air transportation and the public interest require the revocation of your Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Ground Instructors Certificate, and all other airman certificates you may hold.
Furthermore, the Administrator finds that an emergency requiring immediate action exists; accordingly this order is effective immediately. Gilliss, who flies with the Thunder Delfins, a group of L-29 enthusiasts, told the LA Times he would appeal the decision. He said the flyovers were conducted at an altitude of 1,200-1,500 AGL, above the 1,000 foot floor. He also said the planes did not represent a danger to the public, as they followed nearby railroad tracks and did not fly directly over the city of about 35,000.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont ... 4a7f4f30a&
Instructor and ATP Who Signed His Logbook Has Been Stripped Of All Flying Priveleges
The FAA has issued an Emergency Order of Revocation against Douglas Gilliss for falsifying the logbook of David Zweigle, saying he had personally checked Zweigle's ability to fly the L-29 Delfin which crashed July 4th 2009, killing Zweigle and his passenger, retired Air Force Test Pilot and airline pilot Robert Chamberlain of Morrison, Colorado. The order further states that Gilliss operated his aircraft in an unsafe manner by overflying a densely populated area below 1,000 feet, and carrying a passenger not required for the operation of the aircraft. All are serious FAR violations.
The FAA immediately revoked Gilliss' ATP, Ground Instructor, and "all other airman certificates you may hold", ordering him to surrender them to the FAA immediately or face an $1,100 per day fine. He is also denied from re-applying for any airman certificate for one year.
Gilliss and Zweigle had been participating in a July 4th flyover in Tehachapi, California as part of a three-aircraft formation of Aero Vodochody L-29 Delfins, a Soviet era trainer. The aircraft owned and flown by Zweigle fell out of the formation, passing over a park and several houses before impacting the ground, killing both aboard. Gilliss had signed Zweigle's logbook saying he had checked him (Zweigle) out in the Delfin, but an investigation found that the checkride had not occurred. The FAA also cited the conditions of the flyover. FAR's prohibit flight below 1,000 feet over a congested area except for the purpose of takeoff or landing, and the order says Gilliss made two passes below that altitude. Since the L-29 was classified as an experimental aircraft, carrying passengers is prohibited during any demonstration of the aircraft's "flight capability, performance, or unusual characteristics" unless the passenger is essential for the purpose of the flight. The FAA said Gilliss violated both of those FAR's. The LA Times reports that Gilliss is a former Air Force Captain and Vietnam veteran who has been flying for decades.
In the emergency order, the FAA stated "You failed to exercise the degree of care, judgement, and responsibility required of the holder of any airman certificate, and you have demonstrated that you presently lack the qualifications required of the holder of any airman certificate.
Based on the forgoing circumstances, the Administrator has determined that safety in the air commerce or air transportation and the public interest require the revocation of your Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Ground Instructors Certificate, and all other airman certificates you may hold.
Furthermore, the Administrator finds that an emergency requiring immediate action exists; accordingly this order is effective immediately. Gilliss, who flies with the Thunder Delfins, a group of L-29 enthusiasts, told the LA Times he would appeal the decision. He said the flyovers were conducted at an altitude of 1,200-1,500 AGL, above the 1,000 foot floor. He also said the planes did not represent a danger to the public, as they followed nearby railroad tracks and did not fly directly over the city of about 35,000.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Cont ... 4a7f4f30a&
Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:39 am
Watching the 'Thunder Delphins' at an airshow a couple of years ago was one of the few occasions that I thought I was about to witness an accident. 
Re: Pilot Who Crashed L-29 Delfin In California Was Not Chec
Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:47 am
Silverplate wrote:Since the L-29 was classified as an experimental aircraft, carrying passengers is prohibited during any demonstration of the aircraft's "flight capability, performance, or unusual characteristics" unless the passenger is essential for the purpose of the flight.
Flying in formation at 1,000 feet is a 'demonstration' of that stuff?
Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:49 am
I think he gets away easy!
Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:04 pm
Mike wrote:Watching the 'Thunder Delphins' at an airshow a couple of years ago was one of the few occasions that I thought I was about to witness an accident.
That is no joke. I saw them at Shafter a couple of years ago and they were SKETCHY.
Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:16 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLXSIyQ3zDk
So are these guys the one's we're talking about? Does anyone have a link to what kind of maneuvers would be considered "sketchy?"
Ryan
So are these guys the one's we're talking about? Does anyone have a link to what kind of maneuvers would be considered "sketchy?"
Ryan
Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:26 pm
I wonder if the investigation was accurate? How can they verify he really didn't check the guy out? This could have been a "CYA" on their part. With the corruption going on in the government these days, it makes me doubt the accuracy of their claims. For every "crack-down" they do, they make the rules more strict. (In this case emphasizing that the crew-member was not supposed to be on the "demo flight").
So maybe we can get the AOPA to get the feds to relax that standard in order to keep more bureaucracy out.
So maybe we can get the AOPA to get the feds to relax that standard in order to keep more bureaucracy out.
Last edited by A2C on Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:04 pm
Actually, it's been pretty standard for years that you can't have non-essential crewmembers on board during an airshow. I learned that years ago when I was a kid and was asking an Avenger pilot for a ride at an airshow. He was VERY nice about it, but told me in no uncertain terms that the FAA would not allow any thing of the sort.
Ryan
Ryan
Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:06 pm
Actually, it's been pretty standard for years that you can't have non-essential crewmembers on board during an airshow. I learned that years ago when I was a kid and was asking an Avenger pilot for a ride at an airshow. He was VERY nice about it, but told me in no uncertain terms that the FAA would not allow any thing of the sort.
Maybe it's time to change the rule. This is our country, let's take it back.
Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:16 pm
A2C wrote:Maybe it's time to change the rule.
Not yet. There are a number of FAA laws that make a LOT of sense - and are there because somebody didn't use theirs! This is one of them IMO.
Ryan
Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:25 pm
A2C,
Again you open your mouth without any concept of the facts and you sound like a fool (again).
This accident has drawn a lot of attention from the FAA. Only two weeks ago I was in a meeting in regards to an airshow waiver with the FAA (a high up one) and this accident was cited (by the FAA) as an example to me. The FAA is well aware of what happened there (it is pretty common knowledge).
As far as non-essential crewmembers on board during an airshow, I'm not sure if this event was waivered or not however the FAA will have the facts and any speculation on a gossip forum from people with no knowledge of what happened is pointless.
Again you open your mouth without any concept of the facts and you sound like a fool (again).
This accident has drawn a lot of attention from the FAA. Only two weeks ago I was in a meeting in regards to an airshow waiver with the FAA (a high up one) and this accident was cited (by the FAA) as an example to me. The FAA is well aware of what happened there (it is pretty common knowledge).
As far as non-essential crewmembers on board during an airshow, I'm not sure if this event was waivered or not however the FAA will have the facts and any speculation on a gossip forum from people with no knowledge of what happened is pointless.
Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:35 pm
A2C,
Again you open your mouth without any concept of the facts and you sound like a fool (again).
This accident has drawn a lot of attention from the FAA. Only two weeks ago I was in a meeting in regards to an airshow waiver with the FAA (a high up one) and this accident was cited (by the FAA) as an example to me. The FAA is well aware of what happened there (it is pretty common knowledge).
No foolin'?:D I forgot, we can't open our mouths, not for a question. That would imply that we actually think. Naw, we can't do that. Aren't the facts in the report, or are they missing from the report? We can't ask that. Naw, they said it so they must be right.
Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:03 pm
Not yet. There are a number of FAA laws that make a LOT of sense - and are there because somebody didn't use theirs! This is one of them IMO.
So you're implying, that not being allowed to have a crewmember is a good idea, so then they should ban all rides. It's not a good rule in my opinion.
Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:13 pm
A2C wrote:Not yet. There are a number of FAA laws that make a LOT of sense - and are there because somebody didn't use theirs! This is one of them IMO.
So you're implying, that not being allowed to have a crewmember is a good idea, so then they should ban all rides. It's not a good rule in my opinion.
Wrong again. Required crewmembers - like Flight Engineers, required co-pilots, etc... are OK, but not students or passengers. The point is that you don't need the extra distraction in front of the crowd, and because of the increased danger in the airshow envelope and the need to be considerate of increased concentrations of people on the ground I think it's a decent rule!
I view it the same as the rules of right-of-way. They should be common sense, but because some people don't have any, it becomes law. If our society was better self-regulated, we wouldn't really need the laws. I get so annoyed when going to stores and such and people don't know that you're supposed to go to the right if you are on a head-on course or pass to the right if overtaking. I was taught that stuff by my parents as a child long before I became a pilot, but I think that the schools and parents of this generation would generally go "huh?" if that kind of thing was brought to their attention! I guess some might recognize it from their driving tests...
The no passengers rule during airshows is similar IMO.
Ryan
Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:23 pm
Wrong again. Required crewmembers - like Flight Engineers, required co-pilots, etc... are OK, but not students or passengers. The point is that you don't need the extra distraction in front of the crowd, and because of the increased danger in the airshow envelope and the need to be considerate of increased concentrations of people on the ground I think it's a decent rule!
Disagree, the pilot is in command so it should be at his discretion.