I'm really not quite sure I'm getting what you are driving at bdk? If you feel that the no passengers in airshows rule - one adapted by most countries with an advanced safety culture - is wrong, or ill advised, then I'm surprised. But the argument isn't with me - I'm just reporting based on my journalistic experience. FWIW, it seems sensible to me.
I'm not trying to second guess this accident, nor 'condemn'
or excuse the pilot - I'm commenting from the data presented and in response to questioning the no passengers at shows rule in general.
If, as Randy's stated this was not a show accident, then it doesn't even fir the 'at show' criteria; which is what I'm writing about.
bdk wrote:
JDK wrote:
To whom? The difference within shows is you have a crowd. Beyond the risk to the crew, which you can debate - there is an additional risk to the crowd, not valid during non-show flying.
Just a guess, but I'll bet that if you were to exclude the crew of the aircraft, fewer people are killed "in the crowd" at an airport airshow than off airport. The show is worked around the crowd specifically to avoid undue risk to the crowd.
Well, yes, and one of the reasons people have as few accidents at shows is the requirements enabling concentration in the show flight. A distracted pilot could end up anywhere.
bdk wrote:
JDK wrote:
And there's another risk - that of the effect on show flying after an accident. If someone drops a display aircraft on the crowd or kills a 'member of the public' at a show, then there's going to be a clampdown, however minor the real risks.
I'm talking about the cause of the accident, not the fallout. I think we all understand the post-mortem.
I'm not commenting on this accident - I don't have any data.
I don't think posters such as A2C realise how little it would take to cause a major setback to the airshow scene in any country. The Ramstein case in Germany and the results of that are a real 'worst case' scenario. That's the flag I'm raising.
bdk wrote:
JDK wrote:
Is a pilot who is properly checked out on an aircraft more competent and more likely to be able to deal with issues? Obviously yes, which is why the system's there.
But did the lack of a proper checkout have any influence on THIS crash?
I don't know. It doesn't mean that the rules should be ignored or are invalid. If you don't like the rules, get them changed, don't break them. As is shown by this case, if something goes pearshaped, the 11th commandment - don't get caught kicks in, and then we get people having to take the medicine.
bdk wrote:
JDK wrote:
Seriously though, the 'no passengers' rule is a good 'risk factor removal' rule.
Please provide evidence of how a passenger increased risk to the flight (caused a crash) at an airshow? There certainly is added risk to the passenger, I mean the passenger got out of bed after all. He could have also been attacked by a rabid dog walking out to his car.
Evidence? I gave the base reasoning. Already mentioned is the Don Bullock accident at Biggin Hill. The load factor of the passengers was certainly factor. Control interference, weight shift and increased desire to show off could have been factors - whatever one might argue, by NOT having passengers, the chance of those risks are removed. Let's not drag silly irrelevances into the discussion to poison the well. I've more respect for your insight, I'd appreciate you doing me the honour.
bdk wrote:
JDK wrote:
Also, there's a world of difference between say, bdk, a qualified pilot, JDK, an aviation writer but no pilot and joe doe who knows nothing. Each would provide a different level of distraction/ support and ability to cope during a high performance flight, or escape from an incident.
Is flying circuits at an airshow a "high performance flight," or is every Mustang ride a "high performance flight"? I agree that an A-26 full of passengers should not be doing aerobatics at an airshow, or even at altitude on a joyride for that matter.
Again, why muddy the waters? I've talked of 'high performance
aircraft' at a show, not how they are flown. Shows are high concentration increased risk environments, with the close attendance of the public. Those are all the factors that mean a base of 'no passengers' is a simple, sensible rule. If it's not a show, it's not what I'm talking about.
Conversely, the checkride requirement is there so we do know that there has been a check. Suggesting it's irrelevant or not needed is simply suggesting that we should lower the safety requirements and checks. They seem sensible to me, and are signed up to by the vast majority of show professionals. Maybe there's a good reason for that.
bdk wrote:
JDK wrote:
The case where a passenger in an L-39 was killed through his own inappropriate (but understandable) reactions in the case of an accident resulted in a court case in the UK.
This proves part of my point (if I am understanding yours). The passenger did not contribute to the CAUSE of the accident, but did not act appropriately after the accident.
Exactly. Accident results are as important as causes. Unqualified passengers are a danger to themselves
and others in escaping or being assisted in escaping accidents.
bdk wrote:
Is flying as a passenger in an airshow during a series of (non-aerobatic) flypasts more dangerous than any other joyride?
A lot. The airshow environment is busy, time sensitive and requires a high level of concentration. I don't see any justification for changing a general rule to allow passengers. As has been discussed above, there are cases where exception can and should be made - note they are people contributing to safety, not any old fat boy who's friends with the pilot, and decided to vomit over him because of the heat. [Edit - my lawyer has asked me to add that this is in no was a description of bdk,

]
At an airshow, the show should be the focus of the pilot - nothing else, no un-required distractions. In a joy flight, the flight is the pilot's focus, and if it's not going well, he can change the flight, or worse case, abort and land. Those choices shouldn't be necessary in a show for an un-necessary reason like a passenger, because they increase everyone's risks.
bdk wrote:
In the case of THIS L-29 accident, is there any evidence that the lack of a proper checkout or the presence of a passenger contributed to the cause of the accident? We all know and agree that he was a bad boy- but if he had a completely unrelated and unanticipated medical condition that caused the accident, isn't that the root cause? Y'all are also assuming the pilot was completely incompetent and had not performed cockpit procedural and/or aircraft systems training. I don't know. How many hours did he have in type? How many hours did he have in like aircraft? Obviously the guy who signed him off without a check ride thought that was somehow OK. To restate, was this merely a procedural violation, or was it a direct cause of the accident?
As I've said above, I've assumed nothing about this accident. Whether a rule break he was caught out for after the accident was a contributory cause is something to examine - not that I'm discussing it. It does show a lack of adherence to safe procedure, and is a guide to other attitudes. Whether you feel pilots (PiC) should be able to set their own safety requirements as they see fit or feel that they should follow externally set rules is up to you - but I quite like my airline and show pilots to be adhering to the rules, which (despite A2Cs remarks)
do have oversight and
do change in the light of action-driven-decisions and are susceptible to democratic knowledgeable lobbying.
Regards,