This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Topic locked

Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:50 pm

^LoL!^

Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:03 pm

stumac wrote: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.


There are some things I'd like to see changed by the FAA. When I first bought my O2-A I had a 15,000 hour instructor with 3000 hours time in type fly with me to airshows as I was learning the aircraft. The shows were waivered, and my insurance required 4 hours of airshow flight time with an experienced pilot (airshow) before insuring me. I had to beg with the FAA to allow the "nonessential" crewman in my O2-A while I gained valuable experience.

My first airshow was Indy and we were up with 10-20 birds. I was happy to have extra eyes while I concentrated on flying the aircraft. I feel I'm a better and safer pilot for that experience.

Fri Oct 09, 2009 3:31 pm

The problem is that the pilot would then also determine his passenger's destiny. What if you're having a major malfunction and need to vacate the a/c quickly? You will need to help the passenger get out of the mess, as well as making sure the heap of metal doesn't bury itself on top of the Smith family on the ground as soon as you've left the ship. Or should the pax and spectators be left to determine their destiny? I kinda feel that your ego have just written a check your body can't balance. And I can guarantee you, there will be a stampede of lawyers ready to determine your destiny!


Fouga wrote:
As said, the rule only came into use after several accidents. Saying it's up to the PIC to decide is bull. Try telling that to the families of passengers who died because a pilot tried to show of!


What? So if we apply the above logic everywhere, then no passengers on any plane.

BDK wrote:
Is flying as a passenger in an airshow during a series of (non-aerobatic) flypasts more dangerous than any other joyride?


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?


Bdk, you took the words out of my mouth. :D

Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:08 pm

Randy Haskin wrote:I'm still trying to figure out how some jets flying in formation was an "airshow".


Probably the same Fed that tried to violate a certain unlimited driver at Reno this year.

L-29 Crash

Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:03 pm

Group,

I have known Doug Gillis, for 5-7 years. during this time, I have been present for several briefings (Before and After Check rides, and formation flights).

While I do not know all of the facts of this case (as most or all of you deciding his fate), I do know Doug. I have a hard time beleiving he was flying below the minium, or did not do a through check ride.

I have seen the FAA at work before and beleive they are making Doug a scapegoat for this tragic accident. The FAA is not about safety, but about public opinion and personel Vendettas!

Fly Safetly
Avn-Tech

Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:24 pm

Group,

I have known Doug Gillis, for 5-7 years. during this time, I have been present for several briefings (Before and After Check rides, and formation flights).

While I do not know all of the facts of this case (as most or all of you deciding his fate), I do know Doug. I have a hard time beleiving he was flying below the minium, or did not do a through check ride.

I have seen the FAA at work before and beleive they are making Doug a scapegoat for this tragic accident. The FAA is not about safety, but about public opinion and personel Vendettas!

Fly Safetly
Avn-Tech


Avn-Tech is right. When you have a centralized gov entity with very little oversight, you have plenty of opportunity for abuse.

Would it be a problem if the people sponsoring the airshow-board of directors, etc. set the rules? They can say "don't carry passengers, etc." Then it would be far more reasonable for the pilots to meet with the board, and negotiate their flying policy based on several factors, insurance coverage, etc. This would limit the opportunity of abuse from powerful centralized gov with little oversight.

When I say little oversight, I mean it. If the potential for abuse of authority is there, there is little oversight.
Last edited by A2C on Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:25 pm

You keep saying that word. I do not believe you know what it means...
Image

Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:06 pm

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,
Last edited by JDK on Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: L-29 Crash

Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:17 pm

Avn-Tech wrote:I have known Doug Gillis, for 5-7 years. during this time, I have been present for several briefings (Before and After Check rides, and formation flights).

While I do not know all of the facts of this case (as most or all of you deciding his fate), I do know Doug. I have a hard time beleiving he was flying below the minium, or did not do a through check ride.

Fair comment. FWIW, I'm commenting on the report and more on the questioning of the no show passengers rule. I'm certainly not 'deciding his fate', that's sadly already happened.

If Doug did undertake a check ride, there should be evidence, which is a lesson to take home. If he did and there is evidence the report can be legitimately questioned. But without evidence, it's tough.
I have seen the FAA at work before and beleive they are making Doug a scapegoat for this tragic accident. The FAA is not about safety, but about public opinion and personel Vendettas!

You are of course entitled to your view, based on your experience, which I accept. On the other hand, the FAA and the US democratic system enables you - as aviators - to challenge and change that system more than anywhere else in the world, now and in the future, despite A2C's chicken little mentality. The US aviator has he most powerful lobbying leverage of any GA and specialist aviation body in the world.

It's your call, your government and your FAA. It's not the wing of government or the inspector in post who decides, it's how pro-active you are as a body. [Edit - I accept that's simple to say, no-one would claim it's easy.]

I'm sorry you lost a friend and colleague - and I'd be wary of commenting on the cases of the accident. The results, both in lives and in law are ones none of us would want, and the lesson is therefore clear - be safe, and be seen to be safe.

Regards,

Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:10 am

A2C,

I'll be the first to admit that as a youngster I couldn't see any danger in going up in the TBM...

Personally, (not as a pilot or a CFI) it seems pretty clear to me that there are some different types of flying at airshows. We've all seen the trainers / liaisons kind of thing where you go up, fly some lazy circles in trail in front of the crowd, and then land. So there, fine, if you want to lobby the FAA to take a passenger in that kind of situation, go for it. I'm not going to say that I think that's particularly dangerous.
Keep in mind you'll still need to address whether or not you are acting like a sightseeing tour, or if your ride fits under another category (yeah, I wish there was a simpler solution to that, too - after all, I promise I won't describe anything on the surface, so am I not an air tour?). It's pretty muddled, and as one that tried to figure out a way to do the "sightseeing" business, and couldn't figure out how to make it financially viable enough at the outset to not fail rather quickly, I think it'd take deep pockets and a good lawyer, at best. I wish there was a lesser category for commercial operations that was somewhere under the requirements for 135 that made sense.

I STILL don't think that passengers are a good idea if there is any performance involved that's more than the lazy circle in trail type of deal. It's just one more distraction, one more bit of weight on the aircraft, one more person for the pilot to worry about in an emergency, and one more person on board the aircraft to make a mistake. If it can be done single pilot, it probably should be done single pilot.
To me that falls under the category of good decision making, and while I'd rather not have government enforce rules on me, because of the public nature of airshows, and lack of some pilot's responsibilities, we have to abide by the rules.

I'm guessing that you should be well familiar with the quote from William Penn that "Men must be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants." That's where we're at. Some few make very poor decisions, and others are just lazy, and rules like this are perceived as necessary by those who stand to be harmed.

Ryan

Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:11 am

As always James... you give honest, open, and fair-minded insight. I think you have summed things up very well.

Thanks.

Richard

Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:49 am

JDK wrote: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.
James, I do understand why the rule exists, but I think it was painted there using a very broad brush.

The ill-fated L-29 pilot is being lambasted for carrying a passenger during a formation flypast, a passenger that seems to be one quite qualified to be there. Additionally the crash does not appear (from the sketchy data presented) to be in any way caused by "the lack of an FAA approved checkout" or the fact that a passenger was present.

Lost in the administrative mumbo jumbo is that there is no evidence that a better checkout or a lack of a pasenger would have had any material affect in preventing this crash.

I'm not saying that I think airshows should sell rides to the general public during the actual display. What I am saying is that there is a difference between the root cause of a crash and levels of risk. Crashes are factual, risks are calculated and can be mitigated.

As an example (not an airshow example), if I were to take a passenger for a ride in my T-6 (which would be much easier were the wings installed), I would have to determine what experiences they had. If they were unknown to me or prone to violent seizures, I would not leave the rear control stick installed and I would move the rear rudder pedals to the full forward position. I have thus mitigated some of the risk of passenger panic attacks and medical conditions. That somewhat protects the flight from the passenger, but in no way protects the passenger from the flight in the case of my unexpected medical condition, poor airmanship or aircraft mechanical failure.

As a qualified passenger in a P-51, and being well known for my passengering ability to the qualified pilot, I do not see how my presence adds a remarkable amount of risk to the flight- even during an airshow flypast. Certainly my presence does add a remarkable amount of risk to me, but more so as a passenger in an old, unreliable and unsafe airplane by modern standards (or as the victim of notoriously bad judgement by some warbird pilots?), not the fact that I am a passenger during a flypast.

Of course, the speed limit on the freeway in southern California is 65 MPH, but I am a good enough driver that they shouldn't give me a ticket for doing 75 MPH, yet they do anyhow. Not because 75 MPH is remarkably more unsafe than 65 MPH for me, but because Grandma Flossie certainly isn't safe at 75 MPH. Of course she knows this, and besides, her Model A won't go much over 45 MPH anyhow.

I know that rules are made for everyone. Unfortunately a lack of responsibility on the part of some has made it so. I won't be carrying an unauthorized passenger during an airshow, but I might go 70 MPH on the freeway- just don't tell anyone, OK? :wink:

Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:26 am

OK, I see what you are driving at, more. I still think, and I think you'd brooadly agree, that the rule is in about the right place, and exceptions and waivers should be possible were required.

However the fact that the rule exists is, IMHO, a good getout for some pilots who won't say 'no' to a persistant enthusiast. "I can't" reads better.

bdk wrote:The ill-fated L-29 pilot is being lambasted for carrying a passenger during a formation flypast, a passenger that seems to be one quite qualified to be there. Additionally the crash does not appear (from the sketchy data presented) to be in any way caused by "the lack of an FAA approved checkout" or the fact that a passenger was present.

Obviously given the disputing of the details in the report, I'm reluctant to comment further than I know. However he's being lambasted for not leaving a good paperwork trail to prove he's done what he should, relevant or not. For instance were you or in an accident (not our fault) and breathalysed and found over the alcohol limit, then we'd be booked.

Were we driving uninsured or without a current licence, we'd collect on our carelessness. As such, it is also an indication of a lack of care that might indicate lack of care in other areas.

Lost in the administrative mumbo jumbo is that there is no evidence that a better checkout or a lack of a pasenger would have had any material affect in preventing this crash.

Maybe it's how I read it, I agree that there's no link, but I don't see that a link is implied. Just like after other accidents 'no flight plan was filed' reads as 'careless pilot' to the public, but doesn't mean that.
I'm not saying that I think airshows should sell rides to the general public during the actual display. What I am saying is that there is a difference between the root cause of a crash and levels of risk. Crashes are factual, risks are calculated and can be mitigated.

Agreed. And I think were we part company is in I'm comfortable that it's a good idea that no passengers are carried unless there's a good reason in any air display.

As a qualified passenger in a P-51, and being well known for my passengering ability to the qualified pilot, I do not see how my presence adds a remarkable amount of risk to the flight- even during an airshow flypast. Certainly my presence does add a remarkable amount of risk to me, but more so as a passenger in an old, unreliable and unsafe airplane by modern standards (or as the victim of notoriously bad judgement by some warbird pilots?), not the fact that I am a passenger during a flypast.

You are presuming is that a passenger is inert, like a redundant slurry tank. Being human, by their mere presence they increase the risk of an activity that a/ distracts the pilot in a already high-workload environment, b/ interferes with the pilot or controls, or c/ due to their medical emergency (more likely given the increase in activity and excitement of the flight) causes the pilot to divert from the flight as briefed to put down or fly elsewhere to sort the passenger's issues. This increases the risks to the other participants and the public. To take your T-6 analogy, display pilots should not be changing items like adjusting rudder pedals before a display flight, just to take a passenger. It is an un-necessary change from the planned, briefed and validated display flight - ergo bad, however small a risk that is.

Further in any aerobatic display the pilot should be flying a practised display, adhering to a routine based on performance parameters. Even just the weight of a passenger in a nominal single seat fighter varies that and has therefore added an un-necessary risk and variation into the flight.

As to the road analogy, the majority of accidents are caused by now-corpses that 'knew' they were OK to drive 'like that', right up to the point they died due to their self-belief exceeding their skills and caution. But let's not get into the road safety can-o-worms.

Regards,

Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:58 am

You are presuming is that a passenger is inert, like a redundant slurry tank. Being human, by their mere presence they increase the risk of an activity that a/ distracts the pilot in a already high-workload environment, b/ interferes with the pilot or controls, or c/ due to their medical emergency (more likely given the increase in activity and excitement of the flight) causes the pilot to divert from the flight as briefed to put down or fly elsewhere to sort the passenger's issues. This increases the risks to the other participants and the public. To take your T-6 analogy, display pilots should not be changing items like adjusting rudder pedals before a display flight, just to take a passenger. It is an un-necessary change from the planned, briefed and validated display flight - ergo bad, however small a risk that is.

Further in any aerobatic display the pilot should be flying a practised display, adhering to a routine based on performance parameters. Even just the weight of a passenger in a nominal single seat fighter varies that and has therefore added an un-necessary risk and variation into the flight.


Who's to say what they should or shouldn't do? The pilot is the only one who needs to decide, because they are in command of their aircraft. Not an announcer, bureaucrat, or anyone else.

Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:28 am

No comment.
Topic locked