Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:50 pm
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.
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!
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!
Is flying as a passenger in an airshow during a series of (non-aerobatic) flypasts more dangerous than any other joyride?
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?
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".
Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:03 pm
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
Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:25 pm
Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:06 pm
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.
bdk wrote:I'm talking about the cause of the accident, not the fallout. I think we all understand the post-mortem.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.
bdk wrote:But did the lack of a proper checkout have any influence on THIS crash?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.
bdk wrote: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.JDK wrote:Seriously though, the 'no passengers' rule is a good 'risk factor removal' rule.
bdk wrote: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.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.
bdk wrote: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.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.
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?
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.
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!
Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:10 am
Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:11 am
Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:49 am
James, I do understand why the rule exists, but I think it was painted there using a very broad brush.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.
Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:26 am
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.
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 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.
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.
Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:28 am