Kids and Warbirds

[Dudley Henriques]

Well stated but the reality is?

The reality is what its always been and always will be concerning the passenger egress issue. It's always a judgment call. You have to consider, as the issue relates to small children that as you have suggested, if egress becomes necessary, there is always the possibility that a youngster might not make it out, go through the process of parachute deployment, and make it to a safe landing.
All this having been considered, as is the case with ALL airplanes not just a Warbird, the ultimate and most useful way to deal with potential bail out is to minimize the risk down to an acceptable risk factor. You boil this down a bit further and it becomes apparent that providing the passenger chute or no chute, with a safe flight involves the providing of an aircraft in tip top condition and a pilot flying it safely within the aircraft's flight envelope.
In the end analysis, there isn't any magic bullet to guarantee complete safety for any passenger, even a child as is being discussed.
All you can do is as I have said, provide as safe an environment as humanly possible
minimizing the risk factor.
FWIW, I guess I've given a ton of rides to youngsters in T6's, T34's etc. without incident.

[quote]
Well said, the point in this discussion is to have the pilots use your rational. I question, from the pilots I know who take kids for rides, do they use this train of thought.

Not limited to kids, I have opted to fly in a Mustang, T-6, T-34, Harvard without a chute. But I am a 61 year old fart and somewhat a fatalist. However, I have a lot of flying I want to do and am going to change some of my viewpoints. The kids, however, don't have that perspective. A parachute in the rear seat of a Mentor does not make a child seat in a Dodge Caravan.

Dudley Henriques
[quote/]

Some pilots don't use rational process. Thankfully most I've known do, especially in the Warbird community.
One thing that's worth mentioning about Warbird aircraft specifically. The media has a tendency toward referring to Warbirds as "old aircraft" and relate this to condition. On the face this might be true as to the date of manufacture, but for the average Warbird being actively flown today any semblance to an "old" aircraft is grossly misstated.
Just using a single example , and I could quote many, I would feel completely safe climbing into Beasley's 51 and flying it simply because I've seen the absolute quality Rich Palmer puts into that "old airplane" of Jim's. I doubt if there's a bolt or a nut on Jim's airplanes that Rich hasn't had a scope on either replacing it or manufacturing a new one if he didn't find it in perfect condition.
"Old" as relates to an airplane is a relative term for sure, and with a guy like Palmer looking after your hide, old becomes NEW in a heartbeat!
Dudley henriques

[sdennison]

Absolutely. In some cases, the only old thing on a warbird is the data plate. I am just looking for opinions on the process a PIC goes through when they strap their kid in a parachute in the rear seat. Do they really expect that in an emergency situation their kid would get out? Would the pilot bail not knowing if his kid could do the same?

[Sabremech]

Scott, Not sure you'll find your answer without looking at the statistics. Should we wear cranials in the shower because we might slip and hit our head? Again, how many kids have been killed in a warbird? If the answer is zero, then the PIC's are making a reasonable decision based on experience.

[sdennison]

Point taken. Then why the theatrics of a chute? Strap them in a child seat and don't be delusional that a chute is worth the effort, eh?

If Dad flies the Mentor solo and Mom brings the kids in a Baron, no one in the baron has a chute or egress plan.

Yeah, I lived through teeter totters, lawn darts, bb guns (although I did shoot myself in the eye, long story) I guess I just have an issue with pilots strapping their kids in a chute and deciding they are safe and covered in the event of an emergency.

[Dudley Henriques]

Absolutely. In some cases, the only old thing on a warbird is the data plate. I am just looking for opinions on the process a PIC goes through when they strap their kid in a parachute in the rear seat. Do they really expect that in an emergency situation their kid would get out? Would the pilot bail not knowing if his kid could do the same?

The question is interesting for sure and I'm fairly certain the answer(s) would be highly specific to individuals providing these flights.
My personal opinion is of course based on how I handled this specific situation on many occasions.

The first thing I always considered when dealing with a child ride in one of our aircraft was the age of the child.
The only restriction we placed on these flights was that the child had to be old enough to comprehend and follow specific instructions. The average minimum age for us to carry a young pax was around 8 or 9 years old.
Generally we didn't bother with a chute for kids on the young side as these flights didn't involve aerobatics and were nice and easy on them and the airplane.. My emphasis was always on getting them strapped in properly and instructed on what not to touch rather than sticking a chute on them. By the time we got them strapped into the back seat of a T6 or T34 they couldn't reach anything anyway which was good for my own piece of mind
For older kids say in the high teens where acro was involved, we held a preflight brief where all aspects of the flight were discussed including egress. These pax wore chutes and were thoroughly instructed on how to use them if necessary. Fortunately we never had to discover if our methods were adequate. )
These procedures worked quite well for us.
The bottom line as I said is in my opinion, putting a good well maintained airplane on the line and a good safe pilot to fly it.
Dudley Henriques

[Forgotten Field]

For older kids say in the high teens where acro was involved, we held a preflight brief where all aspects of the flight were discussed including egress. These pax wore chutes and were thoroughly instructed on how to use them if necessary. Fortunately we never had to discover if our methods were adequate. )

What age benchmark do you use? How do you assess your passenger's ability to comprehend what they are being told? My example relates to my years as a medic in the Army, and I hope it illustrates my point. An emergency cricothyroidotomy is a surgical airway used to restore a patient's ability to breath when their normal airway is intractably blocked. It's a pretty simple procedure, and I can tell you in less than five minutes how to do the steps on a patient. I can teach you anatomy landmarks, what equipment you will need, how to cut, and how to place the airway. It's all very simple... until you actually need to do one. I was thoroughly trained and practiced on living patient models how to do one. When confronted by the actual need to do one, it was darn hard in a bouncing ambulance and I had a hard time getting it done.
I think any egress from an aircraft is going to be the same way- you can't plan for all contingencies with an untrained passenger. I agree with you about minimizing the risk through standard risk management ahead of the flight, and think that is the only real way to plan for this. But as the father of a 14 year old and 8 year old who are pretty sharp, even with them I would never put them on anything other than a normal flight training flight without giving them real egress training beforehand. I'm not saying I have a real solution for that, but I doubt you can do it in a few minutes. I was Airborne trained and practiced in the army, and static line jumping is complicated enough that the US Army takes 3 weeks to put you through the training. While I think that is overkill, the Army does it for a reason.

These procedures worked quite well for us.

A point to make about that. Any safety briefing procedure is going to work out well if it is never tested. Also, it's going to make you feel comfortable because you come to rely on it without thinking. But consider this- I just read General Hugh Shelton's book about his career in the Army. On his first jump in jump school at Fort Benning, right in the immediacy of his initial training, he had a main canopy failure and had to deploy his reserve. He almost didn't make it because he hesitated. He was an adult who had just gone through all the training that was supposed to keep him alive, and said he was pretty lucky given his delay. I have witnessed EXPERIENCED paratroopers who had DOZENS of jumps hesitate and get seriously injured when the same thing happened. Based on my experience in these things, I wouldn't put a passenger less than 18 in a position where they had to make an emergency egress, unless they were an exceptionally bright kid who had some real experience behind their belt. But somehow, I think an 18 year old that bright or experienced is the exception rather than the rule.

All that said, I think the 8-9 year old bench mark is a pretty good one for giving a kid their first flight. My little one went when he was 6 and gorilla-gripped my wife the whole time. When he was 7, he had no problem. I took a line-boy's son for his first flight when he was 6 and he did very well, except he wanted to "help" on the controls without telling me (although I told him not to touch in our pre-flight brief, with his Dad present and helping make my points with him). The other thing about kids at 8 or 9 is they are still pretty straight forward in talking with you. They won't hide being scared or enthusiastic. it makes it easier to 'read' them on how they will react in flight.

Great topic and I hope it generates more commentary. I wonder how many EAA Young Eagles pilots have discussions like this prior to flying kids. There are lots of good reasons to do so.

[cwmc]

I once was told by a well known warbird pilot that it was irresponsible of me to operate an airplane with my 2 year old son aboard. I told him to mind his own f**kin' business. Which is exactly the answer for the original poster.
Chris...

[sdennison]

I once was told by a well known warbird pilot that it was irresponsible of me to operate an airplane with my 2 year old son aboard. I told him to mind his own f**kin' business. Which is exactly the answer for the original poster.
Chris...

Well said Sir! I'm not looking for an "answer" just an open discussion.

[stearmann4]

I once was told by a well known warbird pilot that it was irresponsible of me to operate an airplane with my 2 year old son aboard. I told him to mind his own f**kin' business. Which is exactly the answer for the original poster.

I would love top hear the response from a prosecuting attorney when a pilot tries to explain why he strapped a kid in if he wasn't doing aerobatics, and he thought the plane was safe? That would quickly be followed by "Would you make that same child wear a parachute in a Cessna? I thought you said your Stearman/T-34/T-6, etc was as safe as any other aircraft?" It just gets messier from there.

What's really irresponsible is to take a kid (or any other passenger) flying in a plane that you're not 100% sure is safe and airworthy to where you think a parachute could conceivably be neccessary. Does any of us expect a kid (even teenager) with no jump experience to have the situational clarity to exit a damaged aircraft? Heck, 99% of adult pilots aren't mentally prepared to do it successfully. I know a lot of guys sitting on $4,000 Butler chutes' that are neither mentally prepared, or physically rehearsed enough to exit a damaged warbird in the few second window before it becomes catasrophic. The WWII "teenagers" a previous poster spoke of also went through classroom academics on bailing out, followed by practical application getting out of a cockpit mock-up, etc. For the adults, I give a full bailout briefing and parachute familiarization, and make them audibly repeat the exit sequence until we get to the run-up. Technique only.

I have no more reservations taking my pre-teen sons up in a Cub, Stearman, T-6 than I do a spam can. There's far more liability and concern involved given the wide variations in pilot proficciency and experience. To be legal, they strap on a parachute to do mild acro, but nowhere in that process do I expect them to be able to exit the plane, nor do I have any plans to do it either.

Lastly, I'd be interested in exactly what scenarious that you'd have a child passenger on board where one could forsee bailing out? Folding a wing during aerobatics, formations, engine fire, etc?

Mike-

[T-28mike]

Having taken my young daughters on many flights, in numerous aircraft I agree that it is all about (as Dudley stated) lowering the risk to an acceptable level.

There is more risk coming from an irresponsible pilot who takes un necessary risks with passengers than the possability of a mechanical failure so severe that one would have to egress the aircraft.

I have seen more people killed while trying to impress those on the ground (think a 200KT pass at 10-20 feet.... watch out for that wire, tree...) than those involved in catastrophic engine failure...

Just my .02, based on going to too many premature funerals.

[Dudley Henriques]

For older kids say in the high teens where acro was involved, we held a preflight brief where all aspects of the flight were discussed including egress. These pax wore chutes and were thoroughly instructed on how to use them if necessary. Fortunately we never had to discover if our methods were adequate. )

What age benchmark do you use? How do you assess your passenger's ability to comprehend what they are being told? My example relates to my years as a medic in the Army, and I hope it illustrates my point. An emergency cricothyroidotomy is a surgical airway used to restore a patient's ability to breath when their normal airway is intractably blocked. It's a pretty simple procedure, and I can tell you in less than five minutes how to do the steps on a patient. I can teach you anatomy landmarks, what equipment you will need, how to cut, and how to place the airway. It's all very simple... until you actually need to do one. I was thoroughly trained and practiced on living patient models how to do one. When confronted by the actual need to do one, it was darn hard in a bouncing ambulance and I had a hard time getting it done.
I think any egress from an aircraft is going to be the same way- you can't plan for all contingencies with an untrained passenger. I agree with you about minimizing the risk through standard risk management ahead of the flight, and think that is the only real way to plan for this. But as the father of a 14 year old and 8 year old who are pretty sharp, even with them I would never put them on anything other than a normal flight training flight without giving them real egress training beforehand. I'm not saying I have a real solution for that, but I doubt you can do it in a few minutes. I was Airborne trained and practiced in the army, and static line jumping is complicated enough that the US Army takes 3 weeks to put you through the training. While I think that is overkill, the Army does it for a reason.

These procedures worked quite well for us.

A point to make about that. Any safety briefing procedure is going to work out well if it is never tested. Also, it's going to make you feel comfortable because you come to rely on it without thinking. But consider this- I just read General Hugh Shelton's book about his career in the Army. On his first jump in jump school at Fort Benning, right in the immediacy of his initial training, he had a main canopy failure and had to deploy his reserve. He almost didn't make it because he hesitated. He was an adult who had just gone through all the training that was supposed to keep him alive, and said he was pretty lucky given his delay. I have witnessed EXPERIENCED paratroopers who had DOZENS of jumps hesitate and get seriously injured when the same thing happened. Based on my experience in these things, I wouldn't put a passenger less than 18 in a position where they had to make an emergency egress, unless they were an exceptionally bright kid who had some real experience behind their belt. But somehow, I think an 18 year old that bright or experienced is the exception rather than the rule.

All that said, I think the 8-9 year old bench mark is a pretty good one for giving a kid their first flight. My little one went when he was 6 and gorilla-gripped my wife the whole time. When he was 7, he had no problem. I took a line-boy's son for his first flight when he was 6 and he did very well, except he wanted to "help" on the controls without telling me (although I told him not to touch in our pre-flight brief, with his Dad present and helping make my points with him). The other thing about kids at 8 or 9 is they are still pretty straight forward in talking with you. They won't hide being scared or enthusiastic. it makes it easier to 'read' them on how they will react in flight.

Great topic and I hope it generates more commentary. I wonder how many EAA Young Eagles pilots have discussions like this prior to flying kids. There are lots of good reasons to do so.

Reading your post I would respectfully submit that you might be seeking a clinical approach to the egress situation that in effect boils down under the reality of the scenario simply to good judgment. Personally, I've never seen a perfect world when it comes to anything connected with flying. There is always risk and as humans all we'll ever be able to do is use good judgment to minimize that risk.
There is no "guide" that I've ever seen in aviation that aids a pilot in discerning an exact age or level of comprehension that will guarantee a young passenger's ability to safely egress from a crippled airplane. All you can do is put a well maintained airplane in the equation, then use your best judgment on just who and what to stick in the extra seat if you have one. At that point the flight goes well or it doesn't based on these factors.
People who want to exist in a risk free world and have a ready made answer to everything that guarantees a perfect result in all situations are in my opinion better advised to take up knitting and forget about flying airplanes.
Dudley Henriques

[51fixer]

Point taken. Then why the theatrics of a chute? Strap them in a child seat and don't be delusional that a chute is worth the effort, eh?

If Dad flies the Mentor solo and Mom brings the kids in a Baron, no one in the baron has a chute or egress plan.

Yeah, I lived through teeter totters, lawn darts, bb guns (although I did shoot myself in the eye, long story) I guess I just have an issue with pilots strapping their kids in a chute and deciding they are safe and covered in the event of an emergency.

There is another aspect to this-
A parachute is required for certain maneuvers.So if you want to do a roll with your son or daughter, regardless of their age, they need to be sitting on a chute.

FAR 91.307

(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds—

(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or

(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.

(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or

(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—

(i) A certificated flight instructor; or

(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with §61.67 of this chapter.

(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means—

(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical standard order (C–23 series); or

(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation or specification number.

[Enemy Ace]

My personal policy is that I will:
1. Fly the plane in if I don't think the passenger can get out/ perform an egress.
2. Wait until the passenger has departed the airplane, talking them through the process if necessary.

Engine failures can and should be managed by flying the airplane at best glide and looking for a suitable landing field. The only reason to bail out would be structural failure probably caused by mid air collision or uncontained fire.

I actually think most kids would do a better job of bailing out than my 60 something year old mother. So age is probably irrelevant.

I think it is a PIC responsibility and point of personal honor to get the passenger out first regardless of circumstance.

[K5DH]

No matter who the passenger is, a key issue is TRAINING. The first time I flew in a high performance warbird with a 'chute, my pilot gave me a thorough safety briefing, including:

- how to latch, adjust, and remove the safety belts (5-point harness);
- how to put on the 'chute pack and adjust the straps;
- how to close and open the canopy;
- how to exit the airplane, both on the ground and in flight;
- how and when to activate the 'chute;
- how to land in the 'chute;
- how to remove the 'chute once on the ground;
- intercom procedures;
- instructions he'd be giving me at various times.

It was a lot of information to take in and digest, especially amid the excitement and sensory overload of going flying in a cool warbird. While he was strapping himself in, starting the engine, and taxiing out for takeoff, I went over his instructions in my head several times until I felt like I had it down pretty well. Would I have been able to save myself if the bailout order had been given? I think so. When I think about how a youngster might react to all of this, I have to wonder if it might be more than they can handle, especially with the overall excitement factor affecting their immediate thought processes. But, as another poster pointed out, kids are capable of some amazing things, and if you challenge them, they can and do come through pretty well.

[CH2Tdriver]

What do the statistics say? How many kids have been killed in Warbirds? We're any egress attempts tried? This ought to give you an idea of the risks and then you can choose to mitigate them. I haven't heard of any kids killed in Warbirds.

No statistics on warbirds, but what about a fun day with the family at an amusement park? Most of us don't think twice about putting ourselves and our kids on the rides. They are safe right? They wouldn't be operating if they weren't right?

I found this pretty sobering:

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/Amus2005.pdf

"Table 3 gives the number of reported fatalities for fixed-site, mobile, and unknown-site
rides for the period from 1987 to 2004. The reporting for years 2003 through 2004 was
incomplete at the time this report was prepared. There were 67 documented fatalities over
this period: 46 from fixed-site rides, 13 from mobile rides, and 8 from unknown-site
rides."

I guess you really have to put everything in perspective? So we all approach warbirds or GA aircraft for that matter with care, caution and some trepidation. But I'll admit to never thinking twice when entering a park. These statistics say otherwise.