Warbird Information Exchange

I think this is an excellent topic for discussion, as it is one that has been on my mind for a lot of years. I have been involved in warbirds since '82 and I have lost a lot of friends due to accidents. Its always a heart-dropping moment when you get the news and say to yourself "what happened?". I think we each have are own sets of ideas of what is safe, enjoyable, and desried when it comes to flying warbirds whether you are a pilot or not. With that said, you can easily debate every angle of this topic and it will probably have validity to a certain degree. To me personally, the bottom line is we keep losing great people and priceless aircraft, and many times, unnecessarily. There have been occassions where I have watched some of the best warbird pilots in the world perform a particluar maneuver and I say to myself, "why?" Debate the maneuver, debate the pilot, debate the airplane ~ it really doesn't matter when you're dead and an airplane is lost. Its obvious that skill level cannot ensure survivability depending on the situation. And, with that said, every accident is different and is generally a topic of discussion, as we have clearly seen in past threads. My observations and conclusions have been that accidents and loss are going to continue to be a part of the warbird community and to what degree will be based on attitudes, ability and flying activites of the individuals and aircraft. And that has been the reality for as long as I can remember.

_________________
“Make A Difference, Be Inspired, Inspire”

Re: Acro v. Aerobatics.
Acrobatics are done by gymnasts.
Aerobatics are done by pilots.

(Sorry...it's genetic. )

Mudge the dialectician and grammarian

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

No, actually I've heard many pilots and airshow pros refer to aerobatics as "acro". Probably just slang or two syllabels compared to four I guess.

"Acro" (though not "acrobatics") has been in common use as a casual synonym for aerobatics for many years. It is even built into the name of some aerobatic aircraft, like the EAA Acro Sport.

August

The reasons for the accident with the BAe operated Mosquito G-ASKH (RR299) are worth being correctly aware of;

Carburettor-equipped Merlins had a history of negative g cause fuel flow problems, and a wartime solution had been forgotten

The Carburettor had been incorrectly configured, I understand, by a contractor

The aircraft did not fly negative g manoeuvres, but less than 1 g manoeuvring could occur in the display

The engine did not 'fail' in the sense of a major or prolonged partial or total loss of power, but 'coughed' and lost power for a short period due to fuel flow shortfall

The aircraft's attitude meant that it entered an uncontrolled flight regime

There was not enough height to recover.

Had any one of these factors been different the accident would probably not happened. (It was not a failure of the Merlin design but a failure of maintenance and knowledge - something that can, and occasionally does, happen to any aircraft operation).

However please don't take my word for it, or the usual briefer and misleading versions of the accident, or worse, YouTube. The AAIB report is here, and lays out the issues clearly in detail.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bul ... 501355.cfm

I was, of course being facetious earlier. However;
You missed "...in the US." (or North America, if you prefer). It's an Americanism, currently slang, while it may well become a normal term globally in due course, now, it's not. FWIW.

More importantly in topic;

That's true. There is a conflict between:

a) the theory that no accident is necessary and has to occur (most - all(?) of the warbird accident I can recall could have been avoided with minor or single changes in the decision process somewhere) and

b) that we actually have a very low level of accident occurrence, arguably statistical abnormalities that occur when many of the other worse parameters have been eliminated.

Any warbird accident is immediate worldwide news on this community, and in the mainstream media if it occurs during a show and dramatically. But it remains a tiny proportion if fatal incidents in aviation in hours and activity (globally) and far better than say, road traffic. I would be interested in statistical comparisons to fatal ski accidents, professional horse riding (eventing, racing, jumps etc) and both Formula 1 / NASCAR and vintage car races, but the stats in all cases are so low and protected / disputed by the organisations involved as well as arguable that they are in any variation field and meaningless (unless someone can show otherwise, please!).

It is easy to say there's been no fatal accident in Formula 1 since the 1950s, but the number of Formula 1 hours are tiny compared to airshow flying while the F-1 environment can and has had many of the risks of death designed out, something less possible with vintage transport. Vintage car racing and demonstration is therefore the comparison, and my understanding injuries remain equivalent, though with far fewer fatal accidents*, given the speed and environment differences.

We must strive to a no accident year; it seems as elusive as ever, but the numbers are, actually, very low.

Regards,

* I can recall one warbird pilot sadly who died in the 1990s, IIRC in a vintage car racing accident.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

In regards to theory b, I suppose the main difference with a warbird crash and why it attracts this kind of attention is that it these accidents take a very rare machine with them as well more often than not. Imagine if NASCAR put on an exhibition driving their 40s abd 50s era cars running all out, and not only was a driver killed, but the car was destroyed. You'd have people arguing that these "museum pieces" should have never been on the track in the first place, countered by people that argue that race cars belong on the race track and not collecting dust in a museum.

It seems there should be a happy medium between putting on an entertaining routine and staying within safe paramaters. The biggest problem with theory "a" is that as long as we put humans into the cockpits of airplanes, humans are going to make human errors. Still, I think all operators should strive for an accident-free year.

Thanks Saxman. As I said earlier, there is a happy medium between too risk and boring/grounded.

Thinking about it, in fact 99% of airshow flights get it exactly right! - It's than notional 1% we still need to work at.

And an important clarification. It's easy to see pilots as ultimately responsible, or the human at fault. That's neither fair nor correct. It is not pilots who are responsible for accidents, but a failure / failures somewhere in the process.

I think the shocking report of the Thunder City Lightning (as posed earlier by Fouga23) is a good case in point. The pilot was at fault to a degree, certainly, but the failures were complete around him, guaranteeing an accident. Both the organisation (and horrifyingly) the civil aviation authority neither had effective oversight nor were carrying out their agreed responsibilities properly at all. What's interesting is how that is a comprehensive system failure; if you read it (link below) I feel you can't see any place where someone could have effectively said "stop" and prevented the accident; they would've got no backup. We all complain over over-regulation at times, but this is a perfect example of how such mundane work done mostly right prevents deaths and destruction.

http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/ ... 9/8706.pdf

Pilots do make errors, like us all, but they also (ultimately whatever their responsibility is) have to trust others to have done their jobs properly. Conversely, the systems can (mostly) work and the pilot not be at fault, In the case of the BAe Mosquito, for instance, the errors were mostly by others, long before, far away and not evident until too late.

I'm not a pilot, nor an authority in any aspect, but we can all make a difference by encouraging a safe and managed warbird community and environment. Mostly we already do. (For instance, not supporting "Hey, watch this" kind of behaviour is an example where we can help). If anyone reads one of the accident reports I've linked to or one of the many good points made here by the various posters, and it prevents an accident, that's great.

And that's the irony; we are mostly, pretty good, and most accidents "don't happen" - standards of safety and accident prevention are higher in 2012 in almost all walks of life (and certainly aviation) than they've ever been. But, as the thread started, we sometimes still fail, and the cost is high.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I took a little time to go through some NTSB data Jan 1 through Reno this year so far 17 accidents of various types involving Warbirds.
4 Stearman, 3 L-39, 2 T-6, 8 Fatal
Last year, 2011, Jan 1 through the end of Reno Races there was 16 accidents listed.
7 Stearman, 2 T-6, 7 Fatal
I have excluded Rotorcraft as most listed under a Military designation are not operated as a Warbird. I also left off Alaska and NE operations of DHC-2 and -3s.
The F2G crash hasn't yet been listed but I included it for the count as well as Furias gear problem.
I won't vouch that others have occurred but weren't counted and this only applies to US data.

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!

Could just be my interpretation, but is the underlying premise here basically, "I think your privately purchased property (insert valued property descriptor here) has too much (insert "historical, financial, sentimental, etc." here) value and I want to have a say in how you use it even though I didn't pay for it?"

Accidents happen. Mechanical things break and people make poor decisions. It's all about risk management by the owner/operator not risk management by committee.

If someone can afford the sole remaining example of a mythical "P-unobtanium" fighter and wants to flog it around the sky, so long as they operate it within the rules, I say they have the right to have at it. While one can hope such a hypothetical beast would be operated with some consideration given its rarity/value, unless you're the one writing the check, you really don't have a say -- nor should you have one.

If you think the same mythical "P-unobtanium" should be grounded due to its rarity, then buy it and park it. Same rationale applies. The owner's decision is the only one that matters.

Replace warbird with dirt bike. Would you really want someone looking at how you operate your vintage dirt bike and commenting on how you shouldn't go over jumps or do wheelies because you (a non-owner of said bike with no financial interest in it) happen to think it's irreplacable or being operated irresponsibly (although legally)?

While I agree with the sentiment of flying these aircraft responsibly, I'm also a firm believer that the owner determines what 'responsible' is.

Just a sidenote comment: Formula-1 has definitely had fatalities since the 1950s. Ayrton Senna was killed in a crash during the San Marino GP in 1994. Roland Ratzenberger, another F-1 driver, was killed a day earlier during qualifying for the same race.

Rich, thanks for the stats. I note the proportion of training types (though not mostly lost in training operations).

No interest in the ownership at all. If you want to operate it in a public environment, you play by the rules. You and I (as members of the public) have limited leverage over what those rules are.

I wrote a long, probably boring response, but parked it. It may not help.


However, I think it worth saying that there's been no suggestion here of restricting owner's liberties or ownership beyond the concept of safe operation in a public environment. (If you want to fly your warbird like a hoon low over your Texas ranch, feel free.)

What the 'rules' might be is reasonable to debate surely? More critically, I'd suggest it's vital there's transparency and discussion over safe airshow flying, with rules and guidelines settled by stakeholders and enforced.

No one's advocated taking things off people or actually pushed any agenda about rule changes. People dying in accidents and historic (old) aircraft - the loss to all, as well as to the owner of the historic aircraft, benefits no one.

The reason "A law unto himself" has the massively negative connotation it does might answer the question posed over the owner being the only final arbiter over operation. Personally I'd suggest the golden rule is a vital reference for decision making. It can also be more rewarding than self-satisfaction.

Thanks for the correction - I misremembered it as the last accident with a fatality in the audience. Mea culpa, and your correction adds to the point to be considered.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Just passing on a message from Bill Greenwood regarding this topic.

"In my 25 years of experience, most of the fatal accidents have come from some type of low level aerobatics." - Bill Greenwood

_________________
Live the Good Life
Bluedharma
http://flickr.com/photos/bluedharma/
http://www.airport-data.com/photographe ... arma;1045/
bluedharmawix@gmail.com

This is just one of those topics with no right answer. In the end i'd much rather see these birds flying whether it's one of the last flying examples or one of hundreds. I enjoy the aerobatic routines but would not miss them if they weren't done. As a photographer i'd rather have close in passes with nice topside/bottomside banking (see Flying Heritage Collection Fly Days). They do a great job of showing off their collection without pushing limits. All i'd ask is for a couple high speed passes to really hear the engines howl.

_________________
-Al Sauer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spookythecat

Interesting, I was going to post this very question a couple days ago but thought I'd wait a bit in light of the recent loss of Mr Odegaard and his Super Corsair. My heart truly goes out to his family and friends. Having just retired from military flying, the last 15 being in Air Force Special Operations (AC-130), I have known all too well what it is like to loose friends and squadron mates in the field of aviation. I have lurked for a long time on WIX and it seems every time a rare or even a piece of a rare aircraft surfaces somebody is quick to pop off with a "they need to get that bird in the air" comment and is quick to bag on somebody who mentions placing that aircraft in a museum. I love flying and I love old warbirds, but you have to at some point ask yourself if it is really a wise decision to risk loosing a particular rare bird, and even more irreplaceable, its pilot. As previously stated, we have lost some pretty rare aircraft in the past, Mosquito, A-20, and now a Super Corsair, all in the name of entertainment. Yes, it would have been great to have seen these great old birds in their element, flying, but now those particular airframes are gone forever, as are their pilots. I hope this doesn't sound callous, but I think it was an incredibly bad decision to have a Super Corsair perform aerobatics at an airshow. The average airshow attendee probably couldn't tell the difference between a Super Corsair and a T-6. Old flying adage "altitude is life" is very true, especially when your talking about aerobatics and old aircraft. Risking everything in the name of "putting on a good show" seems like such a waste, but that is something that airshow organizers and performers will have to address on their own, and hopefully that remaining Super Corsair will find a permanent home in a museum somewhere, so future generations will be able to see it in real life instead of just in old pictures.

There is already one in a museum.
http://www.warbirdregistry.org/corsairr ... 88454.html

_________________
Rich Palmer

Remember an Injured Youth
benstear.org
#64- Stay Strong and Keep the Faith

BOOM BOOM, ROUND ROUND, PROPELLER GO

Don't Be A Dilbert!