909 NEWS

[phil65]

I simply think they didn't have enough time to deal with an emergency of this magnitude and probably didn't have the required training for it either...

Phil

[JohnB]

Phil...
Your last post got me thinking about the training situation in general, not necessarily just the CF.

Does anyone have a real simulator for warbirds?
I doubt it.
And given their hourly operating costs, I bet a lot of guys just have the minimum recurrent training.

While I don't expect an accurate full motion setup, could an existing one be (occasionally and temporarily) reprogrammed for various multi pilot warbird types?

A bright software developer might want to work on one since the insurance companies may start to require more training depending on the outcome of the investigation.

[AirJimL2]

Does anyone have a real simulator for warbirds?
I doubt it.

Boultbeee Flight Academy has a Spitfire simulator. How realistic it is, I have no idea, as I've flown neither the simulator, nor a Spitfire.

Jim

[OD/NG]

Phil...
Your last post got me thinking about the training situation in general, not necessarily just the CF.

Does anyone have a real simulator for warbirds?
I doubt it.
And given their hourly operating costs, I bet a lot of guys just have the minimum recurrent training.

While I don't expect an accurate full motion setup, could an existing one be (occasionally and temporarily) reprogrammed for various multi pilot warbird types?

A bright software developer might want to work on one since the insurance companies may start to require more training depending on the outcome of the investigation.

Flight simulators for warbirds, traditionally, have never been produced strictly due to developmental costs. The technology definitely exists, but the justification to pour in millions of dollars into a very niche device, which would have very little demand and probably couldn't pay for itself, has never been justified. All of that is changing, however, due to technology getting cheaper and more accessible to developers and entrepreneurs.

Right now, I am only aware of 2 flight simulators for warbirds - one for the Spitfire and one for the DC-3. Both are in Europe and not easily accessible to American operators. There does not exist a B-17 flight simulator, by the way.

I am aware of another warbird flight simulator in development, but it has not been publically revealed yet, so I can't give any more details. Needless to say, all of these are great tools to help in training and proficiency while flying warbirds.

At some point, probably in the near future, the intersection of extremely costly warbirds, rising insurance rates and rapidly dropping developmental costs will all justify developing flight simulators for several warbird types. While they may not be full-on, extremely high fidelity and motion operated simulators like the airlines currently have, they will certainly support full, accurate working cockpits and high definition video. From my understanding, the motion part, via hydraulic jacks, is one of the most costly items in developing flight simulators. I don't think we will see full-motion supported for warbird simulators at any time in the near future, in my opinion.

[OD/NG]

Does anyone have a real simulator for warbirds?
I doubt it.

Boultbeee Flight Academy has a Spitfire simulator. How realistic it is, I have no idea, as I've flown neither the simulator, nor a Spitfire.

Jim

Extremely accurate. I've spoken to a current Spitfire pilot who has flown both and he says that the computer modeling on it is very realistic. It is so realistic and similar that I know of at least one organization that uses the Spitifire simulator at the beginning of the airshow season prior to their pilots flying the real thing after a layoff of several months during the winter off-season. Everybody I've spoken to about the Spitfire simulator considers it a huge boon to safety and training.

[Stephan Wilkinson]

My Tuskegee Airmen chapter has a $120,000 Redbird full-motion, full-visuals sim for our youth aviation-training program. It's pretty amazing, and I've flown big-bucks sims from the C-5A on down to the Citation (in which I got my first type rating).

[K5DH]

My two cents' worth: I was a volunteer for CF at their Dallas Love Field tour stop for several years. I never witnessed a flight where the riders were not given a thorough safety briefing before boarding the aircraft. The riders were told about the seating arrangements, the Mil-style seat belts and how to fasten and adjust them, where the exits were and when not to use some of them, to follow the instructions of the FE, where to go and where not to go in the aircraft, etc. They covered it all. I used to give those same safety briefings when we operated Chuckie. I would not have done it any differently than the CF folks did.

[b29flteng]

In Regards to simulator:
As an FAA Designated Flight Engineer I will examine the applicant about aircraft systems, normal procedures and emergency procedures. I will ask a lot of "what if" questions, this not only tests the applicants systems knowledge but also emergency procedures. What kind of indications will you see if this happens? What can you do about it?

Crew resource management is very important on crew served aircraft. The back-end people are very important as our eyes and ears for problems that occur behind the wings.

During flight, we will go through a few scenarios that I feel are appropriate to examine. Once again crew resource management is an important factor during the exam.

During our recurrency checkrides (every six months) the examinee will go through the whole process again with me or another examiner.

[wendovertom]

Sadly this is just a bad deal for all involved. the CF, the families, the warbird community, other warbird operators. My Aussie co-worker used to say when something bad happened, "Dogs Breath".

My experience has only been with the CAF - The AZ Wing in Sentimental Journey several years ago and FiFi group MANY years ago. In both situations we were briefed on emergency procedures prior to getting on the plane. Then once on board a crew member checked everything with each passenger prior to start up and when we were approaching return to field the passenger check process was reversed.

it would be great to get the nose section of a B-17 / B-29 and build an accurate simulator - hydraulics or not with modern tech you could do it but I have no doubt it will cost a few nickels and dimes. It needs to be, should be, done though to save lives and increasingly rare airplanes.

Just my .02

Tom P.

[exhaustgases]

Main lesson learned. If 2 engines on a 4 engine plane will not start right off, with out a bunch of fooling around trying to fix something, then call off the flight and fix it right.
Also maybe its not worth trying to save an engine and end up losing the whole plane instead. After properly fixing an engine then run it for at least 30 minutes or more to make sure it will keep running. I'm more sure about making sure a car engine is going to keep running than they were about engines on a rare ww2 airplane with passengers lives at stake.

[lucky52]

Was Mitch an A&P mechanic for the B-17 or just the loadmaster?

[JimH]

Was Mitch an A&P mechanic for the B-17 or just the loadmaster?

Mitch was a general tour A&P...whatever airplane needed worked on. All the years I spent on tour, I don't remember any instance where there wasn't a briefing. Everyone on the tour crew was trained at giving briefings. When we'd run multiple flights during the day it was all hands on deck. My biggest pet peeve was keeping the attention of passengers during the briefings. Bomberitis. It was exciting and way outside the box for most people. The belts were always a pet peeve, but they were the FAA approved belts per the ride program approval. The other issue...we'd stress to stay seated while on the ground until told to get up, or the engines were completely shut down. Inevitably someone would be standing up in the radio room when they taxied out, the list is long about passengers. Should someone be stationed in the back...the easy answer is 'yes', the realistic answer is 'yes', but that's a $450 seat.

As far as simulators...I've flown all kinds of sims over the years. They are incredible, amazing how they model the airline/jet environment. After over, 6000 hours in these airplanes, in all kinds of conditions, engine failures, mechanical issues...it's honestly not that complicated. Spending millions on a simulator for 7-8 airplanes and less than 100 pilots won't happen. Spending $8-$10,000 a year on training flights is a small portion of income for the benefit incurred. Limiting the pilot pool, and dare I say it, paying the pilots a salary. The days of volunteering should end, a paid professional staff, fully trained and competent seems simple. But that is my observation from 16 years on the road. A lot happened that morning that shouldn't have, mechanical issues aside. Mistakes were made on many levels. There are current culture issues, age issues, and a few others...to be blunt...money was not an issue. None of us knows what the future holds for the LHFE program. Changes will be made across the board for everyone, rest assured. Whether or not organizations will be able or willing to absorb the costs of these changes will dictate moving forward.

jim

[phil65]

Was Mitch an A&P mechanic for the B-17 or just the loadmaster?

Mitch was a general tour A&P...whatever airplane needed worked on. All the years I spent on tour, I don't remember any instance where there wasn't a briefing. Everyone on the tour crew was trained at giving briefings. When we'd run multiple flights during the day it was all hands on deck. My biggest pet peeve was keeping the attention of passengers during the briefings. Bomberitis. It was exciting and way outside the box for most people. The belts were always a pet peeve, but they were the FAA approved belts per the ride program approval. The other issue...we'd stress to stay seated while on the ground until told to get up, or the engines were completely shut down. Inevitably someone would be standing up in the radio room when they taxied out, the list is long about passengers. Should someone be stationed in the back...the easy answer is 'yes', the realistic answer is 'yes', but that's a $450 seat.

As far as simulators...I've flown all kinds of sims over the years. They are incredible, amazing how they model the airline/jet environment. After over, 6000 hours in these airplanes, in all kinds of conditions, engine failures, mechanical issues...it's honestly not that complicated. Spending millions on a simulator for 7-8 airplanes and less than 100 pilots won't happen. Spending $8-$10,000 a year on training flights is a small portion of income for the benefit incurred. Limiting the pilot pool, and dare I say it, paying the pilots a salary. The days of volunteering should end, a paid professional staff, fully trained and competent seems simple. But that is my observation from 16 years on the road. A lot happened that morning that shouldn't have, mechanical issues aside. Mistakes were made on many levels. There are current culture issues, age issues, and a few others...to be blunt...money was not an issue. None of us knows what the future holds for the LHFE program. Changes will be made across the board for everyone, rest assured. Whether or not organizations will be able or willing to absorb the costs of these changes will dictate moving forward.

jim

Perfectly said Jim.
Thanks for the information..

Phil

[bdk]

Scott Perdue's opinion (hopefully not posted 100 times on other threads):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtcsVZc ... XkDTh1MqXQ