PDA

View Full Version : Matt Hall loads his pants!


Ultralights
6th Jun 2010, 01:44
pics say it all.

great flying or luck?

http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/RedBull/RBImages/000/000/464/222/photo610x343a/100367968DM012_Red_Bull_Air.JPG

http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/RedBull/RBImages/000/000/186/297/photo610x343a/100367968DM010_Red_Bull_Air.JPG

http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/RedBull/RBImages/000/000/581/844/photo610x343a/100367968DM006_Red_Bull_Air.JPG

"I felt I was having a fairly good run,” Hall said. “I might have skipped twice on the water. It’s a very disappointing result for me. It’s the motor racing equivalent of touching the wall."

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs323.ash1/28309_406991499172_50788544172_4056773_1688147_n.jpg

dreamjob
6th Jun 2010, 01:57
Wow, Arch almost came unstuck here too. What's going on!

ForkTailedDrKiller
6th Jun 2010, 02:27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvH-U8DiJKQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvH-U8DiJKQ)

Just looks like a completely idiotic thing to be doing, IMO!

I still remember the carnage of top level motor racing in the 60's and 70's when many of the best in the business died:

Clark, McLaren, Courage, Rindt, Moss (almost) etc

Dr :8

PyroTek
6th Jun 2010, 02:40
Qualifying Highlights, Windsor :: Red Bull Air Race Videos (http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Video/Qualifying-Highlights,-Windsor-021242857591037)
- bit more detailed than forkies :P - once you skip past the promo stuff at the start. :ok:

Wally Mk2
6th Jun 2010, 03:05
These guys are seriously nuts!!!!:}

Aviation is as safe as eggs, until something like this happens & proves it otherwise. It was bound to happen as we saw a few months ago & heaven forbid it will most likely get worse (with the obvious results). Trouble is where do you draw the line? Risks, it's all about risks, calculated ones mostly.


Wmk2

OZBUSDRIVER
6th Jun 2010, 03:35
Cummon people! It's just high g turns and basic aeros.....A demo pilot should be able to do as much.:E

glekichi
6th Jun 2010, 04:04
These guys are seriously nuts!!!!

Ya mean cos they only have one engine? :}:}

Ned Parsnip
6th Jun 2010, 04:25
Another view -
http://www.sportsnet.ca/gallery/2010/06/05/flying_gal_640.jpg

sleemanj
6th Jun 2010, 05:29
Well they wouldn't do it if it wasn't dangerous really, would they, that's probably what makes it a buzz for the pilots, I can see that, if I had the skills and money and physical conditioning and... I could see me giving it a go.

You only live once.

peuce
6th Jun 2010, 06:10
Here is a list of the most dangerous sports in the World.
Cheerleading comes in at No.1 ... Pylon Racing ... No. 52

Most Dangerous Sports - Top Ten List (http://www.the-top-tens.com/lists/most-dangerous-sports.asp)


No, I don't know how they rate them.

Should we ban Cheerleading?:eek:

ForkTailedDrKiller
6th Jun 2010, 06:17
Here is a list of the most dangerous sports in the World.
Cheerleading comes in at No.1 ... Pylon Racing ... No. 52

Not a valid comparison!

What is the ranking where the only outcome considered is the DEATH of the participant?

Dr :8

muffman
6th Jun 2010, 06:37
Is it really that much worse than F1 racing in terms of danger? F1 cars are probably going faster and have the added risk of running into each other.

ForkTailedDrKiller
6th Jun 2010, 06:47
Looked like a high speed stall to me, but I will await Planky's conformation on that!

Dr :8

toolowtoofast
6th Jun 2010, 07:06
Not a valid comparison!

What is the ranking where the only outcome considered is the DEATH of the participant?

Dr :8

Um no - there has now been 2 x ground (water) touches in a month or so One was a bit more than a touch), and pilots have walked away from both.

Thomo91
6th Jun 2010, 07:53
Great recovery.

Matt explains what happened here - What happened?? My water impact (incl. video)|Matt Hall Racing (http://matthallracing.com/archives/1677)

pa60ops
6th Jun 2010, 07:57
gee...both incidents over water. I have no personal practice at this stuff (obviously :}) but is it more risky doing this low level work over water that land??? I did look kind of overcast on the photos. Bet you will lose no claim bonus for that claim!!! :E

slackie
6th Jun 2010, 09:06
IMHO it's only a matter of (probably a very short) time before we see our first fatality in the RBAR. As these guys take more and more risks to be the fastest they are flurting with an extremely unforgiving sport. We all know what happens when you push the envelope with aviation, whether it be pushing VFR in poor weather, or low level high G manoevres. The closer to the edge you get the smaller the margins, and less likelihood for recovery if the edge is crossed.

Captain Sand Dune
6th Jun 2010, 10:13
Ah, hark the loungeroom experts.:rolleyes:
Yep, lets ban it all at fly around at FL350 straight and level.
Long live the nanny state!!:ugh:

Mick.B
6th Jun 2010, 10:45
He has had a big head cold all week that kept him in bed all day. Probably didnt help.

remoak
6th Jun 2010, 13:32
The closer to the edge you get the smaller the margins, and less likelihood for recovery if the edge is crossed.Yes but that's the whole point, isn't it? That's why these guys enjoy it, along with racing car drivers, bike racers, free divers, all those guys. They just happen to do it in an aircraft. These guys LIVE to take risks.

To me it just looks like an extreme form of ag flying.

Let them get on with it, sure somebody will die eventually but taking the risk is their choice. I'd rather not be forcibly wrapped in cotton wool and protected by the state, thank you very much!

mattyj
6th Jun 2010, 13:55
..you obviously don't live in NZ anymore then remoak! :}

compressor stall
7th Jun 2010, 00:22
NZ does (did?) have the right attitude towards the extreme sport thing. Here in Oz, we'd try and ban it. :mad:

j3pipercub
7th Jun 2010, 01:45
Anyone remember that Flight Safety Article he was in about 12 months ago?

So I wonder if this scenario came up in one of his 'what if' scenarios? Ie. What if I lose it into the water thus leaving my wife without a husand and my children without a father...****

So what does the Flight Safety poster boy think that was? Is that an example of how not to wage war on 'error'...

I have no qualms about what these guys do, it is a sport which is dangerous and will take a life eventually, just like many other sports. What I do have a problem with is Mr Hall trying to pass it off as mitigated risk! I have never heard so much bullsh:mad:t in my life.

j3

Trojan1981
7th Jun 2010, 01:56
What I do have a problem with is Mr Hall trying to pass it off as mitigated risk! I have never heard so much bullsht in my life.
:D That it was!

Half the paying public turn up to see near misses or crashes, just like in motorsport. Not me, but I do love RBAR.

There is a worldwide backlash against the nanny-state culture that has attempted to stifle all fun. Skydiving business has exploded in popularity in the last few years, as have adventure holidays.

Danger is the spice of life.

Arnold E
7th Jun 2010, 02:06
What I do have a problem with is Mr Hall trying to pass it off as mitigated risk! I have never heard so much bullshhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gift in my life.
Dont we mitigate risk every time we fly :confused::confused::confused:

j3pipercub
7th Jun 2010, 02:11
Dont we mitigate risk every time we fly

You're seriously going to compare risk mitigation between RBAR and a Charter/Private/RPT flight? I can see the similarities... I'll list them

They both involve an aeroplane


ummmmmm




j3

Wallsofchina
7th Jun 2010, 03:32
"I felt I was having a fairly good run,” Hall said. “I might have skipped twice on the water. It’s a very disappointing result for me. It’s the motor racing equivalent of touching the wall.

I agree with the comparison, but the wall is usually a concrete deflector - they were changed over the years so they didn't grab the car.

It does seem like exuberance is growing in this sport, which really hasn't had a bad safety record to date IMO, and the best way to bring things back from the brink is to have experienced Stewards to counsell the pilots.

aldee
7th Jun 2010, 03:34
[QUOTE]What I do have a problem with is Mr Hall trying to pass it off as mitigated risk! I have never heard so much bullsht in my life./QUOTE]

I don't suppose the hours spent in FA 18's & F22's & unlimited aerobatics would put him in any position to know what he's talking about :rolleyes:
None of these pilots go out there to kill themselves, the fact it could happen is always a possibility, besides what do you expect him to say :confused:
Like him or not the man just had an experience none of us would have survived

j3pipercub
7th Jun 2010, 03:55
Like him or not the man just had an experience none of us would have survived

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't ever be down that low over water, doing aeros, thats just me though... And was it luck, just a little maybe?

I don't suppose the hours spent in FA 18's & F22's & unlimited aerobatics would put him in any position to know what he's talking about

Ummm, no. Just because you do them, doesn't make them any less risky. How long has he been flying, all that hot gear and yet still can fall down. I'm not trying to have a go at him, or the race, it is a hugely popular sport and good on them for competing in it. Just don't try and tell me that you 'manage' the risks in that sport... Do that long enough, that close to the ground, and it will get you...

j3

compressor stall
7th Jun 2010, 04:00
J3 - don't confuse residual risk with mitigated risk.

Mitigated risk means that there are processes and procedures in place to reduce the risk. (i.e. 12 G limits in turns, strict selection criteria etc). This is the process of risk mitigation and there is no doubt this takes place.

Residual risk is the level of risk left AFTER mitigation. It is different for you, me and Matt Hall.

If it is acceptable to him (and it obviously is) let's sit back in our 1g armchairs and enjoy the flying! I certainly do.

Critical Reynolds No
7th Jun 2010, 04:10
Are you sure you are 26 J3? Sound more like 56.:ok:

j3pipercub
7th Jun 2010, 04:53
I wish, I really wish I had grown up 30 years ago... That way I might have gotten a chance to fly a 727...:}

mirage3
7th Jun 2010, 07:02
Insane at the least. If anyone thinks this is a safe thing to do along a river within the CBT of a city with people just a short aircraft disintegration way, then those people have lost the plot. If anyone can tell me it's sport, recreational flying for high testosterone males or just plain low flying I am afraid I will not be convinced. This is akin to allowing hoon-racing by young males in high powered aircraft but I think if you do it in your car, they take your licence and pulverise your car. The whole thing about this activity within the confines of a city CBT is that is should not be on. Who gives approval for this alleged sport? Oh, now I remember: C*S*. Are they the same mob who have become so worried about mid-air collisions in and around ex-GAAP Control Zones that they mandate to the wall but give approval to this kind of rubbish? If any of us did anything approaching this in our 182s or such, we be hung,drawn and quartered. But then again, this is sport isn't it C*S*. :eek:

The Green Goblin
7th Jun 2010, 07:24
You're just jealous it's in Perth and not Sydney :ok:

I would love to see the stats on aeroclub memberships after the air races came to Australia.

If I was good enough and had the opportunity I would be there in a heart beat.....

morno
7th Jun 2010, 07:45
If anyone thinks this is a safe thing to do along a river within the CBT of a city with people just a short aircraft disintegration way, then those people have lost the plot.

So how is this different to low level aerobatics during an airshow? And what's a CBT??

For christs sake people, get a life.

These aren't your everyday weekend warriors. They're highly trained aerobatic professionals who have been specially picked to compete in the RBAR.

We all work in an environment whereby we are exposed to risks everyday. It's just a matter of how you control the risk.

morno

ForkTailedDrKiller
7th Jun 2010, 07:55
I guess my problem is that I just don't get it!

Mostly boring as bat excreta, IMO, unless they dunk one or bounce it off the water.

When in Perth a couple of years ago we had a choice - stay for the RBAR, or fly the FTDK back to Qld. We chose the latter - at least that was the plan until Jaba broke the fuel tanks! The ride home on the Rat still had more appeal than the RBAR.

But that is just me!

Dr :8

Thomo91
7th Jun 2010, 10:27
Amazing how we can all argue so much about everyone else's predicament - when you're facing a risk sitting in front of that computer.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword" It's their choice - not like the war was.... eh?

Tibbsy
7th Jun 2010, 10:35
Ummm, no. Just because you do them, doesn't make them any less risky.

So training (and experience) isn't a risk mitigator? :confused:

This is akin to allowing hoon-racing by young males in high powered aircraft but I think if you do it in your car, they take your licence and pulverise your car No, it's not! :ugh:


One takes place on a public road, one takes place in restricted airspace.

One involves relatively inexperienced drivers, with little/no training. One involves highly trained and very very experienced pilots.

One is involves the illegal and irresponsible use of a motor vehicle which is not designed for the tasks it is employed in. One involves the controlled use of a high performance aircraft, specifically designed for the task which it is employed in.

One has no safety controls, regulation or risk management. One has safety controls, regulation & risk management.

One is pointless. One is a competition for points and reward.

Need I go on? Sanctimonious :mad:s

Sonny Hammond
7th Jun 2010, 10:48
An excellent example of Australian Tall Poppy syndrome at its finest.

Good jobs everyone......:ok:


Tall poppy syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome)

compressor stall
7th Jun 2010, 11:06
I always thought Mark Webber had a point with his nanny state remark (which was meant more widely than LH's tyre screeching). Maybe he was wrong. We've become a nanny culture! :}

remoak
7th Jun 2010, 11:09
Nobody is criticising the guy, he's obviously a skilled pilot and he chooses to use his skills in the way that he does. It is clearly dangerous, but then so is riding a bicycle in the city. I fully understand why he enjoys it, having been involved in racing cars and motorcycles in my youth. Plus he probably makes a few dollars as well...

Eventually one of these guys is going to die doing this stuff, but that's the nature of the game. As long as they understand the risks, let them get on with it with as little interference as possible.

I don't find it that interesting because the nuances that separate a good performance from a not so good one are hard to see. Having said that, it beats the crap out of at least half the sports out there in terms of entertainment value!

And if it gets a few youngsters into aviation...

Dogimed
7th Jun 2010, 11:19
well said Tibbsy...
:ok::ok::ok::D:D:D
Why can't Aviation be fun and exciting...

Thats how we advanced so far in 100 years....

Wally Mk2
7th Jun 2010, 11:20
I guess we all have opinions here & there's always room for healthy debate. But personally I wouldn't 'temp' fate as such & increase the risks of leaving my family fatherless, but that's just me. I agree with 'Forkie' after a few minutes of that stunt flying it's boring bit like watching race cars go round & round, boring! And as other/shave said here half (most likely more) go to see a crash, sadly.
Whether he (Matt)ought to be doing it? Well only he knows if it's 'worth' it. Got nothing to do with skill, he's the tip of the sword for sure.
I bet we would all be saying something quite different here had Matt been unlucky & bought the farm, the prime word here would be 'condolences'............but it wasn't so............this time!

Sure being older (wowsers) has it's benefits, wisdom like experience comes with age.

Wmk2

AerocatS2A
7th Jun 2010, 19:00
This is akin to allowing hoon-racing by young males in high powered aircraft but I think if you do it in your car, they take your licence and pulverise your car.
No, it's akin to letting a highly trained driver race specially designed motorcars around city streets that have been closed off to the public. Quick, cancel the F1 championship!

MyNameIsIs
8th Jun 2010, 00:05
These aren't your everyday weekend warriors. They're highly trained aerobatic professionals who have been specially picked to compete in the RBAR.


So were the likes of Pip Borrman, Tom Moon etc not "highly trained aerobatic professionals"?

Happens to some of the best.

Matt was just bloody lucky to get away with it this time.

maxgrad
8th Jun 2010, 00:14
His choice, his skill, his life.
Never been to one but can only guess that course and spectator positioning set to not involve public if it goes pear shaped.
My choice is to watch, enjoy and envy the skill, thrill and $.

HarleyD
8th Jun 2010, 00:25
Australia is sooooo a nanny state and culture, with gross exceptions for sporting events ,of course. you can drive your F1 car at the speed of heat around albert park, but can get you family sedan impounded for a bit of a wheelie on a public road. the head copper of road traffic in Vic can preach about how bad it is to speed (in support of the revenue harvesting speed, errr sorry, 'safety' cameras) and then pass of his own speeding as being a bit of a slip attention and no biggie really, 'just a litte bit over'.

I just got back fron Europe and having flown into KL where there was a short announcement such as "drug importation is regarded as a serious offence in malaysia and is punished by a mandatory death sentence", on the way in to the UK, an announcement "due to health and quarantine requirements the aircarft will be sprayed before we arrive in London"

on arrival back into Aus is the obligatory 40 minute video about cunstoms, immigration, quarantine, passports and all other manner of tripe that made me miss the last bit of the crap movie that i was watching.

The Europeans have a much more relaxed attitude to speeding and the like. they even tolerate plane spotters muppets as a part of life's rich tapestry. I was in the office of the chief pilot of a Czech oeprator, on a privately owned rural bohemian airport, when a knock on the door and two heads, festooned with camera straps, poke around it and introduce themselves and ask to have the hangar opened so that they can note the tail numbers of some interesting aircraft that they had heard about at this airfield. our host very graciously summoned his cheif technician from poring over some ruski jet engine and tasked him to take these blokes on a guided tour, amazing..

RBAR will result in a fatality sooner or later, it is very difficult to mtigate risk greatly in this environment, unlike a race track where 2 dimensions can contain catastrophic events in most cases. add the third dimension, ballistics and very marginal protection for participants and spectators. risk Reduction is the remaining consideration and this is where the prime efforts for RBAR is directed, though it wouyld seem that more could be done. This is not such a thing as to be regarded in a blase manner, though pilot's ego's (and i know i am no exception) can lead one to make light of mistakes which can have very serious implications.

I were a ag pilot once and not without several 'close shaves' similar to that of Matty's. I did always try my best to confront the issue properly and put my hand up if it was a straight out :mad: up on my behalf, which it usually was. With constant exposure to the high risk environment it is possible to operate with very small margins ( as ag pilopts do every day) but there must be a margin all the same, even when racing like these guys are, ignore that and you will see than 'bouncing' more often. this is not actually the way to win races as winners only are counted at the finish.

There is a limit to how many times you can 'touch the wall' and get away with it.

Don't stop RBAR, but it must, and surely is, subject to review and councelling etc by the organizers and stewards of the event.

That having been said I am sure that this will not make less people come and watch racing, a bit of inherent danger is a part of the thrill that draws crowds. occaisional incidents like this will bring the masses like a gladiator fight in the coloseum did.

It is still way safer that the Isle of Man TT races that have been on telly this week and where i saw Mike the Bike and Joey Dunlop race in the late 70's, nor did the sheer danger of the 'track' stop me from doing my best to emulate them on a 500cc triumph on 'Mad Sunday'. mea culpa. two germans killed themselves on their hondas on the mountain that day, but they just hosed the stone fences down and re-opened the road as soon as the ambo's left.

nothing wrong with blood sports, but don't pretend that it's all bright and shiney if your fliying suit has a big brown stain in the pants. F18 jockey or not, all that tax payers money that has been invested does not garantee that risks are always correctly balanced, and mistakes acknowledged. of course the press release can be very different from Matty's actual opinion on the subject. I (we) do not know the reality, only the hype.

HD


"The older I get the Better I was"

slackie
8th Jun 2010, 08:24
I wasn't for a minute suggesting that that RBAR be banned...I actually enjoyed watching the first few series, but it's gotten all a little "same ol' same ol' " now saved only by those that I know personally that have been or are currently involved...I've also been know to "depart from straight and level" on the odd occasion myself...and I also enjoy watching rallying, F1, V8Supercars, downhill, luge and bobsled, etc.

I was merely stating that there will be a death soon and it will be interesting then to see how many will be "up in arms" when it is so predictable. Some seem not to understand the risks that are involved. Those that participate obviously do!

Would much prefer some of the more aerobatic competitions (like El Ain etc) be televised or even the more spectacular pilon racing (like Nat Air Races in Reno)...but I guess the appeal isn't quite as widespread.

Chronic Snoozer
8th Jun 2010, 12:11
I don't know whats worse - doomsayers getting off on smug predictions of a crash/death, or losers who attend high risk sporting events hoping to see a crash/death.

Chronic Snoozer
8th Jun 2010, 12:19
I have no qualms about what these guys do, it is a sport which is dangerous and will take a life eventually, just like many other sports. What I do have a problem with is Mr Hall trying to pass it off as mitigated risk! I have never heard so much bullsht in my life.

If you're aren't going to listen to his professional opinion but pass it off as 'bullsh1t', I suggest that it is your loss.

j3pipercub
8th Jun 2010, 13:15
Would you mind translating that for me?

Captain Sand Dune
8th Jun 2010, 22:45
I’ll have a go…………

Like every other pilot who is invited to fly in a Red Bull Air Race, Mat Hall is a highly experienced and highly trained pilot who is well aware of the risks involved with what he is doing. If you are having difficulty in accepting his opinion on the subject, then that’s your problem. If you actually listened to what he had to say without filtering it through the chip you (don’t worry mate there’s lots of others, so you’re in good company!) have on your shoulder about ex-RAAF pilots, you may actually learn something. He was not trying to “pass it off” at all, but was quite up front about the fact that he mis-judged the wind.
Of course you may actually be more experienced and knowledgeable in the subject than Mr Hall, in which case I look forward to further enlightenment on the subject.

Wallsofchina
8th Jun 2010, 23:16
You probably aren't going to get it though.

j3pipercub
9th Jun 2010, 00:50
So, have you read my original post Sand Dune?
I was in no way calling his skill into question, his time as an FCI speaks to that.

I was in no way calling his knowledge into question, his re-writing of the 2FTS syllabus while he was still there speaks to that (That is the urban legend anyway).

I was referring to the Flight Safety Article last March/April. What he was saying in that article was bullsh1t in my opinion.

But as usual, the ex-RAAF brigade arrive and tell me that because I have an opinion contrary to them, that I must have a chip on my shoulder...

If you are having difficulty in accepting his opinion on the subject, then that’s your problem.

Yes, it is, and as a free thinking individual, I am allowed to have one...

He was not trying to “pass it off” at all, but was quite up front about the fact that he mis-judged the wind.

You have no idea what I am talking about do you? I was not talking about what he said on the day. I saw the video about the debrief and yes he was up front. That wasn't what I was talking about. But jump in anyway...you twonk.

But, no I have to admit, you're right CSD, I am just all cut up inside that I didn't get into the airforce. I vent my frustrations at any and all current and ex-RAAF personell. I even dress my dog up in uniform just so I can kick it. Did something stunt your growth or were you a knuck?

j3

Di_Vosh
9th Jun 2010, 01:16
Here is a list of the most dangerous sports in the World.
Cheerleading comes in at No.1 ... Pylon Racing ... No. 52

Peuce, that link was funny!

Most Dangerous Sports - Top Ten List (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-top-tens.com%2Flists%2Fmost-dangerous-sports.asp&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fdg-p-general-aviation-questions%2F417311-matt-hall-loads-his-pants.html)

Oddly, GOLF is listed at #40 and Jumping rope (skipping) is #50.

compressor stall
9th Jun 2010, 01:37
What I do have a problem with is Mr Hall trying to pass it off as mitigated risk! I have never heard so much bullsht in my life.

J3 - with respect I suggest you again look at the concepts of Risk and Risk Mitigation. There is a wealth of information around about this nowdays.

As I said to you earlier in this thread, the risks are mitigated to a point that MH (and others) accept them. The risks that are mitigated include - but are not limited to - training, experience, selection criteria, water rescue craft, divers, wind limits, speed limits etc etc etc.

In no way is there a suggestion that the risks are eliminated or reduced to a level that equates to charter flying. Hell, even in commercial operations for paying passengers CASA has determined different levels of risk that are acceptable. That's why you can't fly single piston engine IFR / night with pax, you need life rafts beyond XXnm, pilot experience requirements etc etc etc.

Risk in aviation is NEVER brought down to a standard minimum. It is brought back to what is acceptable - and in commercial ops that is what level of risk CASA's policy deem appropriate for the (assumed ignorant) fare paying pax.

What is acceptable here then? Well in this case RBAR and the pilots have determined it to be the standards that we see today. They have mitigated the risks to a level that they accept.

It is this acceptance of risk that you seem to have an issue with, and again I suggest you look further into it. In my past I have done some things on mountains, on cliffs and in caves that I would not consider doing now as I sit beside my toddler and about to pick the elder one up from kindy. But at 26 I didn't think twice about climbing a mountain that I had watched three Koreans get choppered off in body bags two days earlier.

I would still mitigate the risks in the same way (avalanche beacon, ropes, training, helmet, ice tools etc etc). My old climbing partner is now a mountain guide. He is still willing to accept the residual risks. With my 2 little boys, I'm not.

AerocatS2A
9th Jun 2010, 01:42
j3pipercub, what exactly was it in the article that you didn't like? You've already said you don't believe the risk mitigation angle and had someone politely explain to you what risk mitigation is. From there you should be able to see that everything those pilots do is mitigating the risk associated with low level aerobatics. The only additional thing they could do would be to not participate, but that wouldn't be risk mitigation, that would be risk avoidance. You are correct that you're entitled to an opinion, but an opinion can still be flat out wrong and an opinion based on ignorance is worthless. Many people have no interest in listening to worthless opinions.

j3pipercub
9th Jun 2010, 02:30
Thanks for the lesson stallie...

I do feel that the level of risk has not been mitigated enough. The majority of locations have the local populace/spectators/city/buildings in quite close proximity and I don't feel this is acceptable residual or properly mitigated risk. I feel exactly the same way about F1/Indy/V8's etc. That though, is the spectator's choice, provided they are fully informed of the risk involved...

The race is a highly competitive, fast paced event where hundredths of seconds can decide the winner. All of these pilots are far far far superior to myself in their skill. And yet we have seen two errors of judgement in the last 2 months, both fortunately not ending in death. Furthermore, for Mr Hall to admit that he 'broke his golden rule and looked into the turn' whilst only during practice indicates that even though these guys are incredibly skilled, they are still trying to best one another. Lets hope that their competitiveness does not result in collateral damage.

In my opinion, as wrong as it may be Aerocat, is that this level of residual risk will be deemed acceptable until someone apart from the competitors is injured or killed in an accident involving a race aircraft. Just like at the Melbourne F1 a few years ago...

And as far as the article is concerned... The paragraphs below

‘The main aim of Red Bull is to entertain people safely,’ he explains.
‘Safety is my first goal – I don’t want to injure myself, or other people, or
damage the aircraft. The second is professionalism – showing that people
can rely on me and my team, both for flying and administration. And
after that, there’s the results – they’re definitely my last priority, because
if they overtake safety or professionalism, there’s no future in it.’


Being very clear on exactly what you’re going to do, an exact and detailed flight plan, Matt says, means that extraneous factors encountered in
various race venues, such as confi ned spaces, buildings etc do not
become an issue.

He admited that he didn't fly the aircraft as he intended... that tells me that everything he stated above is filler.

Once again, I don't have a problem with them going out there and doing this stuff, just don't try and pass it off as something it's not. It's not safe and in my opinion, it is not properly mitigated. If it was safe, you wouldn't have crowds lining the boundaries hoping to see a crash.

j3

AerocatS2A
9th Jun 2010, 05:10
Well nothing is "safe", driving your car is not "safe". I'm curious as to whether you've been to an air race or are familiar with the areas they fly in? They seem to be further away from the crowd than aircraft are at an air show, in fact that's one of the complaints I've heard about the RBAR, not close enough for people to see the action properly.

As for his priorities, just because he got it wrong does not mean that he's full of BS when he talks about safety and mitigating risk. There's planning and preparation, and then there's the execution. His planning and preparation is absolutely designed to make his activity as safe as it can be, unfortunately on this occasion the execution of the plan fell short. That can and does happen in any activity including flying passengers from A to B.

The chances of a spectator being injured seems pretty slim, so far the incidents that have occurred have all been in the display area. Risk to spectators at air show type events normally comes from aerobatic manoeuvres done flying toward the crowd line which is why those types of manoeuvres are generally banned. The RBAR doesn't seem to be high risk in that sense.

GADRIVR
9th Jun 2010, 08:14
What a waste of bandwidth..... the guy hit the water. So what???!!!
It's an inherently dangerous occupation.
Have I missed something??!!:hmm:

YPJT
9th Jun 2010, 08:34
GADRIVR,
shhhh mate don't spoil it, this is more fun that watching potato chips being thrown to seagulls.:ok:

Old Fella
9th Jun 2010, 08:57
j3pipercub. I have read your posts and I am sure you firmly believe that Matt Hall was not totally truthful in his comments pre-hitting the water. I am a couple of days off seventy, have been involved in aviation since 1958 and rather than attend events such as motor racing and Red Bull Air Races hoping to witness a crash, I attend such events to enjoy the skill displayed by the participants in the particular sport. I am certain that the vast majority of those attending such events have the same reasons as do I for going.

As others have said, you are entitled to your opinion. So too are those who disagree with your thoughts on the matter. I have no desire to fly an aircraft in the manner the RBAR pilots do, I do however marvel at their skill and their professionalism. Being mere mortals, they sometimes err. Thankfully mostly they survive to fly another day and I, for one, fully support them.

Tibbsy
9th Jun 2010, 11:32
j3pipercub - have you actually had any training in risk management? Serious question, not a jibe.

fencehopper
9th Jun 2010, 11:33
well put 'old fella' it's the skill factor not the carnage factor.
lets hope that 'MR CASA' continues to allow the nanny state to keep hosting the race and see it move to the east coast.

Hornet306
9th Jun 2010, 14:45
Get your greedy eastern states eyes off RBAR!:= We like it just where it is, flown best off Langley Park and over the magnificent arena of the Swan River. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif Aren't you guys satisfied with living off the taxes and royalties generated by WA businesses? :}

Old Fella
10th Jun 2010, 01:42
Hornet306, having been to Perth on numerous occassions, including to watch the RBAR, I agree that having the aircraft operate from Langley Park and compete over the Swan river is ideal, but don't deny the rest of Australia the opportunity to see the RBAR "live". Getting to the West and back East is not a cheap exercise and there would be many who cannot afford the travel and accomodation costs. As for living off the royalties and taxes generated in WA, some of us earn a living independent of WA generated funds. There you go, you wanted to "wind-up" someone, so now you can feel satisfied and have a nice day!!!

The Green Goblin
10th Jun 2010, 01:56
aren't you guys satisfied with living off the taxes and royalties generated by WA businesses?

Nope, that's why Rudd is asking for more!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/STXco3O2PHI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/STXco3O2PHI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Bevan666
11th Jun 2010, 00:46
Comment on the Matt Hall facebook page;

Sydney Seaplanes at Rose Bay rang - they said ur interview went really well- you got the job!

:ok:

frangatang
11th Jun 2010, 05:32
Aagh, good old Harry Secombe (Sir Cumference after his knighthood) or neddy seagoon!

DutchRoll
11th Jun 2010, 07:13
Every time I read pprune (which is really pretty bad for my health), I pray even harder that "normal" folk never discover its existence, for if they did, they'd probably never fly in a plane again.

j3pipercub, for all the poo-hooing he is copping, does have a valid point of view, despite the bravado and bullsh*t posted by some others so far.

There is a limit, which may of course vary from person to person, as to what level of "risk" is deemed appropriate before people other than the main risk-takers start getting hurt. That's what he is debating. RBAR themselves have imposed additional safety restrictions (much to some competitors' public angst - but hey, you wouldn't be a pilot if you didn't feel it was your god-given right to do whatever the hell you want, would you?) in this year's comp. That's as good a sign as any that race organisers feel safety could be improved, while not detracting from the spectacle.

As for Matt (and speaking as ex-RAAF and having also scared the living daylights out of myself several times), put plain and simple, he screwed up, then made an excellent recovery. However another nanosecond of aileron response and it might have been a different story.

remoak
11th Jun 2010, 10:09
put plain and simple, he screwed up, then made an excellent recovery.

More like "put plain and simple, he screwed up, then got really lucky." There wasn't much that was deliberate about that "recovery". What wasn't fear and instinct was pure luck.

As far as "risk mitigation" is concerned, I'm more with J3 on this one. The whole "risk mitigation" thing is, in my opinion, nothing more than a language construct to explain what most of us know instinctively, but which generates reams of paper and professional-sounding opinions that only serve to mitigate the risk that the activity may be banned by the feckless government agencies that are out to spoil our fun. And, of course, makes a bunch of money for risk mitigation "experts".

Doing Risk Mitigation on RBAR is a little like doing Risk Mitigation on throwing a lighted match into a can of petrol... sometimes the match is snuffed out, and sometimes there is a big bang...

The RBAR is quite fun to watch, and should be allowed to continue, but nobody should be under any illusion that it is particularly safe. As far as I can see, the first fatality is simply a matter of time... as the two extremely lucky recent events illustrate.

Wallsofchina
11th Jun 2010, 10:32
Risk isn't a single live/die thing.

There are degrees to risk, and risk mitigation involves getting the degrees into the green or the amber, rather than the red where death is 100% inevitable.

remoak
11th Jun 2010, 10:45
Maybe, but I would say that the difference between a competently planned race without Risk Mitigation, and one with Risk Mitigation, is simply slightly different shades of greenish amber. You can still die, but death is not inevitable at a particular event - although it is a statistical probability over a number of events.

AerocatS2A
11th Jun 2010, 11:08
A race without risk mitigation would not, by definition, be competently planned. RBAR without risk mitigation would be me and some mates jumping into some souped up aerobatic machines having never done anything like it before in our lives and "having a go". Might be great fun, and might even be interesting as a spectator sport, but it would be incredibly risky compared to the real RBAR. The argument here is not really about whether there is any risk mitigation it is about how much should we accept. The organisers and pilots obviously accept what is in place at the moment, some here think there should be more, whatever, if you do much more to reduce risk you end up taking away anything interesting about it. Hey, lets do it at 3000', and why not put a 4g limit on it. Lets prohibit bank angles greater than 45 degrees and pitch angles more than 30 degrees. And lets make the aeroplanes two crew, and ensure there's a toilet in case the guys need a break mid-flight. I think that as it stands it is no more dangerous than an airshow, and that is as it should be.

Captain Sand Dune
11th Jun 2010, 11:59
Hey, lets do it at 3000', and why not put a 4g limit on it. Lets prohibit bank angles greater than 45 degrees and pitch angles more than 30 degrees. And lets make the aeroplanes two crew, and ensure there's a toilet in case the guys need a break mid-flight.
You'd make a great senior RAAF officer!:E

GADRIVR
11th Jun 2010, 12:02
"As for Matt (and speaking as ex-RAAF and having also scared the living daylights out of myself several times), put plain and simple, he screwed up, then made an excellent recovery. However another nanosecond of aileron response and it might have been a different story."



..... and your point is??!!:bored:

DutchRoll
11th Jun 2010, 13:51
..... and your point is??!!
He screwed up, then made an excellent recovery. However another nanosecond of aileron response and it might have been a different story.

Wasn't that what I said? Hang on a sec while I check...........yep, that's what I said.

Is there an alternative way to interpret this statement? Are there multiple possible "points"? He was lucky. Lady luck shone upon him. His wingtip hit the water just as he was managing the recovery from the g-stall. His roll rate was just enough to get him (approximately) upright before the first impact. He had just enough airspeed and power to climb away with the momentum after hitting the water.

Geezus mate. Do I have to spell it out to you???? He WAS F***ING LUCKY.

Don't get me wrong. We all need luck and I've personally had my fair share of it. I also know others who are either buried deeply in the ground, or whose ashes are scattered all over the place, who didn't get their slice of luck.

remoak
12th Jun 2010, 01:55
A race without risk mitigation would not, by definition, be competently planned. RBAR without risk mitigation would be me and some mates jumping into some souped up aerobatic machines having never done anything like it before in our lives and "having a go". Might be great fun, and might even be interesting as a spectator sport, but it would be incredibly risky compared to the real RBAR.So you are saying that air race events planned before the invention of the magical buzz-words "Risk Mitigation" were inherently unsafe? And that the application of common sense, airmanship and consultation can't get the job done?

As far as I am concerned, the world has become a less satisfying place since the advent of excessive Health and Safety legislation, endless risk assessments for every possible human activity, and quality assurance programs that do little to assure anything. Aviation is full of this crap, and Australia is a world leader in anal regulation - sorry chaps, but it is. Have a look at automotive ADRs sometime if you want a lesson in the futility of over-regulation...

Great if you like living in a Nanny State, otherwise a sure road to blandness and the triumph of the soporific.

AerocatS2A
12th Jun 2010, 06:46
Remoak, no Im saying that risk mitigation is something people have been doing forever. Call it common sense, airmanship, or whatever. Any properly organized event has some kind of restraints in place to control risk and always has done. It doesn't matter what you call it.

Captain Sand Dune
12th Jun 2010, 07:24
"Risk mitigation" is the new buzz word whereby we attempt to quantify common sense. Used properly it is actually reasonably useful, however it is fast becoming something that those without experience and/or ability cling to as a butt-covering procedure.
The ADF is gripped by risk mitigation mania on all levels, not just aviation. In my opinion it is a useful tool when developing new capabilities. However risk mitigation is almost mandatory for routine activities and has degenerated into a self-fulfilling paperwork exercise.

remoak
12th Jun 2010, 09:45
Precisely... and the only point to it all is the avoidance of litigation. That's a pretty sad state of affairs...

Wallsofchina
12th Jun 2010, 11:40
And the saving of lives, but let's not slow down a good bleat

Tibbsy
12th Jun 2010, 11:47
Precisely... and the only point to it all is the avoidance of litigation. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.. Unfortunately, risk management principles are often poorly taught, understood, or applied. Like anything, if it's not done properly then it's probably not worth doing.


Captain Sand Dune is on the money when he says: Used properly it is actually reasonably useful :ok:


Interestingly, the RBAS has been running for eight years now - no fatalities or serious injuries that I'm aware of (happy to be corrected here if I'm wrong). Beginning in 2003, the first crash didn't even occur until 2010. If this race is inherently dangerous (it is!), then I respectfully suggest that there has been more than just dumb good luck at play. Perhaps the RBAR risk management plan has been pretty effective in mitigating the inherent risks eh? ;) - which after all, is the raison d'être of aviation risk management.

remoak
12th Jun 2010, 12:05
I respectfully suggest that there has been more than just dumb good luck at play

It might also have something to do with pilots not particularly wanting to die, or kill others... maybe?

The Reno Air Races went five years without a serious incident... and then in 2007, blam! three fatal crashes. I hope you are not suggesting that these races, held in the most litgious country on the planet, were not the subject of intensive "risk mitigation" studies.

Perhaps the principles of safety have been around for considerably longer than the now fashionable "risk mitigation" process has?

I'm not suggesting that it is an innately bad thing to adopt these processes, but for goodness sake see them for what they actually are - a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise that keeps the lawyers happy and simply affirms existing best practices, while generating masses of largely superfluous paper.

Tibbsy
12th Jun 2010, 12:33
I don't reckon anyone commits aviation with an intent to kill themselves (or others) but that doesn't stop it happening with monotonous regularity in other aviation disciplines which aren't characterized by formal risk management processes.

but for goodness sake see them for what they actually are - a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise that keeps the lawyers happy on the whole, I agree with you but again point out that risk management only becomes a bureacratic box-ticking exercise, when done badly. It's just that it is done badly a lot!

As with any trend taken up by the managerial class, there has been a swing too far in one direction which will, in time, self-correct to a more sensible implementation; this has already happened in several large aviation organisations. But there is nothing wrong with the either the fundamentals of risk management, or the outcomes achieved when risk management principles are correctly appplied.

The problem is not risk management, it is the poor implementation (and understanding) of it. :ok:

Damien1989
16th Jun 2010, 02:18
Matt Hall out of New York Red Bull Air Race, accepts decision|Matt Hall Racing (http://matthallracing.com/archives/1749)

Looks like Matt Hall has been stood down for the New York event by the race committee.

Wallsofchina
16th Jun 2010, 03:10
10/10
Safety Rules were in place
Race Committee investigated incident
Corrective action of penalty taken
Pilot identifies risk level
Operations move back in direction of more safety
Risk is lowered
Everyone involved positive
More fun for spectators coming up

All boxes ticked

spindoctor
23rd Jun 2010, 09:56
FYI


Hello to All,



I am writing everyone today to let all of you know that as of two days ago our company, MX Aircraft, formally excluded itself from supplying aircraft for use in the Red Bull Air Races. Many things have contributed to our decision to withdraw from the sport (show) including first and foremost the arrogant unsafe and foolish approach to aviation exhibited by those currently running the races. If it were an honest sporting event I believe the constant grief associated with involvement might be overlooked but unfortunately it is not. What all of you see and think you know about the air race is a far departure from the truth. My personal dealings with the big Austrian company over the years have done nothing but make my blood boil and my hair turn grey so I finally woke up two days ago and decided enough was enough. Life is simply too short to be constantly pushed around, lied to and underappreciated. I also believe it will be just a matter of time before worse things happen than someone ditching in the water and I don’t wish to be a part of that.



We will again focus our attention toward manufacturing first class aerobatic and sport aircraft which is the main reason we developed our planes to begin with. If there’s one positive I can draw from my experience with the RBAR it’s that we have been forced to continually refine our planes over the years and as a result we are now producing 1150 pound six cylinder all composite aircraft. Pretty amazing as back a year or two ago I for one never thought it would be possible. And it appears you can run them into the water pretty hard and survive also.



I fully expect to be punished by Red Bull in the near future for this statement as I’m sure they will use their ever powerful media machine to make false accusations and mop the bathroom stalls of aviation with my company but I just wanted to give everyone a personal explanation for our departure from their series. At this point I really don’t care what they do, I am just relieved to be removed from the madness!



Thank you all for your time and understanding in this matter.



All the Best!



Chris Meyer

MX Aircraft


Well done Chris.

remoak
23rd Jun 2010, 11:31
Wow...............

Keg
23rd Jun 2010, 13:15
Do we know if that letter from MX is legit?

Dangly Bits
23rd Jun 2010, 13:33
I'm with Keg.

This could be either a great hoax or really big news.

spindoctor
23rd Jun 2010, 18:43
No Hoax.

This email was sent by Chris on the 18th, and has since been independently confirmed.

Furthermore I can completely understand his reasons for doing what he has done, having been on the receiving end of the RBAR circus.

Be clear in your mind the RBAR is not about the "worlds best pilots", it is about Red Bull selling a drink!

Mick.B
24th Jun 2010, 10:39
Cant find a single thing on the net about this. You got a link or anything else to go on.

AirSic
24th Jun 2010, 16:43
There is nothing released anywhere else on this matter.

If you have been "forced" to improve your product to a point that you would never have thought possible and you are happy with these developments, what is the real issue here? You have made money from these developments, no?!?!

"I don't want people to use my product irresponsibly"....are you kidding?!?! You are going to continue producing and selling high performance aerobatic aircraft but are stressed about how they are being used.....I'll bite.....where is the punch line here?

Yes, RBAR is sponsored by Red Bull who produce beverages....car manufacturers sponsor racing events...alcohol and cigarette companies do the same. These events are dangerous but you don't see Ford or Holden worried about "how their products are used"...to the contrary.

I would think that you would be on top of the world with International recognition of your product.

If there is more to this story, and there has to be for it to be correct, then post some examples or give us some details as to why the RBAR is as menacing as you suggest otherwise I see nothing here other than a huge prank with some serious liability issues.:=

spindoctor
24th Jun 2010, 22:19
It is no hoax, drop them a line if you like MX Aircraft Official Website (http://www.mxaircraft.com/)

I doubt if Red Bull would be shouting this from the rooftops, and as Chris points out they will undoubtedly be using their powerful and effective resources to show themselves as the good guys.

Chris Meyers has outlined his reasons for making this move, he is an honest businessman with a lot of integrity (and has a great product).

I could fill this page with my dealings with RBAR, and if Tom Moon was still with us he could do so as well (plus a few others that I know). If what I went through was only a small part of what Chris has had to put up with, then I can fully understand his move.

I have no fear in saying publicly that RBAR are a dishonest company to deal with.

Wallsofchina
25th Jun 2010, 07:00
I would think something as momentous as this would be on the News section of his website Spindoctor.

Your name is beginning to make me nervous.

djpil
25th Jun 2010, 07:41
That MX email is on the "IAC Exploder" email list - you can see the original plus replies here (http://aerobaticsweb.org/pipermail/acro/2010-June/017301.html)and here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcroMod/message/18336). I haven't had any dealings with RBAR and personally I'd choose not to deal with Chris Meyer.

spindoctor
25th Jun 2010, 10:03
Djpil

Well I guess that would be entirely up to you, but he gave me a big break when he didn't need to legally or morally (try sleeping at night with a 1/2 mill+ commitment?)

No spin from me, despite the name. I am happy to standby any and all of my statements.

Mick.B
25th Jun 2010, 22:34
Its Fair Dinkum. Thanks for the heads up Spinny. Hope they can sort it out for the teams sake who use his aircragt.