Fairey Firefly at Duxford
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to add my tu'ppence-worth to this sad subject. I have been Nimrod (NCO) Aircrew since 1982, and have 4,500 hours on type. Back in the 80's and 90's if your crew was selected to be the "display" crew for that year, you just did it. The flight deck had a few weeks of instruction from the CFI (usually George Morris...) and the back end, min crew of four, just got on with it. There was no discussion of not wanting to, you just took your turn within the rest of the crew.
I did two seasons, separated by a couple of years. The first season for me ended in Fairford when my Captain almost killed us twice in the same display, due to the pressure to outperform other displays (yes, even in a Nimrod). Even now my blood runs cold thinking about looking out the beam window with low airspeed and the ground far too close, getting closer. It was the last display I flew, as I'd had enough. I refused point-blank to fly any more.
A couple of years later, again my crew was chosen for the job. My refusal to fly didn't go down well at all, and I was treated as a bit of a wimp, but I didn't care, it was a personal decision and I am still happy with it. The first display of the year was in Whidbey Island, Washington State, and they threatened not to take me along because of my "truculence". Eventually they relented, and I went along on the trip, but didn't fly any displays.
The Nimrod was taxiing out for its pre-display practice, when an A6 Intruder with two on board ploughed into the woods off the front starboard quarter, 400 yards away. The two pilots, starboard beam and Aeo all witnessed the accident. They turned around, taxied back and shut down. My decision not to fly was then re-evaluated by some on board.
And then we come to that awful, awful moment when the 120 crew were filmed killing themselves in Toronto's waterfront. Again, pilot (and, it transpired, corporate) error. Seven friends and acquaintances dead.
What we do as military aviators is intrinsically dangerous. I accept the risk, but only in the line of reasonable need. If I die somewhere in a storm at 20W trying to save a life, no one will be videoing the incident for my family to agonise over. Shot down over Iraq? All in the line of duty, no problem. My death would not have been pointless. Killed while entertaining a crowd, and the incident re-run the whole evening on the box? No thanks.
Am I against air displays? Well, no. But I am against the culture of every pilot trying to out-do every other, which is as sure as day follows night. Somewhere along the line there has to be a concerted effort to change this culture within the display world, at least when there are other crew members aboard who have no control over their lives during that five-minute period when they are on display, for I am sure many of them do not know the risks they take.
I did two seasons, separated by a couple of years. The first season for me ended in Fairford when my Captain almost killed us twice in the same display, due to the pressure to outperform other displays (yes, even in a Nimrod). Even now my blood runs cold thinking about looking out the beam window with low airspeed and the ground far too close, getting closer. It was the last display I flew, as I'd had enough. I refused point-blank to fly any more.
A couple of years later, again my crew was chosen for the job. My refusal to fly didn't go down well at all, and I was treated as a bit of a wimp, but I didn't care, it was a personal decision and I am still happy with it. The first display of the year was in Whidbey Island, Washington State, and they threatened not to take me along because of my "truculence". Eventually they relented, and I went along on the trip, but didn't fly any displays.
The Nimrod was taxiing out for its pre-display practice, when an A6 Intruder with two on board ploughed into the woods off the front starboard quarter, 400 yards away. The two pilots, starboard beam and Aeo all witnessed the accident. They turned around, taxied back and shut down. My decision not to fly was then re-evaluated by some on board.
And then we come to that awful, awful moment when the 120 crew were filmed killing themselves in Toronto's waterfront. Again, pilot (and, it transpired, corporate) error. Seven friends and acquaintances dead.
What we do as military aviators is intrinsically dangerous. I accept the risk, but only in the line of reasonable need. If I die somewhere in a storm at 20W trying to save a life, no one will be videoing the incident for my family to agonise over. Shot down over Iraq? All in the line of duty, no problem. My death would not have been pointless. Killed while entertaining a crowd, and the incident re-run the whole evening on the box? No thanks.
Am I against air displays? Well, no. But I am against the culture of every pilot trying to out-do every other, which is as sure as day follows night. Somewhere along the line there has to be a concerted effort to change this culture within the display world, at least when there are other crew members aboard who have no control over their lives during that five-minute period when they are on display, for I am sure many of them do not know the risks they take.
Which is why I'd far sooner watch the BBMF or a Shuttleworth display than most of the 'warbird' displays...
Have seen several close calls over the years; a CF-18 at Abbotsford that missed the ground by 17ft on the AoA limit, a F-111 at Alconbury which started its display with the wing at the wrong sweep angle and got into severe wing rock, a Jetstream at Leuchars which nearly planted itself on the RW - but staggered back to Finningley instead......
A fast, low pass, a few gentle manoeuvres flown with grace - fine. A full power take-off into a constant angle (pitch and roll) climbing turn by a heavy at lightweight - fine. But a barrel roll too low and too slow in an unforgiving and rare old beast - no thanks.
And sorry, but I'm not particularly fond of coloured smoke displays. Far sooner that particular budget was spent on keeping a historic aircraft or few airborne. 9 Hawks or one each of Harvard, Provost, Meteor, Vampire, Gnat, Hunter.....? I'd prefer the latter. Saw JN at a Swedish air display on Disco Wings the other night -the Swedish AF seems to have preserved every post war Swedish jet in flying condition - J29, Lansen, Draken, Viggen - probably got a Hunter and who knows what else in store somewhere!
Have seen several close calls over the years; a CF-18 at Abbotsford that missed the ground by 17ft on the AoA limit, a F-111 at Alconbury which started its display with the wing at the wrong sweep angle and got into severe wing rock, a Jetstream at Leuchars which nearly planted itself on the RW - but staggered back to Finningley instead......
A fast, low pass, a few gentle manoeuvres flown with grace - fine. A full power take-off into a constant angle (pitch and roll) climbing turn by a heavy at lightweight - fine. But a barrel roll too low and too slow in an unforgiving and rare old beast - no thanks.
And sorry, but I'm not particularly fond of coloured smoke displays. Far sooner that particular budget was spent on keeping a historic aircraft or few airborne. 9 Hawks or one each of Harvard, Provost, Meteor, Vampire, Gnat, Hunter.....? I'd prefer the latter. Saw JN at a Swedish air display on Disco Wings the other night -the Swedish AF seems to have preserved every post war Swedish jet in flying condition - J29, Lansen, Draken, Viggen - probably got a Hunter and who knows what else in store somewhere!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
daithespy - what's the reasoning behind the full crew being on board for the Nimrod display? They surely can't all be essential to a 5-10 minute bit of flying? I know there are no MoD rules to forbid it (unlike the CAA's restrictions on civvy display acts) but do they require the full crew on board or are they there because they want to be?
Dai the Spy:
"The flight deck had a few weeks of instruction from the CFI....."
Over the year's I've witnessed a host of airshow accidents, few of them involving pilots whose primary role was display flying.
One cannot help but wonder whether the amount of time and number of flying hours devoted to type display preparation and practise is usually adequate. When it comes to displaying a historic type - or indeed any type that isn't your day-to-day aeroplane, is sufficient time allocated to type conversion and maintaining currency?
I can see the temptation to think that because a chap is (or has been) a highly skilled and capable competent operator in (say) the Sea Harrier, then displaying (say) the Firefly should hardly stretch him.
But while flying the Firefly (with sufficient instruction and practise) should be straightforward, should anyone expect that pilot to be able to display it, in public, at low level, at an unfamiliar aerodrome, before he has gained a wealth of experience on that class of aircraft and on that specific type?
Back in 1950, the Squadron ace who would have displayed the Firefly at the RNAS Ford air display (say) would have been flying the type for months, and would have 'filled his boots' with flying time. Before flying the Firefly he'd probably have flown some similar type, and he'd have amassed hours and hours on Harvards.
Today's Firefly display pilot's relevant flying hours are likely to be considerably more modest, and yet he will probably try to fly a very similar display routine.
I'm also inclined to question whether it was sensible or necessary to fly the aircraft 'two up'. The sight of Don Bullock taking however many people with him in the A-26 made me nervous about displays flown with supernumaries on board, and countless accidents since then (Vintage Pair at Mildenhall) should surely have reinforced the lesson.
If there is a reason to fly with extra crew (the Swordfish would look 'empty') and if the risks are minimal, then perhaps there is a case. But was it necessary for the Firefly to fly with the rear seat occupied by more than ballast?
"The flight deck had a few weeks of instruction from the CFI....."
Over the year's I've witnessed a host of airshow accidents, few of them involving pilots whose primary role was display flying.
One cannot help but wonder whether the amount of time and number of flying hours devoted to type display preparation and practise is usually adequate. When it comes to displaying a historic type - or indeed any type that isn't your day-to-day aeroplane, is sufficient time allocated to type conversion and maintaining currency?
I can see the temptation to think that because a chap is (or has been) a highly skilled and capable competent operator in (say) the Sea Harrier, then displaying (say) the Firefly should hardly stretch him.
But while flying the Firefly (with sufficient instruction and practise) should be straightforward, should anyone expect that pilot to be able to display it, in public, at low level, at an unfamiliar aerodrome, before he has gained a wealth of experience on that class of aircraft and on that specific type?
Back in 1950, the Squadron ace who would have displayed the Firefly at the RNAS Ford air display (say) would have been flying the type for months, and would have 'filled his boots' with flying time. Before flying the Firefly he'd probably have flown some similar type, and he'd have amassed hours and hours on Harvards.
Today's Firefly display pilot's relevant flying hours are likely to be considerably more modest, and yet he will probably try to fly a very similar display routine.
I'm also inclined to question whether it was sensible or necessary to fly the aircraft 'two up'. The sight of Don Bullock taking however many people with him in the A-26 made me nervous about displays flown with supernumaries on board, and countless accidents since then (Vintage Pair at Mildenhall) should surely have reinforced the lesson.
If there is a reason to fly with extra crew (the Swordfish would look 'empty') and if the risks are minimal, then perhaps there is a case. But was it necessary for the Firefly to fly with the rear seat occupied by more than ballast?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: on this planet
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question whether or not display pilots get enough practise is relevant only when the display demands skills not normally exercised by the individual. It is normally possible to put together a display sequence that will adequately demonstrate the aircraft to the public without adding manoeuvres requiring excessive practise; however, some people are not content with that and want to impress more. They therefore need to practise more.
Beagle's point about enjoying BBMF despite the fact that their displays are much more constrained and potentially less impressive than their civilian counterparts is relevant here. The flight has been able for years now to fly a very full season of displays with only a reasonable amount of practise and little fatigue on the aircraft. Long may they continue to impress without wasting people or machines.
Beagle's point about enjoying BBMF despite the fact that their displays are much more constrained and potentially less impressive than their civilian counterparts is relevant here. The flight has been able for years now to fly a very full season of displays with only a reasonable amount of practise and little fatigue on the aircraft. Long may they continue to impress without wasting people or machines.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DamienB, in answer to your question about the number on board the Nimrod during displays, the breakdown is:
two pilots
one engineer
one navigator
one Radar operator (which must be switched on during flight, unless the scanner is wired up, which clearly is impractical when away from base with the minimum of groundcrew)
One other person (for reasons of safety, believe it or not - should a fire break out or the back end fill with smoke, one person (radar op) would immediately investigate the underfloor areas, backed up by the spare aircrew member on the portable O2 bottle.
During the Toronto flight there were seven on board, I think. This was normal, and is because the pilots feel safer if the beam windows are manned too, as there are extra pairs of eyes when flying in a crowded piece of sky.
The normal compliment is (was) 13, comprising the three on the flight deck, two navigators, an AEO, three Acoustic operators and four "Dry" (above surface) sensor operators. Recently because of manning problems this has had to be reduced to 12.
Although the RAF is not bound by the CAA regulations regarding supernumary crew during displays, it does in fact comply with it, at least here in the "kipper fleet".
As for near misses, I saw the Frecci Tricolori the season before they had their horrendous crash, in a little airfield in Belgium called Kleine Brogel. They did their "reverse starburst" (a bit like the Reds' one-on-one, but involving the entire formation), starting high for the crossovers, and getting lower as each pair near-missed each other with what looked like only vertical separation. The last pair were so low, one of them had to bunt over the wing of the parked Nimrod to make it, almost knocking the Chief off his perch. They then formated, engaged smoke, and came down the runway at a VERY low height, the plan being to peel off one by one and land in turn...except the had not noticed there was no wind and they had just blacked the runway for 10 minutes until the red, white and green smoke eventually cleared!
At the same display, and as God is my witness, I saw this with my own eyes, an F16 pilot taxied out to do his display, stopped abeam the beer tent, climbed out (with engine still thrusting), ran over to the tent, downed a full half liter of beer, climbed back into the jet and did his display!
That's what I mean about peer competitiveness in the aircrew enclosure - it is fierce. Who on earth could top that? I'm glad we didn't have to fly a display on that day.
two pilots
one engineer
one navigator
one Radar operator (which must be switched on during flight, unless the scanner is wired up, which clearly is impractical when away from base with the minimum of groundcrew)
One other person (for reasons of safety, believe it or not - should a fire break out or the back end fill with smoke, one person (radar op) would immediately investigate the underfloor areas, backed up by the spare aircrew member on the portable O2 bottle.
During the Toronto flight there were seven on board, I think. This was normal, and is because the pilots feel safer if the beam windows are manned too, as there are extra pairs of eyes when flying in a crowded piece of sky.
The normal compliment is (was) 13, comprising the three on the flight deck, two navigators, an AEO, three Acoustic operators and four "Dry" (above surface) sensor operators. Recently because of manning problems this has had to be reduced to 12.
Although the RAF is not bound by the CAA regulations regarding supernumary crew during displays, it does in fact comply with it, at least here in the "kipper fleet".
As for near misses, I saw the Frecci Tricolori the season before they had their horrendous crash, in a little airfield in Belgium called Kleine Brogel. They did their "reverse starburst" (a bit like the Reds' one-on-one, but involving the entire formation), starting high for the crossovers, and getting lower as each pair near-missed each other with what looked like only vertical separation. The last pair were so low, one of them had to bunt over the wing of the parked Nimrod to make it, almost knocking the Chief off his perch. They then formated, engaged smoke, and came down the runway at a VERY low height, the plan being to peel off one by one and land in turn...except the had not noticed there was no wind and they had just blacked the runway for 10 minutes until the red, white and green smoke eventually cleared!
At the same display, and as God is my witness, I saw this with my own eyes, an F16 pilot taxied out to do his display, stopped abeam the beer tent, climbed out (with engine still thrusting), ran over to the tent, downed a full half liter of beer, climbed back into the jet and did his display!
That's what I mean about peer competitiveness in the aircrew enclosure - it is fierce. Who on earth could top that? I'm glad we didn't have to fly a display on that day.
Tony
"The question whether or not display pilots get enough practise is relevant only when the display demands skills not normally exercised by the individual."
Surely any display in a 1940s heavy, high-powered piston fighter demands different (just different, not superior) skills to those normally exercised by any current, serving military pilot?
Surely no wise professional pilot should want to undertake a display in an aircraft with which he was not completely and intimately familiar? How many hours of conversion and working down a display to display height is required to gain this level of familiarity?
Even a very benign display consisting of little more than flybys and wingovers is being flown at airshow height, and should not be flown by someone who is not thoroughly familiar with the aircraft, its limits, and its handling characteristics.
I'd have thought that to display a wartime fighter type of aircraft safely, a pilot should have a thorough grounding in a heavy piston trainer (a Harvard or a Provost, say) of perhaps 20 hours GH and aeros, with a further 12 hours GH (not transit) on type before working a display down to airshow altitude. That might seem over-cautious, but I don't think that less than six hours, including transit flying, is nearly enough.
"The question whether or not display pilots get enough practise is relevant only when the display demands skills not normally exercised by the individual."
Surely any display in a 1940s heavy, high-powered piston fighter demands different (just different, not superior) skills to those normally exercised by any current, serving military pilot?
Surely no wise professional pilot should want to undertake a display in an aircraft with which he was not completely and intimately familiar? How many hours of conversion and working down a display to display height is required to gain this level of familiarity?
Even a very benign display consisting of little more than flybys and wingovers is being flown at airshow height, and should not be flown by someone who is not thoroughly familiar with the aircraft, its limits, and its handling characteristics.
I'd have thought that to display a wartime fighter type of aircraft safely, a pilot should have a thorough grounding in a heavy piston trainer (a Harvard or a Provost, say) of perhaps 20 hours GH and aeros, with a further 12 hours GH (not transit) on type before working a display down to airshow altitude. That might seem over-cautious, but I don't think that less than six hours, including transit flying, is nearly enough.
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is very vexed question. It certainly requires the need for really experienced people but what can be perceived here is a trial by jury to see who is the better. The fact is there ain't no such thing! Unless you want a 'ghoul watching display'.
Jacko mentioned Don Bullock. That is actually a case in point. It was not a question of supernumaries being on board. It was DB responding to a call of 'can I come along?' He took 6 good people with him - some I knew personally. He asked me if I would like to go along as I stood alongside him at briefing!! I would have said NO anyway, but as it happened I was next in the display sequence. I clearly recall him asking for an extra "two mintues" of the Display Director, Simon Ames, who queried it. DB argued that he needed it to execute a barrel roll at the end of his display. The DD refused but DB did the barrel roll anyway - straight into the bottom of the valley at Biggin. It was damn near criminal in my view.
It was not much fun following that, but I did my 5 minutes - and made a few phone calls when I landed.
An aeroplane full of people in a display is an ABSOLUTE no no! Indeed, no one other than the required crew should be on board. It is sheer madness to do otherwise. The end result has often been that some innocents had their lives ended prematurely.
Sadly there have been a few pilots who were an accident waiting to happen. I guess it might remain that way.
Jacko mentioned Don Bullock. That is actually a case in point. It was not a question of supernumaries being on board. It was DB responding to a call of 'can I come along?' He took 6 good people with him - some I knew personally. He asked me if I would like to go along as I stood alongside him at briefing!! I would have said NO anyway, but as it happened I was next in the display sequence. I clearly recall him asking for an extra "two mintues" of the Display Director, Simon Ames, who queried it. DB argued that he needed it to execute a barrel roll at the end of his display. The DD refused but DB did the barrel roll anyway - straight into the bottom of the valley at Biggin. It was damn near criminal in my view.
It was not much fun following that, but I did my 5 minutes - and made a few phone calls when I landed.
An aeroplane full of people in a display is an ABSOLUTE no no! Indeed, no one other than the required crew should be on board. It is sheer madness to do otherwise. The end result has often been that some innocents had their lives ended prematurely.
Sadly there have been a few pilots who were an accident waiting to happen. I guess it might remain that way.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of good observations about display flying on this thread. Just a couple of my own (opinions) as a display pilot:
The display should be tailored to the aircraft. There is little point in doing graceful wingovers and flybys in an Extra 300, but it looks fantastic when done by a Spitfire. F16/18 etc turn tight, lots of g, lots of power, looks good slow or fast, but the Tornado wouldn't look good trying to copy it.
Unusual or unique aircraft should be shown off to the crowd from as many angles as possible, not a lot of point in wazzing past at 500kts on the deck - but an F4? Awesome.
The BBMF do a good display and show the aircraft off well, it's just 10 minutes too long. I've seen a Harvard flick rolled at the top of a loop; didn't look impressive to your average spotter as it goes round so slow - chuffing dangerous though (yes, I've displayed them).
A Mustang, fast flybys and wingovers, with the gun ports uncovered. Looks good, sounds good. Would look crap doing a slow speed pass with the gear and flaps down. looks good when a really big jet does it though.
Reichman
The display should be tailored to the aircraft. There is little point in doing graceful wingovers and flybys in an Extra 300, but it looks fantastic when done by a Spitfire. F16/18 etc turn tight, lots of g, lots of power, looks good slow or fast, but the Tornado wouldn't look good trying to copy it.
Unusual or unique aircraft should be shown off to the crowd from as many angles as possible, not a lot of point in wazzing past at 500kts on the deck - but an F4? Awesome.
The BBMF do a good display and show the aircraft off well, it's just 10 minutes too long. I've seen a Harvard flick rolled at the top of a loop; didn't look impressive to your average spotter as it goes round so slow - chuffing dangerous though (yes, I've displayed them).
A Mustang, fast flybys and wingovers, with the gun ports uncovered. Looks good, sounds good. Would look crap doing a slow speed pass with the gear and flaps down. looks good when a really big jet does it though.
Reichman
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: on this planet
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
You're not too far off the mark but it would be pointless to define too closely how many hours one needs to display a big piston - or anything else for that matter. Some catch on quickly and others take longer. Some are naturals and others more mechanical. It is much more important that the individual stays well within his and the aircrafts' limitations and that he has the right temperament for a display pilot.
Unfortunately, we have lost far too many old and irreplaceable aircraft on the display circuit and it does seem that some pilots think they can fly them without much training simply because they are slower than their regular steeds. However, all aircraft bite fools and the old aircraft bite more often and more easily.
Reichman
If the BBMF display is 10 minutes too long for you, take a break next time they display whilst everybody else enjoys them.
You're not too far off the mark but it would be pointless to define too closely how many hours one needs to display a big piston - or anything else for that matter. Some catch on quickly and others take longer. Some are naturals and others more mechanical. It is much more important that the individual stays well within his and the aircrafts' limitations and that he has the right temperament for a display pilot.
Unfortunately, we have lost far too many old and irreplaceable aircraft on the display circuit and it does seem that some pilots think they can fly them without much training simply because they are slower than their regular steeds. However, all aircraft bite fools and the old aircraft bite more often and more easily.
Reichman
If the BBMF display is 10 minutes too long for you, take a break next time they display whilst everybody else enjoys them.
I'd rather have over-cautious minima for training hours on type and on class, even if some pilots thereby gained more experience than was strictly necessary, than to see the present situation continue.
And however quickly someone 'picks things up', six hours on type is NEVER enough to fly a public display at airshow altitude.
And however quickly someone 'picks things up', six hours on type is NEVER enough to fly a public display at airshow altitude.
If you think that a BBMF display is too long, the Pink Tarts and their coloured smoke seems like an eternity........
And as for the Thunderturkeys...
And as for the Thunderturkeys...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: England
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonybliar
You're right about the BBMF. I'll just have to stare at the totty in the crowd for the last ten minutes. But I did say it was my opinion.
Jacko
Unfortunately civilian owners/operators do not have the luxury of unlimited budgets with which to give lots of hours in training to display pilots. I've never had anything like 6 hours on type before displaying an aircraft (not many have). It's up to the pilot to know his limits. Everyone knows the results when they don't.
The CAA display authorising system works well. There will always be crashes when aircraft are taken out of the hangar. It was sad when the Me109 was confined to the museum following it's unfortunate accident. But I, and countless others, got to see it fly for a number of years and it brought great pleasure. I feel more sad to see aircraft out of their natural environment - airborne.
Reichman
You're right about the BBMF. I'll just have to stare at the totty in the crowd for the last ten minutes. But I did say it was my opinion.
Jacko
Unfortunately civilian owners/operators do not have the luxury of unlimited budgets with which to give lots of hours in training to display pilots. I've never had anything like 6 hours on type before displaying an aircraft (not many have). It's up to the pilot to know his limits. Everyone knows the results when they don't.
The CAA display authorising system works well. There will always be crashes when aircraft are taken out of the hangar. It was sad when the Me109 was confined to the museum following it's unfortunate accident. But I, and countless others, got to see it fly for a number of years and it brought great pleasure. I feel more sad to see aircraft out of their natural environment - airborne.
Reichman
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: on this planet
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reichman's sentiment about flying the old aircraft is spot on. An old aircraft that does not fly is just a museum exhibit - a Spit or Hurri without the Merlin noise is just not the real thing. However, to those who would impose minimum training or practise criteria, just stop and think what the effect would be on the operating budgets and whether it would put more of these wonderful machines into museums.
Experience and common sense should be applied - ask those who have operated safely for years how they do it.
Experience and common sense should be applied - ask those who have operated safely for years how they do it.
