How on earth does the USN know that the late Lt Cdr Davis 'failed to properly tense his muscles to counter the g-forces from a high speed turn'.

This was more likely to be corporate manslaughter. The USN did not have a waiver in place allowing pilots to dispense with g-suits - and the display routine clearly exposed Lt Cdr Davis to a hazardous situation without adequate safety provision.

What precautions have since been taken to prevent a similar accident?

Navy CIS - get on the case and don't allow this travesty of justice to go unchallenged!

Beagle, dont be a tw@t. Flying has its dangers. Whether the waiver was in place due to admin error or not made the square root of **** All difference to the safety of a pilot. They do not wear G-suits for perfectly valid reasons.You cannot make flying perfectly safe, and those of us still flying in the military are well aware of it.I bet there will be no shortage of others fighting to take his place, in the full knowledge of the dangers involved.In your day the acceptable danger level was considerably higher than in todays health and safety bound times, so just remember the things you used to do perfectly happily before you go off on one.

Tourist, another of your pointless posts full of personal insult...:rolleyes:

The fact is that the USN has reportedly put the blame on a deceased pilot by making an assumption which cannot possibly be proved. Much as Wratten and Day did about the Chinook crash.

I do not know whether the Blues routine changed after the 2005 dispensation expired - if it had, then merely re-applying the dispensation would have been insufficient unless a complementary risk assessment had also been conducted.

Tourist, I'm not a military fast jet expert, in any sense of the definition. Please explain the "perfectly valid reasons" for not wearing a G-Suit in an aircraft that is designed for high G and indeed then follows a routine which persistently demonstrates that capability.

One presumes all the parade square stuff and general poncing around on the ground before flight wouldn't be classed as a valid reason?

Sounds like a serious design flaw if g-suit inflation can obstruct the control column....

If that's the case, why not change the inflation onset rate? The Blues' F-18s have a modified control system, so why not a modified anti-g system that only kicks in above, say, +5 G?

Lurking123, that's not the first time I've heard that. A well-known US PPRuNer said more or less the same thing.

Being reluctant to doubt BEagle's encyclopedic knowledge and huge experience of high G maneuvering, aerobatic display flying, aggressive formation rejoins in a time critical phase of a display and, of course, his similarly expert knowledge and training in aviation medicine, I will merely comment thus…

1. Beagle has remarked and expressed an opinion on a report from a press association which has seen the US Navy report and published it’s own interpretation.

2. BOAC, some pages back, has quite correctly identified that G suits are as much about reducing fatigue as about aiding G tolerance.

3. It might be the case that a reasonable person might assume that the leader and members of one of the most highly respected formation display teams in this world might actually be qualified and able to make a balanced judgment on the pros and cons of the equipment they fly with.

4. It might also be reasonable to assume that the chain of command who have supported such decisions might, likewise, be competent.

Whilst Beagle might consider that his experience, wisdom, intellect and judgment are much greater, sadly I disagree.

I also disagree with his eagerness to post his asinine drivel when the purpose of this thread is to remember and pay respect to a fallen member of an international band of brothers!

I could, however, be wrong.

Points 1 and 2 are irrelevant.

Points 3 & 4 can be said of every accident where, in hindsight, there have been found to major errors in understanding, insight, decision making or supervision. They cannot, therefore, be taken as a given.

Sorry guys, I'm just not getting this. The rationale given is that the G suit may get in the way when the aircraft are flying really close to each other. Hence, you get rid of the g-suit (which is essentially a safety enhancement whether you take either the GLOC or extended fatigue argument) in order to allow you to fly closer to other elements of the formation with a perceived degree of increased safety.

Now, I wasn't of the opinion that military formation display flying was an operational necessity - it is a significant chunck of an effective PR machine. Surely someone should have done a proper risk assessment here? If they had, are they not obliged to re-visit that assessment after this unfortunate crash? Maybe the answer is to wear the G-suits and not fly so close to each other (Do the Red Arrows wear a suit?).

I'm not stirring things up, I just don't understand some of the rationale.

Beagle wrote: I think that is a very valid question to ask. Without the opportunity to read the report in full, I would guess that it is based on the VTRS recording from the jet. Perhaps the audio indicates that he wasn't performing his G-strain until he was wrapped up in the turn?

Considering that hydration, crew rest and other factors influence susceptibility to grey-out and GLOC, one also wonders whether they were able to rule out these factors as contributory.

Lurking, to answer your Q, the Reds do wear g suits. They didn't for quite a while with the exception of synchro, however after a few minor g-related issues, common sense prevailed and all the front-seaters now wear them.

Back seaters however do not get that luxury (whether ground crew or experienced FJ mates) - the argument re control column snagging is a little stronger there and back seat G-LOC is less of a concern...!

"Beagle, dont be a tw@t"

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

...still waiting for at least a formal summary of the U.S. Navy official investigation report, but sounds like the Navy did fault the pilot for an overly aggressive rejoin maneuver -- as well as failing to perform the proper anti-G grunt actions.

More 3rd-hand news report indicate the mishap pilot did not lose consciousness -- but became "disoriented" (??)

What was the actual 'primary' cause of the mishap ?

I was unaware the Blue Angels had previously lost 2 members in 1999 to a G-force related crash.

______


http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/0...eangel_080114/

Ewan's suggestion that the recorder could have recorded Davis's straining, whilst good in theory, won't necessarily work.

Knucks don't always grunt out aloud, let alone loud enough to engage the Voice Activated Mike.

Not a criticism, just an observation.

Hi Guys,
i think that anti-g suit is not so necessary as someone of you said...
The AGSM it's more important then g-suit... i know that in some manuevre the blue angels need to lean on thigh their forearm to move the stick wit precision.
kojak was a great pilot, in many videos you can see him flying at high Gs and speak normally..it was an accident...it's happened, it happen...unfortunately

Okay, I'll throw in my two penneth...

Beagle makes some valid points. It wouldn't be the first time that an accident has been "blamed" on the guy who got killed, thus precluding any chance of the perceived culprit defending himself. Not saying this has happened in this case but it's hardly unknown.

As for the g-suit argument, it's specious to say the least. If a g-suit has any risk of fouling controls then it's useless by definition. If the gear can't be safely used in the location/conditions it was specifically designed for, then you have to wonder what point there is in buying it!

True, the Reds back seaters don't wear g-suits but having sat-in on a number of full displays with them in the past, I really can't see how the presence of a g-suit would make any difference one way or the other. There's not much room in a Hawk's cockpit to start with so you have to make a conscious effort to push your legs towards the cockpit sides, to ensure they steer clear of the control column. A g-suit (which isn't exactly cumbersome in any case) wouldn't make any difference, and ultimately I think it's just down to the team's own preferences . It's not as if a g-suit suddenly turns the wearer into a Michelin Man - it's fitted tightly to one's legs and in practise it doesn't add any more "bulk" to the wearer's presence at all.

As for the Blue Angels, I flew with them too, and they just don't wear g-suits (or oxygen masks) as a matter of common practise. They certainly never mentioned anything to me about this being because of any perceived risk of fouling controls - they just seemed to think that such gear was unnecessary - simple as that. Maybe (*gulp*) they're wrong? My belief is that they like to stick with their traditions and pride, and they just don't want to get into the business of having to remove additional gear when they're in front of the public, plus their undeniable "can do" attitude makes g-suits sound just a little bit girly for them.

Certainly, they remove the artificial feel from the Hornet's control colum so that they can fly their close formations more precisely, but I really can't see how a g-suit would make any difference to formation flying. When you consider just how much physical force is required to hold the aircraft without artificial feel, then somebody's slightly over-inflated leg really wouldn't be of any significance, even if it was (for some bizarre reason) pushed hard against the control column.

Ultimately, their choice not to wear g-suits can only be seen as a simple matter of personal taste, and you have to wonder whether they ought to compromise their "image" a little in order to add a little bit of built-in safety. Incidentally, I can vouch for the fact that in the Red's flat display, the continual g loadings are often around the 5g mark, and on some of the manoeuvres, the g load does crank up to 6g or more. Likewise, the same is true of the Blue Angles. On one of the display flights I sat-in on, the g load went past 7.5g and even broke the tape head on the internal video recorder (something which happened frequently, they told me), so the flying can get quite brutal at times.

The question of whether a pilot could be heard making any effort to withstand g is hard to answer I guess, as everyon handles these things differently. From my experience with the Blue Angels, there wasn't any particularly audible grunting and groaning, so maybe this is also something which their "pride" discourages. If so, you have to wonder whether this could have contributed to the accident. It compares starkly to the Reds, where the RT is packed full of groans, gasps, expletives and the like.

I suppose the cause of the crash will (by definition) never be known, but even though it does look slightly like a "cop out" to attribute it to "pilot error" ,it does sound like the most likely cause. Even the most hardy of individuals has an off day, and maybe in this instance he was just that little bit over-sensitive to the g loads. We'll never know for sure. But regardless of this, you'd think that if there was even the slightest possibility that the accident was caused by G-LOC, then maybe they ought to forget about the "cool" image, and get themselves some g-suits? The notion that wearing them would render the pilot "weaker" in terms of his ability to withstand g is nonsense, as g-suits don't offer any practical protection unless you still push and grunt at the same time. Realistically, as pilots often say, the g-suit simply gives you something to push against.

Having said this, I have to add that the Blue Angels are a bunch of great people, truly professional and of course, fantastic pilots. Same applies to the guys on the RAFAT who really are exceptional in my opinion, from what I've seen of them. Sad business indeed.