Warbirds - Currency & Experience
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data
I don't really disagree with you and others who express the same sentiment. I have no need to see warbirds and other antiques thrown around the sky, or blatting about a few feet off the ground. (I no longer attend 'displays', having witnessed too many disasters involving airplanes old and new, fast and slow.)
My point is that the general public who do go expect to see a 'good show' from all the participants. Aerobatics are performed much better by Extras, Sukhois etc., raw power -smoke and noise- by Tornados, F-16s and so on. Which leaves the warbirds in a bit of a quandry. Conservative displays consisting of a few s&l passes are unlikely to excite most of the 'punters', with the probable result of no return booking, and thus reduced income.
I remember when the total UK flying warbird population was 2 Spits and a Hurricane. That there are so many more today is not due to any 'heritage' initiative, but because of individuals, film companies and other commercial enterprises. I cannot see where any formal 'obligation', moral or otherwise, exists although to their credit many of the aforesaid owners do in fact feel there is. I would also dispute them being part of the UK's history, since only a few have any links in that regard.
Otherwise I'm with you. Keep 'em flying, but keep it safe.
rgds
[This message has been edited by PaperTiger (edited 08 June 2001).]
I don't really disagree with you and others who express the same sentiment. I have no need to see warbirds and other antiques thrown around the sky, or blatting about a few feet off the ground. (I no longer attend 'displays', having witnessed too many disasters involving airplanes old and new, fast and slow.)
My point is that the general public who do go expect to see a 'good show' from all the participants. Aerobatics are performed much better by Extras, Sukhois etc., raw power -smoke and noise- by Tornados, F-16s and so on. Which leaves the warbirds in a bit of a quandry. Conservative displays consisting of a few s&l passes are unlikely to excite most of the 'punters', with the probable result of no return booking, and thus reduced income.
I remember when the total UK flying warbird population was 2 Spits and a Hurricane. That there are so many more today is not due to any 'heritage' initiative, but because of individuals, film companies and other commercial enterprises. I cannot see where any formal 'obligation', moral or otherwise, exists although to their credit many of the aforesaid owners do in fact feel there is. I would also dispute them being part of the UK's history, since only a few have any links in that regard.
Otherwise I'm with you. Keep 'em flying, but keep it safe.
rgds
[This message has been edited by PaperTiger (edited 08 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alot of good points are brought up. On the Military Pilots forum, one of the threads was "Why USAF displays were so tame?" Its a Catch 22, people want to see the planes flown at max performance, yet others decry all the accidents. The answer lies in flying the aircraft to the limit of the pilots abilities! I fly a C-141 in the reserves, and sometimes I've been asked to do some displays at local airshows. I can tell you the pressure is high to "put on a good Show" even in a C-141!!!, Last year at an airshow I had some guy come up to me and tell me how cool my take-off was, It wasn't anything different than a normal take-off, yet he enjoyed it. I've managed to narrow down my "show" to an acceptable level between safety and "WoW" However it may be easier to do this flying a heavy since the "Wow" expectations are lower. Its hard to get currency in the rare birds due to the costs, so the answer lies in flying less aggressive displays. I've seen it myself, firsthand when an F-86 crashed doing , of all things, a slow flight demo, theres also a US pilot who will surely wreck a Mustang if he keps up his routine..sad but I don't see things changing unless some groups get together and start managing the flying displays and pilots. A Mustang or Spitfire is as beautiful in level flight as it is doing acro!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Let's face it: flying old fast jets and high powered single pistons is inherently more dangerous than flying a B737. Why? Because the 737 has been designed to be so safe that, theoretically, it will NEVER crash. It is designed so that less than average pilots can fly safely. No disrespect to some of the excellent pilots who are flying the 737, and all the other civilian types I am really thinking of, but there are lots of third world pilots, who might not have the aviation culture to help them, who seem to manage to fly these aicrraft without too many problems.
But big pistons in particular, can bite. And they do bite, and thank goodness not everyone is so scared of them that they never fly. Museum aircraft are totally academic: a flying aircraft soemthing thrilling.
But because they bite, and because much of the flying is display flying, its likely that a few pilots will bite the dust over time. Really good pilots rather like to get closer to the edge of the envelope. And if you think about it, unless you were a bit of an extrovert (even an apparent introvert has to have a fling occasionally), you probably would not bother with the high cost of operating a Sea Fury, or a Bearcat, P47 etc.
My bet is that, apart from the threat of hurting some innocent individual, most of these pilots would prefer to die in their aircraft, doing what they really enjoyed doing, than getting cancer in old age. Sadly we live in a society that doesn't understand this.
PaperTiger, I think you are spot on. Some other posters seem to forget that many very well qualified display pilots, Red Arrows etc., have died in accidents, and these people were not the rich playboys than some would think. In fact, in many cases they were some of the finest most inspirational people you would be likely to meet, and their names live on.
Of course, this last weekend was a disaster. I sincerely hope, and expect, that GAD will not over-react: at least no spectators were hurt. We could all have done without this.
RB
But big pistons in particular, can bite. And they do bite, and thank goodness not everyone is so scared of them that they never fly. Museum aircraft are totally academic: a flying aircraft soemthing thrilling.
But because they bite, and because much of the flying is display flying, its likely that a few pilots will bite the dust over time. Really good pilots rather like to get closer to the edge of the envelope. And if you think about it, unless you were a bit of an extrovert (even an apparent introvert has to have a fling occasionally), you probably would not bother with the high cost of operating a Sea Fury, or a Bearcat, P47 etc.
My bet is that, apart from the threat of hurting some innocent individual, most of these pilots would prefer to die in their aircraft, doing what they really enjoyed doing, than getting cancer in old age. Sadly we live in a society that doesn't understand this.
PaperTiger, I think you are spot on. Some other posters seem to forget that many very well qualified display pilots, Red Arrows etc., have died in accidents, and these people were not the rich playboys than some would think. In fact, in many cases they were some of the finest most inspirational people you would be likely to meet, and their names live on.
Of course, this last weekend was a disaster. I sincerely hope, and expect, that GAD will not over-react: at least no spectators were hurt. We could all have done without this.
RB
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just a thought, if there were no warbirds at all, would those same pilot's be flying other aircraft and doing the same sort of thing - you bet! If there were no warbirds there would be more Extra crashes, more Stampe crashes etc. I know that they may be considered easier to fly, but if someone pushes too hard in warbird and stalls at low level (for instance), then surely they are likely to do the same in whatever aircraft? Restricitng displays to a few turns and flypasts will only put off the public and yet another good thing about Britain will go down the pan. We (Britain) have had a very good display record in previous years due to some effort put in by a lot of people and decent pilots, they took their own risks and by its very nature display flying is dangerous. The public are generally extremely safe at airshows as demonstrated by the excellent record. Would some of you have made F1 a timed race with a straight road with only 1 car at a time after Ayrton Senna's death? or do we make sure things are safe and carry of with our lives, while remembering those who have been lost and learning from their accidents. Interestingly lots of 50 something males lose thier lives on motorbikes each year, but no one is saying that Triumphs should be locked away in garages and never ridden. Being hit by a motorcycle on a country road frightens me more than standing watching an airshow.
My deepest sympathy to those involved.
Orni
My deepest sympathy to those involved.
Orni
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is not a criticism but merely an observation.
When I lived and worked in Australia I was in an area with its fair share of 'war birds'(T-28 Trojan, Spitfire, Hurricane, Kittihawk, P51 Mustang, even MiG15 & 17).
One thing I remember on reflection is that almost without exception all the powerful tailwheel (I know the T-28 is conventional)piston war birds were flown by current ag pilots who all had 5,000+hr on tailwheel aircraft of 400hp+ and spent all day below 200ft. Also the jets were usually operated by ex fast jet(A4 or Mirage) pilots who were still of modest years.
Now I don't fit into either of these groups(apart from the sub group of those of modest years) but then I'm not about to try and display one of these types of aircraft! My point is that it is horses for courses and experience is important, but THAT EXPERIENCE MUST BE RELEVANT!!!
Please be careful, these aircraft are treasures and should operate in their natural environment, but they are not more important or precious than human life!
When I lived and worked in Australia I was in an area with its fair share of 'war birds'(T-28 Trojan, Spitfire, Hurricane, Kittihawk, P51 Mustang, even MiG15 & 17).
One thing I remember on reflection is that almost without exception all the powerful tailwheel (I know the T-28 is conventional)piston war birds were flown by current ag pilots who all had 5,000+hr on tailwheel aircraft of 400hp+ and spent all day below 200ft. Also the jets were usually operated by ex fast jet(A4 or Mirage) pilots who were still of modest years.
Now I don't fit into either of these groups(apart from the sub group of those of modest years) but then I'm not about to try and display one of these types of aircraft! My point is that it is horses for courses and experience is important, but THAT EXPERIENCE MUST BE RELEVANT!!!
Please be careful, these aircraft are treasures and should operate in their natural environment, but they are not more important or precious than human life!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stone bird,
I do feel that despite a lot of counter proposals, your reasoning is sound, if these people who are well heeled enough to buy, rebuild and run say a Spit or Mustang,then surely they must have the funds to allow someone(the Pilot) to spend sufficient hours building up his experience.
Several years ago I was involved in selling props and Griffon 58's to some of the Reno Racer's, these guys had hours and hours of air time but not many actually at racing speeds, to give you some idea 2 years ago a Griffon powered P51 hybrid broke up at high speed parts of that a/c were found between 4/5 miles away from the point of incident the racing height had been below 250ft, needless to say the Pilot died, but before that race incident, I asked what would occur if something big stopped working, the answer was " pull back on the stick gain altitude and then glide in" but with the fuel used and the boosted 3500 horses thrashing a pair of cut down contra props the pilot in my opinion had no chance at all, logic said that, but they still flew these reptylian racers, our chaps are trying to please air show organisers with low and slow aerobatics, it would be far better if they were made to do simple displays at + 500ft and fast enough to ensure the minimum design envelope was flown unless landing, that way they would hopefully have more reaction time if things got a little out of shape.
Sorry for the long post but in all warbird incidents, I sadly feel that most of the old warbirds have accidents because of the lack of pilot knowledge on type, incl the Reno Racers. this is my opinion, I am not calling any particular person or group, but I feel that if your going to fly something with +1000 horse's then you should have the hours on type!
I am saddened for anyone touched by the most recent losses
I do feel that despite a lot of counter proposals, your reasoning is sound, if these people who are well heeled enough to buy, rebuild and run say a Spit or Mustang,then surely they must have the funds to allow someone(the Pilot) to spend sufficient hours building up his experience.
Several years ago I was involved in selling props and Griffon 58's to some of the Reno Racer's, these guys had hours and hours of air time but not many actually at racing speeds, to give you some idea 2 years ago a Griffon powered P51 hybrid broke up at high speed parts of that a/c were found between 4/5 miles away from the point of incident the racing height had been below 250ft, needless to say the Pilot died, but before that race incident, I asked what would occur if something big stopped working, the answer was " pull back on the stick gain altitude and then glide in" but with the fuel used and the boosted 3500 horses thrashing a pair of cut down contra props the pilot in my opinion had no chance at all, logic said that, but they still flew these reptylian racers, our chaps are trying to please air show organisers with low and slow aerobatics, it would be far better if they were made to do simple displays at + 500ft and fast enough to ensure the minimum design envelope was flown unless landing, that way they would hopefully have more reaction time if things got a little out of shape.
Sorry for the long post but in all warbird incidents, I sadly feel that most of the old warbirds have accidents because of the lack of pilot knowledge on type, incl the Reno Racers. this is my opinion, I am not calling any particular person or group, but I feel that if your going to fly something with +1000 horse's then you should have the hours on type!
I am saddened for anyone touched by the most recent losses
Guest
Posts: n/a
re: the earlier post with the following quote:
"Flying a Mustangs, Spitfire, King Cobra's is no big deal it just a matter of understanding what makes the aircraft tick. The loss of the Mosquito (UK)is a typical example of 'over doing it'. I have refrained from suggesting 'showing off' out of respect for those cannot defend themselves"
If you had studied the accident report on the Mossie in July 96 you would know that this was not "a typical case of over doing it". Go and check it out and be careful what you say please!
"Flying a Mustangs, Spitfire, King Cobra's is no big deal it just a matter of understanding what makes the aircraft tick. The loss of the Mosquito (UK)is a typical example of 'over doing it'. I have refrained from suggesting 'showing off' out of respect for those cannot defend themselves"
If you had studied the accident report on the Mossie in July 96 you would know that this was not "a typical case of over doing it". Go and check it out and be careful what you say please!
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's well known that the chap flying the 109G when it went in was:
a) A top man
b) a great 'stick'
c) an enormously experienced fighter/FJ pilot
d) a similarly experienced single-engined warbird and display pilot.
BUT:
"Messerschmitt 109G 10/97, 18hrs on type, one hr on type in the previous 90 days (even if it was within the previous 28 days)" doesn't strike me as being sensible, or defensible, and looks astonishingly like complacency, arrogance or a failure of sensible risk assessment.
No-one should be displaying a powerful fighter type without having undergone the equivalent to an OCU training course, and without being fully 'current' on type (suggest a minimum of 120 FH/PA).
a) A top man
b) a great 'stick'
c) an enormously experienced fighter/FJ pilot
d) a similarly experienced single-engined warbird and display pilot.
BUT:
"Messerschmitt 109G 10/97, 18hrs on type, one hr on type in the previous 90 days (even if it was within the previous 28 days)" doesn't strike me as being sensible, or defensible, and looks astonishingly like complacency, arrogance or a failure of sensible risk assessment.
No-one should be displaying a powerful fighter type without having undergone the equivalent to an OCU training course, and without being fully 'current' on type (suggest a minimum of 120 FH/PA).
Guest
Posts: n/a
A lot of people on this thread, and the original 'Biggin crash' one, seem to think that anyone with enough money can take part in an air display. Wrong!
You need a CAA Display Authorisation before you can take part in a display, and the people who decide whether a pilot is up to the job know what they're doing.
That's much more effective than the show organisers (who may not be even Cessna-PPLs assessing if the pilot's got got enough experience either in total or on type.
As for P51's careering off into the crowd. There isn't now, and never has been, a problem with P51's or any other type of warbird, careering off into the crowd. Doesn't that tell us that somebody must be doing something right?
Reading the two threads, I can't help feeling that some (I say again, some) of the contributors making assumptions, comments and suggestions about the system don't know much if anything about what actually goes on in the airshow world, particularly the warbirds side of things. Perhaps I'm wrong.
(PS I'm not saying I know that much myself. I don't.)
You need a CAA Display Authorisation before you can take part in a display, and the people who decide whether a pilot is up to the job know what they're doing.
That's much more effective than the show organisers (who may not be even Cessna-PPLs assessing if the pilot's got got enough experience either in total or on type.
As for P51's careering off into the crowd. There isn't now, and never has been, a problem with P51's or any other type of warbird, careering off into the crowd. Doesn't that tell us that somebody must be doing something right?
Reading the two threads, I can't help feeling that some (I say again, some) of the contributors making assumptions, comments and suggestions about the system don't know much if anything about what actually goes on in the airshow world, particularly the warbirds side of things. Perhaps I'm wrong.
(PS I'm not saying I know that much myself. I don't.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Alty Meter - At last some sensible opinion. I Agree 1000% with your sentiments, especially the last para. I have only just started to re-read this thread after getting so depressed reading all the drivel that was being written about last weekend.
Mach 78 - Who is suggesting that the JP in N.Ireland ran out of fuel? Do you have the facts and have you seen the official AAIB report yet?
Mach 78 - Who is suggesting that the JP in N.Ireland ran out of fuel? Do you have the facts and have you seen the official AAIB report yet?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As far as I am aware, there are varying degrees of display authorisation which will be granted depending upon the experience of the particular pilot.
One inspector told me he would rather approve someone to demonstrate a basic loop and a barrel roll in an Extra 300 (for example) because that is what the person was 'safely capable of doing', even though the aeroplane is capable of far more.
The implication is obvious, that an authorisation will be granted to give the highest safety factor, be it pilot or aeroplane.
Aeroplanes are built to be flown, and enjoyed, not to be left to rot in museums.
[This message has been edited by airforcenone (edited 10 June 2001).]
One inspector told me he would rather approve someone to demonstrate a basic loop and a barrel roll in an Extra 300 (for example) because that is what the person was 'safely capable of doing', even though the aeroplane is capable of far more.
The implication is obvious, that an authorisation will be granted to give the highest safety factor, be it pilot or aeroplane.
Aeroplanes are built to be flown, and enjoyed, not to be left to rot in museums.
[This message has been edited by airforcenone (edited 10 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Zlin 526, I wondered about that when I read Yassers original post. The AAIB report can be found at...
http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/jun01/gbyed.htm
http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/jun01/gbyed.htm
Guest
Posts: n/a
Zlin
If you check Stonebirds post earlier in the thread-that's where you will find the suggestion.
My issue was one of whether greater or lesser experience is of value when it comes to reducing accidents, not the specifics of this report which clearly I had no time to read.
Some people have to fly you know.
If you check Stonebirds post earlier in the thread-that's where you will find the suggestion.
My issue was one of whether greater or lesser experience is of value when it comes to reducing accidents, not the specifics of this report which clearly I had no time to read.
Some people have to fly you know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Davaar
I stand by what I said. "There isn't now, and never has been, a problem with P51's or any other type of warbird, careering off into the crowd."
I didn't say no such incident had ever happened.
I'll take your word for the incident 49 years ago - I was only one then!
I stand by what I said. "There isn't now, and never has been, a problem with P51's or any other type of warbird, careering off into the crowd."
I didn't say no such incident had ever happened.
I'll take your word for the incident 49 years ago - I was only one then!
Guest
Posts: n/a
My first entry into this debate. Speaking from my position "on the fence" as it were. I sincerely hope that the events of the Biggin weekend never ever happen again. Unfortunately the laws of probability are against us.
My personal view is that aircraft should be flown, if they are the last of the breed then possibly discretion should be the better part of valour, but flown they should be if at all possible.
I think it is unfair to compare the DH110 accident with the possibility of a P-51 accident. The DH110 was a prototype, very advanced for its day. As such the technology was being pushed to the limits in the design of the aircraft.
A P-51 is pretty much a known quantity technology wise, that is not to say that a catastrophic failure couldn’t happen, these aircraft are after all being flown for longer (hours wise) than could ever have been expected when they were constructed. However the technology available nowadays for predicting the likelihood of failure and carrying out inspections is far in advance of when they were designed. So any comparison with a catastrophic failure in a 1950's prototype and a warbird maintained to current standards is, in my opinion unfair.
At the end of the day, any decision on the type of display flown is a tripartite one between the Pilot, the owner and the CAA. If one takes a step back to get a perspective, things aren't that bad. Any accident is bad, but we have to be realistic, it is after all, a risk to get in a car and drive down the road. The trick is to minimise that risk whilst still being able to make the journey.
Sorry for rambling, but I had to say my piece. I will now crawl back under the rock I came from.
Respectfully
Man-on-the-fence
My personal view is that aircraft should be flown, if they are the last of the breed then possibly discretion should be the better part of valour, but flown they should be if at all possible.
I think it is unfair to compare the DH110 accident with the possibility of a P-51 accident. The DH110 was a prototype, very advanced for its day. As such the technology was being pushed to the limits in the design of the aircraft.
A P-51 is pretty much a known quantity technology wise, that is not to say that a catastrophic failure couldn’t happen, these aircraft are after all being flown for longer (hours wise) than could ever have been expected when they were constructed. However the technology available nowadays for predicting the likelihood of failure and carrying out inspections is far in advance of when they were designed. So any comparison with a catastrophic failure in a 1950's prototype and a warbird maintained to current standards is, in my opinion unfair.
At the end of the day, any decision on the type of display flown is a tripartite one between the Pilot, the owner and the CAA. If one takes a step back to get a perspective, things aren't that bad. Any accident is bad, but we have to be realistic, it is after all, a risk to get in a car and drive down the road. The trick is to minimise that risk whilst still being able to make the journey.
Sorry for rambling, but I had to say my piece. I will now crawl back under the rock I came from.
Respectfully
Man-on-the-fence
Guest
Posts: n/a
Many moons ago as a civilian employee of the USN I had the pleasure of attending the Pilot Training Course for a single seat fast (okay, it wasn't supersonic, so I guess it wasn't that fast) jet type in regular and numerous squadron service.
The curriculium was 2 weeks of classroom, about 30 hours of simulators and I forget how much more airborne time. As it was a single seater your first flight was also your first solo in type. The incoming people were either right out of undergraduate jet pilot training (UJPT)or back from the fleet, either in another type or second tour in this type. At that point even the right out of UJPT you would have had 500 curriculium hours in T-28/T34C , T-2, and TA-4J, which probably means 750 or so actual plus whatever other time you managed to wangle in anything else with wings.
Point of this overlong post is that requiring something like an OCU training standard for display pilots should make things safer but it (airplanes, simulators, classrooms and current in type instructors) would be very costly, especially for types that there are very few left of.
Practically speaking, a very experienced aviator with enough (whatever that is) time in type or similar types given enough (whatever that is) recent experience in a type should be able to provide a fairly thrilling display for the punters of some mild aerobatics. "Enough" time in type is open to pilot judgement, but I don't think 1.7 hours would even pass a cursory laugh test.
The curriculium was 2 weeks of classroom, about 30 hours of simulators and I forget how much more airborne time. As it was a single seater your first flight was also your first solo in type. The incoming people were either right out of undergraduate jet pilot training (UJPT)or back from the fleet, either in another type or second tour in this type. At that point even the right out of UJPT you would have had 500 curriculium hours in T-28/T34C , T-2, and TA-4J, which probably means 750 or so actual plus whatever other time you managed to wangle in anything else with wings.
Point of this overlong post is that requiring something like an OCU training standard for display pilots should make things safer but it (airplanes, simulators, classrooms and current in type instructors) would be very costly, especially for types that there are very few left of.
Practically speaking, a very experienced aviator with enough (whatever that is) time in type or similar types given enough (whatever that is) recent experience in a type should be able to provide a fairly thrilling display for the punters of some mild aerobatics. "Enough" time in type is open to pilot judgement, but I don't think 1.7 hours would even pass a cursory laugh test.