Warbirds - Currency & Experience
Guest
Posts: n/a
Warbirds - Currency & Experience
Having been at Biggin Hill this weekend just passed, and witnessing one of the crashes, and having read the entire thread on PPRuNe, I decided to find out how much experience the pilots of some warbirds which came to grief had.
The results make interesting and alarming reading.
The Jet Provost which went down in the Loch Foyle estuary. The pilot (who did well, by all accounts) had total experience of 298 hours, of which only 26 were on type. He had done just 2 hrs in the preceding 90 days and just 1 hour in the preceding 28 days.
The Yak-52 in Manchester - the pilot had 340 TT, 40 on type, 12 hrs in the preceding 90 days.
It gets worse.
Yak52, Oct 99, 39 hr on type
Yak52, Oct 99, 4 hrs in 90days, 0 hrs in 28 days
Hunter, Jun 98, 8 hrs on type
P47, Apr 99, ZERO hrs on type
Jet Provost 12/98, TT 259, 90 on type, 13hrs in 90 days, 4hrs in 28 days
Yak50 01/99, 90 on type, 5 hrs in 90 days, 2 hrs in 28 days
Yak52 01/99, 13 on type, 31 in 90 days, 10 in 28 days
Yak52 09/98 85 TT, 6 on type
Spitfire Mk IX 08/98, 54 hrs on type
Vampire 05/98, 52 on type, 6 hrs in 90 days, the same 6 in 28 days
Messerschmitt 109G 10/97, 18hrs on type, one hr in 90 days, one hr in 28 days
Vampire 11/97, 7 hrs on type
Yak50, 10/97, 2 hrs on type
Yak52 7/97, 33 hrs on type
P38J Lightning, Duxford 7/96, 60 on type, 11hrs in 90, 5 hrs in 28 days
Venom 07/96, 9 hrs on type
Sopwith Tripe 3/97, 9 hrs on type
Spitfire 9/96, 82 hrs on type, 12 hrs in 90 days, 4 hrs in 28 days
Yak50 9/96, 4 hrs on type
Sea Fury replica 9/95, 6 hrs on type
Yak52, 8/96, 22 hrs on type
I have only looked back as far as 1996. I have also not gone into the detail of every incident. But I think you will agree with me that it does seem that the following formula holds true :
Light on Type Experience + High powered aircraft = Incident/Accident/Death
I know several people who own Warbirds, and have flown a couple, dual. Some of these aircraft are fearsome machines. Lightnings and Buccaneers spring to mind. Even when frontline squadrons were using aircraft such as these, with money no object and parts no problem, they suffered losses. And that was with experienced, well-trained pilots who had been through the mill. Guys who have a bit of money and buy warbirds, and do a couple of hours a month in them seem to be in the 'high-risk' category, as shown by the short list above.
Another thing - piloting a civilian jetliner and piloting a fighter aircraft are two very different kettles of fish. Just because a pilot has 10,000 hrs on airliners does not make him a good fighter pilot.
Again, my heartfelt condolences to everyone touched by the losses this weekend gone by, and to anyone touched by any of the incidents I described above.
The results make interesting and alarming reading.
The Jet Provost which went down in the Loch Foyle estuary. The pilot (who did well, by all accounts) had total experience of 298 hours, of which only 26 were on type. He had done just 2 hrs in the preceding 90 days and just 1 hour in the preceding 28 days.
The Yak-52 in Manchester - the pilot had 340 TT, 40 on type, 12 hrs in the preceding 90 days.
It gets worse.
Yak52, Oct 99, 39 hr on type
Yak52, Oct 99, 4 hrs in 90days, 0 hrs in 28 days
Hunter, Jun 98, 8 hrs on type
P47, Apr 99, ZERO hrs on type
Jet Provost 12/98, TT 259, 90 on type, 13hrs in 90 days, 4hrs in 28 days
Yak50 01/99, 90 on type, 5 hrs in 90 days, 2 hrs in 28 days
Yak52 01/99, 13 on type, 31 in 90 days, 10 in 28 days
Yak52 09/98 85 TT, 6 on type
Spitfire Mk IX 08/98, 54 hrs on type
Vampire 05/98, 52 on type, 6 hrs in 90 days, the same 6 in 28 days
Messerschmitt 109G 10/97, 18hrs on type, one hr in 90 days, one hr in 28 days
Vampire 11/97, 7 hrs on type
Yak50, 10/97, 2 hrs on type
Yak52 7/97, 33 hrs on type
P38J Lightning, Duxford 7/96, 60 on type, 11hrs in 90, 5 hrs in 28 days
Venom 07/96, 9 hrs on type
Sopwith Tripe 3/97, 9 hrs on type
Spitfire 9/96, 82 hrs on type, 12 hrs in 90 days, 4 hrs in 28 days
Yak50 9/96, 4 hrs on type
Sea Fury replica 9/95, 6 hrs on type
Yak52, 8/96, 22 hrs on type
I have only looked back as far as 1996. I have also not gone into the detail of every incident. But I think you will agree with me that it does seem that the following formula holds true :
Light on Type Experience + High powered aircraft = Incident/Accident/Death
I know several people who own Warbirds, and have flown a couple, dual. Some of these aircraft are fearsome machines. Lightnings and Buccaneers spring to mind. Even when frontline squadrons were using aircraft such as these, with money no object and parts no problem, they suffered losses. And that was with experienced, well-trained pilots who had been through the mill. Guys who have a bit of money and buy warbirds, and do a couple of hours a month in them seem to be in the 'high-risk' category, as shown by the short list above.
Another thing - piloting a civilian jetliner and piloting a fighter aircraft are two very different kettles of fish. Just because a pilot has 10,000 hrs on airliners does not make him a good fighter pilot.
Again, my heartfelt condolences to everyone touched by the losses this weekend gone by, and to anyone touched by any of the incidents I described above.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Your point although well made is also a little obvious.
Given the extremely high costs of owning and operating these machines, the limitations of life and scarcity of some components, and the almost complete lack of "usefull work" available for these beasts, how are you going to get anybody in the air often enough to keep really current ?
As has been previously mentioned, many of the piston types were designed during war time when the operational life expectancy of the machine was not more than a very few hours. That is not to say they were designed to be disposable, but it doesn't mean they were built for longevity either. They are, by design, maintenance intensive.
Yes, there are professionals who make a full time job out of flying these types, but there are many types and only a scarce few professionals. For these pilots to keep optimum currency on all the types available, they would have to fly three times more often (presumably gaining no revenue from it) and the aircraft would wear out three times as fast.
So who's going to pay for it all ?
If you have plenty of cash you can go out and buy a Ferrari, drive it hard, and there will always be the possibility that you may accidentally kill yourself in it.
However undesirable, you can do the same thing in an aeroplane. It might be as rare as a Spitfire, but the owner has the right to do with it as he or she wishes (within reason).
FlyingLawyer summed it up absolutely perfectly in his original post concerning the crashes - it is worth reading again.
People are free to try to climb Everest, or race yachts around the world solo, or indulge in whatever passtime they choose, as long as they don't hurt others and are prepared for the consequences. The difference here is, in return for doing it publicly (and sharing the joy of their sport with those who can't do it themselves), the occasional tragic consequence may also be a very public one. That is the price they choose to pay.
[This message has been edited by Weary (edited 07 June 2001).]
Given the extremely high costs of owning and operating these machines, the limitations of life and scarcity of some components, and the almost complete lack of "usefull work" available for these beasts, how are you going to get anybody in the air often enough to keep really current ?
As has been previously mentioned, many of the piston types were designed during war time when the operational life expectancy of the machine was not more than a very few hours. That is not to say they were designed to be disposable, but it doesn't mean they were built for longevity either. They are, by design, maintenance intensive.
Yes, there are professionals who make a full time job out of flying these types, but there are many types and only a scarce few professionals. For these pilots to keep optimum currency on all the types available, they would have to fly three times more often (presumably gaining no revenue from it) and the aircraft would wear out three times as fast.
So who's going to pay for it all ?
If you have plenty of cash you can go out and buy a Ferrari, drive it hard, and there will always be the possibility that you may accidentally kill yourself in it.
However undesirable, you can do the same thing in an aeroplane. It might be as rare as a Spitfire, but the owner has the right to do with it as he or she wishes (within reason).
FlyingLawyer summed it up absolutely perfectly in his original post concerning the crashes - it is worth reading again.
People are free to try to climb Everest, or race yachts around the world solo, or indulge in whatever passtime they choose, as long as they don't hurt others and are prepared for the consequences. The difference here is, in return for doing it publicly (and sharing the joy of their sport with those who can't do it themselves), the occasional tragic consequence may also be a very public one. That is the price they choose to pay.
[This message has been edited by Weary (edited 07 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Weary..
I concur..and I also thought Flying Lawyer's post was excellent. I'm not advocating NOT flying these aircraft..it is the duty of museums to aquire types for posterity. The burden of buying, restoring and maintaining rare aircraft should not be borne by private owners.
What I DO think though, is that before Mr. X is allowed to climb in his Hunter (for example), he should have completed an approved training course, including training on other, specified, less demanding aircraft.
What we are talking about here are civilian fast jet pilots, and very powerful piston-engined aircraft pilots.
In both instances, service pilots flying these aircraft had to complete a rigorous training program, not a five-thousand quid PPL & a conversion.
There are VERY good reasons for that, don't you agree?
I concur..and I also thought Flying Lawyer's post was excellent. I'm not advocating NOT flying these aircraft..it is the duty of museums to aquire types for posterity. The burden of buying, restoring and maintaining rare aircraft should not be borne by private owners.
What I DO think though, is that before Mr. X is allowed to climb in his Hunter (for example), he should have completed an approved training course, including training on other, specified, less demanding aircraft.
What we are talking about here are civilian fast jet pilots, and very powerful piston-engined aircraft pilots.
In both instances, service pilots flying these aircraft had to complete a rigorous training program, not a five-thousand quid PPL & a conversion.
There are VERY good reasons for that, don't you agree?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chaps,
I am bound to say that I am not sure where this conversation is going.. I can only speak for the JP stuff as that is the limit of my experience.
The RAF used the JP as a BASIC trainer... that means that pilots would fly the aircraft after relatively few hours.
My experience of instructing and checking out pilots in the JP is that the total number of hours on type and overall is only one, and quite a small one, factor affecting competance. Interestingly, low houred pilots get rusty more quickly and don't have the overall awareness of more experienced ones.
Finally, the TYPE of flying that make up a pilots hours are crucial. 500 hours wandering around in a C150 is almost no use at all, 200 hours in multiple type and environments makes all the difference.
------------------
If you fly too close to the ground at too slow speed, the earth will rise up and smite thee.
I am bound to say that I am not sure where this conversation is going.. I can only speak for the JP stuff as that is the limit of my experience.
The RAF used the JP as a BASIC trainer... that means that pilots would fly the aircraft after relatively few hours.
My experience of instructing and checking out pilots in the JP is that the total number of hours on type and overall is only one, and quite a small one, factor affecting competance. Interestingly, low houred pilots get rusty more quickly and don't have the overall awareness of more experienced ones.
Finally, the TYPE of flying that make up a pilots hours are crucial. 500 hours wandering around in a C150 is almost no use at all, 200 hours in multiple type and environments makes all the difference.
------------------
If you fly too close to the ground at too slow speed, the earth will rise up and smite thee.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm afraid that in far too many cases, it still comes down to people with very large wallets (and frequently, egos to match) being able to obtain and fly these rare aircraft.
No-one denies the right of the individual to do what they want, and take whatever risks they want. However, there will come a day when most of not all warbirds are gone... how many Sea Furies do you see flying these days? Mosquitos? Beaufighters? this is largely down to losses over the years through display, or other, flying. I'm sure that some will justify this on the basis of the individuals' right to do whatever they please with their own property, however my contention is that owners of rare warbirds have a moral (if not legal) responsibility to safeguard these machines. They are, after all, part of our national heritage, and there aren't many left.
The obvious shortfalls are in training, currency and overall experience. Sure, a JP is a straightforward trainer that should present few difficulties. However, the same cannot be said for a lot of the warbirds out there in private hands.
I would love to be able to afford and run a warbird, as I suspect many of us would. The trick is to be able to afford to keep current and skilled, as well.
I have thought this since watching Charles Church kill himself and a Spitfire in a field near Blackbushe 11 or so years ago. It left an indelible impression.
One thing is for sure, when they are all gone, people will look back and wonder if it was worth it...
No-one denies the right of the individual to do what they want, and take whatever risks they want. However, there will come a day when most of not all warbirds are gone... how many Sea Furies do you see flying these days? Mosquitos? Beaufighters? this is largely down to losses over the years through display, or other, flying. I'm sure that some will justify this on the basis of the individuals' right to do whatever they please with their own property, however my contention is that owners of rare warbirds have a moral (if not legal) responsibility to safeguard these machines. They are, after all, part of our national heritage, and there aren't many left.
The obvious shortfalls are in training, currency and overall experience. Sure, a JP is a straightforward trainer that should present few difficulties. However, the same cannot be said for a lot of the warbirds out there in private hands.
I would love to be able to afford and run a warbird, as I suspect many of us would. The trick is to be able to afford to keep current and skilled, as well.
I have thought this since watching Charles Church kill himself and a Spitfire in a field near Blackbushe 11 or so years ago. It left an indelible impression.
One thing is for sure, when they are all gone, people will look back and wonder if it was worth it...
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is a very thoughtful and well reasoned thread, and I accept all of the points that have been made.
But.. and it's a big but, what happens when a warbird falls on to the proverbial school or old peoples' home?
One such incident, and the game might well be over. So it must be self regulation, and less ambitious displays.
Mustn't it?
But.. and it's a big but, what happens when a warbird falls on to the proverbial school or old peoples' home?
One such incident, and the game might well be over. So it must be self regulation, and less ambitious displays.
Mustn't it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting to see how few piston warbirds were in Stonebird's list.
Lots of Yak 50/52 aerobatic a/c.
I also agree with the compliments about Flying Lawyer's contribution on the other thread on this topic. One of the best posts I've ever read on PPRuNE.
[This message has been edited by neutral99 (edited 07 June 2001).]
Lots of Yak 50/52 aerobatic a/c.
I also agree with the compliments about Flying Lawyer's contribution on the other thread on this topic. One of the best posts I've ever read on PPRuNE.
[This message has been edited by neutral99 (edited 07 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sonebird
I don't quite understand your point. You indicate low time in type but how does one aquire high time in type. Catch 22. I'd be as interested in total times listed(there were a few). And anyone with 10,000 hrs in a civilian jetliner is either ex-military(with the appropriate experience) or a civilian background, like myself, who has considerable experience in many types of aircraft. Either way I'd bank my money on that "10,000 hr civilian jetliner pilot" you're quick to dismiss. The skills involved in "fighting" aerial combat maneuvers may differ but the flying skills of any 10,000 hr pilot are proven.
I don't quite understand your point. You indicate low time in type but how does one aquire high time in type. Catch 22. I'd be as interested in total times listed(there were a few). And anyone with 10,000 hrs in a civilian jetliner is either ex-military(with the appropriate experience) or a civilian background, like myself, who has considerable experience in many types of aircraft. Either way I'd bank my money on that "10,000 hr civilian jetliner pilot" you're quick to dismiss. The skills involved in "fighting" aerial combat maneuvers may differ but the flying skills of any 10,000 hr pilot are proven.
Guest
Posts: n/a
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">No-one denies the right of the individual to do what they want, and take whatever risks they want. However, there will come a day when most of not all warbirds are gone... how many Sea Furies do you see flying these days? Mosquitos? Beaufighters? this is largely down to losses over the years through display, or other, flying. I'm sure that some will justify this on the basis of the individuals' right to do whatever they please with their own property, however my contention is that owners of rare warbirds have a moral (if not legal) responsibility to safeguard these machines. They are, after all, part of our national heritage, and there aren't many left.</font>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stonebird, yes recency & currency have a role, but so does total experience. I have history books that tell of young men taken from farms, offices and the whole community being trained as pilots and then, with maybe 100 hours total aeronautical experience, 'endorsed' onto Spitfires & Hurricanes and told "go fight this machine and defend the free world"
I guess it's all relative!
ding
I guess it's all relative!
ding
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would also point out that those 10,000 hour pilots who are flying these machines have probably NOT been the type to just fly a 737 for all those hours and then jump into a warbird, but have probably flying more appropriate aircraft for ALL their flying years.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A sad occasion at Biggin Hill!
Regretfully there are too many so called airline pilots who by and large think because they fly these mighty machines (Boeings etc)that this makes them qualified to fly former 'high performance' single and multi engine warbirds.
It is my observation that these airline chappies are in the same catergory as doctor, dentists, lawyers and other well to do. It's a common occurance that these machines are owned and operated by wealthy people who by and large 'buy' their qualifications. In the 'old' days a person was taught in a proper aircraft (tailwheel) and learnt from day one the finer point of handling aircraft.
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.
Anyone can fly these machines with common sense but once you get a band of aviators in a close knit group be it a bar room or airshow, common sense goes out the window as people try to outperform each other and they forget that these aircraft are highly tuned 'killing machines', during the 40's as air combat aircraft and during the 90's as civil airshow mounts.
Airshow pilots need to learn respect for these aircraft, otherwise the authorities will ground these machines and then the next generation, will never get to see or hear a Merlin, Allison, or Goblin type engine at full power. That would be a sad day for all in aviation. Please be carefull.
Regretfully there are too many so called airline pilots who by and large think because they fly these mighty machines (Boeings etc)that this makes them qualified to fly former 'high performance' single and multi engine warbirds.
It is my observation that these airline chappies are in the same catergory as doctor, dentists, lawyers and other well to do. It's a common occurance that these machines are owned and operated by wealthy people who by and large 'buy' their qualifications. In the 'old' days a person was taught in a proper aircraft (tailwheel) and learnt from day one the finer point of handling aircraft.
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.
Anyone can fly these machines with common sense but once you get a band of aviators in a close knit group be it a bar room or airshow, common sense goes out the window as people try to outperform each other and they forget that these aircraft are highly tuned 'killing machines', during the 40's as air combat aircraft and during the 90's as civil airshow mounts.
Airshow pilots need to learn respect for these aircraft, otherwise the authorities will ground these machines and then the next generation, will never get to see or hear a Merlin, Allison, or Goblin type engine at full power. That would be a sad day for all in aviation. Please be carefull.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am glad to see the content of this thread, as it was one I was going to start myself.
I also feel that whilst a 'man with too much money, is soon flying something too powerful for him'. The right of an individual to kill himself in any way he can afford is a fundamental democratic right. Thus over regulation will kill off the warbird industry.
However, if we look at the machines involved we must accept that they were made to fly and fight at high level away from the ground. They were made to be flown by fit young men with good reaction times, albeit with maybe low total experience. They were not made, designed or intended in any way to be aerobatted at 500' by an overweight middle aged millionaire or an ex-service pilot now flying in the airlines who's aerobatic experience was gained twenty or more years ago but has the right connections at Duxford. (And I am not targetting any particular individual here)
Even if we accept that the ex-service instructor has an excellent background to work on, he is still expected to put the aircraft into manouveres and positions that in war time would have been a last ditch effort to avoid getting shot down. (lets face it when down to the tree's in the Battle of Britain speed was what counted not flashy aerobatics).
I'm afraid that the way forward as I see it is to follow the American lead and ask for greater competency checks before being licenced to fly these types, regardless of previous experience. To restrict airshow aerobatics to limited positive G manouveres at a much greater DA's than currently allowed. (One person I spoke to recently admired another individual who apparently holds a DA of 3' !!)
This may dissapoint a few morons who go to airshows to see crashes. But that's a small price to pay to preserve the industry.
I will leave the final word to my wife (what's new) when she stated that whilst she enjoyed all of last year Cottesmore air show, particularly the 'hecopleter' displays, just watching the Battle of Britain flight fly by straight and level bought tears to her eyes and made the whole day worthwhile. Can the airshow industry ask for more?
I also feel that whilst a 'man with too much money, is soon flying something too powerful for him'. The right of an individual to kill himself in any way he can afford is a fundamental democratic right. Thus over regulation will kill off the warbird industry.
However, if we look at the machines involved we must accept that they were made to fly and fight at high level away from the ground. They were made to be flown by fit young men with good reaction times, albeit with maybe low total experience. They were not made, designed or intended in any way to be aerobatted at 500' by an overweight middle aged millionaire or an ex-service pilot now flying in the airlines who's aerobatic experience was gained twenty or more years ago but has the right connections at Duxford. (And I am not targetting any particular individual here)
Even if we accept that the ex-service instructor has an excellent background to work on, he is still expected to put the aircraft into manouveres and positions that in war time would have been a last ditch effort to avoid getting shot down. (lets face it when down to the tree's in the Battle of Britain speed was what counted not flashy aerobatics).
I'm afraid that the way forward as I see it is to follow the American lead and ask for greater competency checks before being licenced to fly these types, regardless of previous experience. To restrict airshow aerobatics to limited positive G manouveres at a much greater DA's than currently allowed. (One person I spoke to recently admired another individual who apparently holds a DA of 3' !!)
This may dissapoint a few morons who go to airshows to see crashes. But that's a small price to pay to preserve the industry.
I will leave the final word to my wife (what's new) when she stated that whilst she enjoyed all of last year Cottesmore air show, particularly the 'hecopleter' displays, just watching the Battle of Britain flight fly by straight and level bought tears to her eyes and made the whole day worthwhile. Can the airshow industry ask for more?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brad737..I donīt really have a point, Iīm just discussing this...
You are right about the Catch-22 situation; how does one go about getting more experienced on these high performance aircraft if one does not fly them as an inexperienced learner? Well, if one plans to fly a Spitfire, for example, one should graduate from a Chippie to a Harvard, possibly to a Hurricane, and then only to a Spitfire. We arenīt at war now, thereīs no need to press pilots into cockpits of ex-fighters with minimal experience on type. But, there will be the time when the inexperienced pilot goes solo on the big birds..and it is dangerous. See how many die.
Sure the flying skills of any 10,000 hr airline pilot are proven. I donīt dispute this, I just said that I donīt think they necessarily make good fighter pilots. OK, their total experience is significant, but lets take long-haul pilots into consideration. 100 ten-hour flights makes up 1000 hrs of flying time. In a 5 minute display the pilot will need more skill than he has even seen demonstrated in all those 1000 hrs. Foxmoth says that line pilots are constantly exercising their skills in other types of aircraft. I beg to differ. Modern schedules are so hectic many pilots donīt get enough sleep even!!
Papertiger. You are right .. I think they should be flown, as I said, itīs the responsibility of the museums to preserve aircraft. If Mr. X has coughed a half-mil for a Spit, he is entitled to destroy it if he so wishes.
BUT lets start looking at this a little more deeply.
Mr. X buys the Spit, gets a PPL, gets a conversion, and 3 months later heīs ready to join the display circuit! OK, not all display pilots are that inexperienced, but some are. Some have very few hours on type.
A specific warbird is in demand, not a specific pilot. If Mr X has bought a famous warbird, he will be under pressure to display it, either himself or via a proxy.
Doubtless he will want to do it himself.
As soon as Mr. X feels ready, he approaches the airshow officials and they jump at the chance to feature that warbird - helps draw the crowds, gets the money in...not many questions are asked of Mr. X...
They are flying these machines very low and very close to tightly-packed crowds of thousands. It simply is not as safe as HAZELL checks at 4000 AGL. Sure, Joe Public is aware of this, pays his money and takes his chances, but just how aware is Joe Public of how much higher the chances of injury or death to himself and his family are?
What additional dangers are there due to displaying different types together, aerobatically? Different weights, different momentums...yet stuck to each other like glue? Flown by 30-hr pilots?
Personally, Iīll take my chances, and I would not like display flying at airshows to stop.
However, having said that, I would be equally happy to leave the aerobatics to the Pitts, the Extras and the modern jet fighters, flown in the capable hands of skilled and current military pilots. The warbirds I would be happy to see cruise past, doing a few steep turns perhaps...Raw Data has a very valid point - what happens when there are no more machines? eh?
Now who will be the first to fly a 100-year old aircraft?
You are right about the Catch-22 situation; how does one go about getting more experienced on these high performance aircraft if one does not fly them as an inexperienced learner? Well, if one plans to fly a Spitfire, for example, one should graduate from a Chippie to a Harvard, possibly to a Hurricane, and then only to a Spitfire. We arenīt at war now, thereīs no need to press pilots into cockpits of ex-fighters with minimal experience on type. But, there will be the time when the inexperienced pilot goes solo on the big birds..and it is dangerous. See how many die.
Sure the flying skills of any 10,000 hr airline pilot are proven. I donīt dispute this, I just said that I donīt think they necessarily make good fighter pilots. OK, their total experience is significant, but lets take long-haul pilots into consideration. 100 ten-hour flights makes up 1000 hrs of flying time. In a 5 minute display the pilot will need more skill than he has even seen demonstrated in all those 1000 hrs. Foxmoth says that line pilots are constantly exercising their skills in other types of aircraft. I beg to differ. Modern schedules are so hectic many pilots donīt get enough sleep even!!
Papertiger. You are right .. I think they should be flown, as I said, itīs the responsibility of the museums to preserve aircraft. If Mr. X has coughed a half-mil for a Spit, he is entitled to destroy it if he so wishes.
BUT lets start looking at this a little more deeply.
Mr. X buys the Spit, gets a PPL, gets a conversion, and 3 months later heīs ready to join the display circuit! OK, not all display pilots are that inexperienced, but some are. Some have very few hours on type.
A specific warbird is in demand, not a specific pilot. If Mr X has bought a famous warbird, he will be under pressure to display it, either himself or via a proxy.
Doubtless he will want to do it himself.
As soon as Mr. X feels ready, he approaches the airshow officials and they jump at the chance to feature that warbird - helps draw the crowds, gets the money in...not many questions are asked of Mr. X...
They are flying these machines very low and very close to tightly-packed crowds of thousands. It simply is not as safe as HAZELL checks at 4000 AGL. Sure, Joe Public is aware of this, pays his money and takes his chances, but just how aware is Joe Public of how much higher the chances of injury or death to himself and his family are?
What additional dangers are there due to displaying different types together, aerobatically? Different weights, different momentums...yet stuck to each other like glue? Flown by 30-hr pilots?
Personally, Iīll take my chances, and I would not like display flying at airshows to stop.
However, having said that, I would be equally happy to leave the aerobatics to the Pitts, the Extras and the modern jet fighters, flown in the capable hands of skilled and current military pilots. The warbirds I would be happy to see cruise past, doing a few steep turns perhaps...Raw Data has a very valid point - what happens when there are no more machines? eh?
Now who will be the first to fly a 100-year old aircraft?
Guest
Posts: n/a
PaperTiger:
Your argument doesn't fly for a number of reasons.
1) Most aircraft that are capable of being restored to even static condition, are. None are left to rot- just look at the contents of many small aviation musuems, who save anything that even looks vaguely aviation related (and good on them). For example, how many Vulcans can you think of that have been cut up for scrap?
2) Given that an aircraft is restored to flying condition, it can be displayed safely. I for one would never want to see these aircraft grounded- my point is simply that they should not be risked by using them for low-level aerobatics. Look at many of the recent accidents, and you will see examples of pilot error where the margin for error was zero. Accidents are inevitable if you take risks- unfortunately the egos of some display pilots lead them to try things they (or the aircraft) are not capable of.
3) Irrespective of why the aircraft has been restored, I still believe there is a moral obligation on the owner to safeguard them as rare artifacts of our heritage (that doesn't mean don't fly them). A little like listed buildings, or areas or special historical significance.
As I said, it's too late when they are all gone...
Your argument doesn't fly for a number of reasons.
1) Most aircraft that are capable of being restored to even static condition, are. None are left to rot- just look at the contents of many small aviation musuems, who save anything that even looks vaguely aviation related (and good on them). For example, how many Vulcans can you think of that have been cut up for scrap?
2) Given that an aircraft is restored to flying condition, it can be displayed safely. I for one would never want to see these aircraft grounded- my point is simply that they should not be risked by using them for low-level aerobatics. Look at many of the recent accidents, and you will see examples of pilot error where the margin for error was zero. Accidents are inevitable if you take risks- unfortunately the egos of some display pilots lead them to try things they (or the aircraft) are not capable of.
3) Irrespective of why the aircraft has been restored, I still believe there is a moral obligation on the owner to safeguard them as rare artifacts of our heritage (that doesn't mean don't fly them). A little like listed buildings, or areas or special historical significance.
As I said, it's too late when they are all gone...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stonebird asked who will be first to fly a 100 year old aircraft.
Old Rhinebeck Airdrome in Rhinebeck New York USA has a motley collection of WW 1, pre WW 1 and a few newer aircraft that are flown on sunny weekends by a motley collection of aviators.
Of this whole bunch of aircraft I don't think there are more than several pieces of a few of the aircraft that are original. They have been rebuilt, wrecked, rebuilt again and deteriorated so many times that though they probably certainly look like they did in 1907, they may even fly like they did in 1907, but they aren't still the same airplane. Most are in fact replicas.
These aircraft fly a lot slower and a lot lower than even the most minimal WW II warbird (Austers, Taylorcraft and Cubs excepted)and many (but not all) are much more survivable when crashed.
The 100th anniversary of THE BROTHERS flight is about 2 1/2 years from now. The aircraft they flew is in a museum and not likely to ever be flown again. It has been repaired and flown an number of times since it's first flight and modified, then returned to "original" configuration. Spent years in a museum in the UK and then in the US where it has been disassembled and assembled for transportation. Not sure how many original parts there are in it, but that will be the first chance at a 100 year old airplane.
If "real" warbirds are thought of as historic artifacts they will be kept in museum conditions and maintained in a state for preservation, but will not be flown as the risk is too great. No responsible museum curator would allow for the chance of distruction of the artefact and no insurance company would cover it. While it is the right (or privilage) of Mr multizillionare Bloggs to buy the last Hurricane (if he can) fly it to whatever levels his competence or vanity desires and turn it into scrap to be parceled out in 1" square sections it is also supremely irresponsible for him to do that and like many things that are legal it sure would be dumb and not in the least admirable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stonebird et al,
JP in Loch Foyle......would more experience have allowed the engine to run longer with no fuel?
Yak 50/52......Warbirds? Only in the minds of some of the owners.
1,000 hours long haul equals how many minutes hands on flying? Cannot see the relevance. Flying Lawyer makes the most sense, re-read his posts on this thread and the "biggin crash" one.
Edited because I am thick.....
[This message has been edited by Yosser (edited 08 June 2001).]
JP in Loch Foyle......would more experience have allowed the engine to run longer with no fuel?
Yak 50/52......Warbirds? Only in the minds of some of the owners.
1,000 hours long haul equals how many minutes hands on flying? Cannot see the relevance. Flying Lawyer makes the most sense, re-read his posts on this thread and the "biggin crash" one.
Edited because I am thick.....
[This message has been edited by Yosser (edited 08 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Further to a previous post, I believe the original Wright Flyer spent the Second World War in Camden Town Underground Station, having been moved there for safety reasons.
(This, though interesting, is a non sequitur within the context of this thread, but I hope nobody minds)
------------------
"Fair is foul, foul is fair,
Hover through the fog and filthy air..." Macbeth, Act 1 Scene 1
[This message has been edited by t'aint natural (edited 08 June 2001).]
(This, though interesting, is a non sequitur within the context of this thread, but I hope nobody minds)
------------------
"Fair is foul, foul is fair,
Hover through the fog and filthy air..." Macbeth, Act 1 Scene 1
[This message has been edited by t'aint natural (edited 08 June 2001).]