Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Yet another Airshow Incident

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Yet another Airshow Incident

Old 30th Aug 2015, 11:52
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Sad and Hurt

I am sad that this happened and more hurt that some spectators attend these events, secretly hoping to witness this kind of drama. No one would ever admit that desire, be we know that it exists.
I've asked before - and I will ask again, do these air shows really benefit GA or, when a military team appears - military aviation? The only genuine fact that I know is that I Do Not Know! What I DO know is that all of the deaths and injuries resulting from air shows CAN be prevented if we so wish. Where does one draw the line and how much risk is considered acceptable? I do not know!! Like anyone, I'm thrilled to see extremes flown by a C-130 or the perky C-17, but... Are such shows worth risking 3-6+ lives? I don't think so.
Most of the world already knows what those fancy airplanes can do, if necessary. But even with a light load, that 'slight' over-bank can and will kill the entire crew. I'm not sure that flying demonstrations are worth the horrible risk.
Others may differ and I expect that. The community line is that, when flown exactly according to plan, accident's don't happen.' I believe that, but... Faults still happen, errors still happen and boys and girls still die, trying to prove themselves or their aircraft the very best. Air shows are not war events and we do not need winners. Airplanes can be replaced, but souls cannot. (Differ on that last one, then try to explain it to the pilot's wife and kids. I'll want to know exactly what was said...)
Are these flying shows really necessary?
No Fly Zone is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 14:14
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
No Fly Zone

Nope, not necessary at all.

So what?

If people choose to do something that has an increased risk associated with it, what business is it of yours?

Motorcycling is far more dangerous. Would you like to ban that too?

Nobody, even in the military, forces anyone to display. It is volunteer only.

Stop this nanny state rubbish.
Tourist is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 14:31
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 82
Posts: 698
NoFlyZone.

Tourist.

FF
funfly is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 15:07
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Funfly

So you want to ban people from doing something that they love so that you don't have to worry about them being at risk?


Wow.

What's next on your list?

Skydiving, obviously.
Motorcycling, already covered.
car racing.
Skiing.
kitesurfing.
Offshore racing.
etc etc etc.
Tourist is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 15:45
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Brian Lecomber is one of the best, and he's knocking on a bit now.
Is he still flying? He was the first person to congratulate me on passing my GFT - in 1983.
strake is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 15:53
  #46 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 4,646
Funfly and Tourist, steady on please....
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 16:04
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,459
Originally Posted by No Fly Zone
I am sad that this happened and more hurt that some spectators attend these events, secretly hoping to witness this kind of drama. No one would ever admit that desire, be we know that it exists.
Goodness Gracious! You might want to have the depression checked out by a professional.
We know that there are some sick individuals in our society. That is not a reason to not attend an airshows or to say that they have no value.

Each time we fly, we open ourselves up to the risk of hitting the ground. That risk is generally considered acceptable assuming we fly in a "virtuous" manner and avoid stupidity. When we practice maneuvering our aircraft and become attuned to its characteristics, that is a reward in itself. The basis behind airshows is a demonstration or sharing of the mastering of an aircraft. Airshow displays are examples of what can be accomplished by a highly skilled pilot.

Andrew Wright's videos of some of his airshow routines are a legacy to other aviators. The controlled violence, and precision of his maneuvers was impressive. I actually learned something regarding his technique that I may be able to use.

The man was a professional pilot, earning his livelihood on the airshow circuit. The proximate cause of his death was not a piloting failure. He went out on the top of his game.

The lessons learned from his passing will be in regard to maintenance of carbon fiber structures and perhaps greater adoption of risk mitigation strategies such as the BRS system.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 16:23
  #48 (permalink)  

Awesome but Affordable
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kings Cliffe
Posts: 488
Devil

Around 15 years ago the Russian company Zvezda developed a pilot extraction system. This imposed a modest weight penalty and I saw video of trials fitted to SU-29 aircraft. Their ejector seats have proved remarkably efficient. I wonder if this system for light aircraft was developed further?
G-KEST is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 17:03
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,397
Funfly and Tourist, I suggest you both just stay in bed, though I see that's not without its hazards, 327 died due accidental suffocation and strangulation.

Most Common Causes of Death Due to Injury in the US
megan is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 17:13
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,459
Here is another lightweight "ejection system" that might be feasible from a weight standpoint:
http://ejectionsite.com/yankee.htm
You have to be an old phart to know about this one.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 17:15
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,063
Some more info here: CKC-94 Emergency Escape System - "RD & PE Zvezda" JSC

And the aforementioned video of it in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_WBK6mtkWw
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 17:23
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,527
Anyone who has been to an airshow has seen the pleasure the crowd get from watching aerobatic manoeuvres. Millions every year around the world go home having had a great day watching aeroplanes being flown to high standards. Every now and then there is an accident. The numbers who die are small.

I don't believe that people go to an airshow hoping to see a crash. I have never at any airshow heard anything remotely like that being said, and as the chances of seeing a crash are so small it is not the best way to see such if that is your wish.

Very sad to read of another death of a pilot but surely no need to overeact by proposing to ban airshows
surely not is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 18:01
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: France
Posts: 118
Tourist

Skydiving, obviously.
Motorcycling, already covered.
car racing.
Skiing.
kitesurfing.
Offshore racing.
etc etc etc.

You forgot horse riding, that is really dangerous. Much more so than MC riding.
DownWest is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 18:45
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 68
Posts: 0
I too doubt that people go to sporting events hoping to see death or injury. I also doubt that it puts people off. Formula1 has become very safe by comparison with past decades but that safety has also brought sanitisation. It is exceptionally difficult, nay impossible, to separate the danger from the attraction.

I doubt that the spectators could truthfully tell you to what extent the risk attracts them. I think with NASCAR it must be a significant factor.
Effluent Man is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 18:51
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,397
Machinbird, back in 1967 a similar (perhaps the same) piece of kit was being talked about for the USN T-28 used at Pensacola for training. Did not proceed.
megan is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 20:43
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,459
Machinbird, back in 1967 a similar (perhaps the same) piece of kit was being talked about for the USN T-28 used at Pensacola for training. Did not proceed.
We killed a lot of people in flight training in those days. The Naval Training command was averaging about 1 fatality per week then.The T-28s at Whiting Field were well represented.
But maybe the reason for studying the concept was the T-28D that was being used in combat. The Yankee system was a bit unreliable, but far better than nothing.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 22:09
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Charotte
Age: 59
Posts: 11
Giles 202 vs French 222 (based 202 aircraft)

The French CAP 222 and the Giles 202 have everything in comon except building procedures therefore they are two different aircraft. The French decided to change "glue" materials among other small things like Seat Attachement points, etc..... They were attempting to make a certified aircraft, satisfy the french DGAC and in the process it got all screwed.

If you undesrtand how the Giles is put together (I own S/N 12) you will understand that The failure in the BAE report and Andrews in NY are completelly different in the way it got detached and what failed. the French CAP giles 202 based aircraft was a failure from day one.

In regards to Andrews accident, Lets wait for reaults. I know this is a rumor forum but......let the NTSb tell us before jumping into conclusions. There are so many variables that can affect composites integrity.

Last edited by mv031161; 30th Aug 2015 at 22:25.
mv031161 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 22:27
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by Stanwell View Post
... and an ejection seat (plus mounting) would probably weigh as much as the airframe itself.
Not to mention any weight/balance considerations.
Martin-Baker makes an ejection seat system with claimed 81 lb installed mass.

Surely, a BRS for an aircraft of that size and weight would not have to be 'large suitcase' sized.
Many aircraft in the recreational/sport category use ones that are considerably less bulky and streamlined as well.
This particular aircraft would need an oversized package, because most BRS units are rated for a maximum deployment speed of 120 knots and G202 has a cruise speed of 140 knots.
hamster3null is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 22:31
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
There are old pilots and low-level aerobatic pilots but there are no old low-level aerobatic pilots.
What do you consider old?

I'll be 80 in October and I am still alive.

( I was 70 when I flew in my last airshow, I retired because I was tired of all the B.S. that was part of the airshow business. Not because I was not up to standards.)

But everything is getting strangled by rules and regulations and moderation in today's society.
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2015, 22:59
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 72
Posts: 1,701
Thanks for that, hamster.
Stanwell is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.