Wed May 07, 2008 4:57 am
Mudge wrote:Warbird1...you sound like you might be a lawyer. EXCUSE US for using a, seemingly, "official" US Government report to base our posts on.
Mudge the contrite
Wed May 07, 2008 5:29 am
muddyboots wrote:I can't believe they would put an inexperienced pilot in the cockpit of that hurri at an airshow. I'm willing to take his word as evidence that the brake failed.
Wed May 07, 2008 6:12 am
Wed May 07, 2008 6:31 am
GilT wrote:The comment questioning whether the Hurricane pilot made a radio call advising that he had crossed the runway centerline is almost beyond comment.......................at that point in time his goal was maintaining control of the aircraft and hopefully returning to his side of the runway. To make a radio call at that point would have ignored one of the most basic tenents of good airmanship.........Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, and been a distraction.
Wed May 07, 2008 6:45 am
Wed May 07, 2008 6:59 am
Wed May 07, 2008 7:58 am
Wed May 07, 2008 9:05 am
warbird1 wrote:
I can't believe you guys are rushing so quick to judgement. A preliminary report is just that - preliminary. A LOT of things can change between that and the final report. Also, just because a pilot says a brake failed, doesn't necessarily mean it did. It must be tested and inspected. Did he improperly use the brake? How many hours of Hurricane time did he have and could it have impacted his familiarity with the braking system? Did the Hurricane pilot make a radio call to indicate that he had crossed the runway centerline? That could affect assessment of blame. What was briefed at the formation briefing? What were the ROE's regarding sequencing and separation of landing aircraft? These are just a few examples of the many answers we don't have. There are many, many factors involved here, so we must be very careful not to make a rush to judgement. Let's wait the year or so it takes for the final report to come out before assessing fault (if there is any).
Wed May 07, 2008 10:35 am
Wed May 07, 2008 10:42 am
Wed May 07, 2008 11:37 am
Wed May 07, 2008 7:09 pm
Mudge wrote:OK...OK...maybe I was a bit too premature with my "smack-down". Having lived in the DC area all my life and having dealt, firsthand, with many of the bureaucrats, I should have known better than to accept, without challenge, any report that they can come up with in less than a year. (Even then, be skeptical 'cause more often than not, the report will defy logic.)
Wed May 07, 2008 7:59 pm
Wed May 07, 2008 8:21 pm
If you don't do this, it will take so long to recover the aircraft that the crowd will get bored and not come back next year. Absolute safety (if there is such a thing) is trumped by money. Of course if the crowd didn't come because the show was boring there wouldn't be any money to support flying the aircraft. I think that the pilots, airshow operator/organizer, spectator and safety needs have to be balanced. It would likely be more safe to truck the aircraft in and tow them around with tugs, but you wouldn't sell many hot dogs with an event like that!b29flteng wrote:1. Everyone seems to be missing a safety point here. Why are we (the warbird airshow crowd) still landing aircraft with another still on the runway?
Wed May 07, 2008 8:23 pm