My Thanks to So Many

RickH · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 8:27 pm

The runway at GLS is 150 ft wide. They had an approximate 10 second spacing.

b29flteng · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 8:42 pm

In the military we did it with no less than 15 second timing. The airshow operators really need to re-think this.

skybolt2003 · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 8:48 pm

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? We did it in the military and it was "sporty" then with a lot of practice, so why are we civilians, with less practice, taking the chance of damaging a multi-million Dollar airplane or worse, injuring someone? (sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now)(Hyde Park corner for you in the UK)

2. The pilot of the Hurri is a very experienced, high power, tail-dragger pilot. Who out there is a high time, current, Hurricane pilot?

I agree completely– I was thinking about this earlier – would I want to do it? (I haven't flown high performance warbirds) I've done similar landings while towing gliders, with gliders in f ront of me and other tow planes. In each situation I know the pilots well, we know what we are each going to do, and the planes are very predictable and low energy. Brakes are not *necessarily* a no-go item, depending upon the skill of those involved. Then I think about doing that with my 195. It is very blind in the landing attitude. It has a narrow track and springy gear with a long moment behind the gear and a high cg to boot. Lots have been wiped out in landing accidents. I am not shy about operating in close proximity to others, not shy about flying to my limits, but no w ay would I want to do a staggered landing. If I don't have brakes, below about 30mph I'm out of control in some circumstances. I have modern(ish) clevelands installed, but with the old goodyears - who would want to take the risk? Old brakes suck, wind shifts, etc.

EDowning · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 9:14 pm

b29flteng wrote:

Quote:

In the military we did it with no less than 15 second timing

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. At each airshow the PIC attends the breifing and makes a personal analysis of the proposed plan. For me, that means a complete intraspection (sp?) and a "virtual" look in he mirror to see how much I am up to speed and on my game. 10 seconds or 15 seconds means nothing without a personal guage of how I am feeling/flying at any given time. Early in the season, it means one thing, 20+ hours in the Spad in the last month, might mean something else. Am I well rested? Hungover? Sick? Stressed out? Pissed off? All factors that go into the go/no go decision. I have stood up in the breifing and said "sorry, this or that does work for me, today, What about this as an alternative?" I have no one to satisfy but myself, couldn't care less what the rest think, if it's a safety issue.

BTW, Bill Greenwood is no shrinking violet, I have flown several shows with Bill where he voiced his opinion, or had the breifing modified to increase his personal safety margin. Good for him..

Rick Sharpe can do things safely in a Skyraider that I can not. So what. I'm glad the crowd gets to see the Spad flown like that. Maybe I will have that level of expertise in the years to come. Nobody who is worth a sh*t wants to see one of these aircraft bent.

A man's got to know his limitations if you want to fly the big iron for a longtime.

One last thought...Sometimes you can do everything right and something still goes wrong. This airshow biz is dangerous, it ain't combat, but it ain't checkers either.

skybolt2003 · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 9:42 pm

bdk wrote:

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?

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!

So then I guess the airshow organizer's cover all the liability for the individual operator's?

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

skybolt2003 wrote:

So then I guess the airshow organizer's cover all the liability for the individual operator's?

Everything you do as an owner/operator is optional. If you don't like the way the show is run, stay home... Everyone generally provides their own liability insurance with the exception of the organizers I suppose, who likely have to provide insurance for the event to protect the airport owner (city, county, state, or private airport owner).

At Chino Airport for instance, you, the hangar renter are required to provide insurance to protect the county. If you slip and break your leg in their hangar, the insurance you buy to cover them will pay your own medical bill.

Spitfire14c · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 11:06 pm

Bill, sorry for the late post on this but I just joined WIX. I'm sorry to hear about the mishap with your Spit, and I'm glad that everyone is okay. I've been hoping our paths might cross again, since it's been a few years since I've been able to get to Oshkosh. Maybe someday.
In the meantime, here are some photos of TE308 in happier times.
Cheers,
-Chris

JDK · **Posted:** Wed May 07, 2008 11:18 pm

Welcome to WIX, Chris, nice to see such great pics.

Michel Lemieux · **Posted:** Thu May 08, 2008 10:26 am

With a delay..

Quote:

Whatever happens I have had a quarter of a century of getting to experience a masterpiece, one pilots the world over for the last 60 years have valued a chance to fly.

This quote sir does show impressive wisdom in my humble opinion. The simple fact of being able to appreciate the privileges life has given you even after such an event.

All at a certain cost of course :wink:

We are sometime a bit quick to forget the amount of blood, sweat & tears needed to keep those up in the air and pass judgment too quickly without even giving any appreciation at all.

Glad to hear that you and the other pilot are OK & best of luck if you so which & desire to get her back in the air for your enjoyment and ours of course.

P.S. thank you for keeping her in the air for the past 25 years.

Sincerely.

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

JDK wrote:

I don't know about the US, but the AAIB reports (in the UK) are not intended to apportion blame, but to investigate the causes to enable prevention of future accidents. A critical concept here, it seems.

Well, as an example, this one apparently didn't do a good job fixing blame...

Quote:

Court Finds ATC At Fault For Fatal Helicopter Crash

A federal judge in California said this week that air traffic controllers at the Torrance Municipal Airport made a critical mistake in November 2003, resulting in the collision of two helicopters in flight. The NTSB report, issued last May, found the surviving pilot, a student flying an R22 solo, had caused the crash, by failing to comply with an ATC clearance. Two men in a Robinson R44 helicopter on a training flight died when it crashed to the runway and exploded. The R22 pilot survived with serious injuries. The judge said the two controllers involved "failed to issue clear and concise instructions" to the pilots and acted "negligently and carelessly," the L.A. Times reported on Wednesday. The two pilots were maneuvering in the traffic pattern above parallel runways and were in positions where neither pilot could see the other when ATC reportedly told one of the pilots to turn, putting the two aircraft on a collision course, the Times said. The NTSB final report says the R22 pilot crossed runway 29R, where the controller had directed him to land, and was heading toward 29L when the collision occurred.

The case was brought to court by families of the three victims, who filed a civil lawsuit against the FAA. Testimony was heard for 11 days. An FAA spokesman declined to comment on the case, The Associated Press reported. "The tower should have been staffed with four controllers, but instead had just three at the time of this crash, as the ruling affirmed," Doug Church, spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told AVweb on Wednesday. "Like the Comair crash in Lexington, when a facility is understaffed, it is unsafe and tragedy can result."

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#197816

Airlift48 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:01 pm **Posts:** 744

EDowning wrote:

b29flteng wrote:

Quote:

This airshow biz is dangerous, it ain't combat, but it ain't checkers either.

Now that's saying something!

Tom · **Joined:** Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:02 pm **Posts:** 10

[quote="b29flteng"]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? We did it in the military and it was "sporty" then with a lot of practice, so why are we civilians, with less practice, taking the chance of damaging a multi-million Dollar airplane or worse, injuring someone? (sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now)(Hyde Park corner for you in the UK)

Real wisdom here. Thanks.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

Tom wrote:

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? We did it in the military and it was "sporty" then with a lot of practice, so why are we civilians, with less practice, taking the chance of damaging a multi-million Dollar airplane or worse, injuring someone? (sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now)(Hyde Park corner for you in the UK)

Real wisdom here. Thanks.

I don't think that staggered landings or landing with an aircraft on the runway is inherently dangerous. As long as everything is briefed thoroughly and everyone follows the rules, it will work. The potential problems arise when: 1) somebody doesn't adhere to the briefing, 2) all contingencies and scenarios are not throughly discussed, and 3) there are no "safety valves", or back-up plans to "break the chain of events", as they say in the safety world, of a potential conflict. The other problem is that there are vastly different experience levels, pilot skills, and proficiencies at work in a typical airshow, so you must always build the briefing and ROE's toward the lowest common denominator, i.e. - the weakest pilot.

marine air · **Posted:** Thu May 08, 2008 9:02 pm

I am no longer a fan of formation or "sequenced" landings. In the last nine months, 4 aircraft representing maybe 8 million dollars have been damged and no longer airworthy. Three severely and one destroyed. A P-51A replica, P-51D, Hurricane and two place Spit. Not a bad one in the bunch.
Gerry Beck, lost his life and is irreplaceable as are Bill and the other two pilots. My preference would be to see these type landings in tailwheel aircraft to be discontinued before we lose any more good men or aircraft.

Mudge · **Posted:** Thu May 08, 2008 9:37 pm

Marine Air Wrote:

Quote:

My preference would be to see these type landings in tailwheel aircraft to be discontinued before we lose any more good men or aircraft.

I'll vote for that and I've never even come close to doing one. :shock:

Mudge the inexperienced

Warbird Information Exchange

My Thanks to So Many

Who is online