Warbird Aerobatics

[marine air]

On the video of the P-38, the nose of the aircraft is pitched way below the horizon on the second to last roll. Then take into account his proximity to the ground; he looks like he is going to bite it. Then amazingly he starts into yet another roll while even lower, and faster, thus sealing his doom.
He made an error somewhere earlier in the routine and it doomed him . My theory is that it was really hazy sky conditions and somehow he thought he had much more altitude that what he actually had. It's an easy mistake which leads the pilot to think they have more altitude than actual.

[Dudley Henriques]

The very best to you.
Dudley Henriques

Dear Dudley,

No comments, corrections, additions or clarification?

No answers to any of the questions posed? No review of previous statements?

Even attempting the most neutral reaction, what conclusions can then be drawn?

I would hope airshow safety is something worth trying to get right. Is it not to be debated?

Regards,

No problem whatsoever. I will be happy to discuss flight safety issues with any person on this forum except yourself. I mean no disrespect by this; simply that I have chosen this path after experiencing our present exchange , and I will go out of my way here to explain that nothing sinister or personally insulting to you is being implied here.

Anyone ELSE reading this post who is interested in flight safety issues as they relate to war birds and display flying and wish to discuss these issues with me please feel free to contact me directly by back channel email. The address is dhenriques@rcn.com
I am always available to discuss flight safety with any and all interested parties with whom I feel the exchange will be useful and productive.
Thank you
Dudley Henriques

[JDK]

Well it's clear I've done something wrong, but I'm not know what it is, or given the opportunity to put it right, clarify or apologise.

Pity.

[Dudley Henriques]

:shock: Well it's clear I've done something wrong, but I'm not know what it is, or given the opportunity to put it right, clarify or apologise.

Pity.

You have done nothing wrong and therefor no need whatsoever to apologize for anything.
Our approach to the subject is so different that I feel nothing productive could result from any further discussion between us on these issues.
It's that simple; nothing else.
I mean you no disrespect. I just have no further wish to engage you on these issues.
Thank you once again, and please, let's just let this go and be done with it.
DH

[JDK]

Very well. I have been, and am always open to learning more and changing my views and approach, when given the material and oportunity.

Like you, I (although in a far less crucial role) think airshow safety is worth working on - certainly I wish to continue to enjoy displays safely, and try to contribute constructively to that.

I remain open to information and guidance on the matter, and don't intended or wish to close the door to an informed professional in the field.

Best wishes,

[JohnH]

thanks for replies on the 38. Seems like Im seeing the crash differently 13 years later. I saw video right when it happened and read everything about it back then as well and talked about it with industry insiders I used to lunch with at Chino every week. Darn...I saw and took pics of the first flight in person Jan 11 1992 and watched at home the last one on video. Sad for the loss of a great pilot as well which is of course most important. It seems to be something more than just pilot error.

[Dudley Henriques]

thanks for replies on the 38. Seems like Im seeing the crash differently 13 years later. I saw video right when it happened and read everything about it back then as well and talked about it with industry insiders I used to lunch with at Chino every week. Darn...I saw and took pics of the first flight in person Jan 11 1992 and watched at home the last one on video. Sad for the loss of a great pilot as well which is of course most important. It seems to be something more than just pilot error.

Just an aside here; nothing official.

Hoof was probably one of the finest most prepared display pilots I've ever known. His work was ultra smooth and precise and very well planned.
I read the report as did many others in our community after the accident and fully understand the conclusions held therein.

My personal opinion FWIW leans heavily toward the kneepad Hoof was wearing on his right leg. I have watched the crash film many times.
The fact that the P38 uses a control yoke instead of a stick plays deeply into my feeling that during the second roll, the kneepad fouled with the yoke. Rolling left in the parabolic arc Hoof was using for his rolls would have put the left ear of the control yoke in the vicinity of his right leg in just about the right place where had something come loose and tilted the pad, it very well could have denied the full aileron and back pressure required for the roll recovery.

I should add that I have never been a fan of kneepads even for GA flight instruction where a yoke is involved and I have made recommendation against their use in both the GA venue and especially in the display venue for many years.
Dudley Henriques

[Randy Haskin]

I should add that I have never been a fan of kneepads even for GA flight instruction where a yoke is involved and I have made recommendation against their use in both the GA venue and especially in the display venue for many years.
Dudley Henriques

I, too, am not a fan of hard kneeboards -- an opinion formed during hundreds of iterations of teaching BFM in the T-38. On more than one occasion, I've seen students have control interference with their kneeboards, often in time-critical situations (like a "floor save" which simulates avoiding hitting the dirt).

I think it is more of a factor in aircraft with a stick rather than a yoke.

[warbird1]

I should add that I have never been a fan of kneepads even for GA flight instruction where a yoke is involved and I have made recommendation against their use in both the GA venue and especially in the display venue for many years.
Dudley Henriques

I agree with this sentiment. I have flown both yoke and stick equipped aircraft, and can easily see how it might interfere with a kneepad attached checklist. Inadvertent control interference either through strap-on kneepad checklists or even G-suits are documented in several USAF crashes over the years. I know that Blue Angels pilots intentionally DON'T wear G-suits because it affects their control stick inputs on the F-18.

A couple of questions here:

One of the most basic things you do in every single aircraft you fly is to do a control check prior to takeoff to make sure nothing is binding on the flight controls, including body parts and checklists. Not having known Hoof, but knowing the prestigious reputation which he enjoyed as a consummate professional, I would guess he did this sometime in his pre-flight checks prior to takeoff. Does the P-38 have a seat that is adjustable in the vertical axis for pilot comfort/visibility? If so, would it have been possible that he changed the seat height sometime after this control check? If the P-38 did NOT have a vertically adjustable seat, then is it possible that he did not do a control check prior to takeoff? What about the horizontal axis? Is the P-38 seat adjustable there? What about rudder pedals? Are they adjustable as well? Is it possible that any of these factors could have changed the relative distance between the control yoke and Hoof's kneepad checklist?

Obviously, I have never flown a P-38, but I know we have a few pilots on this forum who have. I would ask them, if there is any "technique" or pilot preferred method of readjusting either the seat or rudder pedals from the time one does a control check until one performs a flying display. Would one want to re-adjust a seat and/or rudder pedals to get better visibility outside or is that not a consideration at all?

[Dudley Henriques]

I should add that I have never been a fan of kneepads even for GA flight instruction where a yoke is involved and I have made recommendation against their use in both the GA venue and especially in the display venue for many years.
Dudley Henriques

I, too, am not a fan of hard kneeboards -- an opinion formed during hundreds of iterations of teaching BFM in the T-38. On more than one occasion, I've seen students have control interference with their kneeboards, often in time-critical situations (like a "floor save" which simulates avoiding hitting the dirt).

I think it is more of a factor in aircraft with a stick rather than a yoke.

I had one bad experience with a kneeboard using a stick but it could easily be an area of concern along with the yoke as you have said.
My concern has always been centered on yoke position during flare in tight fitting side by side GA cabin environments where pilots have a tendency to run the seat up close to the maximum yoke extension minus a few inches for comfort. This is an issue I have observed especially with short legged pilots.
It's funny about the T38. My first experience with a kneeboard was in the Talon on a flight out of TPS at Pax where I was flying as a guest.
We were doing a simple stall series and I was wearing one of those darn poopy suits they issue at Pax during winter months so you can live a minute longer if you eject into the Chesapeake Bay
I was wearing a metal strap kneeboard. I had extreme trouble holding the Talon in deep stall as my leg with the board on it and the seat side pan were causing interference.
I haven't liked kneeboards since.
Dudley

[Dudley Henriques]

I should add that I have never been a fan of kneepads even for GA flight instruction where a yoke is involved and I have made recommendation against their use in both the GA venue and especially in the display venue for many years.
Dudley Henriques

I agree with this sentiment. I have flown both yoke and stick equipped aircraft, and can easily see how it might interfere with a kneepad attached checklist. Inadvertent control interference either through strap-on kneepad checklists or even G-suits are documented in several USAF crashes over the years. I know that Blue Angels pilots intentionally DON'T wear G-suits because it affects their control stick inputs on the F-18.

A couple of questions here:

One of the most basic things you do in every single aircraft you fly is to do a control check prior to takeoff to make sure nothing is binding on the flight controls, including body parts and checklists. Not having known Hoof, but knowing the prestigious reputation which he enjoyed as a consummate professional, I would guess he did this sometime in his pre-flight checks prior to takeoff. Does the P-38 have a seat that is adjustable in the vertical axis for pilot comfort/visibility? If so, would it have been possible that he changed the seat height sometime after this control check? If the P-38 did NOT have a vertically adjustable seat, then is it possible that he did not do a control check prior to takeoff? What about the horizontal axis? Is the P-38 seat adjustable there? What about rudder pedals? Are they adjustable as well? Is it possible that any of these factors could have changed the relative distance between the control yoke and Hoof's kneepad checklist?

Obviously, I have never flown a P-38, but I know we have a few pilots on this forum who have. I would ask them, if there is any "technique" or pilot preferred method of readjusting either the seat or rudder pedals from the time one does a control check until one performs a flying display. Would one want to re-adjust a seat and/or rudder pedals to get better visibility outside or is that not a consideration at all?

I've not flown the P38 either; hence my "gut feeling about Hoof's crash.
I agree totally with your assessment of Hoof's preflight regimen. Without actually having seen him perform the proper checks personally on the day of his accident, I would be amazed to learn he didn't make those checks. He just wasn't the kind of pilot to skip things like this. Furthermore, knowing he was going to be performing level 1 rolls, I'm sure he double checked the freedom of the yoke with the rolls in mind.
Following this line of reasoning, (much of accident investigation is following a line of reasoning) since he continued with the takeoff, I would assume that the checks he made concerning yoke control travel allowed him complete freedom of the yoke on both axis'.
My feeling is that something slipped or came undone on the kneeboard leg restraint causing it to shift in place on his leg during the second roll possibly jamming against his body denying him control authority or at least enough control authority to complete the roll.
As for the seat itself, I can't tell you for certain for the P38 specifically but I believe the pedals rather than the seat would be adjustable for rudder authority and I believe the seat might be ground adjustable by pins for height but not adjustable when seated in the aircraft.
Could be wrong, but I'm sure the P38 people can confirm or correct for you.

[warbird1]

Thanks Dudley, I appreciate you contributing to this thread.

I would love to hear some P-38 drivers weigh in on this!

[Dudley Henriques]

Thanks Dudley, I appreciate you contributing to this thread.

I would love to hear some P-38 drivers weigh in on this!

You're welcome. I'm always available to discuss flight safety issues with sincerely interested people in the community.
Take care,
DH

[Randy Haskin]

It is entirely possible that a kneeboard might not be in the way during a flight control check on the ground, but might cause interference in flight.

[Randy Haskin]

Apologies on the threadjack, but here's a shot of my cockpit setup.

Any papers, checklists, or maps are stowed under elastic straps sewn to my G-suit. When I am not wearing a G-suit, I have the same type of elastic strap on a velcro setup that I can put on my thigh. Again, nothing hard goes in there so as to not create any stick interference.