Biplane crash at Thunder Over Solano Airshow

[kmiles]

The sad part is that this lawsuit is likely to end the air shows that the performers like going to. I am sure there is insurance to cover the lawsuit, but the "liability reasons" will start showing up as the reason that shows are being cancelled. Military bases especially have always been concerned about exposure and liability, and being named in a lawsuit is only going to make that worse. I would be surprised if there is a show at Travis in 2015, or any time in the future.

This is not a negative statement towards the family for filing the lawsuit, as those responsible should be held accountable for the slow response time.

[RobC]

This type of suit raises a number of questions. How much liability does the pilot share for putting himself at risk to begin with? How much more for choosing an airplane with the fuel tank on the top wing? How much more for choosing a maneuver that exposes that fuel tank for a prolonged period at a very high risk? How much more for choosing to put a canopy on an airplane that does not have a canopy normally, thus preventing the ability to simple drop out of the airplane and scramble away before the fire starts?

Just curious.

[51fixer]

Don't know of many aerobatic A/C that don't have a canopy.
The issues will get sorted through the legal process. It has started so the suit will take on a life of its own as they all do.

Biggest issues related to the screwup of the Emergency Response have been addressed through the ICAS.
Its made those doing this more vigilant to the show producers and the setup.

All accidents have multiple levels of factors.
Court of law has its own filter to look over these things. Just the way it is.

[Mike]

I wonder if the lawsuit will reduce the number of military bases holding airshows in the future?

[51fixer]

Lawsuits can be resolved quickly and silently or drag out for many years and be very public.
Until it has passed to the judgement stage it isn't known what it'll cost if any collection happens at all or if appeals are used.
I wouldn't see impacts for a while except in the arrangements for safety and fire/rescue and their positioning during a show.

[sandiego89]

Good questions regarding liability and risks to shows at military bases above. Yes the placement of the fire trucks at that show seems unfathomable- every show I have been to has a truck on or near the flight line- hard to beleive that had to be mandated. Yes stunt flying is dangerous. Yes I know "stunt" is a loaded word, but it seems appropriate for an inverted ribbon cut. It does sound calous to suggest that pilots know the risk, but that seems to be the standards for motor sport, boat racing, mountain climbing, extreme sports, etc. Most realistic participants in these activities know the risks and limits of rescue. I remember an F-16 pilot briefing us at a pre-show safety brief on the emergency canopy jettison handle, but telling us not to rush or hurt ourselves in the process, as if it came to that he was likely a goner anyhow. I know this very tragic case at Travis is not the best case to discuss rescue, as it seems there was something very wrong, but the primary risk of the activity has to be part of ther overall debate.

Frankly I could care less about this type of aero-stunt. I am just not interested in prop aerobatics, wingwalkers, inverted ribbon cuts, etc., I realize others may not share my opinion. Far too many fatalities in recent years, and I do think it threatens airshows, especially on military bases. I am quite fine without them. I use these times at an airshow to walk the static, get a burger, etc.

[kmiles]

Lawsuits can be resolved quickly and silently or drag out for many years and be very public.
Until it has passed to the judgement stage it isn't known what it'll cost if any collection happens at all or if appeals are used.
I wouldn't see impacts for a while except in the arrangements for safety and fire/rescue and their positioning during a show.

I do not think the lawsuit has to be finalized to have an impact on the future of shows at Travis, and even other locations. Long before anything was ever settled in the Reno incident (may not even be settled yet), there were impacts on the activities at the Reno airports for all activities, not just the air races. I spent hours on the phone with them trying to assist them in understanding the difference between a highly modified P-51 going around a course at 500+ miles per hour and conducting Part 61 flight training in a P-51 following all of rules in Part 91. Once the insurance companies for these events/bases see the potential for lawsuits when/if something goes wrong, they question the potential cost/benefit, and make changes. It might be something as simple as placement of emergency equipment, or as severe as not holding the event any longer.

[rwdfresno]

This type of suit raises a number of questions. How much liability does the pilot share for putting himself at risk to begin with? How much more for choosing an airplane with the fuel tank on the top wing? How much more for choosing a maneuver that exposes that fuel tank for a prolonged period at a very high risk? How much more for choosing to put a canopy on an airplane that does not have a canopy normally, thus preventing the ability to simple drop out of the airplane and scramble away before the fire starts?

Just curious.

I think you could ask the same of those hosting the event. You are hosting an event in which you know there are stunts being performed which have a potential for disastrous outcomes. Wouldn't it make sense to prepare for this situation as much as possible by providing not only basic airport safety and rescue services, but even enhanced procedures in place while this type of action is occurring? I think if it were simply a fly-in and someone decided to perform more dangerous than average maneuvers it would be one thing, when you are hosting an event where you have hired someone to perform you have an expectation of due diligence to have an agreed upon or mandated level of safety and emergency response.

Frankly I could care less about this type of aero-stunt. I am just not interested in prop aerobatics, wingwalkers, inverted ribbon cuts, etc., I realize others may not share my opinion. Far too many fatalities in recent years, and I do think it threatens airshows, especially on military bases. I am quite fine without them. I use these times at an airshow to walk the static, get a burger, etc.

I agree with this. I really have absolutely no interest in watching "death defying" stunts. I can appreciate seeing an aircraft put through its paces, doing rolls, loops, demonstrating its agility and performance, but I just don't think that it requires perilous stunts.

Ryan

[marine air]

I'm a dinosaur, 50, but I remember when the inverted ribbon cut was considered one of the most dangerous stunts in the act. Maybe Art Scholl and Leo were a couple of the few to do it. This gentleman was 77 and so the FAA will look closely at the certification process and should he even have been flying at that age let alone a ground level aerobatic card. Remember Howard Pardu and Jimmy Leeward were also 77 years old.

[RacingMustang]

I agree with this. I really have absolutely no interest in watching "death defying" stunts. I can appreciate seeing an aircraft put through its paces, doing rolls, loops, demonstrating its agility and performance, but I just don't think that it requires perilous stunts.

Let me just say, as someone moderately involved in competition aerobatics and somewhat fluent in airshow acro, nothing any of these guys do is ever "death-defying."

Let me clarify: At no time are they doing maneuvers where they're not 100% sure going into it that they'll make it out on the other side. "Iffy" or somewhat uncontrollable maneuvers like lomchevaks or tumbles are done at altitude, allowing them time to abort, and plus, they have practiced these hundreds of times at thousands of feet so that they know what the plane is going to do, arguable rendering them "completely safe."

It's been said that up-and-coming performers will practice a maneuver (roll, for example) 100x at altitude, requiring it be executed with ZERO altitude loss/gain before stepping it down 500ft and doing it again. Mess up once and you have to start the counter again. Basically, all I'm saying is that this is not a bunch of irresponsible idiots doing this to prove their manhood, so to speak. It's a science, and in my opinion, a beautiful one at that. That said, mistakes happen and stuff breaks. That's the way aviation is.

It may not be your cup of tea, but let's treat them fairly.

[tom d. friedman]

what kind of bipe was it??

[Mike]

A 450hp Stearman with 4 ailerons, inverted fuel and oil systems, smoke, and a canopy.