Warbird Information Exchange

All,

In the last few years, we've had accidents claim the lives of very proficient and experienced pilots. We've seen some near misses also. Why are these things happening? Are we not flying enough? Are we becoming complacent in our aircraft? How can we prevent further loss of life and damage to expensive and rare aircraft?

I'm not blaming anyone for what has happened in the past, I'm just trying to make sure the rest of us learn.

Perhaps a better question is this,

Are pilots, owners, and maintenance personnel doing everything they can to prevent the occurences ? I understand owners perspective. they have invested large sums to have the aircraft. Fuel and parts are a very large investment. Not to mention what insurance costs are. Maintenance personnel can only go so far if the owner decides to cut corners on parts in lieu of flight time and fuel. Pilots, at least from my experiance and perspective, I think need to maintain a higher level of "currency" in the aircraft. They can't be just "weekend" fliers on occasion when the mood, weather, or financial situation suits them.

Please understand, I am not casting aspersions on ANY pilot or group of pilots, but it has been my experiance with the guys who fly these planes who think they are "Kings of the Sky" because they are rated in a Mustang or similar, even though they may actually fly them 4-5 time per year.

Just my two cents,

Paul

I tend to blame not the pilots, but the aircraft for being inherently hazardous. Training, maintenance, and proficiency have an effect, but the fact that we hear of total write-offs with fatalities where all possible precautions appear to have been taken suggests that we can never make these birds very safe. Not surprising considering that they were expected to have significant attrition rates even with highly proficient airmen in excellent physical condition with the reflexes of youth and who did nothing else but fly these planes.

If you think about ex-combat types (fighter/bomber/attack), we hear of an average of 2 or 3 total write-offs per year, not counting racing crashes. When you think about how few of these machines are truly active (say 300) and how many hours they fly annually (say 50 on average, for a total of 15,000), an accident rate that costs on the order of 1% of the fleet per year and 1 per 5,000 flight hours is really appalling. No wonder insurance rates are so high. (Operators always complain about insurance rates, but as far as I can tell, the aviation insurance industry is quite competitive, so the premiums should be actuarily fair and what people are really complaining about is having to confront the actual risk associated with operating their aircraft. If I'm wrong, and insurance rates are artificially inflated, then there's room for someone to move in and charge fair premiums and make a killing.) We may have cut the accident rate in half or so over the past 25 years -- the number of accidents is about the same, but the fleet is much larger -- but given the level of care being taken these days, I wonder if there's much more that can be done.

Just ruminating,

August

I think that part of the problem is that pilots go through various phases in thier flying career. Two phases that are inherently dangerous are overconfidence and complacency. There may be others. I know when I was first learning I was very careful and stuck to the rules. Then I became overconfident, then proficient. Later I became complacent. For now I'm very careful (but rusty). To be honest, I worry about falling down the stairs even though I never have. Perhaps I'm overly cautious too. Add that to the list I guess.

The mechanical reliability issue is also variable. The parts are much older now and the tribal knowledge of how to maintain these things is slipping away, but this is also balanced by the new parts becoming available and the improved processes and technology to manufacture, inspect, rebuild and maintain an aircraft.

Overall I think as the value goes up, so does the care these airplanes are given. You'll always have that overconfident guy who buys his way into the seat and has no business being there, but I think in general these aircraft are being used less and less as sport planes and more as flying artifacts. There is also a new breed of enthusiast that are sticklers for details that were overlooked in years past because nobody really cared.

WARNING!! BROAD GENERALIZATIONS AHEAD!

The warbird community, IMHO, is not *actually* interested in safety. I applaud Doug Rozendal for his efforts, but the fact is that the warbird community is poisoned by two problems:

- Owners don't want to spend the money required to keep their machines 100%

- Operators are (one or all of the following); overconfident in their abilities, under-proficient at their aircraft or the maneuvers being performed in their aircraft, let egos get in the way of legitimate critiques of their abilities, do not seek to actually get better at their craft, fall victim to 'watch this'.

As I've become more familiar with the warbird comminuty, I've come to realize that people don't really care about safety -- they'd rather show-boat around in their expensive toys and feel like military pilots.

Again, obviously NOT everyone is this way...but a staggering number of them that I've run into ARE.

Until the warbird community GETS REAL about being professionals, there's never going to be a coherent culture of safety.

Pt.1

No 'accident' needs to happen; the old cliché is still true: safety is no accident. However, much as we might not like it, sheer numbers dictate probabilities.

There simply are more warbirds flying today than ever before, therefore a percentage of accidents as a proportion of the warbird population means that accidents will increade. However...

I believe the overall percentage of accidents is actually decreasing, as a proportion of the number flying.

There's still accident happening. However, I think the numbers are low enough not to be able to tell meaningful trends from them alone. Lessons of good / bad practice, - yes, 'how are we doing?' - no.

Today, if an accident happens anywhere in the world to a warbird, or the crew, we know about it immediately, thanks to the internet. The internet also make a bigger group of enthusiasts and operators feel part of a small, intimate community. What touches one touches all, these days. It didn't used to be like that, and used to be much more nationally based.


Pt 2.
What can we do to improve safety and reduce accidents?

Small stuff. Report bad flying. Help stop someone, who is out of their skill zone, before they become a hole in the ground. If I had a cent for every time someone said they'd seen that accident coming 'but hadn't said anything', I'd be a bit better off.

Big stuff. Legislation (much as we all hate it) and safety culture. Different countries have different approaches, and different needs. Being aware of international performances and reasons why can affect how people fly 'back home'.

Just a few cents on a perennial.

_________________
Raven

Right On Hacker.

WARNING!! BROAD GENERALIZED RESPONSES BELOW!

Bit harsh Randy, considering that you fly with many civilian warbird pilots. But let’s look at some of your statements.

First, there is no such thing as the "warbird community". It’s like trying to herd cats or get the European Union to agree on anything. The French are French, the Italians are Italians, and none of them are “European Unionists”. The warbird community is the same; it’s just a term that refers to a very small segment of general aviation. The “warbird community” will never have the ability to organize and train as the US military does. While some groups in the community, such as the CAF, have had safety stand-downs much like the Air Force, it really isn’t the same thing.

Second, many warbird owners invest “vast” sums in maintenance and spares for their aircraft. Yes, some do not, and the accidents and empty chairs speak to that issue.

Third, the biggest problem the “warbird community” has is initial and recurrent training. How many times have you seen a guy show up at OSH with his warbird and FAST card, ready to fly in the show. Sure, he hasn’t flown wing in 12 months, but he will tell you he’s ready to go. Experimental Type Ratings have helped formalize training. Going through L-39 ground school with Bill Anders is something I will never forget, and taught me much about how to approach civilian jet warbird flying. Of course many guys have lawn darted in L-39s, but then again so have many guys in Piper Cubs.

I’ve seen terrible civilian warbird pilots, terrible active duty military pilots and terrible airline pilots. I’ve also seen outstanding examples from every category, and you have too.

Most of us are not “wanna be military pilots”, but the minute we jump out of the cockpit without full nomex gear, helmet and O2 mask some darn fool with a camera is there to blast your photo all over the internet. Personally I like flying the Sea Fury in Bermuda shorts and a t-shirt, but that’s beside the point. From a safety standpoint I know it isn’t the best.

The warbird community already “self polices” to weed out the unpredictable and erratic. Unless we’re all pressed into service to defend the US-Mexican border with Mustangs and Sea Furies I can’t think of any better system at this time.

Warbird pilots are people; judge them one at a time…

Best regards,

Steve

Steve -

I knew that was a huge rock to throw when I picked it up, and it was intentionally a broad generalization. Had to stir things up just a little.

I fully understand that there are plenty of smart, well-intentioned, professional warbird owners and operators out there. I never meant to imply that my career field had the market cornered on professionalism and everyone else needed to yardstick up, if that's what you inferred. You're absolutely correct that there are top guns and sh*tbirds in every aspect of the flying community. It was not also an indictment of warbird owners/operators, but rather an impression of the group in general from, admittedly, an outsider (moi).

Your point about there being no 'warbird community' is EXACTLY the root of the problem. I agree wholewheartedly -- I realize that this group is made up of many different people from many different social, economic, and professional backgrounds. Because of that fact, it is difficult -- if not impossible -- to establish the culture of safety that is required to legitimately reduce accidents in high-performance ex-miliary aircraft.

I argue, however, that even if you don't think there is a warbird community, the FAA seems to think so.

There is an inherent difference between the collecive owners/operators of warbirds and military aviators. In the military, pilots HAVE TO do what "the man" says. It's very easy for a leader to come up with a way of doing business and implement that procedure across the board. Everyone is compelled to comply. For FAA pilots, that's not anywhere near true -- the CAF, or EAA WOA, or whomever can't mandate 100% participation in a particular safety program because everyone participating is VOLUNTARILY doing so.

I think that programs like FAST are outstanding...but there are issues with that in my opinion, too. Seems to me that there are many pilots who don't have the professional mindset enough to leave their ego at the door and take legitimate criticism about their performance in formation. Either the wingmen are too sensitive to hear it and better their performance based on the critiques, or the flight leads lack the spine to lay it out there in the debrief.

Steve, again, there are obviously many high-caliber warbird owners/operators who have a professional mindset and do all the right things -- hell, I'd even say that the majority of folks are that. You and I both know, though, that there are people at the other end of that spectrum who fly warbirds. So long as there is that lowest common denominator, that's where your safety problem is. Those are the people you have to bring up to the standard. Unfortunately, I see a lot more "patting on the back" of these folks than kicking in the jimmy. In an environment where people can die because of mistakes, IMHO this is no place for pats on the back, blue ribbons for participation, or "good job" comments for people who can't -- or don't want to -- measure up REGARDLESS of their name or bank account bottom line.

I love warbirds. I love the people that own and operate them. Someday soon I want to be one of 'em. I also want to make sure that those people and airplanes are around for a long time in the future, and IMHO for that to happen the community has got to, in the parlance of Dr Phil, "get real".

Hi Randy,

I absolutely agree with everything you say, and would like to add a few more ideas to the mix.

First to answer Rob's question I believe that the FAA has made the correct decision in moving away from LOAs to ETRs. With LOAs it was very easy to get a "pat on the back" checkout, and if you got 3 LOAs in type you received the "Unlimited" LOA for all makes and models. Now, for the Steve Hintons and Stew Dawsons of this world that's no problem, but for the vast majority of warbird pilots more formal training and testing was required. My L-39 checkride had to be flown to ATP standards, and one busted maneuver busted the checkride. The new system, while much more difficult to arrange and more demanding in time and money is a good thing.

Unlimited racing at Reno is a little different, in that you are judged and graded on every flight. If the Professional Standards Committee doesn't like the way you fly, you don't fly. Reno is very professional in all aspects of flying and safety.

Second, I believe that many warbird pilots get into trouble when flying in an arena that very few of us ever experience; in front of an airshow crowd. They show up, maybe just for static display, but somehow get pressed into service. I've seen many times where guys show up in the morning who you can tell don't feel comfortable at brief and then are obviously task saturated just making race track patterns in the show. Pride can be a dangerous thing.

Personally I like the English system of the "Display Authorization", which basically is a CAA checkride for anyone who is going to fly in front of more than 50 people. In England you have to have a DA just to do a fly-by, let alone any acro. I think this would help to keep guys who don't feel qualified or current out of what is a very busy environment. It would also give them a way to "save face", as the pressure from airshow organizers and the public who want to see an aircraft fly can be VERY strong.

Thanks again for your comments, Randy. When I grow up I want to be you (but only if I can were a flightsuit and quote lines from Top Gun).

Steve

Well said Steve. And we all know you already " Feel the need,....The need for Speed !"

I will give you a scary story.

My grandfather, who had gone west in 1989 ( not due to mishap ) used to fly his BT-13 with nuts and bolts and panels coming off of it. I am surprised he didnt kill himself or others around him in it.

My point is, I feel that individual responsibility plays the key part in accidents.

Maintenance, has the responsibility for maintaining the aircraft to FAA and in my opionion, a higher standard to ensure the safety of the crew and those on the ground.

The Air Crew, has the responsibility to ensure that everything is checked-out, and that every single, even though repeatative, procedure is followed to a T, no matter how many hours you have, 40 or 40,000.

Attention to every single detail is critical in maintaining everything on that aircraft.

I can recall an incident at Offutt AFB in the early 90's when one of the ground crew, had a bad day, and was pencil whipping through his pre-flight checklist and pulled the front gear pin without having checked everything off on his check list. The gear handle, was still in the UP position in the cockpit, and the aircraft actually slid back, still in the wheel chocks and pinned him to the ground.

Now, imagine the only thing that is between you and god, is the fact that someone placed the fire bottle too close to the aircraft and it landed on it, crushing the fire bottle and pinning and crushing your hips. This was not a little aircraft, this was a Boeing 707 airframe called the RC-135W

My point is, that there are so many factors in flight safety, that many factors that are so tiny in nature, can collect together and become a bigger problem, very quickly.