Who Should be Able to Fly Airshows?

[Roger Roger]

I should have been clearer. Before going around flying circles around tens of thousands of people, the questions we should be asking is if the standards the mechanics use to fix and repair these older aircraft, where parts may be hard to come by, and training to fix these systems are suffice? Or should it go more in depth?

I would say that by and large the guys already working on these aircraft know more about how to keep them safe than anybody at the FAA.

 

[rframe]

I should have been clearer. Before going around flying circles around tens of thousands of people

As opposed to flying over a city of a million people, your kids school, or grandma's church?

Do you understand how a box works at an airshow and how it protects viewers?

...the questions we should be asking is if the standards the mechanics use to fix and repair these older aircraft, where parts may be hard to come by, and training to fix these systems are suffice? Or should it go more in depth?

These older aircraft are usually some of the most meticulously maintained aircraft you will find, with deep wallets providing for specialized mechanics.

I think you have an itch to legislate a problem that doesn't exist...

 

[Seggy]

I would say that by and large the guys already working on these aircraft know more about how to keep them safe than anybody at the FAA.

Really? Then what caused the Reno Air Race Crash? Wasn't it a mechanical failure? What did the NTSB say in their report concerning the mechanical failure and the need for more oversight? Not saying the FAA is the answer, BUT with parts being difficult to find, the pressure to make sure the aircraft can fly in the air show, I am sure some things may be overlooked.

 

[BobDDuck]

Do you understand how a box works at an airshow and how it protects viewers?

The concept of an aerobatic box worked when people were tooling around in a Wright Flyer. With faster and heavier airframes it does very little to protect the general public watching from the other side of a show line.

 

[Seggy]

Do you understand how a box works at an airshow and how it protects viewers?

Then why didn't it protect the views of the Reno Air Race?

These older aircraft are usually some of the most meticulously maintained aircraft you will find, with deep wallets providing for specialized mechanics.

I think you have an itch to legislate a problem that doesn't exist...

Then WHY the failure in the Reno Air Race? Why did the NTSB come down so hard on the mechanical aspect of the airplane if it wasn't a problem?

Once again, I don't think the FAA is the answer here, but if those who particiapate in these races and air shows want to see them continue, might want to start thinking of what needs to be done to make it safer.

 

[Roger Roger]

Really? Then what caused the Reno Air Race Crash? Wasn't it a mechanical failure? What did the NTSB say in their report concerning the mechanical failure and the need for more oversight? Not saying the FAA is the answer, BUT with parts being difficult to find, the pressure to make sure the aircraft can fly in the airshow, I am sure some things may be overlooked.

Sure. But crap happens and reading that report I doubt that ANY oversight or inspection program developed without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight would have found and prevented the problem. Remember, that aircraft was experimental and highly modified and has to be separated from the general population of aging aircraft. There are already extensive safeguards in place to protect people from exhibition experimental aircraft falling out of the sky and I just don't see even that tragedy being reason enough to add to those protections.

Also I feel compelled to point out that airshow aircraft are not alone in being pressured to be pushed out the door to fly...

 

[rframe]

Then why didn't it protect the views of the Reno Air Race?

Because a box is used to keep the direction of energy of aircraft generally directed away from the crowd. When an airplane pitches up, encounters 17G, it's pilot passes out, and it banks over, it's no longer following the rules...maybe we should build a concrete bunker around the viewers and make them watch it on TV... just to be extra safe. You cannot prevent every accident only mitigate some danger.

If you put a guard rail on a highway curve, but a semi flips over that guard rail and crushes someone on the other side, does that require re-thinking the entire highway system? No.

Then WHY the failure in the Reno Air Race? Why did the NTSB come down so hard on the mechanical aspect of the airplane if it wasn't a problem?

Because stuff breaks when you go really really really fast and try to get every last ounce of performance from equipment. You have to push every component to its limit, and sometimes limits are crossed and things break. That's called racing. To suggest a mechanic didn't do his job because a nut wasn't replaced in 30 years is ignorant and probably 50% of the US aircraft fleet should probably be grounded right now.

Once again, I don't think the FAA is the answer here, but if those who particiapate in these races and air shows want to see them continue, might want to start thinking of what needs to be done to make it safer.

Or... If those who participate and view races and shows want them to continue, they should understand that these are extreme sports where the margin for error is very small and people will die while participating in them, and instead of worrying about how "insurable" an event is, people should either not go or accept the risks and enjoy it for what it is. Every accident or death does NOT necessarily require some new legislation, procedures, and oversight.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

The concept of an aerobatic box worked when people were tooling around in a Wright Flyer. With faster and heavier airframes it does very little to protect the general public watching from the other side of a show line.

Still works now - the idea being that in normal operations, the energy of an aircraft is not directed towards a large group of spectators.

It never did anything to prevent an uncontrollable aircraft from impacting near people. The only way to prevent that would be to move the spectators miles away. Which defeats the purpose of the show.

I think people can make their own decisions about how much risk they believe is reasonable. They can opt to not travel to Reno after all.

 

[BobDDuck]

Still works now - the idea being that in normal operations, the energy of an aircraft is not directed towards a large group of spectators.

That's true... mostly, although anybody who goes to an airshow will see PLENTY of maneuvers where inertia would carry the airframe outside the box. Additionally (and I don't have know of a reg for this but I was part of a bunch of research that proved the theory) a box only protects as far as an impact point. It does not take into account any movement on the surface once an airframe has impacted. And as much as we like to talk about "smoking holes" when there is a crash, the reality is that in most cases there is a pretty long trail of torn up ground and scattered debris before we actually get to the aforementioned smoking hole.

 

[Seggy]

Because stuff breaks when you go really really really fast and try to get every last ounce of performance from equipment. You have to push every component to its limit, and sometimes limits are crossed and things break. That's called racing. To suggest a mechanic didn't do his job because a nut wasn't replaced in 30 years is ignorant and probably 50% of the US aircraft fleet should probably be grounded right now.

Direct from the NTSB...

The accident airplane had undergone many structural and flight control modifications that were undocumented and for which no flight testing or analysis had been performed to assess their effects on the airplane's structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics. The investigation determined that some of these modifications had undesirable effects. For example, the use of a single, controllable elevator trim tab (installed on the left elevator) increased the aerodynamic load on the left trim tab (compared to a stock airplane, which has a controllable tab on each elevator). Also, filler material on the elevator trim tabs (both the controllable left tab and the fixed right tab) increased the potential for flutter because it increased the weight of the tabs and moved their center of gravity aft, and modifications to the elevator counterweights and inertia weight made the airplane more sensitive in pitch control. It is likely that, had engineering evaluations and diligent flight testing for the modifications been performed, many of the airplane's undesirable structural and control characteristics could have been identified and corrected.

And the probable cause (I bolded for my next point)...

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the reduced stiffness of the elevator trim tab system that allowed aerodynamic flutter to occur at racing speeds. The reduced stiffness was a result of deteriorated locknut inserts that allowed the trim tab attachment screws to become loose and to initiate fatigue cracking in one screw sometime before the accident flight. Aerodynamic flutter of the trim tabs resulted in a failure of the left trim tab link assembly, elevator movement, high flight loads, and a loss of control. Contributing to the accident were the undocumented and untested major modifications to the airplane and the pilot's operation of the airplane in the unique air racing environment without adequate flight testing.

So my question is, HOW can you call this racing safe is this is what has been going on? Regardless of that point WHAT is being done to prevent this accident from happening again? Are these aircraft going through these tests and are the modifications are being better documented?

Once again, the Reno Air Races were a hair of being canceled this year because of insurance. If people want to say 'this is what is called racing', well that is fine and dandy, but good luck finding insurance if things aren't modified.

 

[Inverted25]

Are we talking warbirds or airshow performing period? Many of the top talents in airshow business sean tucker for example are civilian performers with no military background.

 

[Hacker15e]

The Galloping Ghost crash at Reno was the first time in 48 years that a spectator has been killed by a racer crash.

That's hardly statistically significant.

 

[Roger Roger]

The Galloping Ghost crash at Reno was the first time in 48 years that a spectator has been killed by a racer crash.

That's hardly statistically significant.

Nonsense. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THOSE DANGEROUS OLD AIRPLANES!

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

There's a such a wide variety of what an "airshow act" can be. You can't simply pile every ACE card holder into one lump. All are approved on a "by act & airplane" basis. Honestly, the number of hours you have is kind of irrelevant. Either you posses the knowledge and skill to fly the act or you don't. An ACE card is not like having a commercial pilot's certificate were they only garentee pt61 mins were satisfied... With regular category & class certs. everyone has the same piece of paper yet the qualifications and experience range from one end of the spectum to the other... The difference between an aerobatic competency exam and regular a check ride is that the ACE is evaluating to a much higher level than just a minimum standard.

Here's a list of waiver holders http://www.airshows.aero/Page/WaiverReport. You can see how they're classified by their approved acts and type of aircraft.

I think we are going off on a tangent of Air Racing vs Airshows. Not the same thing.

 

[rframe]

Nonsense. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THOSE DANGEROUS OLD AIRPLANES!

 

[Seggy]

The Galloping Ghost crash at Reno was the first time in 48 years that a spectator has been killed by a racer crash.

That's hardly statistically significant.

Then why was it so hard for them to get insurance this year? If it really was 'hardly statistically significant' wouldn't the insurance companies have just run the numbers and give the policy no questions asked or a huge raise in the premiums?

 

[rframe]

Then why was it so hard for them to get insurance this year? If it really was 'hardly statistically significant' wouldn't the insurance companies have just run the numbers and give the policy no questions asked or a huge raise in the premiums?

Have you ever purchased aviation-related insurance? It's the most asinine field you can imagine.

 

[Seggy]

Have you ever purchased aviation-related insurance? It's the most asinine field you can imagine.

Just the AOPA Renters Type.

But I am sure you can't call AOPA to insure the Reno Air Races. It would deal with more of a Lloyds of London type of Insurance Company and I do have experience in hearing a brief on how that type of insurance policy works.

Once again I am ALL for the Reno Air Races and Air Shows. I just want to reiterate that. However, if people aren't careful the chances of attending either are not going to be available for the future generations.

 

[Hacker15e]

Then why was it so hard for them to get insurance this year? If it really was 'hardly statistically significant' wouldn't the insurance companies have just run the numbers and give the policy no questions asked or a huge raise in the premiums?

A huge increase in premiums is exactly what happened, as well as precisely the reason it was so tough to get.

 

[🦈💜]

So my question is, HOW can you call this racing safe is this is what has been going on? Regardless of that point WHAT is being done to prevent this accident from happening again? Are these aircraft going through these tests and are the modifications are being better documented?

The original subject for the maintenance issue was airshows and, specifically, the maintenance of warbirds and ex-military hardware. An air race is not an air show any more than an IRL race is a car show -- there's necessarily a wholly different ethos surrounding it.

What is your chief issue? Airshow safety, air race safety, or what? Public perception is an argument that's really hard to win, but the reality is that the two things are very different. Life ain't safe -- it has a 100% mortality rate. You pays your money and you takes your chances: Every time you climb into a car, an airplane, venture out in public, go camping, go boating, hiking, bicycling, walking down the street.. you're assuming an increased level of risk. In short, any time you begin to live a life worth living, you increase your odds of dying.

That includes going to an airshow, and it especially includes going to an air race or a car race.

I'm actually going to say that I'm firmly against the dumbing down of life in the name of safety. Humans are breeding like rats, and there are plenty of them out there; life isn't precious so much as it is "common", and while I have lots of things I want to accomplish I'd rather live a good life than a long one. I choose to increase my level of risk to watch an unfettered, all-out air race, and fly acro, and ride motorcycles, and play ice hockey, and fight with live steel and all the other things I've done that have made my life worthwhile. As long as the decision is voluntary, why should anyone be denied these things in the name of their own safety?

~Fox