Airshows

timwinters

timwinters

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
13,732
Location
Conway, MO
Display Name
Display name:
LTD
Not to hijack the pdk crash thread...

At the Cape Girardeau airshow last Wednesday there was a LOT of energy directed towards the audience and I must admit it made me uncomfortable. This is especially true if some of the Canadian Snowbirds routines.

I thought after the Reno crash there was some sort of directive to minimize flying towards, and directing energy directly at, the audience. Not the case?
 
I thought those rules had been in place since the 1988 Ramstein incident.
 
Looks like a Pitts lost control on the down line in Ga loosing the pilot.
 
They can direct energy towards the crowd but they can't be doing any crossing / aerobatic manuever while they do it. Example, the Blues used to do a head on, tuck away cross. That got nixed in the late 90s by the FAA. Tbirds followed shortly after and got rid of theirs.

The rules were in place before the Frecce TricolorI crash in 88 as well. They were not allowed to perform the pierced heart manuver in the US prior to that accident.
 
Last edited:
Unless a routine is completely in one vertical plane in front of the crowd (ie this almost never happens), at some point energy has to be directed at the crowd.
I too, have read some parts of aerial demonstration regs from years ago, and it limits what is happening, when the energy is directed at the crowd. It seemed to make good sense.
 
Maybe I am alone this, but I really don't care for aerobatics all that much. And I would be just as impressed if it were 500 feet higher. I am just as entertained seeing a cool plane flying straight and level relatively low and slow, but certainly not near the danger zone. I kind of feel bad that certain pilots feel the need to keep increasing their risk just to satisfy audience demand.
 
PPC1052 said:
Maybe I am alone this, but I really don't care for aerobatics all that much. And I would be just as impressed if it were 500 feet higher. I am just as entertained seeing a cool plane flying straight and level relatively low and slow, but certainly not near the danger zone. I kind of feel bad that certain pilots feel the need to keep increasing their risk just to satisfy audience demand.
Click to expand...

I don't dislike aerobatics, but I do cringe at the acts which build in little margin for error on the low altitude stuff. A hard floor of 200' would have saved dozens of performers over the years and given the people in the back rows a better view in the first place.
 
A smart airshow announcer pointed out to me that most people at an airshow don’t know what they are seeing. He said it was my job to fly safely and his job to make it exciting.

Some airshows I have flown at have a hard deck, some don’t.

I have been told the hard deck is up to the FAA representative that is in charge of the waivered airspace.
 
PPC1052 said:
Maybe I am alone this, but I really don't care for aerobatics all that much. And I would be just as impressed if it were 500 feet higher. I am just as entertained seeing a cool plane flying straight and level relatively low and slow, but certainly not near the danger zone. I kind of feel bad that certain pilots feel the need to keep increasing their risk just to satisfy audience demand.
Click to expand...

I've taken aerobatics instruction, and actually liked doing it. But I would not want my fun to endanger the viewing public (or my crash to scar people's psyche). I know that a 100' hard deck or whatever would cut into attendance, or perhaps even kill the sport, but I still don't think the sport is worth public lives.
 
Vance Breese said:
A smart airshow announcer pointed out to me that most people at an airshow don’t know what they are seeing.
Click to expand...

I'll buy that. A buddy and I watched a guy spin in. Both of us, at the same time, realized what was about to happen as soon as he hit the altitude where recovery was impossible. Folks around us were ooh-ing and ahh-ing while we knew we were about to watch him die.
 
kyleb said:
I don't dislike aerobatics,
Click to expand...
It's not that I dislike it. It's just I don't like it enough for me to think the really low stuff is important. I really enjoy the less dangerous stuff just as much.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Unless a routine is completely in one vertical plane in front of the crowd (ie this almost never happens), at some point energy has to be directed at the crowd.
Click to expand...

Ohhhh now, Dave. That's not even close to accurate in this case. The crowd was all on one side of the runway, near the center, at least 200 yds from it, dispersed laterally for about 200 yds. There's only about a 45* arc, measured from the runway CL, that directed energy directly at the crowd in this case.

And it happened enough to cause me concern. In one case the Snowbirds came directly at the crowd in formation, 90* across the runway, and went vertical when they got to the runway.

Call me a p*ssy, but I didn't like it!

But I must also say, there was lots and lots of aviation talent at that show and the airport did a great job of organizing it.
 
RotorDude said:
I've taken aerobatics instruction, and actually liked doing it. But I would not want my fun to endanger the viewing public (or my crash to scar people's psyche). I know that a 100' hard deck or whatever would cut into attendance, or perhaps even kill the sport, but I still don't think the sport is worth public lives.
Click to expand...

Actually I think that assumes facts not in evidence imo. As has been brought up already, laypersons have no concept of the difference, and even some of us who do know what's going on, really don't care. So raising the deck I don't think would discourage anything. I think the only people it would discourage is the adrenaline junkies, and perhaps some of the aero purists. And like it was suggested before, a higher altitude would give the stragglers in the back a better view, which would be nice.

I'm limiting my comment to airshows where the public is going mostly to see the statics and watch a jet headliner. Dedicated aerobatic competition events? On those they can do whatever they want. I don't think they should be banned from doing low-level acro outright. This is still America and you should be free to risk your life in the manner you see fit.
 
PPC1052 said:
Maybe I am alone this, but I really don't care for aerobatics all that much. And I would be just as impressed if it were 500 feet higher. I am just as entertained seeing a cool plane flying straight and level relatively low and slow, but certainly not near the danger zone. I kind of feel bad that certain pilots feel the need to keep increasing their risk just to satisfy audience demand.
Click to expand...
It is a tough situation. I love aerobatics. The skill and display is something to behold. These pilots are incredible, the best pilots in the world. Sadly you don't have much margin for error when doing it at a low altitude. I only do it at a high altitude with a parachute but respect the guys in the shows putting on a performance. They know the risks, I say let them do it.
 
I would certainly be in favor of the 500' deck from a viewing standpoint. I really enjoyed the air shows the three days that I was at Sun N Fun. Unfortunately from my viewing vantage point I would loose the airplanes when they would do the low level passes.
 
Personally, I was always the kid who waited until the big stunt flying started and that was the time to hit the static displays/cockpit tours. I never was really into the aerial displays.
 
500' is actually pretty high. When the trainer and liaison aircraft do their little orbits on the 500' line, usually they are at 300' AGL. That actually looks pretty high from the ground and is plenty of room to maneuver in most non-aerobatic emergencies. I can see a 100-200' deck being more appropriate, but 500' you might as well not have the acro for half of the crowd, and then you have to wonder if it would be enough to save half of the accidents that have happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top