Oh, don't worry, the FAA will do its part by restricting these shows. And there will be a 12-page thread here about how it's an overreaction.
Well, they will probably want to make sure there isn't a mistake in WHAT they own, I'm sure. That will probably require some good faith effort and the dead's memorial services aren't even over yet.
Or a slice of it.
Uh, at least the CAF you have the choice to NOT donate. With the FAA's parent organization, if you chose to not do so, there can be very bad consequences, because they don't like you choosing not to donate.
Uh, like, er, um, the FAA???
The CAF has made a BUNCH of safety changes in the last decade, and even the in the last five years. I can see some more, and they probably aren't earthshakingly difficult. They don't want to lose people, or planes any more than some of these posters want to let them keep flying. It could honestly be as simple as a more concrete plan, but more importantly, harder lines for altitude / separation, no merging formations like that, and space for changing close formation to trail. Again, the mind-blowingly simple mistakes are the crux of this thing, but y'all forget we make mind-blowingly simple mistakes in our little GA, planes, too, and before you get sanctimonious, remember that there ought to be some fairness here. At least with airshows, there are crowd lines and separation. We, OTOH, can go stall into someone's house pretty much any day you please.
If the FAA has no responsibility, then why the bleep do they have authority, then? You assume authority, you take on responsibility for those you are over.
And it will be: blatantly so.
While I think it is unlikely in this case, you can actually sue the FAA and even people in the FAA such as Air Traffic Controllers.
Oh, that's probably how it will be, but is that just?
No one is saying the CAF shouldn't take responsibility, and make changes, but I'd argue that it's not binary, and the oversight agency is also partially responsible, whether or not there is a just outcome. Our system of different checks and balances happened because people make mistakes. I see the pilots, the airboss, and the FAA in the process. It's not fair to look at only two, and not look at the ONE in that party that had the ability to say "no" with very little repercussions. If the pilots say no, there's definitely peer pressure. C'mon, most of us are captain types, we want control. If the airboss says no to a plan, there's not much going to happen to him, but he maybe doesn't get asked to run the show next year? Honestly, I don't see that. But, NO ONE one is gonna make the FAA agent lose his job if he says "no" to the plan, and backs that up with something to show the boss, so the FAA rep is the one person in the chain that doesn't have to please the other two, or the crowd and organization. If they can't do that, then their presence, and rules, are a bit useless.
Then why does the FAA have a person there on the stand with the airboss wearing a headset / radio then? To look pretty for the public? Is that why they have the authority to call a "knock it off?" Are you satisfied with that as a taxpayer? Would you prefer the FAA stand by Uvalde police style and not do anything? They have "enforcement" roles, no? A lot of y'all are saying this is a "culture problem" and sure, the pilots probably should have asked for more clarity on the briefing, but the CAF leadership isn't up there on the stand with the airboss, the check and balance is the FAA guys. Also, I'm not talking percentage points. Of course the pilot(s) and airboss are gonna get high percentage points, and surely they will assign some to the .org, but none at all to the FAA oversight? I just can't agree.
Agreed, but that’s actually the one point that may not be 100% possible to eliminate, except from an alert pilot, who can see the threat.
Except again, minding the rules, such as the crowd lines, for safety sake, is exactly why they are there, and that’s a good thing. Nobody wants complete autonomy in the hands of a corporation or organization on the road for instance. That’s like asking Walmart to make their own rules and enforce their own rules for trucking. A single point of timing failure at the airboss’ stand is apparently entirely possible, and in such a way that a good pilot can miss it, badly.
But that is exactly what is *usually* discussed at the briefings. It seems like there were several people who thought perhaps this one was a bit deficient, but nobody, including the oversight, said anything. It looks like a breakdown on every level, to some degree.
True, but the airshow is a specific thing, there are apparently some airboss training and certification standards recently established and it’s different than sitting in a tower or on a scope.
This is just condescending, and frankly offensive. All of the dead pilots were pro pilots. The P-63 was the executive officer of Tora, which has run safe, professional, choreographed airshows for literally decades. Regarding it being a hobby - many on the airshow circuit, such as Tora, literally fly 2-3 day shows maybe as much as half or a quarter of the weekends of the year. That’s not insignificant. The irony was that this appears to have been a “simple” deal with over-reliance on the airboss for separation. They’ve done the parades every year at WOD and this *should* have been easier with LESS planes in the mix than previous years. I think the more “simple” nature and reduced numbers of planes actually caused an unfortunate relaxation of the normal precision, maybe a bit of the invulnerability hazardous attitude?
I want to clarify what you're asking for here. Is it an omniscient and omnipotent FAA "guy" at every airshow who can end the show anytime he sees something he doesn't like, and who's on a hair trigger because he's going to be held responsible for not ending a show that goes badly? Because I think that's the end of airshows.
In think they’re just tired of the ignorance (see the Beechtalk forum post) and have already turned over what they need to to the NTSB. Ignorant and ill-considered insinuations against the CAF and those involved, aren’t going to make them more likely to give the “it was a drone” people of the world more data to misuse.
Sadly, that is a very true statement.
Synopsis? Thanks
@Daleandee beat you to it, post #468. "Dumb, dangerous, and different". First time I've seen Juan angry. Most definitive analysis so far, IMHO.
You got me really excited for a minute. I jumped over to Beechtalk, was about to hit the agree button and register when I realized they wanted real name only. Since Fauntleroy Farnsworth isn’t a very common name, I was afraid of being doxxed by Googlebots and web scrapers. No Beechtalk for FF.
